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

[Neonchameleon]

I talked about this in an earlier post. If I were in charge, I'd get rid of those redundant subclasses. We don't need an Eldritch Knight (which barely functions mechanically as a gish), a Bladesinger (super restricted in armor/weapon types), and possibly even an Arcane Trickster if there is a base class for the "Arcane Gish" idea. There is still a design space for the Arcane Gish class in D&D 5e, but there also is too much overlap with subclasses that don't fulfill that niche.

The thing is that there's enough variety between the classes that you propose removing that I don't think that a single hypothetical class can cover them all. It's never existed in any edition (although some Gish-types have) and the balance between spell and sword is so different for the different subclasses that you'd need something very fiddly.

And you say the bladesinger is "super restricted". I'd say that's part of why it works thematically. A sword in one hand and spell in the other is iconic. And that even most sword wielding mages don't wear much armour either because they can't wear it because the armour interferes or simply because they are protected by magic. It's an iconic combination - and if it didn't have to do this most wouldn't.

And @Frozen_Heart I can't agree that the duskblade, that capped at 4th level spells, was anything other than very slightly better than the Eldritch Knight. Meanwhile the swordmage was pretty good - and is an entirely different class and approach from the magus. And a duskblade certainly didn't cover the same sort of gish as the bladesinger.

 

[cbwjm]

I'd actually be tempted to move the bladesinger from wizard into a fighter-mage class, I think that would work well.

 

[jmartkdr2]

The thing is that there's enough variety between the classes that you propose removing that I don't think that a single hypothetical class can cover them all. It's never existed in any edition (although some Gish-types have) and the balance between spell and sword is so different for the different subclasses that you'd need something very fiddly.

I don't think anyone really wants to make sure all gish-like options fit into one class, though. Any more than people are arguing that divine soul sorcerers and celestial warlocks should be clerics.

The argument is there's a lot of subclasses, but they all largely fail to do what's being asked for. Someone counted 26 gishy subclasses - I don't think the idiom is "27th time's the charm." It seems that to build a good gish class, you need to build it to be a gish from the ground up. That's why duskblade, swordmage, and magus work, is the theory.

And you say the bladesinger is "super restricted". I'd say that's part of why it works thematically. A sword in one hand and spell in the other is iconic. And that even most sword wielding mages don't wear much armour either because they can't wear it because the armour interferes or simply because they are protected by magic. It's an iconic combination - and if it didn't have to do this most wouldn't.

And it could be a swordmage subclass, or stay a kind of wizard if that works better. (But the opinion I most often hear is it's so restricted on fighting and so open on magic it actually doesn't make sense to use your weapon at all.)

And @Frozen_Heart I can't agree that the duskblade, that capped at 4th level spells, was anything other than very slightly better than the Eldritch Knight. Meanwhile the swordmage was pretty good - and is an entirely different class and approach from the magus. And a duskblade certainly didn't cover the same sort of gish as the bladesinger.

So maybe duskblade stays a rogue subclass or whatever, if that more accurately reflects the concept.

 

[Minigiant]

Making the Bladesinger a Gish subclass with Swordmage and Duskblade would have been the best option.

My personal crack theory is that the Bladesinger subclass only exists because designing subclasses for Wizard is hard due to its inherent power. So the Bladesinger was used as a cheap and easy lore source for a wizard that doesn't buff its magic.

 

[edosan]

I voted "Other" as in "rebalance all the classes and subclasses first, and then we'll talk."

I liked 5E's original design aesthetic of broad classes with the ability to customize but I think they fell down when it came to making every class and subclass not suck. It got even worse as new subclasses came in. They've gotten close to ten years of data and they need to use that to rebalance the subclasses to make them viable.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The argument is there's a lot of subclasses, but they all largely fail to do what's being asked for.

And the counterargument is that for the overwhelming majority of people they don't. On messageboards like ENWorld there are a few people, almost all of whom were playing in the 3.X days asking for a "Gish". I'm more than old enough to remember that back in the 3.X days one of the bigger challenges on the CharOp boards was making an actually good Gish. But to the general D&D playing population and especially those with 5e I don't think that there is a gap here because there are so many different ways it's being covered. And possibly the Eldritch Knight could do with a bit of polishing - but I don't think most players would see it as a lack or the existing subclasses as "largely failing".

