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

[Parmandur]

Okay. What’s that got to do with my expression frustration at the relentless, dismissive, responses to anyone discussing the idea of a new class?

The poll topic was "does the game need a new Class?" As in, from wotC in Core books. I haven't seen, for me, compelling reason to see much more design space that needs filling.

 

[Irlo]

@Irlo @Parmandur

If you were tasked to create a Arcane Half Caster, how would you do it? Suppose the High Elves and the Human Magocracy City State both had magic knights to defend against the Roaming Forces of Evil. Besides All weapons, Light and Medium Armor, and half casting up to 5th level spells... what else would you give it?

What would its Magic Spell Sink like Divine Smite or Primeval Awareness?
What else would you give it?

How would I do it? Not to your liking, I imagine. I don't say that to be snide, but I'm sure it's true. I don't have the "big idea" to set the class apart. I'm not a game designer and I haven't created classes for a long time (as in more than 30 years for AD&D) and then again more recently playing around with Prestige Classes in 3E. For me, there are enough options on the table to tweak and edit to my liking without creating a new class. And I know that doesn't appeal to you.

A few years back my son wanted a heavily armored heavy hitter melee-type with lots of magic to throw around, so he set himself up as a Tempest Cleric. I created a feat he needed to be able to shield bash more effectively and gave him a little more flexibility -- he didn't need more than a little -- in his spell list. He was happy enough. I could easily have re-keyed the magic to intelligence, refluffed all the focus on religion, and called him a full caster gish.

That's not the half-caster you asked for, though, so I guess I'd do something similar with the paladin. If you don't like the heavy armor proficiency, I'd drop that. And I'd probably re-write the smite spells to be reactions to a successful hit rather than concentration spells (but I'm going to do that for my next campaign with a paladin anyway).

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I did a quick search, admittedly ot being overl familiar beyond a handful of episodes, and Eldritch Knight and Ranger seem to be popular suggestions. It's trikes me that Matt Mercer's Blood Hunter is playing in thst space, operating on the assumption that The Last Witch Hunter is an unsuited ripoff.

The Blood Hunter was based at least partially off of the Witcher, from what I've heard, but it isn't official. This whole discussion is "we don't need more classes", right? So why refer to an unofficial class to back up that position?

Warlocks?

Nope. They don't make pacts, aren't particularly charismatic, and are implied to have been born with their powers (at least, their powers can't be granted to Vampires). They're bound to a specific weapon that they have to specially forge to channel their powers. If anything, that's closer to the Artificer, and even then it isn't at all a good fit.

Monk.

Four Elements Monk? Not in a million years. It sucks mechanically, and does not fit the abilities that Zuko is shown to have in the show.

Again, there are characters in the "Arcane Gish" theme that do not fit with an existing archetype in 5e. Those were just a few examples (I provided more in a previous comment, too).

There is a niche for an Arcane Warrior class that is thematically and mechanically distinct from already existing D&D 5e classes and subclasses, that has enough of a niche to have as many subclasses as the existing classes have. (Teleporting swordmage-style subclass, phantom knight, antimage, bound-weapon summoner, elementalist, etc.)

 

[Parmandur]

Four Elements Monk? Not in a million years. It sucks mechanically, and does not fit the abilities that Zuko is shown to have in the show.

It wucks less than you might think, and it is a warrior with Mystical powers. It's designed to be a Bender, and does the job. The Sun Sould Mayfield better for Zuko as presented.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The poll topic was "does the game need a new Class?" As in, from wotC in Core books. I haven't seen, for me, compelling reason to see much more design space that needs filling.

Okay.

 

[Parmandur]

Okay.

Glad that we are agreed on the topic of the thread, which explains my comments therein.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Otsuka less than you might think, and it is a warrior with Mystical powers.

I've played in a campaign with one, and run a campaign with another Four Elements Monk. It sucks.

It's designed to be a Be Der, and does ot.

Poorly, both thematically and mechanically. It might work for the Avatar, but not for just a generic firebender (the Avatar can bend all of the elements, but benders tied to just one are more powerful in that specific skill).

The Sun Sould Mayfield better fir Zuko as presented.

Which is radiant damage, not fire, and does not have the very ability that I was referencing when I earlier posted "Zuko when he uses his firebending to complement his dual wielding". Monks are bad at dual wielding, the Four Elements monk is less powerful than the other monk subclasses and don't fit the theme, and neither it nor the Sun Soul monk have a way to infuse a weapon with fire to be a proper gish.

 

[Faolyn]

Absolutely. Part of the (as I said, IMO fear-driven) avoidance of heavy thematics on classes--leaning heavily into "as generic as can be managed"--is that they've made a lot of the archetypes toothless. The Playtest Warlock was a genuinely somewhat creepy person, actually giving up "minor" aspects of themselves in order to gain greater power. But that got deleted with extreme prejudice when the feedback wasn't overwhelmingly positive.

If they'd actually kept the intended fluff of Sorcerer--a being with two souls, always struggling at least a little bit against that pull--and the Warlock--a person continually sacrificing little bits and pieces of who they are, pieces they won't get back if they break their contract--then we wouldn't be having this conversation at all. The two would be so clearly distinct it wouldn't be possible to conflate them. But 5e was the edition of taking as few chances as possible, and it looked potentially risky to include actual flavor in these. So they watered them down as much as possible, because surely no one can complain if they're inoffensively generic, right? Right?

I didn't take part in the 5e playtest (or rather, I only read a couple of docs, which had the basic four classes, not the warlock or sorcerer), so I had no idea what they were going for. It's a terrible shame, because both of those sound great. I can only guess that they (both developers and playtesters) were afraid of being too wild after 4e. I hope that when 6e comes around--or even the 50Ae version--they bring back that flavor.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

If I'm the DM, I'd letter Artificer's qeapon with which they are proficient count as a material component, similar to the College of Blades. Mightbe enough for a whole non-pet Subclass.

So long as the weapon is infused, that's RAW anyway.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

I started trying to homebrew one a while ago (and abandoned it pretty fast, ADHD goes brrr).

The initial parts were d8 hit die, arcane half caster (tons of strike/smite type spells), light armour, simple weapons, martial weapons.

• 1st level ability was being able to increase their AC by +2 as a reaction (creating an arcane ward), useable 1+Int modifier per long rest.
• Their 1st level 'fluff' ability was being able to make a magic light and make it float around up to 60ft away.
• Fighting Style at 2nd level.
• Spellcasting at 2nd level.
• Subclass and reaction based teleports at 3rd level.
• ASI at 4th level.
• Extra attack at 5th level.

That's as far as I got. I'd probably change things if I did it now. I'm still torn on cantrips or no cantrips. And the rune system mentioned by EzekielRaiden is very interesting, and a lot more unique.