D&D 5E Homebrew Classes (Concept Discussion)

Einlanzer0

Explorer
This isn't really about any specific existing homebrew classes that people have floating around. Rather, I wanted to get some insights on what concepts people consider that may be missing from the standard class list and aren't necessarily ideal to just add via a subclass to one of the existing core classes, and also what (if any) methodology you use to determine that?

After considering these questions for a while, I have a few bits of (rather intuitive) criteria:
  • The concept must be a relatively common "occupation" in-setting that an adventurer might emerge from
  • The concept must be broadly themed enough that it's easier to spring forward multiple subclasses than it is to pigeonhole it into an existing class as a subclass
  • The concept must have some kind of unifying mechanic that would apply to all subclasses, even if it's similar to a mechanic already used by an existing class

With this in mind, I have exactly five concepts that I think deserve to be made into real, full classes. Most of these aren't totally original ideas, but are scraped together from my own ideas as well as things I've seen floating around.

a.) A primal-influenced caster that blends arcane and divine magics and can serve as a basis for all kinds of archetypes that aren't easy to fit into any of the existing magic using classes due to their thematic specificity. Kibblestasty's Occultist comes to mind immediately, though I would probably call it a Mystic, unify it with a trance-based mechanic, make it more about spell-like abilities rather than wizard-style spellcasting, and broaden it even more to not just include witches and shamans, but also more priestly archetypes that don't neatly fit the cleric/druid themes (think wandering prophet, priestess of the moon, etc.). It would basically be the spellcasting equivalent of the fighter - very broad and able to be built out in all kinds of ways using a very modular kit but also simple and easy for beginners to pick up (something that doesn't exist among magey classes in the standard array).

b.) a non-spellcasting Int based class, i.e. Scholar. There are a few of these floating around with some really good subclass designs (i.e. explorer/historian, physician, strategist, planar sage, etc.) I like most of them. I can easily see this as something that really should included in the class selection and has just never been done for fairly arbitrary reasons.

c.) a full-fledged Psion class that uses the Psionic Dice mechanics introduced recently. This class is just too legacy to D&D and it really deserves to be distinct from the spellclasting classes as it's a very different, sci-fi inspired theme that's fairly simple to include unique mechanics around.

d.) A warlord/marshal/battlefield commander. Yes, I unconditionally support warlord as a full class in 5e. You might consider it just a fighter subclass, but the truth is that it serves a very different role that doesn't really fit anywhere on an existing class, and is just as easy to concept into multiple subclasses as many of the standard classes. Perhaps most importantly, it offers design space for a martial class with complex and deep mechanics that can't really be modeled properly in the scope of a subclass.

e.) This one is pretty specific - there is an existing homebrew class called the Emergent that is thematically about linking with and manifesting different types of incarnations (in the form of various creatures); it's a bit reminiscent of the warden from 4e. I feel this class fills a design niche that simply isn't present among the standard classes, and it reminds me of one of my favorite video game series of all time - Shadow Hearts, where the main protagonist is a harmonixer that can fuse with demon souls. I just really like the concept and, after seeing this glass, don't feel any existing class can do it justice as a subclass.

That's it for me! Lay it on us what your own thoughts/ideas are on this topic!
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Swordmage, obviously (from my point of view). It's a type of warrior that would obviously exist in any high-magic setting, the job is "warrior, probably elite" and the subtypes are "any kind of weapon and/or magic" - if anything the idea os too broad for a class since the unifying mechanic is kinda game-focused rather than something people in-universe would recognize.

I could also see an "enhanced person" class, similar to a warlock and/or artificer but without spellcasting in the base class, just a lot of specific benefits. The broad idea is you have been given a number of "gifts" that each have a specific effect, and as you gain levels you gain new gifts and can expand on existing ones.

The occupation is "servant of a powerful person/entity" - one with specific tasks. You need not have originally been combat-focused, but likely have some idea how the gifts work.

There's a lot of different entities that could grant such gifts (any patron, any high-level spellcaster), each of which could have their own theme. But Subclasses would probably be "major gifts" that give you a baseline ability: weapon gifts make you a weapon-user, another gift group might be built around a cantrip, another might be all about skills. Or subclasses could be a mix.
 

My suggestions are:

The knight, using some ideas from the Pathfinder version, like the orders.

The nagual, imagined like a mixture of totemist shaman from "Magic of Incarnum" and the Shifter, class from Pathfinder "Ultimate Wild", with powers about animal or monster traits, as special attacks.

