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

[Li Shenron]

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

 

[Aldarc]

why get rid of monks?

I'm not sure if I would axe them, but has D&D ever designed a mechanically viable monk?

 

[Mind of tempest]

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.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

and bards are not, beside monks have more fantasy pedigree than even clerics.

Bards are meant to be comic relief, that is their whole shtick. Monks are the guy from Raiders who Indy can't be bothered to fight.

 

[Li Shenron]

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.

 

[Aldarc]

Monks are the guy from Raiders who Indy can't be bothered to fight.

The swordsman?

 

[Mind of tempest]

Bards are meant to be comic relief, that is their whole shtick. Monks are the guy from Raiders who Indy can't be bothered to fight.

first bards have ended up the deviant so clearly, they are failing at being funny.
secondly, the guy from raiders was a fighter but without wearing armour.



@Li Shenron you forgot to add something in your post.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

secondly, the guy from raiders was a fighter but without wearing armour.

So, a monk then.

 

[Mind of tempest]

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.