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

[Paul Farquhar]

a monk is more than a fighter without armour.

Sometimes they forget their weapon too?

 

[Aldarc]

I would remove book pact stuff from warlock and give wizard more options to be a creepy occultist messing with forbidden spells.

I agree. We should give ALL the cool magic stuff to wizards. ALL of it. No non-wizard magical class should have anything unique or cool in its own right. Give everything magical to those spoiled wizarding brats! In fact, wizards should just be gods.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

Rage on a subclass of a fighter or ranger is OP, my friend.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Rage on a subclass of a fighter or ranger is OP, my friend.

You obviously missed the bit where I said "move some core class features into subclasses".

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I agree. We should give ALL the cool magic stuff to wizards. ALL of it. No non-wizard magical class should have anything unique or cool in its own right. Give everything magical to those spoiled wizarding brats! In fact, wizards should just be gods.

Yep, that totally was my point...

Wizard is so broad, that it is thematically somewhat weak. But they're the book guy. So let's focus on that. Wizard subclasses are incredibly meh. I want them to actually mean something. To me it is thematically confused if we have two separate classes whose thing is having a magical book.

My merging of sorcerer with warlock would aim to broaden the warlock too. The idea would be that we would have two relatively broad arcane casters, that would still feel mechanically and thematically distinct. Wizard, the intellectual caster who studies books and rituals, represented by being able to collect spells in their book. Warlock, the caster who possesses, or is imbued with, innate magical power represented by fast charging magic and always on magical effects.

 

[Aldarc]

Yep, that totally was my point...

Wizard is so broad, that it is thematically somewhat weak. But they're the book guy. So let's focus on that. Wizard subclasses are incredibly meh. I want them to actually mean something. To me it is thematically confused if we have two separate classes whose thing is having a magical book.

My merging of sorcerer with warlock would aim to broaden the warlock too. The idea would be that we would have two relatively broad arcane casters, that would still feel mechanically and thematically distinct. Wizard, the intellectual caster who studies books and rituals, represented by being able to collect spells in their book. Warlock, the caster who possesses, or is imbued with, innate magical power represented by fast charging magic and always on magical effects.

I am all for having wizards be bookish scholars. Where I take umbrage is when that is used to justify wizards having all the magical toys. If anything, I would focus/narrow wizards further down in terms of their spell access, though I doubt that would be popular. When devising their four spell lists for PF2, there was a lot of internal pushback within Paizo any time one of the designers proposed moving a wizard spell from the arcane spell list to a more thematically appropriate one.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Wizards write the game, so they are obviously going to give themselves the best toys.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I voted, No, and some classes could be combined.

We have already removed Barbarians, Sorcerers, and Warlocks and merged them into Fighters, Wizards, and Clerics as subclasses. Works for us.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Rage on a subclass of a fighter or ranger is OP, my friend.

I dont think so, no. We talking of a 1 minute effect per short rest?

But I'd go for a refluffed Reckless attack to represent Rage.

Berserker (Fighter)

3: Rage
You can throw aside all concern for defense to attack with fierce desperation. When you make your first attack on your turn, you can decide to attack recklessly. Doing so gives you advantage on melee weapon attack rolls using Strength during this turn and you can add your Constitution modifier to the damage roll, but attack rolls against you have advantage until your next turn.

3: Great Might
You have advantage on STR check. When you grapple a creature, it is also restrained.

7: Berserker's Vitality
When you use Rage, you also gain temporary hit points equal to your 1d8+ Constitution modifier (minimum of 1).

10: Mindless Rage
You can't be charmed or frightened until the start of your next turn if you use Rage. If you are charmed or frightened when you enter you use Rage, the effect is suspended for the duration of the rage.

15: Frenzy
If you take the Attack action on your turn and have advantage on an attack roll against one of the targets, you can forgo the advantage for that roll to make an additional weapon attack against that target, as part of the same action. You can do so no more than once per turn.

18: Strength Before Death
If you take damage that reduces you to 0 hit points and doesn't kill you outright, you can use your reaction to delay falling unconscious, and you can immediately take an extra turn, interrupting the current turn. While you have 0 hit points during that extra turn, taking damage causes death saving throw failures as normal, and three death saving throw failures can still kill you. When the extra turn ends, you fall unconscious if you still have 0 hit points.