The dracolyte, the arcane fighter, with subclasses about the different true dragons (gem, metalic, chromatic...), using some ideas from the prestige class "dragon samurai"(Minitaure handbook), the dragon shaman (3.5 Player Handbook 2) and the dragonfire adept(Dragon Magic 3.5).
 

Marandahir

Crown-Forester (he/him)
Based on your three assumptions at the top - which I whole-heartedly agree with - I'm not sure there is room for any additional classes except MAYBE a Psionic one - which I would unify with the Mystic concept, and make its focus on Occultism.

Other classes' subs like the College of Spirits Bard and the Divination Wizard, as well as the Aberrant Mind and Psi Warrior and Soulknife, and a few of the Monk subs like Way of the Astral Self would essentially then be subclass-style multiclassing into this, the way that the Eldritch Knight is essentially a subclass method of doing Fighter/Wizard and Scout Archetype is martial Ranger/Rogue. This can be an Int class, which makes Aberrant Mind the "Wilder" equivalent to the Mystic's Psion, in 3.5e terms.

But beyond that, I don't think any of the other ideas hold water with the three big assumptions.

Arcane Fighter Gish are Artificers in 5e, or else they're Eldritch Knights or College of Valour/Swords Bards, or Hexblades (or I guess, Wild Magic Barbarians). There's no room for a separate Swordmage. The Artificer killed it and took its stuff, and I say good, because no one was able to think of a prominent example that wasn't just Fighter-Mage. It doesn't have the same narrative pulse and commonality to sci-fi and fantasy lit the way the Paladin and Ranger have. And that's FINE. Artificer captures the essence of this in its more martial incarnations like Armourer and Battle Smith and Forge Adept. These are not like Eldritch Knight, they're like if 4e Runepriests and Invokers were rolled into one class (significant narrative overlap, but one side is martial and one side is more castery). In fact, the Cleric, Bard, and Druid already function this way, but are full casters. Perhaps its best compared to the Warlock, which has more limited spellcasting than the three above, and also has more martial variations (Hexblade, Undead, Pact of the Blade any patron) and more castery versions (Pact of the Tome, Talisman, Chains, any Patron but Hexblade and Undead).

I just don't see how Warlord is able to exist in a world where Fighters include all non-magical (and some magical) ranged and melee warriors. 5e Fighter is a very broad concept. 4e was able to have a full Warlord class because it split up the Martial Warriors into Fighter, Warlord, and non-magical Ranger. But 5e unified these concepts, and there's already several subclasses that adequately portray this concept (especially when you add in feats and fighting styles that help support the Warlord concept).

Magic of Incarnum was always fiddly and stepped on the shoes of other concepts without feeling like it had a unified identity of its own. I just don't see that as able to define itself in contrast to everything else.

Scholar I've like the idea of, but I ultimately come down to, why is it just Intelligence skills? What about Courtiers, who are charismatic? What makes this character not just an NPC-class Expert? How is this an adventuring class and not a background? Where do we draw the line between background and adventuring class? I'd say the same thing about Knights, by the way - it just seems more like a concept that Fighters, Paladins, and a handful of other characters MIGHT have in their backstory but aren't their own thing that stands out as why they totally couldn't be these other classes.

Ultimately, Scholar also begs the question that if we have adventuring Scholars who are balanced in combat and adventuring capacity with Wizards, why do we have Wizards? What are they bringing to the table in terms of wisdom and lore if the Scholar brings the same thing? What is the role of Wizards in the world if not the scholars? If you say that they're magic and the scholars are not, we're getting into the definition of magic and its function in society. The pseudo-medieval setting that fills D&D often uses magic instead of tech, and in Eberron, it uses Magic instead of the Industrial revolution. Wizards ARE the scientists of D&D. Not the only ones - Artificers, Druids, Bards, Sorcerers, even Clerics could be scientists. But magic and science and knowledge are functionally equivalent in D&D (as a corellary to Arthur C. Clarke's laws). I don't see a game where I can run a scholar without stepping on the Wizards toes and also feel like I have a reason to exist.

And then I think of the Expert NPC class and how it could possibly be fleshed out into a full player class, but then I'm like, what are the subclasses? Every single background fleshed out with subclass abilities? Why aren't these just more robust backgrounds a la Strixhaven? I could see a 6E where all backgrounds give you features akin to Strixhaven's or akin to 4E's Heroic-tier character Themes. So I then think, this doesn't make sense either.

And finally, looping back to the Mystic, if we could swap out Cha for Int on Sorcerers, I don't know if I would need a Mystic/Psion class. Aberrant Mind with a key ability of Int would suffice. But that's a bigger question about the relationship of class to abilities, and I'm not sure I fully agree with separating class from key ability. We already do so with Str vs Dex in regards to the Fighter and Ranger, which is the primary reason I'd wonder if Ranger should be JUST Dex/Wis like Paladin is JUST Str/Cha, and then Fighter could be split into melee and ranged. But then I come down to, what are the ranged options other than "Archer?" I guess Arcane Archer, yes. But why not have Cavaliers be both lance/sword/warhammer users and ranged cavalry (a la bowknights/oliphantiers/horesback archers)? Would these two classes just share most of their subclasses, but not all? It starts to drive at what is a class?

I see so many attempts at making independent classes, whether in En5ider or on DMs Guild or individual blogs, reddit, etc, and nearly every single one seems to be stepping on the toes of another class or not broad enough of a concept to stand on its own two feet. It needs to be able to accomodate at least 10 subclasses that are narratively and functionally distinct from each other without wholescale overstepping another classes' key concepts. I just don't see that with anything other than POSSIBLY the Psion/Mystic.
 

aco175

Legend
b.) a non-spellcasting Int based class, i.e. Scholar. There are a few of these floating around with some really good subclass designs (i.e. explorer/historian, physician, strategist, planar sage, etc.) I like most of them. I can easily see this as something that really should included in the class selection and has just never been done for fairly arbitrary reasons.

Scholar I've like the idea of, but I ultimately come down to, why is it just Intelligence skills? What about Courtiers, who are charismatic? What makes this character not just an NPC-class Expert? How is this an adventuring class and not a background? Where do we draw the line between background and adventuring class? I'd say the same thing about Knights, by the way - it just seems more like a concept that Fighters, Paladins, and a handful of other characters MIGHT have in their backstory but aren't their own thing that stands out as why they totally couldn't be these other classes.

I like the idea of a non-casting caster type like this. @Marandahir makes some good points to consider though, so we need to think about it. Could it be a sub-class of the rogue who is an Int. based PC. More like a Indiana Jones temple raider/spy type.

I also find that so many classes have spell casting either in the base class or in one to several subclasses that magic and spells are more infused in the game than maybe needed/wanted. It could be a subclass of wizard with the spells ending at 3rd level and something else taking over, but that seems like a lot of work to take away that part of the class- so maybe it warrants a new class.
 

Marandahir

Crown-Forester (he/him)
I like the idea of a non-casting caster type like this. @Marandahir makes some good points to consider though, so we need to think about it. Could it be a sub-class of the rogue who is an Int. based PC. More like a Indiana Jones temple raider/spy type.

I also find that so many classes have spell casting either in the base class or in one to several subclasses that magic and spells are more infused in the game than maybe needed/wanted. It could be a subclass of wizard with the spells ending at 3rd level and something else taking over, but that seems like a lot of work to take away that part of the class- so maybe it warrants a new class.
Honestly, my biggest issue with the Scout is the same one I'd make of the Rogue: the required Thieves' Cant and Thieves' Tools profs. I'd have the same problem with this Scholar, assuming default class features. The Inquisitive has the same issues though - it's supposed to include Police detectives and Herlock Sholmeses. They shouldn't necessarily know a secret language of thieves.

Maybe alternate class features could swap these out and the Rogue could just become a catch all "PC-version Expert" of which there are many Rogue types but also other non-magical, skillful characters. At that point, I would say what's the difference between swapping that out and swapping out Cha for Int in a Sorcerer and calling it a Psion? Heck, you could even use the spell points variant feature in the DMs Guide and call them Psi Points a la earlier editions (and even marry them with Sorcery points so that you can freely allocate between your psionic metamagics and your psionic spells).
 

I do agree that if we're sticking close to the term "missing" - I don't think anything is missing. Heck, I'd say that with the PHB + Hexblade you're able to play anything that should exist in a standard DnD setting. Artificers cover higher-tech worlds; psions can be done with a couple homebrew changes.

But that doesn't mean all of the concepts can be done well, which is where most people looking for new classes are coming from, I think. Even Blood Hunter could have been a refluffed totem Barbarian, but I don't think people would have found that to be a satisfying answer.
 

