D&D 5E (2024) What should the 15th Class be?

[DavyGreenwind]

I would love a full Witch class. If not Witch, an Int-based non-caster, like an Investigator or Savant.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

those exist becuse no one has done it right, do it well and those all die off replaced by a stranger class

Between the EK and the Bladesinger, I'm not sure how much design space there is for a mystic warrior who casts spells. You have a 9 level spellcaster with the same number of attacks as a fighter in the level range that 95% of games end at. It gets to sub in an attack for true strike/other cantrip so is already dealing more damage than just attacking twice. It has great defense in any fight that actually matters. What design space is there between this and the EK that wouldnt be OP or a chump class?

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Copied and pasted from other threat:

The witch class from Dragon magazine was designed to be a nPC class. For our current point of view a D&D witch class would be like an artificer clone using primal magic to craft lots of single-use magic item. And the teleserie "Charmed" could be a serious influence for the new generation of players if these try to imagine a D&D witch.

Maybe the witches could be useful or interesting when they were working for the main PCs in the "bastions" crafting magic items.

Maybe I imagine the witch class like a mixture of primal artificier and the vestige binder class from 3.5 Tome of Battle. In the battlefield she would be more focused into poisons or explosive alchemy, o nerfing+buff-breaking enemies, althought the gameplay should be simple and fast in the tabletop. A subclass could be about plants like monster allies, style "plants vs zombies" or "garden warfare".

---

I suggest to recover the name "duskblade" from 3.5 PH2 for the arcane-fighter hybrid. Other option could be the dracolyte, a fighter who can cast arcane magic thanks special links with a dragon patron or ally. Dragoknight? Like an arcane paladin.

For the return of the martial adepts from 3.5 Tome of Battle we should playtest a "martial script". When this is activated it lasts one encounter, and during that time you can use certain martial maneuver, almost at-will but you have to do some action to reload.

The 5e warlord class could be a fighter with the martial maneuvers of the schools "white raven" and "devoted spirit" from 3.5 Tome of Battle, with subclasses about certain type of allies/minions/squads.

Other idea is a primal defender with touchs of vestige binder and totemist shaman. It is a warrior who can bind special totems like the binder class from 3.5 Tome of Magic. Using essence points special monster traits or upgrades can be unlocked, like the incarnum soulmelds but with a simpler mechanic.

What is your opinion about a summoner class with touch of vestige binder and totemist shaman?

 

[Mephista]

Psion is attached to the Dark Suns setting. Artificer is attached to the Eberron setting. Its heavily implied that each of the new classes are being released inside of specific setting books.

If we're going to see another new class, the only one I see being likely is Warlord, since that's basically the poster child class for the Points of Light setting. Maybe Blood Hunters from a new Critical Role book. That's the only two i can really see, assuming the trend remains the same.

The "arcane gish," the summoner/shifter, a new assassin? None of these are really attached to a setting in any way. So, I doubt them getting a full class is in the books.

 

[DavyGreenwind]

Maybe I imagine the witch class like a mixture of primal artificier and the vestige binder class from 3.5 Tome of Battle. In the battlefield she would be more focused into poisons or explosive alchemy, o nerfing+buff-breaking enemies, althought the gameplay should be simple and fast in the tabletop. A subclass could be about plants like monster allies, style "plants vs zombies" or "garden warfare".

Witches have pretty broad representations across many cultures. They can be crafty Ghibli witches or curse-slinging cacklers. I think they'd have a unique mix of primal and arcane spells, and a few unique ones of their own, since their means of learning magic is traditional knowledge, somewhere between Wizard and Druid. I think there's a lot of design room and unfulfilled archetypes for Witches

 

[vdgbbgfrgvgh]

I disagree with this implementation, though.

Who cares

 

[Xeviat]

I firmly believe that nothing should be a class unless you can think of 10 archetypes for it. That's why I love the current 13ish classes we have (though I personally liked the theme of the Mystic for D&D more than the Psion, but that's easily changed). So, here's my wishlist:

1) Some type of Warlord for #14 (splat in 3E, core in 4E). Subclasses can be stuff like Noble (more skill support, lead from the rear), the inspiring/tactical/bravura 4E choices, and even things like warmage, ardent, and other magic hybrids that are battlefield leaders.
2) The Wielder (from A5E Level up). They are a magic warrior meant to represent characters that get their power from a legendary item, characters like He-Man, She-Ra, and others. Subclasses can be for each of the items individually, D&D has plenty of iconic legendary items.
3) The Elementalist (shameless plug, mine is for A5E Level up). Uses elemental magic. Sure, you can do elemental themes with sorcerer and others, but you have to intentionally avoid options to stay on theme rather than have the class fully support it.

That brings us to 16 classes, and that's a number I really like (double 2E's 8).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Who cares

Mod Note:

You used your time and energy to post this. It doesn’t seem like a good use of either.

Look, it’s fine to disagree with others. But if
you don’t have to be disagreeable when you disagree; in fact we discourage it. So when you’re posting here about your disagreement, do so politely and- ideally- constructively.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Witch like a primal+arcane hybrid? That could be an interesting concept. Maybe she could cast primal spells "spontaneously" like a sorcerer and for arcane magic she would create "infusions" like the artificer. A subclass could create "infusions" with divine magic to slay unholy enemies like theriantropes. Other trait could be "blessing with secondary effects", for example a type of blackslash would be a sentient enemy could "cast a free spell" against the witch althought this wasn't a spellcaster, only one symbolic act of contempt such as an insult or a rude gesture, or showing the simbol of an enemy faith would be sufficient like magic component, for example Conan the barbarian screaming "DIE, DAMN WITCH!" would be enough to activate the blacklash. Do you remember the "paradox" from "Mage: the Ascension"?

WotC wants each subclass to show its own mark of identity. How to explain it? Let's imagine a new romantasy D&D novel set in Birthright/Cerilia is published, and the main character is a warlord. This faces other rival warlords. Could the reader to notice what subclass is each warlord character? For example one has got a magic banner, and in the battlefield his squad of mercenaries are healed when the enemy is hurt or the attacks are sucessful. Other subclass would be a martial adept with the school "white raven" and "devoted spirit". Other subclass would be about animal/monster mounts/allies, for example warg-riders. Other warlord would be like buff-breaker, her squad isn't mind-affected so easily and she can "lock" timely special traits by enemy for example damage resistance or regeneration, or her blessed squad wouldn't need silver weapons against theriantropes. Other example would be a Dragonlance spinoff where the heroes have to face different enemy armies and each one is ruled by a warlord with a different subclass. A warlord could be focused into ambush and stealth operations. Other subclass would be about special magic items (here you haven't to worry about limit of attunements), or a "cult-leader" who summons spiritis of fallen warriors against enemy shooters (if you want to play like a character from a primitive culture against an enemy with more advance technology).

 

[Zardnaar]

The warlord is unpopular because of a bunch of nonsense arguments about realism in a game that absolutely sucks at simulating anything. They also seemed to come from old grumps, so I don;t know how much WOTC should bother catering to the 60+ OSR crowd. Most of them seem to hate WOTC anyways.

You still don't see to many battlemasters doing it.

They usually go for things like menacing strike, push, prone, precision type effects.