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

[SkidAce]

I really need to learn multi quote. Yesterday I tried and failed, today I did it by accident.

 

[Azzy]

In total, yes; but the martial side and the caster side would each have to be weaker than their single-class counterparts such that the total of the two parts is roughly the same strength as the dedicated classes.

To clarify:

You have a pure Fighter. You have a pure Wizard. You have a third class that tries to be both a Fighter and a Wizard at the same time - call it Gish, call it Swordmage, call it whatever.

That's not factual. A swordmage (or whatever) would not try to be both a fighter and a wizard at the same time—it would be a class that synergetically uses magic to enhance its martial abilities. It would have spells, but most of its spells and class features should be things that make its weapon attacks more effective or otherwise boosts its defenses or other martial elements.

 

[Valetudo]

That's the EK basically.

 

[Valetudo]

Or should I say the EK multiclassed with a tiny bit of bladesinger(any point in that subclass?) or abjurer.

 

[Minigiant]

That's the EK basically.

Not really.

The spells for a Smordmage/Gish currently don't exist.

And if they did, they would be overpowered in the hands of a wizard as EK chose wizard spells.

That always has been the fundamental issue. You would have to create a separate spell list of Arcane spells that a wizard would not have access to. That is something that many fans have issues with existing.

 

[Remathilis]

If I was going to do assassin as a base class, I'd make it explicitly supernatural to separate it from the Rogue. Like walk through walls, turn into shadow, teleporting and summoning blades of darkness supernatural from level 1. Not necessarily a spellcaster, but definitely magical. The problem is that a lot of the ideas I would want for subclasses (soul knife, phantom, shadow dancer, ninja) got eaten by the rogue and monk.

 

[Remathilis]

In total, yes; but the martial side and the caster side would each have to be weaker than their single-class counterparts such that the total of the two parts is roughly the same strength as the dedicated classes.

To clarify:

You have a pure Fighter. You have a pure Wizard. You have a third class that tries to be both a Fighter and a Wizard at the same time - call it Gish, call it Swordmage, call it whatever.

If this combination third class is as good a warrior as the pure Fighter AND-OR as good a caster as the pure Wizard, you've got a problem because now there's no reason whatsoever to play either the pure Fighter or the pure Wizard: this class completely overshadows one or both.

Thus, the third class has to be weaker at fighting than the pure Fighter AND weaker at casting than the pure Wizard such that when added together the two elements make up a class of about-equal strength to the 'pure' classes.

Much like how a paladin has been a fighter/cleric. Very good.

 

[Corinnguard]

In total, yes; but the martial side and the caster side would each have to be weaker than their single-class counterparts such that the total of the two parts is roughly the same strength as the dedicated classes.

To clarify:

You have a pure Fighter. You have a pure Wizard. You have a third class that tries to be both a Fighter and a Wizard at the same time - call it Gish, call it Swordmage, call it whatever.

If this combination third class is as good a warrior as the pure Fighter AND-OR as good a caster as the pure Wizard, you've got a problem because now there's no reason whatsoever to play either the pure Fighter or the pure Wizard: this class completely overshadows one or both.

Thus, the third class has to be weaker at fighting than the pure Fighter AND weaker at casting than the pure Wizard such that when added together the two elements make up a class of about-equal strength to the 'pure' classes.

Could this explain why some people are unsatisfied with the 5e Ranger?

 

[aiouh]

okay then what do you want? I do not mean this insultingly I mean what do you want as that is more the question.

No new official core class until the unfathomable has been found. (not including setting specific sub-classes)

 

[Zardnaar]

How much better at fighting do you see it as the bladesinger? D&D is a level 1-10 game for all intents and purposes. The bladesinger already fights as well as a fighter in 95% of games. Threading that needle is going to be virtually impossible, given there's already a half caster gish (artificer) that fights as well as a fighter.

Part of it is the crappy design of the fighter class, which had to be made so simple a potato could play it.

Its a lot better at fighting if you just use phb.

Bladesinger with shadowblade .....

I've been experimenting with magic items though do fighter woukd have better items probably.