5.5E New Classes for 5e. Is anything missing?

Is there a good case for additional class for the base experience of 5th edition D&D

  • Yes. Bring on the new classes!

    Votes: 26 18.7%
  • Yes. There are maybe few classes missing in the shared experience of D&D in this edition

    Votes: 40 28.8%
  • Yes, but it's really only one class that is really missing

    Votes: 9 6.5%
  • Depends. Multiclass/Feats/Alternates covers most of it. But new classes needed if banned

    Votes: 3 2.2%
  • Depends. It depends on the mechanical importance at the table

    Votes: 3 2.2%
  • No, but new classes might be needed for specific settings or genres

    Votes: 11 7.9%
  • No, but a few more subclasses might be needed to cover the holes

    Votes: 13 9.4%
  • No, 5th edition covers all of the base experience with its roster of classes.

    Votes: 9 6.5%
  • No. And with some minor adjustments, a few classes could be combined.

    Votes: 23 16.5%
  • Other

    Votes: 2 1.4%

Minigiant

Legend
So what's your opinion?

In the shared marketed experience of D&D today, is there a strong argument to add a new class to replicate a fantasy archetype that would be considered normal within the game but it either poorly or not replicated by the current rules?

Basically...

If there was a new Player's Handbook and it included a new class (other than the Artificer), do you think you would be able to say something like "Well you know what? This new class works better than what we were doing with the current rules and variant to play this popular fantasy character archetype?"

Personally, I could make a strong argument for about 3 new classes and 3 weaker arguments for 3 more if the classes' designers are both imaginative and careful.

The classes with the strongest arguments to me are:
  1. The nonmagical Fighter/Rogue class
  2. The Fighter/Wizard half caster class
  3. The non-spellcasting Weapons Warlock/Super Soldier class
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

I would like at least three new well throughout classes.
a proper arcane half caster that fits the fantasy in our head of being the magic knight but with something to make it own is own thing, not the taster that is the eldritch knight or the artificer with it 2/3 casting.
some sort of none faith-based support caster as I can't replicate faith for money or life, maybe make it the psion.
shaman or warlord just something else
 

DEFCON 1

Legend
I think we are pretty much okay with what we have, although I personally would re-arrange some stuff if given the chance. But the ideas I would have would run counter to the default way D&D has been presented so I know it would not actually happen.

Given my druthers I'd genericize more stuff. For spellcasters for instance I'd let them select which of the three ability scores are their primary, based upon their domain/school etc. So Enchantment wizards would use CHA, and Knowledge cleric would use INT. I would also then make "schools" that were thematically based rather than just the type of spells... so you could have a Pyromancer/Aeromancer/Geomancer etc (thus removing the need of the Sorcerer class), or a Psychic (thus removing the need of a Psion class). By the same token I'd increase and genericize the Combat Maneuvers system of the Battlemaster so that every martial class could take maneuvers, and increase the types of maneuvers so that a more acceptable Warlord type of character could be made without actually needing a Warlord class.

In other words... I'd probably prefer to remove the class system entirely and let people buy and build their "classes" as they see fit so they could attribute any narrative and fluff to it as they want (thus making Backgrounds become more like the "name" of their class). Now I'd be okay with the game presenting default "class builds" using the system so you could have a base "Cleric" or "Wizard" pre-made in the book (the same way in games like Mutants & Masterminds they give you basic character builds of your "tank" or "speedster" or "energy manipulator")... but I wouldn't expect anyone to ever use them (the same way almost no one ever uses the default build at the top of each class write-up currently.)
 

Aldarc

Legend
While I would definitely make the case for the Psion or a Gish as a new class, there are also a number of fantasy archetypes in the game already that D&D, IMHO, does poorly when it comes to matching some of the popular conceptions of the archetype (e.g., Necromancers, Summoners, Shamans/Animists, etc.). It would be nice if they could revisit and reevaluate how they approach these archetypes in a way that is more intuitive and functional within the system.

