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

[Parmandur]

Because it's flavor is too restrictive, not wizardy, and you saddled with a robopuppy.

And all of them disappoint.

They may disappoint some percentage of people looking for a Gish, but if 26 options each satisfies a certain percentage of Gish fans...they might have newr total coverage already.

 

[jmartkdr2]

They may disappoint some percentage of people looking for a Gish, but if 26 options each satisfies a certain percentage of Gish fans...they might have newr total coverage already.

That's a statistical claim - that the people consistently asking are a few weirdos and not a vocal minority. I'll ask you to back that up.

Otherwise "we shouldn't listen to these people because they might not be representative" is a really weak claim - in general, most people don't complain on forums but they do vote in opinion polls - and based on those, WotC has added 26 different gish subclasses. Which suggests to me that people are still voting "more gishes please."

I don't have the numbers to back it up, but I'm not making numerical claims. I'm saying that there's a constant set of people asking for the same thing and not satisfied with the current offerings.

Also, the argument that 26+ subclasses is better, more elegant or simpler than one class is... hard for me to accept. Perhaps you can explain the reasoning for that.

 

[Aldarc]

Such is life.

Such is unnecessary condescension.

The game cannot replicate everything that could potentially be imagined. Not that I really get what is that you want. You have just said what you do not want.

Knowing what one doesn't like or want out of a gish is valid input, as is saying that I would find such a highly specific hook for an entire gish class (i.e., an artifically created people) to be overly restrictive, especially in comparison to other classes.

There is between. That's what I offered. What you offered was basically fluffless mechanics. I get that's what some gish aficionados want, but that's also the reason why it is unlikely to go anywhere, as it simply doesn't feel compelling to most people.

I'm not sure what you are referring to here. What did I offer? And when did this offering you claim I have done transpire?

wait how is gish an archetype it is a class structure or type of thing, not an archetype itself is it?

I'm not sure if I understand what you are saying or asking here. I find your phrasing unclear.

do you have a better narrative that is more than is magic and can fight as we need something?

Do you have anything other than a Witcher or WoW Death Knight rip-off?

One can peel back these ideas into something more manageable without forcing characters into being "an artificially-engineered people." It may be as simple as a monster-hunter or a rune knight.

Of this list, I would say that Antimage Warrior, Magic Police, Portal Guards, and Elite Magic Defense Force are actual themes. The other one are merely how a magical fighter is doing what they are doing.

These are incidentally ones that I have proposed to you before.

I do think, however, that the whole "warrior mages that are like Fighter/Wizards except they get their own special mechanics" can be insightful to understanding the angle for such a class. I see Swordmages/Mageknights as adopting a utilitarian approach to magic and combat, a pragmatic reality to the sort of "high magic" and "high swords" worlds that D&D envisions, along with the associated supernatural threats. The Wizard entails an elevated understanding, study, and mastery of magical spells. Likewise, the Fighter entails an elevated understanding, study, and mastery of martial combat. But the Mageknight? Forget that. Dangers out there in the world don't care about your commitment to mastering an arcane tradition or a combat style. The best way to survive and get by in such a world is a little bit of column A and a little bit of column B. Using both is practical and sensible, while neglecting either leaves one ill-equipped to deal with the realities of the world.

Moreover, their various themes would cover what issues, problems, and scenarios that such approaches are meant to address (e.g., weird magical monsters, planar threats, rogue mages, etc.) or even what their preferred methods are (e.g., runes, bypassing magical wards, magical physical enhancement, battlefield magic, etc.).

These Mageknights may be (elite) shocktroopers that kings and queens are trying to train and incorporate into their army. They may not have the high degree of bookish learning or education as a wizard, but their magical arts are turned to more pragmatic uses (i.e., warfare, defense, and combat), which allows them to get by and adapt in situations requiring either swords or sorcery. This would also make them useful mercenaries.

The Mageblade - a class in Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved (3e d20 System) - focuses a lot of their magical ability around their Athame, which is their weapon and spell focus of choice. In their hands it becomes magical, and it becomes a way to slice through magical wardings/protections, parry spells, or even slice through spells as if they cast Dispel Magic.

(One can also see how this Mageblade class likely influenced the Eldritch Knight, such as its ability to summon their bound weapon. Mearls did make a big break through writing for Malhavoc Press, both Arcana Unearthed/Evolved and Iron Heroes, so he definitely would be familiar with this class.)

 

[Werehamster]

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.

Why axe the Monk? I see a lot of people don't care for the class, but I haven't seen reasons behind this dislike.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Why axe the Monk? I see a lot of people don't care for the class, but I haven't seen reasons behind this dislike.

Not a full answer but: monks have a hard time fitting in. They don't fit the vaguely-Eurocentric default setting tropes, and they don't fit into any of the game roles. Their role (mage-stunner) is emergent rather than core to the themes of the class.

By game roles: most classes fit easily into one or more of "cleric, fighter, rogue, wizard" - which aren't just combat roles (leader/support, defender/tank, striker, and controller) but are also skillsets (religion/healing, soldiering, stealth, knowledge) and social roles (religious, warrior, skilled outsider, loremaster). A barbarian is a warrior form a certain kind of culture, a ranger is a wilderness rogue-type, a paladin is a fighter/cleric (role-wise), and so on.

Monks aren't really any of these things. They have religious overtones but don't do cleric things, they can fight but aren't soldiers or a society's main warriors, they can be stealthy but aren't skill-monkeys, and they may be smart but aren't loremasters. It's easy to shift them into any such role with one or two mechanics and a little added fluff, but the base monk is just there, slightly to the side because it doesn't quite fit into the the boxes in front of us.

