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

[EzekielRaiden]

I do find it rather interesting that, despite the fact that it sure seems like people prefer class reductionism on this board, the votes are pretty clearly in favor of new classes, or at least the contextual possibility thereof. Across the various explicit "yes" votes for at least a single new class, you've got 52.1%; if you count all those that aren't a hard "absolutely no" (so counting the first option that begins with "No," since it at least allows for new setting-specific classes, and all previous options in the list), it rises to 63.9%, nearly an absolute majority.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It is pretty good.

I can't find where you set your spellcasting ability modifier, but maybe I just missed it?

Also, there are a few points where “choice of 2-4 features” may be appropriate. At each of the Aegis of the X Circle levels, a choice of a few different defensive features would probably make sense.

Also Also, Unarmored movement could be a choice between the standard monk feature and an at-will teleport.

 

[Scribe]

I do find it rather interesting that, despite the fact that it sure seems like people prefer class reductionism on this board, the votes are pretty clearly in favor of new classes, or at least the contextual possibility thereof. Across the various explicit "yes" votes for at least a single new class, you've got 52.1%; if you count all those that aren't a hard "absolutely no" (so counting the first option that begins with "No," since it at least allows for new setting-specific classes, and all previous options in the list), it rises to 63.9%, nearly an absolute majority.

I've yet to see any kind of reason why we should not have a Psion, Gish, and Warlord.

These are not classes which to me, can just be refluffed subclasses, and the real issue is that 5e mechanically is neutered, and is really just too simple.

 

[cbwjm]

Warlord is about the only class I don't really want to see. My preference for them is to have their kit spread around the various classes as subclasses. I wouldn't scream bloody murder if it was introduced, but I'd be unlikely to use it, which, I guess, is pretty much the response for many others when other classes are brought up.

 

[Aldarc]

The Eldritch Knight is a 1/3 caster.
The Paladin and Ranger are 1/2 casters.

Let's say we made a Paladiny subclass of the fighter: the Astral Weapon (stealing from 4e)

First we would have to decide which major class feature to lose. Most subclasses give you 1-2 features at low levels. And you get your 3rd at level 7:
Lay on Hands
Channel Divinity
Divine Smite
Auras
Spellcasting

Let's say you choose Auras and CD. No Auras of Protection nor Courage. No Channels.

Second we would have to decide which 2 major class features to nerf. Th Paladin gets these features because it doesn't get Action Surge, Second Wind, and a bonus ASI/feat. You will only get one at full strength.

Lay on Hands
Channel Divinity
Divine Smite- down to 2d4 for level 1 spell
Auras
Spellcasting- down to 1/3 caster

Spellsacsting is a given. And you might as well nerf Smite with it.

Here's your paladin subclass. A shell of the full class really.

Regardless of any quibbles anyone may have about what features you think the paladin subclass would have, you are so close to seeing the actual point of our recent back and forth but not quite there.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Warlord is about the only class I don't really want to see. My preference for them is to have their kit spread around the various classes as subclasses. I wouldn't scream bloody murder if it was introduced, but I'd be unlikely to use it, which, I guess, is pretty much the response for many others when other classes are brought up.

may I ask why as spreading it around would be a good idea why not just centralise it?

 

[hbarsquared]

I love magic and spellcasting. But I would love to see more non-magic classes and subclasses. Fighter and Rogue are really the only two non-spellcasring classes. The monk is distinctly "magical" with ki, and all but the Basic Rules barbarian subclasses distinct magical special abilities.

I's love to see:

• the 4e warlord, something more than just battlemaster abilities
• less magical monk, purely physical boxer/brawler
• a non-spellcasting ranger!
• an archivist/factotum/non-spellcasting alchemist.
• A non-Str, non-Dex, Wis-based or Int-based warrior (non-spellcasting!).
• a generic Hero

None of these are too thought-out, just ideas. I do feel there are fun and interesting abilities and classes that can be a part of the game that don't require magic.

 

[Aldarc]

I love magic and spellcasting. But I would love to see more non-magic classes and subclasses. Fighter and Rogue are really the only two non-spellcasring classes. The monk is distinctly "magical" with ki, and all but the Basic Rules barbarian subclasses distinct magical special abilities.

I's love to see:

• the 4e warlord, something more than just battlemaster abilities
• less magical monk, purely physical boxer/brawler
• a non-spellcasting ranger!
• an archivist/factotum/non-spellcasting alchemist.
• A non-Str, non-Dex, Wis-based or Int-based warrior (non-spellcasting!).
• a generic Hero

None of these are too thought-out, just ideas. I do feel there are fun and interesting abilities and classes that can be a part of the game that don't require magic.

It's almost impossible to imagine that one of the main designers of 5e D&D - with its magical classes and subclasses galore - was also the same designer who made a huge splash in the d20 system with his Iron Heroes RPG, which had nine non-magical classes* and one magical class.**

* Archer, Armiger, Berserker, Executioner, Harrier, Hunter, Man-at-Arms, Thief, and Weaponmaster.
** Arcanist

Or that the edition that people complained about everyone being a wizard actually had more non-magical classes/archetypes (i.e., fighter, rogue, warlord, ranger) than the edition that followed it (i.e., fighter, rogue).

 

[Frozen_Heart]

I never understood the 'arcane gish is a power fantasy' argument. It's like somehow a person who hits things and uses divine magic is fine. A person who hits things and uses primal magic is fine. But a person who hits things and uses arcane magic is overpowered.

I understand that there is a worryingly large number of gish fans who want something blatantly overpowered, but it's not really an argument against the class existing.

 

[Aldarc]

I never understood the 'arcane gish is a power fantasy' argument. It's like somehow a person who hits things and uses divine magic is fine. A person who hits things and uses primal magic is fine. But a person who hits things and uses arcane magic is overpowered.

What's also bizarre are how many classes there are who hit things and use magic up to 9th level spells whether as part of the core package or subclasses. But somehow it's overpowered if there was a half-caster arcane gish?

I understand that there is a worryingly large number of gish fans who want something blatantly overpowered, but it's not really an argument against the class existing.

...otherwise there would be no wizard.