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

Frozen_Heart said:

And if that replaced paladin next edition, you would get a thread a week asking "where paladin class?"

Like yeah, it would be a perfectly functional and balanced subclass. But it wouldn't be a paladin. It would have lost half the mechanics which define a paladin, with the rest being super dumbed down.

Click to expand...

a thread about "where's the paladin"?

my friend, there would be a new one twice every week!

Frozen_Heart said:

And if that replaced paladin next edition, you would get a thread a week asking "where paladin class?"

Like yeah, it would be a perfectly functional and balanced subclass. But it wouldn't be a paladin. It would have lost half the mechanics which define a paladin, with the rest being super dumbed down.

Click to expand...

Sure, sure! But it would be perfectly functional and would feel paladiny; good enough for me. But then again, I've never really got the appeal of paladins. I think I would like them a lot better if they were reflavoured to be witchers. I think the mechanics are like 85% there already. Which kinda is a problem for gishes. It's rather hard to differentiate them from paladin mechanics-wise.

This is from a much older part of the thread, but.... it doesn't look like a whole lot has changed, so....

AcererakTriple6 said:

Are they?

Can you build a Witcher in 5e's current class system. Eragon? The Knights Radiant (thematically, they're paladins, but ability-wise, almost all of them are Arcane Gishes)? Isaac and Hector from Castlevania (they cover their weapons in unholy fire that transforms the people they kill with those weapons into demons/undead monsters under their control)? Zuko from the last Airbender (a master of dual wielding swords that makes his attacks even better using Firebending)?

Can you truly build any of those without multiclassing so much that you no longer have a functional character?

I'm not saying that an "Arcane Warrior" class has to be able to make all of those different types of characters playable . . . but I am saying that there are character options in other fantasy settings that don't currently have a good way of translating them to D&D 5e.

Click to expand...

Eh, I think the trouble with that is mainly that the trouble is theming and perceived power level.

The Witcher could easily be a Hunter or Monster Slayer Ranger re-themed to arcane instead of divine, a Valor Bard or Bladesinger Wizard re-themed to monster lore instead of Performance, or an Eldritch Knight basically as-is. Tell me that the mechanics of the class actually fail here and not just the theming of them. The Witcher is from a setting where there is no divine magic. That doesn't mean the existing class mechanics don't represent what the character can do. It just means some of the theming is wrong. That's really just a refluff.

Additionally, Witchers are superheroic, all-around characters in the Witcher series precisely because they operate alone as solo protagonists. They don't translate well to D&D where you can't have a PC class do that. This has always been a narrative problem, because gishes are always experts at everything. It's exactly why people roll their eyes at Drizzt or Artemis Entreri. They're faster, stronger, smarter, and better prepared than everyone else and that just doesn't work in a cooperative game where PCs need to share the spotlight and rely on each other for survival. That means it's easy to see why people don't like Eldritch Knight for a Witcher: because we all know it sucks and gets it's signature abilities far too late to matter. It's a criticism of how poor EK is as a class because 1/3 casters are godawful gishes, 1/2 casters are only marginally better, and the full casters that still get extra attack have obvious things they gave up on. Unfortunately, when Superman and Martian Manhunter join the Justice League, they have to share the spotlight with Flash, Batman and Aquaman. (Which is precisely why people roll their eyes at Batman's power level, now.)

People don't just want to play a character that isn't just from an alien setting, they want to play characters from alien settings with wholly incompatible magic systems. No, you probably can't make a elemental bender in D&D. Magic doesn't work that way in D&D. You probably can't be like an allomancer or a feruchemist from Mistborn, either. Brandon Sanderson has built a career on writing novels about wholly incompatible magic systems that all reside in the same universe. Magic is a lot different in Harry Potter, Dresden Files, Magic: The Gathering, Alex Verus, Seven Blades in Black, Lord of the Rings, Wheel of Time, The Blade Itself, etc. There are so many different ways magic can work. You're just not going to be able to put all of them into D&D. That's not automatically a failing of D&D. D&D really can't be the everything game.

