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

[Parmandur]

Artificer infusions
Barbarian Rage
Bard magic
Cleric magic
Druid magic
Paladin Divine Smite
...

Any such further option has to fit in the same general design framework, and if it can't "go big" as you say, there's not a lot of point to making a new option.

All of those festures do work well already, ues

 

[Minigiant]

One more time, then I'll let it be.

I don't want the proposed assassin's auto-kill class feature (described in detail in another thread) and the proposed swordmage's big-effects-with-no-save class features to be published because, as described, they do not appear reasonably balanced. It's not an assumption. It's an observation and judgment.

You can balance any individual concept. It's just numbers..

90% of imbalance in D&D is due to either forcing yourself to use a specific number in design OR designing two concepts seperately but allowing them to combine OR trying to balance one benefit concept with another penalty concept.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Not at all useful, I would say, because the D&D Wizard is not modelled on Gandalf as an archetype. Or, if it is, then the developers clearly did not have any familiarity with Gandalf when they did their work.

That's my point. I'm hearing people saying that EK and other existing options don't meet their needs for a Swordmage class. I'm suggesting that having models for what the Swordmage looks like is useful, so that we can understand what is missing.

We have many threads archived in this forum wherein people have gone into detail on the subject.

The Battle Smith has access to most of the Smites. They're really made for the gish-fan

This is false. They get 2.

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.

The 4e swordmage could stand at the frontline and tank. The Hexblade cannot.

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

So two smite spells, and cantrips. And a magic weapon that does the least of what such a weapon would do in a story about such a character. That costs one of your two infusions.

If artificers had a subclass that took that and replaced the pet with a magic weapon that didn’t need an infusion to be magical, and could hold two infusions, and upgraded as you level, using bonus actions to add effects or activate magical shielding, or share an offensive buff with allies (stand in a circle with your weapons facing in, and a flame dances from your weapon around the circle. 1 hour all the weapons touched do XYZ extra fire damage), and got more smite spells, then we’d be close enough to bridge the remaining gap with a couple new infusions and some new spells.

 

[Minigiant]

Any such further option has to fit in the same general design framework, and if it can't "go big" as you say, there's not a lot of point to making a new option.

All of those festures do work well already, ues

My point is every class has something big in it. They were designed with a big feature and the feature was pared down to fit the expectations.

So a Gish, Warlord, Assassin, Psion, or Carpenter class would need something Big as well.

The point is that if a person can't think of a big idea, they should not design the class. They can give feedback after. But if you "can't see the idea", you've already kicked yourself out of Initial Design and into Quality.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

My point is every class has something big in it. They were designed with a big feature and the feature was pared down to fit the expectations.

So a Gish, Warlord, Assassin, Psion, or Carpenter class would need something Big as well.

The point is that if a person can't think of a big idea, they should not design the class. They can give feedback after. But if you "can't see the idea", you've already kicked yourself out of Initial Design and into Quality.

Yeah one thing I realized while developing the assassin was that I had made shrouds too small a feature. So I got into the weeds on the math of a rogue and a Wizard, both doing just single target damage, and figured out the number of rounds it takes a rogue to do the same damage a Wizard can do before running out of spell slots, and then used that math to figure out how much damage I could put on a 1/level short rest recharge resource. Now you put 1 shroud on a target to mark them, gain crits on a 19 against them, and you can spend the shroud when you hit to deal roughly (half level round down)d10 extra damage.

Now the Wizard has subclass features, spells that are more powerful than single target damage of the same spell level, and arcane recovery, and the rogue had a bunch of stuff, so obviously there is room for more, so I also gave them “when you reduce an enemy to hp equal to your assassin level or lower, you can drop them to 0hp instead” and a specialized tool feature that gives one of;

• Hidden weapon and tinkers tools
• Special poisons and poisoners kit
• Special disguises with papers and such and disguise kit

And “shadow moves” which lets them do certain things as a bonus action or in place of one attack as part of the attack action.

The rest of the class supports all that. When I played out their combat round, it’s on par with the better classes, but not with the most highly optimized builds, and they do a few things no one else can.

 

[cbwjm]

I just checked and Tasha's also adds the melee weapon Cantrips to the Srtificer spell list. So a Battle Smith makes his own magic sword, and can use magical cantrips with the sword in addition to Smite Spells with the usual Spell Slots? Feels pretty Swordmagey.

I think the issue is, for me at least, that you also have all of the other artificer baggage. I don't want a magical tinkerer, a I want a magical warrior. The artificer may be able to do well in combat, but it still isn't a warrior-mage, they're an artificer, someone with plenty of skills and tools and such that don't really fit a warrior-mage type of class.

