D&D (2024) New Classes for 5e. Is anything missing?

[Werehamster]

Level Up's adept is a better representation of the concept than the monk, by far.

I had never heard of Level Up until reading your post. They did a great job with the Monk. Were I in the market for more materials, this would be my first purchase.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I mean, classically monks didn't fit a niche, but I think the current 5e monk is very much a decent rogue replacement. They swap out the one-big-hit (sneak attack) for flurry of blows (many smaller hits) but I think the monk can easily fill the rogue's combat role and with the right skills even the rogue's exploration role.

If I was designing with no need to uphold historical lineage, I'd make the monk fill a more generic skirmisher role rather than strict martial artist and allow this skirmisher class to represent monks, rogues, rangers, swashbucklers, dancers/dervishes, ninja, and other light/no armor mobile hit and run types.

It's a half step off: it's close to a skirmisher and can be stealthy, but doesn't really have the skill-monkey aspect. Not that that would be hard to add.

For myself: I'd rather just leave it as an odd duck and make sure it multiclasses well. (however multiclassing is handled.)

 

[Mind of tempest]

Not a full answer but: monks have a hard time fitting in. They don't fit the vaguely-Eurocentric default setting tropes, and they don't fit into any of the game roles. Their role (mage-stunner) is emergent rather than core to the themes of the class.

By game roles: most classes fit easily into one or more of "cleric, fighter, rogue, wizard" - which aren't just combat roles (leader/support, defender/tank, striker, and controller) but are also skillsets (religion/healing, soldiering, stealth, knowledge) and social roles (religious, warrior, skilled outsider, loremaster). A barbarian is a warrior form a certain kind of culture, a ranger is a wilderness rogue-type, a paladin is a fighter/cleric (role-wise), and so on.

Monks aren't really any of these things. They have religious overtones but don't do cleric things, they can fight but aren't soldiers or a society's main warriors, they can be stealthy but aren't skill-monkeys, and they may be smart but aren't loremasters. It's easy to shift them into any such role with one or two mechanics and a little added fluff, but the base monk is just there, slightly to the side because it doesn't quite fit into the the boxes in front of us.

Plus they have some wonky/poor design choices in 5e, but the reason people are more likely to call for removal rather than fixing them(like a ranger) is the lack of fit. I believe, anyways.

have none of them considered the lack of fitting is a benefit it means it has its own fundamental identity it need work mechanically but that is more lack of it fill its destined role as a mystical martial artist.

Such is unnecessary condescension.


Knowing what one doesn't like or want out of a gish is valid input, as is saying that I would find such a highly specific hook for an entire gish class (i.e., an artifically created people) to be overly restrictive, especially in comparison to other classes.


I'm not sure what you are referring to here. What did I offer? And when did this offering you claim I have done transpire?


I'm not sure if I understand what you are saying or asking here. I find your phrasing unclear.


Do you have anything other than a Witcher or WoW Death Knight rip-off?

One can peel back these ideas into something more manageable without forcing characters into being "an artificially-engineered people." It may be as simple as a monster-hunter or a rune knight.


These are incidentally ones that I have proposed to you before.

I do think, however, that the whole "warrior mages that are like Fighter/Wizards except they get their own special mechanics" can be insightful to understanding the angle for such a class. I see Swordmages/Mageknights as adopting a utilitarian approach to magic and combat, a pragmatic reality to the sort of "high magic" and "high swords" worlds that D&D envisions, along with the associated supernatural threats. The Wizard entails an elevated understanding, study, and mastery of magical spells. Likewise, the Fighter entails an elevated understanding, study, and mastery of martial combat. But the Mageknight? Forget that. Dangers out there in the world don't care about your commitment to mastering an arcane tradition or a combat style. The best way to survive and get by in such a world is a little bit of column A and a little bit of column B. Using both is practical and sensible, while neglecting either leaves one ill-equipped to deal with the realities of the world.

Moreover, their various themes would cover what issues, problems, and scenarios that such approaches are meant to address (e.g., weird magical monsters, planar threats, rogue mages, etc.) or even what their preferred methods are (e.g., runes, bypassing magical wards, magical physical enhancement, battlefield magic, etc.).

These Mageknights may be (elite) shocktroopers that kings and queens are trying to train and incorporate into their army. They may not have the high degree of bookish learning or education as a wizard, but their magical arts are turned to more pragmatic uses (i.e., warfare, defense, and combat), which allows them to get by and adapt in situations requiring either swords or sorcery. This would also make them useful mercenaries.

