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

[Mind of tempest]

Is anyone keeping a list of what is desired?

 

[Scribe]

A proper Psion, Gish, and Warlord.

That's it.

 

[aco175]

I voted that fixing the multi-classing rules would fix things. Baring that I would have 100 classes- one for each combo. If I cannot make a rogue/wizard that is viable I want a rogue/wizard class named something. This can have resemblance to each class and be similar but enough different than the wizard/rogue class.

Feats and a choice of abilities at certain levels would make each PC enough unique among the classes.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Other: there's nothing that can't be done with the existing options, but a few concepts that would work a lot better if they were their own class.

Okay, one: Eldritch Knight would be better as it's own class.

 

[bedir than]

Almost every suggestion so far has been quite narrow. They don't fit, at all, the philosophy of 5e with classes being broad archetypes that fit a spectrum of characters from the inspirational literature (stories, books, films, games, comics, etc). Some are so narrow that there's only been a single character outside of the game that's fit.

 

[jmartkdr2]

@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.

I think that there's a sort of inertia here: 5e doesn't have a strong structure for classes, but there's a soft implied structure and a lot of tradition going on. If we're keeping that, any new class is a big deal and easier to do poorly than well.

Especially since classes are really hard to balance, and unbalanced classes are a bigger problem than unbalanced races, spells, or items.

What would probably go over well enough is a total reset of the class structure to do something very different - as you suggested with a new team - but since everyone's idea of what would be cool is totally different, it's really hard to get past "something totally different could be cool."

 

[jmartkdr2]

An actual Duskblade even though the Eldritch Knight pretty much handles that role in 5E.

Which is the other problem: most suggested classes are "an existing subclass, but it doesn't suck."

Note that the argument against making a new class is rarely if ever "the subclass don't suck." No one really defends Eldritch Knight or says Battlemaster makes a perfect Warlord - they usually just don't see a whole new class as the solution.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Almost every suggestion so far has been quite narrow. They don't fit, at all, the philosophy of 5e with classes being broad archetypes that fit a spectrum of characters from the inspirational literature (stories, books, films, games, comics, etc). Some are so narrow that there's only been a single character outside of the game that's fit.

the cleric is born of no pattern but was hammered to fill one, the range built of a single example and mutated into its present form, is it so bad for us to ask for an icon born from scraps and hopes?
one of these days I need to work with someone to create an example of all these ideas just so they can be made.

 

[Shiroiken]

The only non-setting specific archetype 5E can't currently do using the existing classes is the psion. Psionic subclasses work well enough for a few subtypes, but the core concept of a psion doesn't fit into any of the classes neatly enough. I wouldn't mind a true half-caster warrior-mage, but this is a nit-pick difference between a 1/2 caster and the 1/3 caster eldritch knight.

 

[Mind of tempest]

The only non-setting specific archetype 5E can't currently do using the existing classes is the psion. Psionic subclasses work well enough for a few subtypes, but the core concept of a psion doesn't fit into any of the classes neatly enough. I wouldn't mind a true half-caster warrior-mage, but this is a nit-pick difference between a 1/2 caster and the 1/3 caster eldritch knight.

I think what we need is some fictional examples of the magic warrior hurl them in a metaphorical blender and see what comes out?

 

[jmartkdr2]

The only non-setting specific archetype 5E can't currently do using the existing classes is the psion. Psionic subclasses work well enough for a few subtypes, but the core concept of a psion doesn't fit into any of the classes neatly enough. I wouldn't mind a true half-caster warrior-mage, but this is a nit-pick difference between a 1/2 caster and the 1/3 caster eldritch knight.

Alternatively: there's no reason you couldn't make a fighter subclass or two to cover the swordmage narrative space. But to do so you'd invalidate the EK as an option, because the swordmage really is just "an EK but better."

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I'm currently working on

Assassin- Between a rogue and a monk in terms of design ethos and combat style. Can damage like a frontliner but needs to duck out before reprisals, and has the features to do just that.

Swordmage- Currently undergoing a ground up rewrite to be less specifically elemental, less needlessly complex, and more punchy. Has a bonded weapon called an Aetherblade, an aegis that gives them a unique AC calculation and the ability to absorb energy, and I'm working on balancing a combination of martial manuevers and spells. This may instead end up as the Mystic, which is an esoteric warrior rewrite of the Monk.

Captain- Martial character with a "presence" aura that gets wider with levels, help as a bonus action with the aura, and "gambits" that are support-oriented abilities that cost Mettle. May change Mettle and the Swordmage's Aether to Focus.

Has some ideas that might be best served in a separate class, the Scholar, but I need a hook for that class that makes sense of it being a combatant. The tactician subclass is a very scholarly captain, who gets to build their own library and have people do Research for them. All captains can reduce the time and cost of Training, and can train someone with a weapon or tool while adventuring.