 

[Faolyn]

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.

It wouldn't be pointless if there were consequences for breaking the pact, like with the paladin. But, sadly, 5e didn't include such a thing.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

One more time, then I'll let it be.

I don't want the proposed assassin's auto-kill class feature (described in detail in another thread) and the proposed swordmage's big-effects-with-no-save class features to be published because, as described, they do not appear reasonably balanced. It's not an assumption. It's an observation and judgment.

I mean, there are already spells that do this exact thing--where they have a spell attack roll, rather than forcing a saving throw. And, mathematically, it should be pretty much the same thing either way: someone rolls a d20 and adds bonuses, which are usually soft-capped. It's not perfectly equivalent since (for example) it's usually easier to gain advantage on your own rolls than to force disadvantage on an enemy's rolls, but plenty of features apply symmetrically. Since, yes, attack rolls tend to be easier to juice up, that would warrant keeping the numbers more modest on the proposed stuff.

But...well, you seem to be fixating on "this ONE SPECIFIC proposal, which can be read as being unbalanced-as-stated," rather than considering the whole thing in bulk. Again, I've mentioned my own proposal, which requires a sequence of successful attack rolls in order to access the powerful spells. That is, in principle, actually a harder requirement than saving throws, because even if you have a 90% chance to succeed on any given attack, and you need 4 hits in order to cast a particular spell, you only have (0.9^4) = 0.6561, a 65.61% chance to succeed. If you have a more normal ~65% chance to succeed on any given attack, your chance to pull off the overall spell drops to only 17.85%. And most enemies don't have more than an 80% chance to pass a save! That's the whole reason I made that proposal, it actually leverages the difficulty of iterative probability to make big spells costly but justifiably powerful, while smaller spells are nearly guaranteed to work but far less powerful as a result.

So, ignoring the thing that you found innately problematic (though I disagree with that assessment), would you find this proposal close enough to the realm of reasonable that, if genuinely iterated on and playtested and not simply yeeted onto the page with reckless abandon, it might actually be fine?

 

[Irlo]

I mean, there are already spells that do this exact thing--where they have a spell attack roll, rather than forcing a saving throw. And, mathematically, it should be pretty much the same thing either way: someone rolls a d20 and adds bonuses, which are usually soft-capped. It's not perfectly equivalent since (for example) it's usually easier to gain advantage on your own rolls than to force disadvantage on an enemy's rolls, but plenty of features apply symmetrically. Since, yes, attack rolls tend to be easier to juice up, that would warrant keeping the numbers more modest on the proposed stuff.

But...well, you seem to be fixating on "this ONE SPECIFIC proposal, which can be read as being unbalanced-as-stated," rather than considering the whole thing in bulk. Again, I've mentioned my own proposal, which requires a sequence of successful attack rolls in order to access the powerful spells. That is, in principle, actually a harder requirement than saving throws, because even if you have a 90% chance to succeed on any given attack, and you need 4 hits in order to cast a particular spell, you only have (0.9^4) = 0.6561, a 65.61% chance to succeed. If you have a more normal ~65% chance to succeed on any given attack, your chance to pull off the overall spell drops to only 17.85%. And most enemies don't have more than an 80% chance to pass a save! That's the whole reason I made that proposal, it actually leverages the difficulty of iterative probability to make big spells costly but justifiably powerful, while smaller spells are nearly guaranteed to work but far less powerful as a result.

So, ignoring the thing that you found innately problematic (though I disagree with that assessment), would you find this proposal close enough to the realm of reasonable that, if genuinely iterated on and playtested and not simply yeeted onto the page with reckless abandon, it might actually be fine?

Sure, yes, it might be fine. I'm not making the argument that you think I'm making.

I'm not fixated on one specific proposal. I commented on it, said I didn't want it and the class revolving around it in my game. I feel like I'm being held to accounted because you may have extrapolated that I was dismissing the whole notion of a swordmage class as over-powered. Have at it. Make your class. It won't bother me. If you come up with something good, I might use it.

Can we be friends now? I really don't understand what this is all about.

 

[Parmandur]

If artificers had a subclass that took that and replaced the pet with a magic weapon that didn’t need an infusion to be magical, and could hold two infusions, and upgraded as you level, using bonus actions to add effects or activate magical shielding, or share an offensive buff with allies (stand in a circle with your weapons facing in, and a flame dances from your weapon around the circle. 1 hour all the weapons touched do XYZ extra fire damage), and got more smite spells, then we’d be close enough to bridge the remaining gap with a couple new infusions and some new spells.

And that's all I'm saying.