TwoSix

Unserious gamer
a.) A primal-influenced caster that blends arcane and divine magics and can serve as a basis for all kinds of archetypes that aren't easy to fit into any of the existing magic using classes due to their thematic specificity. Kibblestasty's Occultist comes to mind immediately, though I would probably call it a Mystic, unify it with a trance-based mechanic, and broaden it even more to not just include witches and shamans, but also more priestly archetypes that don't neatly fit the cleric/druid themes (think wandering prophet, priestess of the moon, etc.). It would basically be the spellcasting equivalent of the fighter - very broad and able to be built out in all kinds of ways using a very modular kit.
Agreed. An expanded Occultist fits in nicely.

b.) a non-spellcasting Int based class, i.e. Scholar. There are a few of these floating around with some really good subclass designs (i.e. explorer/historian, physician, strategist, planar sage, etc.) I like most of them. I can easily see this as something that really should included in the class selection and has just never been done for fairly arbitrary reasons.
Agreed. Tons of versions of these floating around, which is always a good argument that the niche isn't being filled. Laserllama's Savant is my personal favorite take.

c.) a full-fledged Psion class that uses the Psionic Dice mechanics introduced recently. This class is just too legacy to D&D and it really deserves to be distinct from the spellclasting classes as it's a very different, sci-fi inspired theme that's fairly simple to include unique mechanics around.
I don't know if I agree the Psionic Die is needed; I've found Kibbles' Psion fits this niche quite nicely.

d.) A warlord/marshal/battlefield commander. Yes, I unconditionally support warlord as a full class in 5e. You might consider it just a fighter subclass, but the truth is that it serves a very different role that doesn't really fit anywhere on an existing class, and is just as easy to concept into multiple subclasses as many of the standard classes. It just so happens that Kibblestasty's is really fun and well-baked. It's essentially a more tactical & military-flavored version of the scholar. Both of these classes are likely to be common among (and all but exclusive to) aristocrats and nobles in different settings.
Agreed.

e.) This one is pretty specific - there is an existing homebrew class called the Emergent that is thematically about linking with and manifesting different types of incarnations (in the form of various creatures); it's a bit reminiscent of the warden from 4e. I feel this class fills a design niche that simply isn't present among the standard classes, and it reminds me of one of my favorite video game series of all time - Shadow Hearts, where the main protagonist is a harmonixer that can fuse with demon souls. I just really like the concept and, after seeing this glass, don't feel any existing class can do it justice as a subclass.
Yea, I think binding oneself to external entities is an underserved niche that warlock only touches on. A warrior type like a warden and a more caster-utility type like the 3.5 binder could both be classes.

I'd also argue for the classic gish archetype as its own class.
 

TwoSix

Unserious gamer
I do agree that if we're sticking close to the term "missing" - I don't think anything is missing. Heck, I'd say that with the PHB + Hexblade you're able to play anything that should exist in a standard DnD setting. Artificers cover higher-tech worlds; psions can be done with a couple homebrew changes.

But that doesn't mean all of the concepts can be done well, which is where most people looking for new classes are coming from, I think. Even Blood Hunter could have been a refluffed totem Barbarian, but I don't think people would have found that to be a satisfying answer.
I mean, with reskinning you can argue we only really need 3 classes (Warrior/Rogue/Mage) or even just one "class" with modular abilities. A game system like 5e that decides to present a bunch of thematically narrow, bespoke classes is always going to invite more and more classes being added.
 

Kobold Stew

Last Guy in the Airlock
Supporter
For me, the one that is missing is a non-caster class that does not require dex or str to be competitive (in this respect, the Expert in Tasha's is better than the Rogue). This would encompass your b and d. The option to have a subclass with some spells (like the arcane Trickster or Eldritch Knight) would be a natural part of that [pssibly with ritual spells only?].

There are things I'd want: I liked one of the Psion playtests, where the subclasses, but they've gone a different direction by adding some psionic subclasses. Perhaps your a. could be acvhiebed with a sorcerer subclass or druid subclass.
 
Last edited:

Einlanzer0

Explorer
Swordmage, obviously (from my point of view). It's a type of warrior that would obviously exist in any high-magic setting, the job is "warrior, probably elite" and the subtypes are "any kind of weapon and/or magic" - if anything the idea os too broad for a class since the unifying mechanic is kinda game-focused rather than something people in-universe would recognize.

I could also see an "enhanced person" class, similar to a warlock and/or artificer but without spellcasting in the base class, just a lot of specific benefits. The broad idea is you have been given a number of "gifts" that each have a specific effect, and as you gain levels you gain new gifts and can expand on existing ones.

The occupation is "servant of a powerful person/entity" - one with specific tasks. You need not have originally been combat-focused, but likely have some idea how the gifts work.