Binder- A full on summoner and binder of supernatural powers and creatures. Very little blasting ability, but strong control and access to most summoning spells. Gets a special familiar that they can spend spell slots to turn into a combatant, or cast summoning spells on to transform it into what they summon, with certain buffs compared to a normal summon, like advantage on concentration checks to maintain the spell, more HP, and Wild Shape style keeping of the familiar's mind and mental stats, as well as proficiencies and features intact while in the other form. Subclasses are "Goetic Seals" and the whole class is very much a ritualist that has figured out how to use ritual magic to bind power to themselves, gaining pact magic casting and ritual casting

Casting above 6th level spells is optional, as some Vestiges (similar mechanically to invocations) grant spells, and high level Vestiges include options to learn a 6+ level spell and gain the ability to cast 1 spell per day of that level.

You also gain Ritual Tools, which are the Blade, The Bowl, and The Bell.

The whole thing is like a mix of the warlock and wizard, and the Abhorsen from the series of the same name, and the mysticism of western alchemical traditions.

Archer- Archer should be a class, so now it will be. base class features Focus points or dice, ranged attack trick shots, and stuff that allows you to concentrate in order to gain a state of greater lethality, stuff like that. Subclasses include Dragoon (mounted archer, something of a ranged combat focused knight), Trickshot (mix of gunslinger and knife thrower, expert in 1-handed ranged weapons and melee weapons with the thrown property, faster and tougher than most Archers), as-yet unnamed mystical archer that combines arcane archer with zen archer, more or less, and the Deepwood Sniper which has wilderness lore and stealth mechanics and can ignore long range when using the concentration mechanic of the base class.

and I'm at a concept phase with some other ideas

Jack- replaces the rogue, the actual jack of all trades, leaning on the "professional of a craft" usage of the term Jack. Something between a rogue without the sneaky stabby focus and a mundane cousin to the artificer. Gets expertise and the jack of all trades feature bards get, and a feature that allows you to hamper enemies with your attacks, dealing small extra damage and leaving them with reduced speed, unable to use reactions, blinded, causing them to move in a random direction, etc, as you confuse, trick, kneecap, throw a stinging powder you learned about while learning to do some sort of smithing, etc.

Scholar- As stated above, I may take some of what the captain is doing and move it here. Key features would be the ability to impart and gain proficiency more quickly than the normal downtime rules allow, the ability to do research during a long rest, a [cool latin name] that is basically a "mind palace" they can enter to perfectly recall information.

Maybe a class that has ritual casting but no spell slots or cantrips, and the ability to study a creature and give allies extra damage against them?

I'm just not sure what you'd do in a fight other than give bonus damage to allies. Maybe that would come through with the subclasses.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Alternatively: there's no reason you couldn't make a fighter subclass or two to cover the swordmage narrative space. But to do so you'd invalidate the EK as an option, because the swordmage really is just "an EK but better."

Well, not really. It's much more magical than the EK, but can't be quite as good a warrior without magic as the fighter. It could be more powerful overall, like the Paladin probably is, but it could also be more in line with Battlesmith Artificers.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The Bladesinger is closer to a Swordmage than the Eldritch Knight is.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Alternatively: there's no reason you couldn't make a fighter subclass or two to cover the swordmage narrative space. But to do so you'd invalidate the EK as an option, because the swordmage really is just "an EK but better."

does it invalidate something, the zealot barbarian and the paladin live sufficiently well together why could it not be the same?

 

[jmartkdr2]

Well, not really. It's much more magical than the EK, but can't be quite as good a warrior without magic as the fighter. It could be more powerful overall, like the Paladin probably is, but it could also be more in line with Battlesmith Artificers.

I generally feel that the best way to do a swordmage (as a baseline for general gishes) is to make it it's own class. I'm just noting that the minimum to make a swordmage is a subclass.

 

[jmartkdr2]

does it invalidate something, the zealot barbarian and the paladin live sufficiently well together why could it not be the same?

Zealot barbarian is still a barbarian with rage and all - a paladin getting rage would be unbalanced.

Mechanics do matter.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I generally feel that the best way to do a swordmage (as a baseline for general gishes) is to make it it's own class. I'm just noting that the minimum to make a swordmage is a subclass.

Oh for sure, I was just trying to communicate the the EK isn't even a swordmage subclass, really. Especially before SCAG gave it weapon based cantrips.

 

[Minigiant]

I still really thinkk D&D is missing a Super Soldier class. The Warrior version of the Warlock where you pick up minor powers and focus on classic super powers.

Mythology, Religion, Comics, Literature, TV, and Movies are filled with heroes with super powers

Hercules, Achilles, Odysseus, Atalanta, Jason, Perseus, Samson, Gigamesh, Enkidu, DC Metas, Marvel Mutants, Captian Amerian and all his wannabes, Warhammer's Chaos knight, Grail Knights, and Spess Mahreens, almost every super soldiers, seft mad scientist creations, and almost all people "Blessed by the Gods"

 

[bedir than]

the cleric is born of no pattern but was hammered to fill one,

Completely untrue.
While you could claim the idea that the inspirations for the cleric and paladin are the same, claiming that there are no clerics in the literature means ignoring history