D&D 5E Homebrew Classes (Concept Discussion)

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

Oh, so it replaces the tool and “make stuff” base class features with story-first arcane warrior features?

 

[Marandahir]

Oh, so it replaces the tool and “make stuff” base class features with story-first arcane warrior features?

What is a story first arcane warrior's hook?

Magitech warrior seems like the most reasonable hook to me. You make your magical weapons and armour, and fight with them, spell and sword.

If you want to be a story-first arcane warrior that is just arcane+fighter, play Eldritch Knight if you're more fightery or Bladesinger if you're more Wizardy. Paladin and Ranger both have narrative hooks that are more than Cleric+Fighter and Druid+Rogue+Fighter.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

What is a story first arcane warrior's hook?

I’m done trying to explain this to people. Feel free to scroll up, or look at the various related thread along the same topic. I and others have answered this question a couple dozen times.

Magitech warrior seems like the most reasonable hook to me. You make your magical weapons and armour, and fight with them, spell and sword.

Okay. Luckily for others, you aren’t the arbiter of what is reasonable. If that works for you, have fun.

If you want to be a story-first arcane warrior that is just arcane+fighter, play Eldritch Knight if you're more fightery or Bladesinger if you're more Wizardy. Paladin and Ranger both have narrative hooks that are more than Cleric+Fighter and Druid+Rogue+Fighter.

Nah. I’ll go ahead and play what I want, and advocate for what I want, and not try to tell other people that what they want isn’t valid.

 

[Marandahir]

I’m done trying to explain this to people. Feel free to scroll up, or look at the various related thread along the same topic. I and others have answered this question a couple dozen times.

Okay. Luckily for others, you aren’t the arbiter of what is reasonable. If that works for you, have fun.

Nah. I’ll go ahead and play what I want, and advocate for what I want, and not try to tell other people that what they want isn’t valid.

Hey doctorbadwolf, I really respect and admire you and your posts, so I'm sorry if I've gotten on your bad side here. I sincerely apologise!

I never intended to suggest that what you or anyone else want isn't valid, and I should have phrased my responses better and put in a bit more effort to some of them to not sound so dismissive and instead make my points clearly and concisely to the topic at hand. I was wrong to tell jmarktkdr2 to "go read Exploring Eberron and then come back and explain to me why [their] argument was wrong." I was crabby and going through some tough things that day and it came out through my messages. I take ownership for my poor language and choices.

But in a broader sense of the topic at hand, I disagree with your arguments here, and you disagree with my arguments here, and that's all fine. It sure is lucky I'm not the arbiter of reasonable! I certainly don't want to be an arbiter of fun and reasonable and validity. I'm voicing my opinion backed up by my ideads of the game. You are doing the same. That's cool! We all love this game, that's why we're here discussing it.

I'm not telling you or anyone else bad-wrong-fun, and if you want to make a Swordmage in 5e, go right ahead! I loved the class in 4e, and I love the Arcane Gish concept.

I'm trying to answer the question of the OP - what class design space is left? I'm arguing that if -I- were adding classes to the game, I'd want to be as conservative as possible in my class design and make the concepts as broad as possible while carrying a narrative hook.

I believe your Monk-replacement design in the other thread is a great example of this mindset - that the Monk itself is too narrow of a concept (despite having a fun hook) - though it's a bit of a thought experiment of an alternate D&D that Monk doesn't exist as part of.

I believe that Swordmage itself is simultaneously too narrow and too broad of a concept, hence why I favour the implementation of Fighter and Artificer and Wizard subclasses. But go ahead and play what you want and advocate for what you want. I could see someone banning these martial Artificer and Wizard subclasses and arcane Fighter subclasses and unifying them under a single Gish class. Someone else just made a threat with an interesting mechanical concept of this. But I don't favour that from a narrative standpoint as the narrative of Arcane Fighter feels very class-matrix-griddy in the way that 4e tended to get caught up in. I think there are definitely stories of magical warriors, magic knights, etc, but I don't think they all belong under a single class heading.

Oh, and so that it's clear that I'm not just talking with doctorbadwolf about this, I'm sorry, @jmartkdr2 - I don't know you and your posts here that well, but sincerely apologise for what I wrote to you the other day. I was wrong to do so. I was dismissive and I was flippant and I should have phrased my arguments in a more coherent, topic-focused way rather than rebutting you directly and personally.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Hey doctorbadwolf, I really respect and admire you and your posts, so I'm sorry if I've gotten on your bad side here. I sincerely apologise!

