D&D 5E Are there too darn many spellcasters?

[jgsugden]

Can someone list out the non-spellcasting archetypes that are not serviced by existing 5E rules?

 

[Satyrn]

Can someone list out the non-spellcasting archetypes that are not serviced by existing 5E rules?

Warlord

 

[jgsugden]

Warlord

View attachment 93094

The second I types that I knew I should have said beyond Warlord - although a lot of us think the Battlemaster handles that area just fine. However, there are rooms for NONMAGICAL Warlord/Marshall style mechanics in a class. What else is missing?

I did once contemplate the fighter class as 4 separate classes: Swashbuckler (Melee, dexterity based), Striker (Long Range), Breaker (Heavy Weapon), Protector (Sword & Board). I came to the conclusion that it was not necessary as the fighter class handles it all.

 

[Satyrn]

The second I types that I knew I should have said beyond Warlord - although a lot of us think the Battlemaster handles that area just fine. However, there are rooms for NONMAGICAL Warlord/Marshall style mechanics in a class. What else is missing?

I was really just joking.

But now to answer (and actually contribute!)

While I don't know if there are any missing archetypes, I'd be cool with there being multiple ways to express the same archtype. Like, when it comes to magical concepts, there are lots more ways to realize a concept. A holy warrior wielding his god's might can already be achieved in so many ways - at the most basic, I can just choose a cleric or paladin. Or I could go a little "off-book" and call my dragon sorcerer Bahamut's knight, select the fiend pact and flavor it a god of fire (okay, that one's going quite off book), or even get my DM to let me take cleric spells for my no-longer-eldritch knight (just a slight change in mechanics).

So I'd like a few more non-spellcaster classes to do the same sort of thing with, rather than being limited to just the battlemaster to make my warlord.

. . . And mastermind and purple dragon knight. Not that I actually want to play a warlord. I'm using the name as a sort of placeholder for "whatever martial character concept I'm aiming for."

 

[Satyrn]

Oh, and I really want a martial artist that isn't a monk.

 

[Satyrn]

I did once contemplate the fighter class as 4 separate classes: Swashbuckler (Melee, dexterity based), Striker (Long Range), Breaker (Heavy Weapon), Protector (Sword & Board). I came to the conclusion that it was not necessary as the fighter class handles it all.

I think it would work better if you went a different sort of divide other than "what kind of weapon" it's using.

Like build the classes so that whether it's heavily or lightly armored, and regardless of what it's weapon loadout was, it's ditinguishing features would come from some other theme.

Like, a skirmisher comes to mind. Its distinguishing features would hghlight that it is mobile. Then, a player who outfits it in a breastplate and rapier can play a swashbuckler, while another with a bow has created a guerrilla archer. Or I could put him in heavy armor, sword and shield, and be a sort of agile knight.

Then we could create a Defender - focusing more on defending and supporting his allies.

That sort of thing.

 

[LapBandit]

In D&D, the less magical a class is the more it depends on that magic. I know that seems counterintuitive, but it's pretty much always been that way.

Who needs magic more, the 9th level wizard or the 9th level fighter? The 9th level wizard is brimming with magic and versatility, the 9th level fighter is hosed if he runs up against an enemy flies if he's strength-based (most fighters). Even the original designer of the game was CONSTANTLY monkey-patching he fighter to deal with the inherent imbalance of spells. 5E is better about it than 3E was, but 2E seemed to be a better balance for spell-casters: D4 HD, proficiency in few or no combat skills, Shield was for saving yourself from projectiles, no Absorb Elements, etc.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

The second I types that I knew I should have said beyond Warlord - although a lot of us think the Battlemaster handles that area just fine. However, there are rooms for NONMAGICAL Warlord/Marshall style mechanics in a class. What else is missing?

I did once contemplate the fighter class as 4 separate classes: Swashbuckler (Melee, dexterity based), Striker (Long Range), Breaker (Heavy Weapon), Protector (Sword & Board). I came to the conclusion that it was not necessary as the fighter class handles it all.

So long as you also come to the conclusion that we really don't need any casters beyond Wizard (with versatile options for casting stat) and maybe Warlock for a different recharge mechanism. That the blandness known as sorcerer made the cut but the warlord didnt is a travesty. They really did it just to pander to the "muh v-tude!" edition war crowd that whined whenever fighters got nice things. Because we know it's more important to deny someone else's fun based on your limited imagination/suspension of disbelief than just deal with the mild nuisance of not liking the mechanics of a character you aren't even playing...

Battlemaster fills the Warlord niche about as well as Eldrich Knight fills the wizard niche. The warlord class would have expanded/more powerful maneuvers, (ie, a full maneuver "caster" compared to the fighter's 1/3 maneuver hybrid).

 

[Hussar]

The biggest point for me is how prevalent they’ve made magic. Virtually every round of every combat will see at least one spell and probably more.

And then out of combat spells become the go to solution for everything as well.

I would like at least the option of playing a lower magic game.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Oh, and I really want a martial artist that isn't a monk.

Fighter?

What sort of thing would you want this class to be able to do?