There's a lot of different entities that could grant such gifts (any patron, any high-level spellcaster), each of which could have their own theme. But Subclasses would probably be "major gifts" that give you a baseline ability: weapon gifts make you a weapon-user, another gift group might be built around a cantrip, another might be all about skills. Or subclasses could be a mix.

Swordmage is one of my favorites, however, it is an example of one I consider to be a little too specific to be a full class for 5e. I think the artificer in this edition was designed in a broad enough way that sword mage works quite well as a subclass option for it.

I actually like your enhanced person thought as a way of executing the Mystic class. Having it encompass both arcane and divine themes but be built on spell-like abilities rather than actual spellcasting is something that I think would work well for the level of modularity I would want for the class, and it would also give us something of a "simple mage for beginners" template - something that only exists for martial options in the standard array of classes. I also think it neatly fits most of the core ideas for archetypes like witches, shamans, and oracles - primal wielders of magic that are abstract in nature and therefore don't fit the spellcasting paradigms leveraged by "advanced" magic-users like wizards & clerics. It's arguably what a sorcerer should have been instead of just being a minor variant of the wizard.

Incidentally, this is also why I like the warlord and will never be convinced that it doesn't have a place in 5e. In practice, it offers a ton of new design space for a more complex martial class built much more intrinsically around things like maneuvers, buffs/debuffs, sophisticated training techniques, tactics. etc. Something for people to play that's martially focused but with the tactical complexity of the wizard; i.e., a fully fully baked version of the Battlemaster. In fact, I would probably stretch the Battlemaster concept into a full class for the Warlord, and then treat the Fighter's battlemaster as a MC version of it (similar to how Eldritch Knight is a version of a Fighter/Wizard MC.)
 
Last edited:

Marandahir

Crown-Forester (he/him)
I do agree that if we're sticking close to the term "missing" - I don't think anything is missing. Heck, I'd say that with the PHB + Hexblade you're able to play anything that should exist in a standard DnD setting. Artificers cover higher-tech worlds; psions can be done with a couple homebrew changes.

But that doesn't mean all of the concepts can be done well, which is where most people looking for new classes are coming from, I think. Even Blood Hunter could have been a refluffed totem Barbarian, but I don't think people would have found that to be a satisfying answer.
Honestly, I think the Blood Hunter steps all over the Ranger's toes. It's a refluffed Ranger with the Monster Slayer archetype, select feat choices, and using Int instead of Wis. And I guess the spells are reflavoured as blood maledicts.

More to the point, it fills the exact same NARRATIVE as the Monster Slayer, which is its biggest offense. The point of subclasses was to simplify and reduce classes for classes sake. In past editions, 3.5e and 4e especially, there were dozens of classes that tread the same territory but did it in slightly different mechanical ways. This is the "glut" problem that D&D has faced for decades and that 5e tried to do away with by reducing concepts down. So no, we can't build a Warden character from 4e that has the same exact powers in 5e. The main class feature was replicated as Druid spells, but they're of 6th level and thus off limits to Paladins and Ranger halfclasses that you might consider using as the Warden base. But NARRATIVELY, the Oath of the Ancients Paladin, various Rangers, and even some Barbarians serve the purposes that the Warden did in 4e. The Warden is therefore NOT NECESSARY as a class, and creating it in an officially published capacity would be more harmful than helpful.

You shouldn't be writing your your character's narratives to justify CharOps purposes, instead you should be designing the character options to tell the story that you want to tell with that character. CharOps is fine in theoretical play, but it's a peripheral audience. The main audience of D&D needs simple and few and highly distinct options that tell key archetypal narratives that they can select from. The alternative is options paralysis and options for options sake.

Now, bells and whistles may be added to the game with variant class features, variant lineage features, etc that the table can opt into if they're up for it. But these are not reasons to justify entire new classes. Every class needs to be uniquely and distinctly itself.

The Blood Hunter fails that test. The Artificer passes it. There's a reason that Blood Hunter, for all its popularity, only appeared as a MONSTER in Explorer's Guide to Wildemount. WotC is committed to only letting classes get published if they can prove their identity as separate from alll the other classes.
 

TwoSix

Unserious gamer
You shouldn't be writing your your character's narratives to justify CharOps purposes, instead you should be designing the character options to tell the story that you want to tell with that character. CharOps is fine in theoretical play, but it's a peripheral audience. The main audience of D&D needs simple and few and highly distinct options that tell key archetypal narratives that they can select from. The alternative is options paralysis and options for options sake.
There's a whole lot more than 13 archetypal narratives, if we're going to go with the idea that "one class = one story".

