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

[Minigiant]

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,

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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]

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.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

 

[Mecheon]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.