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

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I never understood the 'arcane gish is a power fantasy' argument. It's like somehow a person who hits things and uses divine magic is fine. A person who hits things and uses primal magic is fine. But a person who hits things and uses arcane magic is overpowered.

I understand that there is a worryingly large number of gish fans who want something blatantly overpowered, but it's not really an argument against the class existing.

Fully agreed. I don't entirely get the "it needs to be based off of another IP's gish class" argument, either. D&D pretty much invented many of the core tropes for the main archetypes of its classes (Raging Barbarians, Magic Druids, Armed Clerics, etc). "It doesn't exist yet" doesn't seem like a particularly compelling argument against it not existing. Someone earlier mentioned 4e's take on Dragonborn and Tieflings originally being unpopular, but the very same changes in 5e making them some of the most popular races in the game.

It may take awhile, but classes and races can create their own niche.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

It may take awhile, but classes and races can create their own niche.

And the swordmage never has, as it's changed names and identity every edition despite keeping some core mechanics. :/

DnD 3e: Duskblade
Pathfinder 1e and 2e: Magus
DnD 4e: Swordmage

One reason why I wouldn't mind it keeping the swordmage name, despite that name being pretty awful, is that it just establishes some continuity in peoples minds, and gives it time to form an identity. If the name is changed every edition, it will never carve out a place for itself.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Fully agreed. I don't entirely get the "it needs to be based off of another IP's gish class" argument, either. D&D pretty much invented many of the core tropes for the main archetypes of its classes (Raging Barbarians, Magic Druids, Armed Clerics, etc). "It doesn't exist yet" doesn't seem like a particularly compelling argument against it not existing. Someone earlier mentioned 4e's take on Dragonborn and Tieflings originally being unpopular, but the very same changes in 5e making them some of the most popular races in the game.

It may take awhile, but classes and races can create their own niche.

It's not really that it needs to be based on other IP's version of gishes, I wouldn't expect D&D gish to be exactly like a witcher or WoW death knight etc, even if it had some similarities. But the point really was that many popular gishes in other media have a strong identity of their own, instead of just being a blend of two other things, and I think something like that is needed to sell the concept. But any suggestions for such seem to get rejected.

 

[Minigiant]

Regardless of any quibbles anyone may have about what features you think the paladin subclass would have, you are so close to seeing the actual point of our recent back and forth but not quite there.

I understand the point

The fact over the matter it that you really can't say "I want an X class" by itself. You have to also mention a unique combination of class features or describe an all new major class feature.

You can't say "I want a Pugilist class" and convince many;when Monk and Fighter both exist with unarmed styles.

You have to say "I want a Pugilist class that has a Combo and Super Combo system".

 

[cbwjm]

may I ask why as spreading it around would be a good idea why not just centralise it?

I don't know 100% why, I just like not having a single class as the "in charge, do this" class, I like any class being able pick up the leader position rather than having a single class as the leader. I'm a little drunk as I write this, if it doesn't make sense then that could be why.

 

[Aldarc]

I don't know 100% why, I just like not having a single class as the "in charge, do this" class, I like any class being able pick up the leader position rather than having a single class as the leader. I'm a little drunk as I write this, if it doesn't make sense then that could be why.

There wasn't even a single "in charge, do this" class in 4e. The Warlord was one of many classes in the Leader role: i.e., Cleric, Bard, Artificer, Shaman, and Ardent. And the "Leader" was just a euphemism for "Support" (or worse yet: "Healbot" or "Band-Aid"), which is typically a moniker that is viewed a little more negatively.

That said, I would not be opposed to rebranding the warlord as "the Knight." It would likely be more palpable for those who argue about the absurdity of a "level 1 warlord."

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Psion/Psionicst/Mystic/whatever a full-blown psychic with some flexibility. Look at the Warlock chassis for inspiration.

A proper Martial Artist/largely unarmed anime combatant class. The Monk is not it. Look at fighting games for inspiration.

A proper full-formed perma-Gish like the Swordmage or Arcana Unearthed's Mage Blade.

Those are off the top of my head. We do not particularly need a warlord per se but it would nice to have more classes which had a sort of leader-ish role. 5E could easily incorporate this. I also think 5E could do with an actual, focused, designed "Swashbuckler" class, but currently there's basically no design space between Fighter, Rogue, and Ranger all trying to occupy that ground somewhat inadequately (tbf the Rogue Swashbuckler isn't terrible).

 

[jmartkdr2]

I love magic and spellcasting. But I would love to see more non-magic classes and subclasses. Fighter and Rogue are really the only two non-spellcasring classes. The monk is distinctly "magical" with ki, and all but the Basic Rules barbarian subclasses distinct magical special abilities.

I's love to see:

• the 4e warlord, something more than just battlemaster abilities
• less magical monk, purely physical boxer/brawler
• a non-spellcasting ranger!
• an archivist/factotum/non-spellcasting alchemist.
• A non-Str, non-Dex, Wis-based or Int-based warrior (non-spellcasting!).
• a generic Hero

None of these are too thought-out, just ideas. I do feel there are fun and interesting abilities and classes that can be a part of the game that don't require magic.

Yet another reason to break up the fighter: swashbuckler, warlord, gladiator, gunslinger, and knight could all be classes if we really wanted.

I'm not exactly saying they should be in my own opinion, but there's a logically valid argument for it.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Yet another reason to break up the fighter: swashbuckler, warlord, gladiator, gunslinger, and knight could all be classes if we really wanted.

I'm not exactly saying they should be in my own opinion, but there's a logically valid argument for it.

I'm saying they should. The fighter being overly broad and not a good chassis to build subclasses off of just makes every martial combatant that's not a skill monkey who sneak attacks a liability design-wise.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

I used to be in favour of the fighter being a a class which covers all the variations of 'fighty person'. But the more I think about it the more that doesn't make sense.

It's like trying to condense every 'magic user' class into just a single caster. You could do it, but at the expense of what makes clerics, druids, bards, etc unique.