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

Is there a good case for additional class for the base experience of 5th edition D&D

  • Yes. Bring on the new classes!

    Votes: 27 19.3%
  • Yes. There are maybe few classes missing in the shared experience of D&D in this edition

    Votes: 40 28.6%
  • Yes, but it's really only one class that is really missing

    Votes: 9 6.4%
  • Depends. Multiclass/Feats/Alternates covers most of it. But new classes needed if banned

    Votes: 3 2.1%
  • Depends. It depends on the mechanical importance at the table

    Votes: 3 2.1%
  • No, but new classes might be needed for specific settings or genres

    Votes: 11 7.9%
  • No, but a few more subclasses might be needed to cover the holes

    Votes: 13 9.3%
  • No, 5th edition covers all of the base experience with its roster of classes.

    Votes: 9 6.4%
  • No. And with some minor adjustments, a few classes could be combined.

    Votes: 23 16.4%
  • Other

    Votes: 2 1.4%

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
I mean, it is kinda true. The D&D cleric was born to counter a vampire character and all of its stuff came from justification of countering said vampire character

Anywho, I'm all for new classes. Warlord/battlefield commandery type who does the leading and not necessarily the fighting and Psion are the two big archetypes with some more room to them, but I could see other things being split off. There's enough Witch classes out there that I'd argue there's enough demand it could be looked into, the idea of a summoner sort also has a lot of promise (Even if I know balancing it would be a nightmare), and that recent thread on assassins has gotten me pretty on-board with it being its own thing

On the removing monk/sorcerer stuff from earlier, I do disagree. Firstly, Fighter is not so strong an archetype it can consume everything else in its wake, getting rid of the stuff split off from it like Barbarian or Paladin just weakens those archetypes. Secondly, I'd argue the solution is to make sorcerer more mechanically its own thing, as the fantasy arcetypes of "Born with magical power flowing through your blood" and "Make a pact with an entity for power" are so far from each other I find the idea to mechanically combine them moreso a failing of D&D in making them mechanically distinct. I remember people making a push for sorcerer to be Con based which, would be interesting and fitting with the theme
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Secondly, I'd argue the solution is to make sorcerer more mechanically its own thing, as the fantasy arcetypes of "Born with magical power flowing through your blood" and "Make a pact with an entity for power" are so far from each other I find the idea to mechanically combine them moreso a failing of D&D in making them mechanically distinct.
I think it is pointless to differentiate between "was imbued with demonic power via a pact" and "was imbued with demonic power at birth." The end result is the same. Also, there already are mechanics that perfectly capture being an inherently magical being: the warlock mechanics.
 

Rogerd1

Explorer
You could easily combine Paladin and Cleric into one making each one a sub-class.

Plus Battle Master is in Tasha's I believe with a variety of builds within it.
 

I think it is pointless to differentiate between "was imbued with demonic power via a pact" and "was imbued with demonic power at birth." The end result is the same. Also, there already are mechanics that perfectly capture being an inherently magical being: the warlock mechanics.
Archetypes have nothing directly to do with mechanics though, so I can definitely understand a desire not to lump everything in with the same rules just because you can. The fact that D&D is a class-based system might be the only unkillable sacred cow. I know it wouldn't feel like D&D to me if I couldn't play a "level 2 cleric", for example.
 

Archetypes have nothing directly to do with mechanics though, so I can definitely understand a desire not to lump everything in with the same rules just because you can. The fact that D&D is a class-based system might be the only unkillable sacred cow. I know it wouldn't feel like D&D to me if I couldn't play a "level 2 cleric", for example.
But the archetype is basically the same: an arcane caster that is imbued with power due some sort of connection to a magical being. Making it different class depending on the exact nature of the connection seems like splitting hairs.
 

But the archetype is basically the same: an arcane caster that is imbued with power due some sort of connection to a magical being. Making it different class depending on the exact nature of the connection seems like splitting hairs.
Well, presumably the pact-maker had a choice in the matter (not usually the case with infants), and the magical being presumably got something out of the deal in exchange for granting power, so there are a few differences.
 

I think it is pointless to differentiate between "was imbued with demonic power via a pact" and "was imbued with demonic power at birth." The end result is the same. Also, there already are mechanics that perfectly capture being an inherently magical being: the warlock mechanics.
I'd argue they shouldn't be sharing the same mechanics, though. They'te two vastly different things, they shouldn't just have the same powers.
 

I'd argue they shouldn't be sharing the same mechanics, though. They'te two vastly different things, they shouldn't just have the same powers.
And I'd argue that they're effectively the same thing and whether the demon you got your powers from is your boss or your grandad is a matter of character background, not mechanics.
 

Hussar

Legend
I would love to see a psionic class.

I want psionics to be part of core, built right into core and part of the game from the get go. None of this bolting on later that never really works.

Make psionics a solid part of the game just opens up so many design options. Some classes, like monk, could become “psionic adjacent”.

The specifics of the mechanics is obviously debatable but I’d really like the psionic to be the twelfth class.
 

