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

[doctorbadwolf]

They are kissing cousins, most of the time. And certainly, all game design principles are about preferences

I'm a little taken aback by this, because there are multiple ways to this straight out of the first Eberron book through Infusions, and even more with Tasha's. Absolutely no homebrew or refluffing needed for this. I'm particularly a fan of the magical returning weapon Infusion a la Mjolnir, though that's not what you are going for here.

What magical thing are you doing with your weapon via infusions? You’ve listed one thing that doesnt even allow throwing weapons that aren’t normally thrown, or extend their thrown range, or allow attacking as if you were within 5ft of the target, which are all things I’d put forth in a design process for a swordmage. It just…returns when you throw it. Cool.

Mjolnir summons lightning, and deals incredible damage. What artificer can significantly boost the damage of a single attack with a weapon? Which infusion lets you do Extra elemental damage on top of a weapon attack?

They barely even get smite spells!

The only that assumes weapon use is the Battlemaster, and it just…gives you the ability to use Int when using a magic weapon. The rest of the subclass is about the pet (as it should be).

 

[EzekielRaiden]

But I'm glad they're not published official options. My table doesn't need them.

So, the only things that should be published are the ones your table needs?

Because that's the implication of what you're saying here--that WotC should only publish things for your needs, not anyone else's. I know that the more probable intent of your statement is "they should only make things that most people need," but...well, there's some big problems with that, even if I grant you that charitable reading.

The first is the word "need." Properly speaking, nobody ever needs anything. Necessity is a bad standard for leisure-time activities. We don't, for example, determine meal plans purely based on what humans need for nutrition, otherwise we'd all be eating standardized nutrient supplements. Instead, we make meal plans based on what we want, which includes things like varying flavors or different sources of protein, avoiding disliked flavors, that sort of thing.

Second, if the only official provisions are the ones generically needed....then they're going to need to be generic, and that's exactly what people are complaining about now. And what I called out earlier with the Morton's Fork: if a class is specific, it shouldn't be offered because then a more general class can be offered instead; if a class is general, well then it should be folded into whatever the most-similar and more-traditional class is, since there's no need for two generalists that cover the same space. Why should WotC always avoid options that are maybe a little more specific than others? That's what Paladin is, a rather specific archetype, but it's one a lot of people like, so it's uncommon to hear requests for its removal. (You still do, of course, because reductionism uber alles is a thing, but it's not as common a target in 5e as Sorcerer and/or Warlock.)

Third, why does the publication of new classes your table doesn't need negatively affect you? You seem to be making rather a strong statement here, albeit implicitly, that creating rules elements that some peple (perhaps a majority) don't need actually worsens your/their gaming experience. That's a bit surprising, and I'd like to know how and why that happens.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

Exactly. When they did what was actually needed to make a spellcaster (Hexblade Warlock) into a working gish (kinda, still has too low HP), half the community freaked out that it was super broken! And it’s still just not tough enough and too much of your actions are spent choosing between weapon-attacking and Spellcasting.

Why isn't it tough enough? The DnD 3.5e duskblade, the Pathfinder 1e and 2e Magus, and the DnD 4e Swordmage are all D8 hit die, same as the Warlock. Hexblades are also proficient in light/medium armour and shields, same as the prior editions arcane gishes.

Sure I don't think that Hexblade makes a good replacement for an arcane gish class for many reasons. But being 'tough enough' definitely isn't one of them.

 

[Minigiant]

Then the Artificer is there to fill that role. Half-Caster, Half-Combatant, makes their own weapons magical and do all sorts of neat tricks with then.

Also, any such Spell should work for any Class. Gating it behind Proficiency would suffice for flavor purposes.

I dmed to artificers. Artificer's magical buffs are very minor.

 

[Minigiant]

Your proposed big-or-go-home class features (exploding swords and no-save effects on a hit here and the auto-kill feature discussed in the Assassin thread) just seem (to me) to outclass most everything else available to others. Maybe that's because they're out of context of a full class write-up, or maybe you want something very different from your D&D characters than I do. Probably both things are true.

I was the one person who voted "It depends on the mechanical importance at the table." I'm more convinced of this now than when I voted. If these types of classes are what your table wants, I'm all for you to develop them. But I'm glad they're not published official options. My table doesn't need them.

Well that's the point.
If you don't go BIG, there's no point in the class existing.
There is no point to create a class that doesn't do something better than every of class.

All 13 current classes have 1-3 BIG class features. The Fighter litterally takes 2 actions on their turn. Clerics raise the dead. Wizards open portals.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It's not just as easy as "if you don't like it, don't use it." Class bloat affects the game as a whole. Designers have limited amount of time and resources. Also, having too many classes limits the conceptual and thematic space of the other classes. Like how if sorcerer and warlock were one class, the resulting class could be mechanically and thematically less pigeonholed and it would have a greater number of subclasses when the designers wouldn't need to waste time writing duplicate subclasses for similar themes. I rather have fewer broader, more flexible and better supported classes, than loads of narrow, gimmicky and thematically thin classes.

 

[Mecheon]

Like how if sorcerer and warlock were one class, the resulting class could be mechanically and thematically less pigeonholed, it would have a greater number of subclasses when the designers wouldn't need to waste time writing duplicate subclasses for similar themes.

But equally on this, you then get the issue that you may pigeonhole concepts together to the point you erase what makes them archetypally unique. A valid criticism could be made this is the problem the Fighter has, and leads to that "Everything becomes a fighter subclass" thing that tends to go on. In pidgeonholing, you lose a lot of the individual flavour that classes had when individual.

There's enough stuff out there I can see more classes being justified. Heck, in my homebrew pile I've got an (Untested) Truenamer that's completely seperate from the Wizard subclass attempt and does its own thing. The most popular 3rd party class around is basically easy to describe as "Edgy ranger", but folks love it as its own thing to the point they've requested it to be official for yonks

 

[Irlo]

So, the only things that should be published are the ones your table needs?

Because that's the implication of what you're saying here--that WotC should only publish things for your needs, not anyone else's. I know that the more probable intent of your statement is "they should only make things that most people need," but...well, there's some big problems with that, even if I grant you that charitable reading.

The first is the word "need." Properly speaking, nobody ever needs anything. Necessity is a bad standard for leisure-time activities. We don't, for example, determine meal plans purely based on what humans need for nutrition, otherwise we'd all be eating standardized nutrient supplements. Instead, we make meal plans based on what we want, which includes things like varying flavors or different sources of protein, avoiding disliked flavors, that sort of thing.

Second, if the only official provisions are the ones generically needed....then they're going to need to be generic, and that's exactly what people are complaining about now. And what I called out earlier with the Morton's Fork: if a class is specific, it shouldn't be offered because then a more general class can be offered instead; if a class is general, well then it should be folded into whatever the most-similar and more-traditional class is, since there's no need for two generalists that cover the same space. Why should WotC always avoid options that are maybe a little more specific than others? That's what Paladin is, a rather specific archetype, but it's one a lot of people like, so it's uncommon to hear requests for its removal. (You still do, of course, because reductionism uber alles is a thing, but it's not as common a target in 5e as Sorcerer and/or Warlock.)

Third, why does the publication of new classes your table doesn't need negatively affect you? You seem to be making rather a strong statement here, albeit implicitly, that creating rules elements that some peple (perhaps a majority) don't need actually worsens your/their gaming experience. That's a bit surprising, and I'd like to know how and why that happens.

I'm sure I typed hastily, but .... really? I answered the survey question. Whether the game needs more classes depends on the needs of the table. If one doesn't want me to say that the game doesn't need more classes, one shouldn't ask me the question.

Every table should tweak the rules and classes and add and delete as they see fit.

Yes, I'm glad that there are not officially published options for the assassin's auto-kill and the swordmage class features that are so powerful and different that they can't be allowed to be used by anyone else. It's my opinion. I'm not doing anything to keep you from having them. I don't need them. I won't boycott WotC if they publish them.

I'm glad they're not published options because they outshine other existing class options (insert all the caveats -- as I understand them, in my opinion, based on my experience, taken out of context, etc.). I want my players to thumb through the books and find stuff that works that won't leave them far behind or put others far ahead of them in character capability.

Nothing that happens at your table makes my game better or worse. Unless you share a cool, balanced class write up for swordmage that I can use, in which case you've made it better. A few years ago one of my players looked online for a homebrew swordmage class to run by me to see if I'd include it. That was a hard no. More powerful than any other published class. I'd love to see something along these lines. Until then, we do fine with the published classes and subclasses.

 

[Parmandur]

What magical thing are you doing with your weapon via infusions? You’ve listed one thing that doesnt even allow throwing weapons that aren’t normally thrown, or extend their thrown range, or allow attacking as if you were within 5ft of the target, which are all things I’d put forth in a design process for a swordmage. It just…returns when you throw it. Cool.

Mjolnir summons lightning, and deals incredible damage. What artificer can significantly boost the damage of a single attack with a weapon? Which infusion lets you do Extra elemental damage on top of a weapon attack?

They barely even get smite spells!

The only that assumes weapon use is the Battlemaster, and it just…gives you the ability to use Int when using a magic weapon. The rest of the subclass is about the pet (as it should be).

That's what the weapon cantrips and the Smites provide, mechanically. Turning any Weapon into a magic weapon is pretty great by itself.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But equally on this, you then get the issue that you may pigeonhole concepts together to the point you erase what makes them archetypally unique. A valid criticism could be made this is the problem the Fighter has, and leads to that "Everything becomes a fighter subclass" thing that tends to go on. In pidgeonholing, you lose a lot of the individual flavour that classes had when individual.

There's enough stuff out there I can see more classes being justified. Heck, in my homebrew pile I've got an (Untested) Truenamer that's completely seperate from the Wizard subclass attempt and does its own thing. The most popular 3rd party class around is basically easy to describe as "Edgy ranger", but folks love it as its own thing to the point they've requested it to be official for yonks

And frankly, most of such additional classes are not needed and are just bloat. The subclass system is great, people should utilise it more. With it you can have both broad and flexible classes and more specific themes represented via subclasses.