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

[Frozen_Heart]

I am usually highly sceptical about adding new classes, but I was actually starting to think here that a bespoke gish class might be worth adding and it could be made to be interesting. Gish fans however quickly convinced me otherwise...

As a gish fan, I 100% understand how you feel about gish fans.

 

[Remathilis]

Correct, get rid of the Sorcerer and the Warlock.

(If you must have them make the Sorcerer a Wizard sub-class and the Warlock a Cleric sub-class.)

I fail to see why warlock would end up a cleric, save for the tiny factor that they both deal with extraplanar entities. The nature of the relationship and the magic provided are diametrically opposite and any class that tried to house both under the same roof would be so vague and generic it could probably house 5/6th of the PHB under it as well.

 

[Aldarc]

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.

It may help to switch the emphasis slightly from "guards" to "specialists." Their responsibilities may include guardianship of important individuals and items but may also include acting as battlefield shock troopers responsible for taking down either non-magical mooks with magic or even magical mooks with anti-magic or martial arms as their talents call for.

That said, I don't think that a Mageknight / Spellbreaker / Whatever requires that they guard a library or temple any more than a paladin or cleric does or a wizard requires being in a college library. It may provide a starting point or hook, but it does not have to be the destination.

Why might a Mageknight quest? I suspect the usual reasons: e.g., revenge, money, honor, lost item, power, etc. Or like many a character backstory, "I am questing to improve my art in [class]." Again, I think that much like a Fighter, Ranger, or Rogue, a Mageknight's skill set would likely be useful as a wandering mercenary or dungeon delver. This is not to say that a Mageknight should just be about fighting with swords and magic, but simply that we should recognize that their motivations for adventuring will likely still fall in line with the usual reasons that players may provide their PCs.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I am usually highly sceptical about adding new classes, but I was actually starting to think here that a bespoke gish class might be worth adding and it could be made to be interesting. Gish fans however quickly convinced me otherwise...

I think the big secret is: just make a good one with decent enough flavor and people can and will refluff form there. It's just bridge too far from the existing options, mostly because the core mechanical aspect (let's face it - Spellstrike like PF magus) isn't there.

It doesn't matter if they're flavored as magically enhanced or use weapon runes or have a weapon-patron - those are easy to switch. The basic playstyle is the thing, refluffing (actually just refluffing, not changing any mechanics) can carry the rest.

Because what's missing is a mechanical niche, not a flavor one. And waiting to add one until you can do both is... not necessary.

(Psions are kind of the opposite - the flavor is already well defined enough, all they need to do is pick a mechanical expression that isn't the Spellcasting feature and make it work.)

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I think they should at least have both.

We've given both. A bunch of examples. You've shot all of them down.

Mechanical differences from the base gish classes/subclasses:

• Martial Arcane Half-Caster (wizard-version of a Paladin) that gets Spellcasting and a Fighting Style at level 2, most/all armor and weapon proficiencies, and Extra Attack at level 5
• A "Spell-Strike" ability, where they somehow merge offensive spellcasting with weapon attacks (putting lightning into Thor's hammer, teleporting when you attack to lock down enemies as a Swordmage, etc)
• Using your main weapon as a Spellcasting Focus automatically
• Subclasses that promote different styles of being an Arcane Gish (Swordmage, Duskblade, Mage-Slayer, Witcher, Elementalist, etc)

Thematic Differences:

• You are especially trained to perfectly merge spell and blade. You're not like an Eldritch Knight, which is a fighter trained in some magic, or a Bladesinger, which is a Wizard trained to have some martial capabilities. Your training was unique and specialized to properly integrate both spellcasting and martial fighting into your style of fighting, making you an elite arcane warrior (typically existing in societies that are both militaristic and have some style of arcane training, like Netheril, many Elven societies, and similar cultures)
• You choose a specific discipline to combine your style of fighting with a style of spellcasting. You could be a Mage Hunter, a type of bounty hunter that is specifically trained to track down mages and use your magic to counter their abilities, or an Elite Bodyguard that uses both Abjuration magic and physical protection (Shields, Armor) to be an arcane bulwark that protects your liege from harm, and so on
• You are to the Wizard as the Paladin is to the Cleric and the Ranger is to the Druid. You're trained to master more Arcane types of spellcasting (evocation, abjuration, necromancy, anti-magic, conjuration), instead of the Ranger's focus on nature magic (entangling prey, goodberry, pass without trace) or the Paladin's focus on divine magic (healing, warding off the unholy, resurrection).
• You don't have to swear an oath or live in the wilds to get your powers, instead, you have to undergo rigorous training and possibly even bodily modifications to properly merge spell and blade. You didn't study a book like the Wizard, and didn't just learn martial training like the Fighter, but instead learned how to unlock magic through certain movements of your blade as somatic spell components, or arcane war chants that act as verbal spell components, or using the magic of your blade to fuel your casting (allowing it to be a spellcasting focus, ignoring many material components of your spells). It's a long, grueling process that takes years to master, and makes up for the normal restrictions of getting similar powers (becoming one with nature, worshipping a god/swearing an oath, unlocking the secrets of the universe by spending a decade in a library, etc).

