Is anyone keeping a list of what is desired?
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.@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.
Which is the other problem: most suggested classes are "an existing subclass, but it doesn't suck."An actual Duskblade even though the Eldritch Knight pretty much handles that role in 5E.
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?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.
I think what we need is some fictional examples of the magic warrior hurl them in a metaphorical blender and see what comes out?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."
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.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?
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.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.
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.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.