Plus they have some wonky/poor design choices in 5e, but the reason people are more likely to call for removal rather than fixing them(like a ranger) is the lack of fit. I believe, anyways.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Plus they have some wonky/poor design choices in 5e, but the reason people are more likely to call for removal rather than fixing them(like a ranger) is the lack of fit. I believe, anyways.

And yet the Monk is the closest class we have to the psionic classes, and it seems like whole swathes of people keep wanting to get those added to D&D too. It'd be kind of funny to take out the Monk and then add in the Psion et. al.

 

[Remathilis]

Not a full answer but: monks have a hard time fitting in. They don't fit the vaguely-Eurocentric default setting tropes, and they don't fit into any of the game roles. Their role (mage-stunner) is emergent rather than core to the themes of the class.

By game roles: most classes fit easily into one or more of "cleric, fighter, rogue, wizard" - which aren't just combat roles (leader/support, defender/tank, striker, and controller) but are also skillsets (religion/healing, soldiering, stealth, knowledge) and social roles (religious, warrior, skilled outsider, loremaster). A barbarian is a warrior form a certain kind of culture, a ranger is a wilderness rogue-type, a paladin is a fighter/cleric (role-wise), and so on.

Monks aren't really any of these things. They have religious overtones but don't do cleric things, they can fight but aren't soldiers or a society's main warriors, they can be stealthy but aren't skill-monkeys, and they may be smart but aren't loremasters. It's easy to shift them into any such role with one or two mechanics and a little added fluff, but the base monk is just there, slightly to the side because it doesn't quite fit into the the boxes in front of us.

Plus they have some wonky/poor design choices in 5e, but the reason people are more likely to call for removal rather than fixing them(like a ranger) is the lack of fit. I believe, anyways.

I mean, classically monks didn't fit a niche, but I think the current 5e monk is very much a decent rogue replacement. They swap out the one-big-hit (sneak attack) for flurry of blows (many smaller hits) but I think the monk can easily fill the rogue's combat role and with the right skills even the rogue's exploration role.

If I was designing with no need to uphold historical lineage, I'd make the monk fill a more generic skirmisher role rather than strict martial artist and allow this skirmisher class to represent monks, rogues, rangers, swashbucklers, dancers/dervishes, ninja, and other light/no armor mobile hit and run types.

 

[Minigiant]

Of this list, I would say that Antimage Warrior, Magic Police, Portal Guards, and Elite Magic Defense Force are actual themes. The other ones are merely how a magical fighter mage is doing what they are doing.

The most basic difference in 5E between a Paladin and a Fighter/Cleric is the theme of this person believing so strongly in a cause that they swear an Oath that actually gives them magical ability. The difference between a Ranger and a Fighter/Druid is that the Ranger is specifically a tracker and one who is meant to lead others through the wilderness safely. So for a similar gish... we need something that this class does or belongs to that isn't the same as what a Fighter/Wizard is. Those ones I pointed out would definitely work in that regard, because they are all specifically something that this magical warrior does that a baseline Wizard does not, just like the Ranger specifically does tracking and survival for themselves and others that a baseline Druid does not.

The question then being whether a magical warrior that is a planar guard or a noble defensive knight that stands next to Kings and Queens to protect them, or a cop that goes out to take down unlawful magic-users are themes that other gish fans would want. But it doesn't sound like it though... it always seems like they want completely fluffless warrior mages that are like Fighter/Wizards except they get their own special mechanics. And that's why the identity has never gone any farther, because the Fighter and the Rogue are the only two classes in the game that are just umbrella terms for a bunch of thematic identities that come out of the subclasses. Every other class has a theme built in, and I don't see WotC ever creating another fluffless "umbrella" class.

There are themes.

It's tough to admit it.

WOTC designers are too old.

Gishes are popular and thematic in modern media. However the popular media of the typical D&D designer's childhood is too low magic and human centric for the Arcane Warriors to have a theme.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Not a full answer but: monks have a hard time fitting in. They don't fit the vaguely-Eurocentric default setting tropes, and they don't fit into any of the game roles. Their role (mage-stunner) is emergent rather than core to the themes of the class.

By game roles: most classes fit easily into one or more of "cleric, fighter, rogue, wizard" - which aren't just combat roles (leader/support, defender/tank, striker, and controller) but are also skillsets (religion/healing, soldiering, stealth, knowledge) and social roles (religious, warrior, skilled outsider, loremaster). A barbarian is a warrior form a certain kind of culture, a ranger is a wilderness rogue-type, a paladin is a fighter/cleric (role-wise), and so on.

Monks aren't really any of these things. They have religious overtones but don't do cleric things, they can fight but aren't soldiers or a society's main warriors, they can be stealthy but aren't skill-monkeys, and they may be smart but aren't loremasters. It's easy to shift them into any such role with one or two mechanics and a little added fluff, but the base monk is just there, slightly to the side because it doesn't quite fit into the the boxes in front of us.

Plus they have some wonky/poor design choices in 5e, but the reason people are more likely to call for removal rather than fixing them(like a ranger) is the lack of fit. I believe, anyways.

Level Up's adept is a better representation of the concept than the monk, by far.

 

[Aldarc]

Fishes are popular and thematic in modern media. However the popular media of the typical D&D designer's childhood is too low magic and human centric for the Arcane Warriors to have a theme.

Indeed: