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

[jmartkdr2]

I’m pretty much never going to be interested in an “answer” to a class concept that is just “it could just be a subclass”.

So could every other class.

True, but every subclass could be a class as well, but any absolute is going to create more problems than it solves.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

I’m pretty much never going to be interested in an “answer” to a class concept that is just “it could just be a subclass”.

So could every other class.

Ultimately it can be narrowed down to: fighty person, skills person, magic person. Everything else could be a subclass.

Of course that would be awful and have such a poor diversity of game mechanics and themes available compared to the many classes approach.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

True, but every subclass could be a class as well, but any absolute is going to create more problems than it solves.

This feels like sophistry, and our current exchange isn’t adding anything to the discussion.

not every subclass could reasonably have several subclasses that make sense. The Dweomer Knight or whatever one calls it could. One could instead add several related subclasses to artificer, and a bunch of new infusions, and be pretty close, sure. But why do so when one would rather do a class?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Ultimately it can be narrowed down to: fighty person, skills person, magic person. Everything else could be a subclass.

Even they are subclasses of Hero or Adventurer.

Of course that would be awful and have such a poor diversity of game mechanics and themes available compared to the many classes approach.

Oh it would be terrible for a game like modern D&D. Even Dragon Age has you basically grow into a more specific class over time.

 

[jmartkdr2]

This feels like sophistry, and our current exchange isn’t adding anything to the discussion.

not every subclass could reasonably have several subclasses that make sense. The Dweomer Knight or whatever one calls it could. One could instead add several related subclasses to artificer, and a bunch of new infusions, and be pretty close, sure. But why do so when one would rather do a class?

Depends on why you'd rather do a class, I suppose. If it's more work to get the same result - I hope you enjoy the work.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

For me the first question when making a class is: Does it have a unique mechanical and thematic niche?

The second one is: Would making it a subclass take away the things which make people want to play this class?

Sorcerer for example has a unique thematic niche, but has struggled to carve out a mechanical one. Its mechanic was spontaneous casting, which now all casters get. Now it's just the metamagic feat turned into a class. As such it's one of the classes people suggest axing the most.

Warlord has both a clear thematic and unfilled mechanical niche, as such it's absurd that it's not a class.

Psion has a clear thematic niche, but with psionic powers all turned into spells, and a spell points casting option, it's mechanical niche has been heavily eaten into.

Swordmage is the most troubled of the lot. It's theme is muddy, just being something of an 'arcane version' of a paladin or ranger. Its mechanics have also heavily been eaten into with both the paladin and ranger now having a bunch of magic abilities which they can utilise via weapon strikes. The reaction based teleporting isn't really touched on much this edition though.

But the swordmage also has the issue of not really fitting into a subclass. If you pick eldritch knight or bladesinger you lose the entire spellstrike thing which is open to paladin and ranger. If you pick paladin or ranger all your spells, theme, and class abilities are wrong. Or you have to have an oath. You pick bladelock you're forced into swearing your soul to a patron. If you pick battlesmith you end up with Preston following you everywhere.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Depends on why you'd rather do a class, I suppose. If it's more work to get the same result - I hope you enjoy the work.

I mean, it won’t be the same result, because a class isn’t a subclass, but sure.

For me the first question when making a class is: Does it have a unique mechanical and thematic niche?

The second one is: Would making it a subclass take away the things which make people want to play this class?

Sorcerer for example has a unique thematic niche, but has struggled to carve out a mechanical one. Its mechanic was spontaneous casting, which now all casters get. Now it's just the metamagic feat turned into a class. As such it's one of the classes people suggest axing the most.

Warlord has both a clear thematic and unfilled mechanical niche, as such it's absurd that it's not a class.

Psion has a clear thematic niche, but with psionic powers all turned into spells, and a spell points casting option, it's mechanical niche has been heavily eaten into.

Swordmage is the most troubled of the lot. It's theme is muddy, just being something of an 'arcane version' of a paladin or ranger. Its mechanics have also heavily been eaten into with both the paladin and ranger now having a bunch of magic abilities which they can utilise via weapon strikes. The reaction based teleporting isn't really touched on much this edition though.

But the swordmage also has the issue of not really fitting into a subclass. If you pick eldritch knight or bladesinger you lose the entire spellstrike thing which is open to paladin and ranger. If you pick paladin or ranger all your spells, theme, and class abilities are wrong. Or you have to have an oath. You pick bladelock you're forced into swearing your soul to a patron. If you pick battlesmith you end up with Preston following you everywhere.

This is precisely why I suggest using the monk and swordmage to fix each others problems. The monk is an unarmed gish, with most of its subclasses, anyway. If the primary ID of the monk is the martial arts, then it has no legs separate from other classes. Being good at punching should never have been a niche big enough for a class. But if you instead view the mysticism as the key element, you can lean into that and find a class that just does what a lightly armored swordmage needs anyway.

The heavily armored swordmage is, I feel, just as big and benefits from a more fear focused, less mobility focused, mindset.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

If anything happened to the monk I'd rather see it go more martial, and not more gish like. DnD has barely any martials as it is and needs more.

The 'classic' 4e swordmage has light armour and teleports around the battlefield, being extremely movement based itself.

 

[Mind of tempest]

If anything happened to the monk I'd rather see it go more martial, and not more gish like. DnD has barely any martials as it is and needs more.

The 'classic' 4e swordmage has light armour and teleports around the battlefield, being extremely movement based itself.

the game does not need a more martial monk, now a warlord might work but a pure martial monk no way.

the sword mage really needs a cooler name.

 

[Asisreo]

the game does not need a more martial monk, now a warlord might work but a pure martial monk no way.

the sword mage really needs a cooler name.

Pugilist seems to be popular, though. I generally agree but I think people really do want a strong, punchy-guy thematically.