Once you use this feature, you can't use it again until you finish a long rest.

 

[Seramus]

I'm pretty happy with 1 new class per setting book.

 

[Minigiant]

You obviously missed the bit where I said "move some core class features into subclasses".

So you are moving class features to subclasses.

What's the difference between that and having 2 separate classes?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't want any new classes from WotC. 3rd party producers make anything I need. The Mage Hand Press release Valda's Spire of Secrets has a bunch of new classes, and their strong focus on mechanical balance keeps them from being OP, if that sort of thing matters to you.

 

[RoughCoronet0]

I voted for having a few more classes as I’d like to have options not fully fleshed out by the current classes/subclasses.

I would like a half arcane caster Gish/Sword-mage like character with a unique list of smite spells and features. We have some classes/subclasses that kind of do this but they are limited in some way.

I would love a class that actually fully focuses on summoning/pet controlling with subclasses focusing on different creature types and their unique qualities. You could also give them a pact boon style feature that lets you pick between controlling a small army of weaker summons/pets, building a single strong and mechanically diverse pet, or maybe even allowing you to have your pet fuse with you like a symbiote or parasite.

I would also love to have a martial support class like the Warlord, one who uses in tactical intel and force of will to inspire and buff allies.

Outside of that I’m content with what we have and would also like for the current classes to remain.

 

[Eric V]

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

4e monk was quite viable, no?

 

[Rogerd1]

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

Isn't this coming out for 5e...

 

[Shardstone]

@Minigiant, me and you are cut from the same cloth in this regard. I love creating classes, and I think, mechanically and narratively speaking, a lot more classes and ideas can be explored very easily using the 5E* framework. But, most people do not want more classes. They either can't keep up with the options, feel pressured by the amount of options, or are afraid that too many options will make earlier options obsolete. These, by the way, are all fair and valid beliefs, and I do not begrudge anyone who feels this way.

But man, just imagine if 5E added some more unique classes that could be expanded. It'd require making new Fantasy material, but ultimately that's what D&D truly does best — make new Fantasy material for us to imagine. Beholders, Mind Flayers, Gith, etc, all of these things are D&D originals, and as are many class concepts. The Druid and Paladin are wholecloth new concepts, the Sorcerer and Warlock reinventions of old real world ideas. If you can take these concepts and expand them into 2-3 archetypes, I think you can do so with a lot more concepts too.

Alas, this would require a different design team. Not a better one, but a different one. To make a game with 15, 20, 25 or so customizable, balanced classes in it requires a strong commitment to that idea that involves taking a risk to go even further than ever before. That kind or risk might not financially play out for Wizards.

Thus, people like us Mini are left just making up new classes on a rotating biweekly schedule, wishing people could see what we see so that we could play in these kinds of imagination-diverse games. This doesn't mean other games aren't imagination-diverse, btw. I'm checking myself just to make sure no one reads me the wrong way as being condenscending or otherwise.

 

[Rogerd1]

You could go an Fantasy Age route (although Age players hated it), Warrior, Mage, and Rogue.

That said, you could keep classes as unique per setting, so if you were playing in Midgard, or Norse setting you could gave main class of Viking, with a bunch of sub-classes / archetypes.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Ultimately I feel that a class system should have a limited number of broad and easily recognisable archetypes. I get the desire to have a huge number of varied characters, but I feel that is better served by a classless system that allows you to mix and match and build what you want more freely.

 

[Rogerd1]

Ultimately I feel that a class system should have a limited number of broad and easily recognisable archetypes. I get the desire to have a huge number of varied characters, but I feel that is better served by a classless system that allows you to mix and match and build what you want more freely.

I am working on a point buy idea to allow just that. As some setting will allow characters to possess magic, while some would not.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

So you are moving class features to subclasses.

Some.

The obvious one for fighter would be Action Surge. If this was made a Champion feature it would open up a shedload of design space.
I am assuming subclass choice is moved to level 1.

What's the difference between that and having 2 separate classes?

Less duplication.