That said, one of my gripes with 5e is that it does feel, much like with the 5e Druid, that WotC is trying to have their classes do too much. I would also almost prefer if D&D went back to 4e style design when it comes to roles and powers - though maybe not be so transparent about it with their labels (e.g., primal defender, divine striker, etc.) - as I think that it permitted greater design space for archetypes. For example, having the Druid be a Primal Controller helped open up design space for a Shaman to be a Primal Leader. But is there now room in 5e D&D for the Shaman if people will point to the Druid and say, "just play the shepherd druid as a shaman"?
 

Aldarc

Legend
Given my druthers I'd genericize more stuff. For spellcasters for instance I'd let them select which of the three ability scores are their primary, based upon their domain/school etc. So Enchantment wizards would use CHA, and Knowledge cleric would use INT. I would also then make "schools" that were thematically based rather than just the type of spells... so you could have a Pyromancer/Aeromancer/Geomancer etc (thus removing the need of the Sorcerer class), or a Psychic (thus removing the need of a Psion class).
I mused about splitting casters up into three or so classes that are about their approach to magic: Scholar (Int), Mystic (Wis), Pact (Cha) and possibly Gish (?). Then one would pick an appropriate spell list: Divine, Arcane, Psionic, Primal. So one could have an unarmored priest that used a prayer-book for their spells (i.e., Divine Scholar) while another makes a magical pact with an angel or fiend (i.e., Divine Pact), while another is a war priest (i.e., Divine Gish), etc.

By the same token I'd increase and genericize the Combat Maneuvers system of the Battlemaster so that every martial class could take maneuvers, and increase the types of maneuvers so that a more acceptable Warlord type of character could be made without actually needing a Warlord class.
Agreed.

In other words... I'd probably prefer to remove the class system entirely and let people buy and build their "classes" as they see fit so they could attribute any narrative and fluff to it as they want (thus making Backgrounds become more like the "name" of their class). Now I'd be okay with the game presenting default "class builds" using the system so you could have a base "Cleric" or "Wizard" pre-made in the book (the same way in games like Mutants & Masterminds they give you basic character builds of your "tank" or "speedster" or "energy manipulator")... but I wouldn't expect anyone to ever use them (the same way almost no one ever uses the default build at the top of each class write-up currently.)
This is my jam!
 

While I would definitely make the case for the Psion or a Gish as a new class, there are also a number of fantasy archetypes in the game already that D&D, IMHO, does poorly when it comes to matching some of the popular conceptions of the archetype (e.g., Necromancers, Summoners, Shamans/Animists, etc.). It would be nice if they could revisit and reevaluate how they approach these archetypes in a way that is more intuitive and functional within the system.

That said, one of my gripes with 5e is that it does feel, much like with the 5e Druid, that WotC is trying to have their classes do too much. I would also almost prefer if D&D went back to 4e style design when it comes to roles and powers - though maybe not be so transparent about it with their labels (e.g., primal defender, divine striker, etc.) - as I think that it permitted greater design space for archetypes. For example, having the Druid be a Primal Controller helped open up design space for a Shaman to be a Primal Leader. But is there now room in 5e D&D for the Shaman if people will point to the Druid and say, "just play the shepherd druid as a shaman"?
some times you just do not want to refluff stuff you want the real thing.
 

I would merge classes and add subclasses, moving some stuff from core class to subclass. Specifically, Barbarian is split between an "berserker" fighter subclass and "totem warrior" ranger subclass; sorcerer and warlock are merged; druid goes to nature cleric; and artificer and bard are folded into rogue (sneak attack becomes a subclass ability). Oh, and monk is axed.
 
Last edited:

Minigiant

Legend
That said, one of my gripes with 5e is that it does feel, much like with the 5e Druid, that WotC is trying to have their classes do too much. I would also almost prefer if D&D went back to 4e style design when it comes to roles and powers - though maybe not be so transparent about it with their labels (e.g., primal defender, divine striker, etc.) - as I think that it permitted greater design space for archetypes. For example, having the Druid be a Primal Controller helped open up design space for a Shaman to be a Primal Leader. But is there now room in 5e D&D for the Shaman if people will point to the Druid and say, "just play the shepherd druid as a shaman"?