I think it is pointless to differentiate between "was imbued with demonic power via a pact" and "was imbued with demonic power at birth." The end result is the same. Also, there already are mechanics that perfectly capture being an inherently magical being: the warlock mechanics.
Would you put clerics and druids in the same category?
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
And I'd argue that they're effectively the same thing and whether the demon you got your powers from is your boss or your grandad is a matter of character background, not mechanics.
Since 3e, the core difference in story between the warlock and sorcerer is that the warlock patron is waaaaaaaay stronger.

Sorcerers came from dragons, minor celestials/fends/undead or freak accidents.

Warlock came from Arches and Elders. Archfey, Archdevils, Archangels, Demon princes(ses), Elder gods, Archliches,
 

Would you put clerics and druids in the same category?
I'd say the difference here is that they are intermediaries for a greater powers, channelling it from somewhere, the divine being active participant, rather than just imbuing the character with power. Or that would be my justification. Warlock fluff is super vague, and it is indeed unclear what makes them district from clerics.
 

Asisreo

Patron Badass
It's also a very clear demonstration that a subclass cannot fill a concept in a manner as unique or interesting as a full class, simply because it has to balance its power budget against that of the main class.
Yep. I understand beastmaster was almost pigeon-holed either into being a Ranger or druid subclass, but a "master/commandee/summoner" class where beastmaster is a subclass choice would have been nice.
The Pathfinder 2e summoner lets you select what creature type and abilities it has, and then develop them from there. It's not just a beast, you could select a celestial, a construct, a demon, a dragon, or tons of other options each with their own quirks and abilities. (this is permanently selected at the start, like a subclass).
Yeah, if I ever homebrew a summoner class, that's how I'd make it. I'd keep it half-caster and I'd probably have to homebrew some appropriate cr monsters.

But I would have subclass gimmicks like the elemental summoner having the same resistances/immunities as their summoned elemental or the devil summoner taking HP damage as payment for re-summoning a devil.

But like all unique homebrew mechanics, it's very difficult to balance it.
 

Since 3e, the core difference in story between the warlock and sorcerer is that the warlock patron is waaaaaaaay stronger.

Sorcerers came from dragons, minor celestials/fends/undead or freak accidents.

Warlock came from Arches and Elders. Archfey, Archdevils, Archangels, Demon princes(ses), Elder gods, Archliches,
That's super vague and weak distinction. Also not even true. Dragons are are not less powerful than genies, for example.
 

Since 3e, the core difference in story between the warlock and sorcerer is that the warlock patron is waaaaaaaay stronger.
I'd argue its moreso the sorcerer's power is inherant to them and they should be able to do more with that, rather than the warlock power that's gifted

I'd also take that to then go "Sorcerers don't care about the meaning of spells and could twist magic in Strange Ways based upon their bloodline", like draconic ones being able to get wings or other elements of their bloodline, celestial ones getting angelic features, and so on.

look I liked that one weird playtest sorcerer, it was good.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
That's super vague and weak distinction. Also not even true. Dragons are are not less powerful than genies, for example.
The genies that could make pacts were stronger than dragons.

I'd argue its moreso the sorcerer's power is inherant to them and they should be able to do more with that, rather than the warlock power that's gifted

I'd also take that to then go "Sorcerers don't care about the meaning of spells and could twist magic in Strange Ways based upon their bloodline", like draconic ones being able to get wings or other elements of their bloodline, celestial ones getting angelic features, and so on.

look I liked that one weird playtest sorcerer, it was good.

The weird playtest sorcerer displayed the difference between the clsses better.

Too bad the D&D community hated new ideas.
 

Yaarel

Mind Mage
For me, the missing classes include:

• Psion
• Warlord

If I would design from scratch today, I would make a heavy-infantry "Knight" class, and use it for various subclasses including: Cavalier, Paladin, Eldritch Knight, and so on. Then create a separate light-infantry "Skirmisher" class, and use it for subclasses including: Dex-Fighter, nonmagic Ranger, spellcaster Ranger, as well as nonmagical Athlete, and ki Monk.
 

Asisreo

Patron Badass
The weird playtest sorcerer displayed the difference between the clsses better.

Too bad the D&D community hated new ideas.
If players can't understand something like a playstyle, they call it weak. It astonishes me how certain players can be so positive about how bad an idea is before they ever try it. It's frustrating at times.
 

Hussar

Legend
For me, the missing classes include:

• Psion
• Warlord

If I would design from scratch today, I would make a heavy-infantry "Knight" class, and use it for various subclasses including: Cavalier, Paladin, Eldritch Knight, and so on. Then create a separate light-infantry "Skirmisher" class, and use it for subclasses including: Dex-Fighter, nonmagic Ranger, spellcaster Ranger, as well as nonmagical Athlete, and ki Monk.

I have to admit, taking the fighter and maybe splitting it up a bit isn’t a bad idea. Or maybe fighter and rogue combine to make three base classes.
 

Yaarel

Mind Mage
I have to admit, taking the fighter and maybe splitting it up a bit isn’t a bad idea. Or maybe fighter and rogue combine to make three base classes.
Judging by premodern military history, four classes:

• Knight (heavy infantry)
• Skirmisher (light infantry)
• Rogue (covert)
• Archer (artillery)

There is also a fifth category, cavalry, but it is odd.
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top