There are decisions that certainly do affect things that are worth exploring. The fact that concentration is crippling for melee spellcasters just fundamentally alters the viability of many different types of characters. Either way, it's not just about getting a new class. You'd need a new system to make them really work. That's going to change the settings drastically.

Here's a rough draft of a swordmage that incorporates the ideas of the Monk. It's short on flavour compared to what I prefer, and only has one subclass, and no spell list yet, but I think the bones are good.

And please don't tell me about grammar mistakes on this draft, unless you need clarification of something in order to understand the intent. I wrote this all in one go over several hours on my day off, today.

Just thought of something,

Why can't Wizards and Clerics jut buff themselves into being warriors like in many fantasy settings?

Concentration.

What if the Arcane Warrior is the class that goes over the 1 spell Concentration cap?

How? By focusing the spell inward and having the body hold the spell. A wizard can't do it because their bodies are weak.

However an Arcane Warrior can cast a spell and remove concentration by taking damage. They can direct spells to their body equal to 1/3 their level and taking 1 damage per spell level upon casting.

Now all the players who love spending 5 minutes buffing before they kick a dungeon door open have a class.

Minigiant said:

However an Arcane Warrior can cast a spell and remove concentration by taking damage. They can direct spells to their body equal to 1/3 their level and taking 1 damage per spell level upon casting.

Click to expand...

This was exactly the mechanic I used for a hpmebrew bloodmage a while ago. You definitely need to curate their spell list because even with the damage sacrifice, certain combos get really strong.

Them being a half-caster means they'd be able to make all their spells non-con by level 15, which is before they even get all their slots.

I'd change it to 1/5 their level and they take damage twice to the spell's level. At level 17, 5 damage for a non-con 5th-level spell is really really good especially for a halfer. Really, this keeps the max damage (technically its now 6 damage per spell) but it reduces the max to something less powerful.

Minigiant said:

Just thought of something,

Why can't Wizards and Clerics jut buff themselves into being warriors like in many fantasy settings?

Concentration.

What if the Arcane Warrior is the class that goes over the 1 spell Concentration cap?

How? By focusing the spell inward and having the body hold the spell. A wizard can't do it because their bodies are weak.

However an Arcane Warrior can cast a spell and remove concentration by taking damage. They can direct spells to their body equal to 1/3 their level and taking 1 damage per spell level upon casting.

Now all the players who love spending 5 minutes buffing before they kick a dungeon door open have a class.

Click to expand...

Now I know everyone will hate this name, but I really think my concept Dweomerwright (it really is a bad name dangit) could leverage some of that idea, but I'm not sure it needs to break concentration to do it. I mean, it could just have Dweomers that mimic spells but aren't (and thus can't be counterspelled) and don't require concentration, instead being limited by the limit to active Dweomers.

IE, a Dweomer that mimics Divine Favor, but requires no concentration. Another could allow you to mimic a smite spell without concentration. These would be usable 1/day without spending power, and then be usable by burning spell slots after that.

Then also give them buff spells that don't require concentration anyway, like mirror image, mage armor, false life, etc.

Then finally make some action spells that involve a weapon attack.

doctorbadwolf said:

Here's a rough draft of a swordmage that incorporates the ideas of the Monk. It's short on flavour compared to what I prefer, and only has one subclass, and no spell list yet, but I think the bones are good.

And please don't tell me about grammar mistakes on this draft, unless you need clarification of something in order to understand the intent. I wrote this all in one go over several hours on my day off, today.

Click to expand...

It is pretty good.

I can't find where you set your spellcasting ability modifier, but maybe I just missed it?

Rogerd1 said:

On the monk front, why not remove chi, and call their abilities Heroic abilities similar to Legend. So you could say their powers come from anywhere in game. This should remove the oriental flavour.

Click to expand...

In Level Up, ki has been removed and replaced with exertion, which all martials get. Monks--renamed Adepts for them--just get some extra exertion.

jmartkdr2 said:

It is pretty good.

I can't find where you set your spellcasting ability modifier, but maybe I just missed it?

Click to expand...

It’s in the Spellcasting feature description, but somewhat buried. You choose Int or wisdom at level 1. I’ll make it it’s own heading (like ritual casting has)