Plus, fundamentally you tell a story by what your character does, not what they're labeled on their character sheet. A character with the wrong set of powers is telling the wrong story,
 

Stalker0

Legend
Its always a bit hard to seperate what should be a true new "class" versus a subclass or even just feats, etc.

I think the occultist/witch concept can be done with the warlock chassis pretty well. We already have the Eldritch knight and hexblade for swordmage type concepts (though I think there is a more magic/less martial blend that could be a class).

The "scholar" class could make some sense, similar to the old factotum or archivist concepts, someone who wields knowledge as a weapon.

You could have a bonded magic item class. There is a common fantasy motiff of a person bonded with an item and the two growing stronger together.

I think you could seperate an "elementalist" from the wizard/sorc chassis. Aka is you really want to be just chucking fire or ice and nothing else, this is the class for you. That's a very common concept.

I could see a priest class, which really strips out the warrior aspects from the cleric and focuses on pure divine power.

A master of forms (3e binder) type class can be fun. The 3e version was bad, but the concept of summoning different forms of power granting you different abilities is a neat concept that you do see in fantasy.

A class focused on auras is another class concept that is untapped.
 

There's a whole lot more than 13 archetypal narratives, if we're going to go with the idea that "one class = one story".

Plus, fundamentally you tell a story by what your character does, not what they're labeled on their character sheet. A character with the wrong set of powers is telling the wrong story,
This is why Artificer isn't the definitive swordmage: you could have a great runeblade subclass that handles all but some edge cases, but instead we get battlesmith which is a robopuppy class with some weapon stuff tacked on.

Or hexblade, which is an excellent gish if you like the shadow magic flavor but otherwise isn't. Or swords bard which has all the bard baggage, or eldritich knight if you don't want to use magic to attack, or bladesinger if you don't want to get into melee range.
 

Marandahir

Crown-Forester (he/him)
This is why Artificer isn't the definitive swordmage: you could have a great runeblade subclass that handles all but some edge cases, but instead we get battlesmith which is a robopuppy class with some weapon stuff tacked on.

Or hexblade, which is an excellent gish if you like the shadow magic flavor but otherwise isn't. Or swords bard which has all the bard baggage, or eldritich knight if you don't want to use magic to attack, or bladesinger if you don't want to get into melee range.
Forge Adept says hi.

Go read Keith Baker's Exploring Eberron, and then come back and tell me why your argument is invalid.
 

Forge Adept says hi.

Go read Keith Baker's Exploring Eberron, and then come back and tell me why your argument is invalid.
Or you could make your own points.

Edit: I looked it up. Not an official subclass, so not available at all tables. Which is why it doesn't invalidate my argument - if you need to use homebrew to fix it, it's broken.
 

Tonguez

A suffusion of yellow
The Poltroon, the ultimate expert at distracting opponents, evading attacks running away from melee and hiding until they’ve won
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
So, in my work on a hermetic mysticism and esoteric martial traditions focused swordmage, I've identified two distinct concepts. The above, and the heavy version that doesn't cast spells but is very magical, and can choose abilities similar to warlock invocations, granting things like Jump at will that upgrades to a fly speed eventually, or the ability to make your weapon call lightning with every strike for aminute once a day, or incredible strength comperable to a huge creature, etc.

Basically, Thor and characters like him. The gish himbo.

Besides those, I've identified space for a variant Bard that gets ritual casting but not spellcasting, and gains songs, curses, etc, that buff and debuff, along with the ability to taunt a creature and either make them come at you but grant advantage to attacks from your allies, or outside of combat make them stopwhat they're doing to engage in riddle or insult contest against you. (called fight or flyte, referencing the norse practice of flyting. )
 

Marandahir

Crown-Forester (he/him)
Or you could make your own points.

Edit: I looked it up. Not an official subclass, so not available at all tables. Which is why it doesn't invalidate my argument - if you need to use homebrew to fix it, it's broken.
Is it homebrew if it's in an Eberron book designed by the creator of Eberron?

Exploring Eberron might not be directly WotC published, but it's about a canon as an Eberron book can be. WotC aren't writing more Eberrron books because they know that Keith is going to keep publishing award-winning bestsellers set in his world through DMs Guild.

In any case, Forge Adept is exactly what you're asking for of a runic arcane half-caster warrior artificer without a battle pet. No need to make a new class.
 

Dungeon Delver's Guide

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top