Is that really not enough? You said that you liked the idea of an arcane gish (until we somehow convinced you otherwise), what kind of difference do you think would be good enough to set it apart from existing classes/subclasses?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think the big secret is: just make a good one with decent enough flavor and people can and will refluff form there. It's just bridge too far from the existing options, mostly because the core mechanical aspect (let's face it - Spellstrike like PF magus) isn't there.

How does the spellstrike work?

Also, I feel like with the psion, here too demanding some specific mechanical interpretation is folly. If all the class has going for it is: "It kinda already is in the game, but I want the same thing with different mechanics" then it absolutely shouldn't be added. You cannot just add parallel mechanics because some people don't like the existing ones.

Because what's missing is a mechanical niche, not a flavor one. And waiting to add one until you can do both is... not necessary.

Hard disagree. Class based system lives or dies by the classes being evocative and compelling.

(Psions are kind of the opposite - the flavor is already well defined enough, all they need to do is pick a mechanical expression that isn't the Spellcasting feature and make it work.)

Or much more easily, use the spellcasting feature to make it work. But then the psion fans will reject it...

 

[jmartkdr2]

How does the spellstrike work?

You cast a spell and deliver it by hitting with a weapon, as opposed to shooting a laser or having the target make a save. Detail are a matter of balance which isn't what this thread is about, just whether or not such a thing is viable and/or fully covered by existing options.

Also, I feel like with the psion, here too demanding some specific mechanical interpretation is folly. If all the class has going for it is: "It kinda already is in the game, but I want the same thing with different mechanics" then it absolutely shouldn't be added. You cannot just add parallel mechanics because some people don't like the existing ones.

The thing people consistently like about psionics is that it's not spellcasting. Therefore, you need something other than spellcasting. I'd argue it doesn't matter all that much what it is, so long as it's not Spellcasting.

Hard disagree. Class based system lives or dies by the classes being evocative and compelling.

Which is why fighters ruined DnD, because having the flavor in the subclass is totally unworkable. Clearly this is a major flaw, which is why they're the most popular class in every survey. People hate having flavor in the subclass.

Or much more easily, use the spellcasting feature to make it work. But then the psion fans will reject it...

It's really hard to make the spellcasting feature not spellcasting while still leaving it as spellcasting. Probably not worth the effort either.

 

[Thunder Brother]

Make a swordmage* class, give them all the underutilized Paladin smite spells (maybe even as weaker cantrips), call them "strikes" instead.

Lean into Paladin as a "leader" type class instead of a striker to give the swordmage a clear niche.

dodges chairs and tomatoes.

*One issue I have with an arcane half-caster is a lack of a distinct name. Spellblade, spellsword, swordmage, duskblade, whatever; they all lack a certain oomph.

 

[jmartkdr2]

*One issue I have with an arcane half-caster is a lack of a distinct name. Spellblade, spellsword, swordmage, duskblade, whatever; they all lack a certain oomph.

The best name I've heard is "eldritch knight" -

But you could decide the "base" flavor is something and name them after that. Or dive fully into tradition and call them Gishes.

 

[cbwjm]

I wouldn't worry about defining a separate niche, plenty of overlap already and many classes can handle multiple niches anyway.

I think the best way to hit everyone's flavour issues is with subclasses. Level 1 for the class might be subclass and spellcasting. This way you can have the aegis wielding swordmage, the magic ritual super soldier guy, or the stealthy shadow magic wielding guy.