I never intended to suggest that what you or anyone else want isn't valid, and I should have phrased my responses better and put in a bit more effort to some of them to not sound so dismissive and instead make my points clearly and concisely to the topic at hand. I was wrong to tell jmarktkdr2 to "go read Exploring Eberron and then come back and explain to me why [their] argument was wrong." I was crabby and going through some tough things that day and it came out through my messages. I take ownership for my poor language and choices.

But in a broader sense of the topic at hand, I disagree with your arguments here, and you disagree with my arguments here, and that's all fine. It sure is lucky I'm not the arbiter of reasonable! I certainly don't want to be an arbiter of fun and reasonable and validity. I'm voicing my opinion backed up by my ideads of the game. You are doing the same. That's cool! We all love this game, that's why we're here discussing it.

I'm not telling you or anyone else bad-wrong-fun, and if you want to make a Swordmage in 5e, go right ahead! I loved the class in 4e, and I love the Arcane Gish concept.

I'm trying to answer the question of the OP - what class design space is left? I'm arguing that if -I- were adding classes to the game, I'd want to be as conservative as possible in my class design and make the concepts as broad as possible while carrying a narrative hook.

I believe your Monk-replacement design in the other thread is a great example of this mindset - that the Monk itself is too narrow of a concept (despite having a fun hook) - though it's a bit of a thought experiment of an alternate D&D that Monk doesn't exist as part of.

I believe that Swordmage itself is simultaneously too narrow and too broad of a concept, hence why I favour the implementation of Fighter and Artificer and Wizard subclasses. But go ahead and play what you want and advocate for what you want. I could see someone banning these martial Artificer and Wizard subclasses and arcane Fighter subclasses and unifying them under a single Gish class. Someone else just made a threat with an interesting mechanical concept of this. But I don't favour that from a narrative standpoint as the narrative of Arcane Fighter feels very class-matrix-griddy in the way that 4e tended to get caught up in. I think there are definitely stories of magical warriors, magic knights, etc, but I don't think they all belong under a single class heading.

Oh, and so that it's clear that I'm not just talking with doctorbadwolf about this, I'm sorry, @jmartkdr2 - I don't know you and your posts here that well, but sincerely apologise for what I wrote to you the other day. I was wrong to do so. I was dismissive and I was flippant and I should have phrased my arguments in a more coherent, topic-focused way rather than rebutting you directly and personally.

I really appreciate this post.

For my part, I am sorry that I replied to you as strongly as I did. These threads always have demands to justify the things folks like, and it seemed like you were doing that. im glad to know that wasn’t your intent.

I do wish that I could find a balance point between the swordmage and monk in one class, but 5e just isn’t built in a way that makes it easy to build a class that can have Spellcasting or not as a choice orthogonal to subclass choice.

That being the case, I do think that a variant monk is still worth pursuing, it just won’t be nearly as magical as the one I posted before. Instead, it will be very mystical and esoteric, but live at the level of supernatural where the monk already lives. Probably still kill stunning strike or make it optional, and beef up the tier 1 and 2 abilities a bit.

 

[Faolyn]

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.

To me, that feels like a feat, or a feat chain. I know feat chains are a no-no in 5e, although Level Up has three-feat chains that could do it.

Optionally, there was an old Dragon magazine article (can't remember which ish) that basically did this, but you "fed" some of the XP you earned into the weapon--almost like dual/multi-classing--and the weapon itself leveled up. A bit hard to do that exact thing now that milestone/story-based leveling is much more of a thing, but it's possible doable in some way.

 

[Li Shenron]

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?

Didn't we just have a thread 2 weeks ago with exactly the same question?

 

[Marandahir]

To me, that feels like a feat, or a feat chain. I know feat chains are a no-no in 5e, although Level Up has three-feat chains that could do it.

Optionally, there was an old Dragon magazine article (can't remember which ish) that basically did this, but you "fed" some of the XP you earned into the weapon--almost like dual/multi-classing--and the weapon itself leveled up. A bit hard to do that exact thing now that milestone/story-based leveling is much more of a thing, but it's possible doable in some way.

It's also a very well explored concept in the semi-official Guild Adept Program's Armaments of Legacy.

Those very special magical weapons evolve with the user. It's not built into a feat because it's essentially akin to a Supernatural Gift - something you get that layers on top of your normal power progression. Ideally, other players should either get their own evolving weapon or something else to compensate and not have InuYasha shine the entire season long because his Tessaiga drank the blood of a bat demon and can now break down red barriers in addition to shooting off wind scars and backlash waves.

 

[Einlanzer0]

Didn't we just have a thread 2 weeks ago with exactly the same question?

Don't know; don't care; not sure why you do.

 

[Li Shenron]

Don't know; don't care; not sure why you do.

I am not going to repeat myself within 2 weeks