The Mageblade - a class in Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved (3e d20 System) - focuses a lot of their magical ability around their Athame, which is their weapon and spell focus of choice. In their hands it becomes magical, and it becomes a way to slice through magical wardings/protections, parry spells, or even slice through spells as if they cast Dispel Magic.

(One can also see how this Mageblade class likely influenced the Eldritch Knight, such as its ability to summon their bound weapon. Mearls did make a big break through writing for Malhavoc Press, both Arcana Unearthed/Evolved and Iron Heroes, so he definitely would be familiar with this class.)

okay let me put my question another way what is an arcane gish to you?

 

[Frozen_Heart]

The three ideas of an arcane gish flavour which I've seen and like are:

• Warrior built to kill things normal humans can't. Something like a witcher.
• Elite 'magic guards' of important individuals and items. The type of person who would be used by an order of wizards to guard all their precious stuff. A bit like the jedi temple guard. Obviously a bit restrictive as if you're sitting guarding something, you're not adventuring.
• Alternatively elite warriors which are often sent out to retrieve items of power and knowledge for safekeeping by said order of wizards.

What I'd dislike as the entire class lore is 'person who magics and combats'. That isn't a class lore or theme, that's just a description of how they fight.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I'm not sure what you are referring to here. What did I offer?

It's not really about what you did offer, it is what you didn't: I.E. a compelling new theme beyond another take on multiclass wizard/fighter. And the later part of your post basically confirms that. This is probably the main reason why gishes are not happening. What a certain gish fans want is bland and uninspired to most people and if any flavour is actually added, those gish fans don't like it anymore, as what they want is plain vanilla.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The three ideas of an arcane gish flavour which I've seen and like are:

• Warrior built to kill things normal humans can't. Something like a witcher.
• Elite 'magic guards' of important individuals and items. The type of person who would be used by an order of wizards to guard all their precious stuff. A bit like the jedi temple guard. Obviously a bit restrictive as if you're sitting guarding something, you're not adventuring.
• Alternatively elite warriors which are often sent out to retrieve items of power and knowledge for safekeeping by said order of wizards.

What I'd dislike as the entire class lore is 'person who magics and combats'. That isn't a class lore or theme, that's just a description of how they fight.

All these are OK, but they still are just jobs. That is, things such a mage-warrior would do. I feel that in addition to that we need to answer what these mage-warriors metaphysically are. And I would strongly prefer it to be something a tad more original that "They learned to do magic...somehow."

 

[Aldarc]

It's not really about what you did offer, it is what you didn't: I.E. a compelling new theme beyond another take on multiclass wizard/fighter. And the later part of your post basically confirms that. This is probably the main reason why gishes are not happening. What a certain gish fans want is bland and uninspired to most people and if any flavour is actually added, those gish fans don't like it anymore, as what they want is plain vanilla.

I was responding to what you were writing and asking. You have now claimed both that I have offered something and that I have somehow failed in offering something. If you expect me to address anything more, then I would kindly request that you keep the goal posts in one place.

 

[jmartkdr2]

All these are OK, but they still are just jobs. That is, things such a mage-warrior would do. I feel that in addition to that we need to answer what these mage-warriors metaphysically are. And I would strongly prefer it to be something a tad more original that "They learned to do magic...somehow."

They learned a special kind of magic. One that is designed to work with weapons.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I was responding to what you were writing and asking. You have now claimed both that I have offered something and that I have somehow failed in offering something. If you expect me to address anything more, then I would kindly request that you keep the goal posts in one place.

You offered a concept that lacks unique fluff, and implied that you like it that way. So that's what you offered and by doing so you didn't offer anything new or inspired. Goal posts have not been moved; sorry if I was unclear though.

 

[cbwjm]

I get the sentiment, but I feel kinda opposite. Both Death Knights and Witchers instantly bring something interesting to the table narratively. Generic gish is just multiclass fighter/wizard, so nothing particularly new or interesting.

And I think "altered by some ritual to become a magical super soldier" is pretty decent theme, and still gives room to vary what sort of ritual exactly and what sort of changes, in order to build differently flavoured characters.

Thing is, this class should be able to support the generic gish. I'd want the classic elven or githyanki fighter/mage concept to be supported by this class and put the "altered by some ritual to become a magical super soldier" as something supported by the subclasses.