D&D (2024) Which subclasses “should” have been in 2024

[Vaalingrade]

They unironically tried that in 4e, how did that work out again?

They in no way did that. They gave such supernatural powers as 'taunting' and 'moving around'.

And 'how it worked out' is that the people who were already real mad at the idea of giving a spell school a name worked super hard to sabotage them via misinformation for over a decade.

 

[steeldragons]

But sure, let's all light our hair on fire over stuff we haven't seen in context yet.

Oh, no. I'm not meaning to sound as if my hair's not on fire. I am not advocating for anyone's hair on fire. Just enjoying some, as you say, "white room" theoreticals/design concept stuff.

White rooms are the best rooms.

As you describe the dance bard, that all sounds fine/as it should be, to me.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Paladin started as a Fighter subclass in 1E, while Fighter-Mage was originally a multiclass.

I could see undoing this before eliminating the mage subclass. Instead of moving Fighter-Mage out, move Paladin, Ranger and Barbarian back into fighter. I could also see Warlock and Sorcerer as subclasses of Wizard, along with things like Bladesinger, but I like having Eldritch Knight where it is.

See I totaly disagree with this and based on what you see at the table, most playing fighters do not see their characters as non-magic.

I get that there is a portion that do, mostly on message boards, but every single fighter I have seen played in 5E past about level 5 has had some kind of magic, every single one. A substantial number, easily 20% have had spells. I don't think the non-magic fighter is viable for modern players.

Players want magic, that is why the game is getting more magic focused. Spells are a key component, but not the only one.

Considering magic is a choice, I think it is clear the reason is players want magic.

From my POV one option is all you need to make it available, but when people refuse to play even that option without magic your argument starts to fall flat.

Even when playing with a relatively rare Champion or Battlemaster fighter with no racial magic; that player is usually actively looking for a magic weapon, or sometimes even whining to the DM about not having one if she gets to level 4 or sowithout one.

No one at the modern table is actually eschewing magic in modern 5E like they did back in 1E.

Also if you look at 1978 AD&D 1E, you had 11 total options (including Bard). Of those 11 only three had no spells - fighter (both subclasses had spells), Thief and Assassin. If you count multiclasses, that number is 5 non-casters out of 20 class options you could select at 1st level, so yes even back in the day casters dominated the available selections.

In 5E they can do this without spells relatively easily. IT is more difficult to do it without magic, although adventuring in 5E without magic is easier than it was in earlier editions.

i don't thing your argument for magic being desired holds much water, magic is incorporated to a significant majority of options in 5e and is one of the strongest most effective resources in the game often with obstacles only it can overcome, so the fact it's hard to design a character without magic and are in fact likely limiting your options if you don't use it i think gives little validity to your position.

a battlemaster fighter doesn't ask for a magic weapon to use magic, they ask for it because dang near everything has resistance against nonmagical damage so they require it to make sure their baseline effectiveness is not cut in half every other fight.

magic is a choice, but it is a choice with significant consequences on you if you refuse it, picking martial or magic is a choice between a bare essential calculator or a laptop to do your accounting, and that laptop comes with it's own calculator, spreadsheets, statistics, data filtering and expense analysers.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

They in no way did that. They gave such supernatural powers as 'taunting' and 'moving around'.

And 'how it worked out' is that the people who were already real mad at the idea of giving a spell school a name worked super hard to sabotage them via misinformation for over a decade.

Wasn't one of the issues the fact that martials felt like they played exactly the same as casters and their abilities often felt like just reflavor of casters' abilities or spells?

 

[Marandahir]

I think martials have a lot of toys now: Extra Attack, Fighting Style, Weapon Mastery, Superiority Dice Maneuvers.

Even Monks have gone the opposite direction from some other classes – nearly everything that was magical about them has now become a martial artist ability based around their focus and discipline and sheer will. That's the Fighter narrative, but they're a speciality case of martial, much like the Barbarian is (while Ranger and Paladin merge spellcasting with martial stuff at the base level and Artificer mixes spellcasting with Rogue stuff at the base level).

I think we're in a much better place than we were in 2014 when it comes to "giving Martials things to do."

 

[Vaalingrade]

Wasn't one of the issues the fact that martials felt like they played exactly the same as casters and their abilities often felt like just reflavor of casters' abilities or spells?

That one one of many incorrect things said, yes.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Any "martial" system that compares with spellcasting on a 1:1 ratio is effectively going to end up looking like magic anyway. If the concern is that a punch bard is going to beat a punch monk due to magic, then give the monk enough magic to counter play that.

Dungeon Crawl Classics has distinct systems for spellcasting and martials and no one says those classes are unbalanced!

 

[CreamCloud0]

I think martials have a lot of toys now: Extra Attack, Fighting Style, Weapon Mastery, Superiority Dice Maneuvers.

consider the amount of spells on even the most limited fullcaster's list, compared to that, can you really say martials have 'alot of toys' in comparison? extra attack isn't a toy it's nearly a basic scaling requirement, fighting styles are mostly all passive, certainly the better ones, weapon masteries are worse than cantrips and how quick do you run out of superiority dice?

 

[Marandahir]

consider the amount of spells on even the most limited fullcaster's list, compared to that, can you really say martials have 'alot of toys' in comparison? extra attack isn't a toy it's nearly a basic scaling requirement, fighting styles are mostly all passive, certainly the better ones, weapon masteries are worse than cantrips and how quick do you run out of superiority dice?

Yeah I can say it even if you don't agree with me…

I think they could definitely add more dials but I really like this additional tactical dial. Not every Fullcaster has as much options paralysis as Wizards do, either. And the toys I listed were just the ones held in common by one or more martial classes' class features - these classes have other individual toys like Second Wind, Action Surge, the new Tactical features, Rage, Primal Knowledge, bonus feats, Exploration Tier features, Sneak Attack / Monk's Discipline / Hunter's Mark / Paladin's Smite, etc… I think they add up so every class has quite a few tools to play with.

 

[ECMO3]

Also, college of Swords Bard is argurably better Fighter than a Fighter. Because WotC gives the full casters all buffs and powers, while martials get to be laughed at.

Bards don't have good spells to complement melee, unlike every other full caster. I think there are full casters that can keep up with Fighter, but I don't think Swords Bard is one of those.

One of the main reasons is a Bard is going to be more MAD than a martial Wizard, Warlock or Cleric because they need a high Charisma to fuel their flourishes, while those other classes can focus more on their attack stat.