Yeah. While 3e could be accused of class bloat to get around design constraints and 4e could be accused of grid filling and creating classes with weak fluff or crunch, 5e could be accused of subclass bloat and forcing narrow classes to be so broad and fit some many ideas within classes that many archetypes are poorly implemented for those who wanted it.
 

I would merge classes and add subclasses, moving some stuff from core class to subclass. Specifically, Barbarian is split between an "berserker" fighter subclass and "totem warrior" ranger subclass; sorcerer and warlock are merged; and artificer and bard are folded into rogue (sneak attack becomes a subclass ability). Oh, and monk is axed.
why get rid of monks?
 


Li Shenron

Legend
For specific setting and genres.

For example in my 5e conversion of Rokugan I made classes for Samurai, Shugenja and Courtier, which aren't needed in other settings
 


Because they are daft.
and bards are not, beside monks have more fantasy pedigree than even clerics.
For specific setting and genres.

For example in my 5e conversion of Rokugan I made classes for Samurai, Shugenja and Courtier, which aren't needed in other settings
so fighter mage and something we do not seem to have?
I'm not sure if I would axe them, but has D&D ever designed a mechanically viable monk?
You're correct but that does not infer it should be axed only redone, get me people with game design knowledge and a will to help me and I will bring forth a worthy monk.
 
Last edited:


Li Shenron

Legend
so fighter mage and something we do not seem to have?
The Shugenja is a spellcaster with affinities to a Sorcerer, a Cleric, and a Druid/Shaman. Not so much with Wizard. Anyway there are no Clerics, Druids or Wizards in Rokugan. Shugenja is all you can be for a spellcaster PC, while Sorcerer is more meant for NPC.

All Fighters are narratively Samurai in Rokugan, which implies higher education i.e. knowledge and social abilities. You can represent Samurai with the Fighter class, Noble background and why not the Samurai subclass, but then you have almost no room left to give them enough breadth and variety. Hence the benefit of having their own base class with subclasses. The Fighter class itself is not even needed but can be allowed in multiclassing just for the sake of mechanics.
 
Last edited:



I do not want more classes, I think there are already too many. I'd at least get rid of one of the arcane trio of wizard, sorcerer and warlock. I think Warlock chassis is cool, but the class is too mechanically and thematically limited. Sorcerer on the other hand is mechanically rather pointless. I'd remove sorcerer, and broaden warlock so that it can also represent sorcerer concepts. I would also try to lessen the impression that warlock is the generic 'creepy arcane caster.' I would remove book pact stuff from warlock and give wizard more options to be a creepy occultist messing with forbidden spells.

As with monks bards and monks, I'd make bard less magical and monk more magical. Let the monk be amazing wuxia martial artist with mystic powers, so a half-caster probably. And whilst Bard works pretty well, I think we have too many full casters, and bard now plays too much like wizard or sorcerer. Too casty, not flighty enough. I feel the bard should be a half-caster gish.

Overall, I'd increase the amount of stuff subclasses bring to the table, and ad subclasses to represent missing concepts. However, subclasses should be pretty broad and flexible too, rather than weirdly specific as they often are. Totem barbarian is my go to example of a subclass done well. It is thematically very strong, but mechanically flexible. At every step you get a choice of several features, so you can build many different sorts of totem barbarians.
 
Last edited:


So, a monk then.
a monk is more than a fighter without armour.
As with monks bards and monks, I'd make bard less magical and monk more magical. Let the monk be amazing wuxia martial artist with mystic powers, so a half-caster probably. And whilst Bard works pretty well, I think we have too many full casters, and bard now plays too much like wizard or sorcerer. Too casty, not flighty enough. I feel the bard should be a half-caster gish.
finally, so one else who can see what the monk should be.
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top