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

The thing is that there's enough variety between the classes that you propose removing that I don't think that a single hypothetical class can cover them all. It's never existed in any edition (although some Gish-types have) and the balance between spell and sword is so different for the different subclasses that you'd need something very fiddly.

And you say the bladesinger is "super restricted". I'd say that's part of why it works thematically. A sword in one hand and spell in the other is iconic. And that even most sword wielding mages don't wear much armour either because they can't wear it because the armour interferes or simply because they are protected by magic. It's an iconic combination - and if it didn't have to do this most wouldn't.

I listed three. The Eldritch Knight, the Arcane Trickster, and the Bladesinger.

A single class can easily cover all of those archetypes. If the class were as bland as possible (which I'm not advocating for, I'm just saying that it is possible), they could easily copy the Wizard and have the theme be largely determined by which subclass, and heavily link each subclass to at least one school of magic. There could be a Loki-themed Arcane Trickster subclass for the base class that stabs people with blades that create illusions. There could be an Evocation-themed Eldritch Knight/Duskblade that spell strikes purely using evocation magic. There could be a Conjuration-magic Swordmage that hops around the battlefield using teleportation spells and locks down enemies. There could be a Necromancy-based Death Knight that uses spells like Inflict Wounds, Vampiric Touch, and Enervation to drain the lives of their enemies and heal themselves with that life force. All of these could be a part of the same class, just like the Rune Knight, Psi Warrior, Echo Knight, and Samurai are all a part of the same base class in 5e.

The class doesn't even have to be that bland to fit all of those ideas in it. If it just has the same thematic identity in its core as, say, a Sorcerer (born with magic, warps spellcasting using metamagic, gets more powers based on their source of magic as they get higher level), it can still easily fulfill a vast variety of different playstyles and characters (Divine Soul Sorcerers, Draconic Bloodline, Aberrant Mind, Clockwork Soul, and Shadow Magic are all a part of the same base class).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Green Knight or Hedgeknight. Minor magics of protection, growth, animal husbandry, and healing. I’d almost accept the Ancients Paladin, if it didn’t feel a bit too Fey Knight (and Paladin oaths are much too small to fit any robust concept. You’ll always be a XYZ flavored Paladin), and no Ranger feels right.
Probably give it some manner of curse affinity, as well. Equal parts witch, knight, and forest creature. Turn into a Treant or Dryad, maybe.

 

[FrogReaver]

IMO multiclassing is a poor tool for creating class hybrids but works well for dips and total change of direction for characters.

So more classes can almost always be used to fill in those hybrid style classes.

 

[Minigiant]

I listed three. The Eldritch Knight, the Arcane Trickster, and the Bladesinger.

A single class can easily cover all of those archetypes. If the class were as bland as possible (which I'm not advocating for, I'm just saying that it is possible), they could easily copy the Wizard and have the theme be largely determined by which subclass, and heavily link each subclass to at least one school of magic. There could be a Loki-themed Arcane Trickster subclass for the base class that stabs people with blades that create illusions. There could be an Evocation-themed Eldritch Knight/Duskblade that spell strikes purely using evocation magic. There could be a Conjuration-magic Swordmage that hops around the battlefield using teleportation spells and locks down enemies. There could be a Necromancy-based Death Knight that uses spells like Inflict Wounds, Vampiric Touch, and Enervation to drain the lives of their enemies and heal themselves with that life force. All of these could be a part of the same class, just like the Rune Knight, Psi Warrior, Echo Knight, and Samurai are all a part of the same base class in 5e.

The class doesn't even have to be that bland to fit all of those ideas in it. If it just has the same thematic identity in its core as, say, a Sorcerer (born with magic, warps spellcasting using metamagic, gets more powers based on their source of magic as they get higher level), it can still easily fulfill a vast variety of different playstyles and characters (Divine Soul Sorcerers, Draconic Bloodline, Aberrant Mind, Clockwork Soul, and Shadow Magic are all a part of the same base class).

The Arcane Trickster to me doesn't fit.

The Archetypes could see for the class (I'd calll it Adept)

• Arcane Archer/Elf- ranged adept that extends spell range and boosts DCs with bows.
• Swordmage- light armored teleporting adept with an aegis
• Deathknight- heavy tanking adept focus on vampiric/ghoulish/mummy strikes.
• Dragonfire- adept focused on red/gold dragons. Claws, Wings, Scales, Firebreath
• Duskblade- medium/heavy armored adept with evocation tipped strikes.