log in or register to remove this ad

 

5E Should 5e have more classes (Poll and Discussion)?

Should D&D 5e have more classes?


  • Total voters
    205

TwoSix

Unserious gamer
Supporter
Then develop the character. You want a PC who can "end the world", make a wizard who quests to create a world-ending artifact or something.

Why "give" such a PC to a player? Make them work for it.

If you just want to "give" it to them as you did, you don't need a class or subclass for it. You make it part of the story that your god has given you this horrible power and responsibility or something. Now you have what you want and you can have it with ANY class and race.
I would imagine because playing a character who CAN destroy the world and a character who WANTS TO destroy the world are two very different experiences. (The "everyone knows you can destroy the world" is a fantastic touch, by the way.)

I agree it does seem tangential to the class/subclass discussion, as I don't think that would ever be a published concept. But I do think running it as a basic fighter with a plot hook would cheapen the idea, somewhat.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Yes, and I feel that by dedicating the whole fighter subclass budget for support (and writing the rules well) we get about equal fight/support split than the clerics do (as they can use their magic for fighting as well as for support, whereas all fight in warlord has to come from their mundane abilities) so that seems like a decent balance for me.
I'm going to preface this by saying that I've never personally liked the Warlord class. I didn't play one before 5e and I wouldn't play a new one if WotC ever releases one. That said, I have looked at the class. The Warlord class has more abilities than any subclass can grant. The only way to make one for 5e that resembles the prior class is through a new class. That way the base class + whichever subclass will wind up similar to the prior versions. If WotC tries to make them Fighter subclasses, they will be giving the players deficient Warlords and that won't go over very well.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
I'd rather not see more subclasses either, because IMO if you want a certain sort of character, just PLAY them that way.
This is not sufficient for me. If I'm playing my Fighter a bow weapon master, it doesn't really cut it that any other Fighter of the same level and Dex is just as good as I am without being played like that.. If we have feats, then we can both have Sharpshooter, but that's another wash.

With a Bow Specialist subclass of Fighter, that can't happen. Any other rival bowman is going to also have that Subclass, so will also be a bow weapon master.

Before anyone says, "Well then play a Ranger. Those have bow abilities." Yes, yes they do. They also have the other Ranger baggage that doesn't fit the concept of someone who is just a bow weapon master. So that fails to work as well.

This was 3e's strength. The sheer number of different prestige classes meant that I could actually realize my concepts with sufficient mechanical support.

It worked for many, many years in 1E and it still works now. We had people playing "swashbucklers" and "diviners" and "sages" and many others in 1E without needing classes or subclasses for them. Your weapon and armor selection, your spells, your proficiencies (once WSG and DSG came out), etc. all factored in, but also your character's personality, decisions, etc. were more important.
We did! But we also didn't know how good it could be when you had support for your concept. 3e let that cat out of the bag and it won't go back in.
 

dnd4vr

The Smurfiest Wizard Ever!
This is not sufficient for me. If I'm playing my Fighter a bow weapon master, it doesn't really cut it that any other Fighter of the same level and Dex is just as good as I am without being played like that.. If we have feats, then we can both have Sharpshooter, but that's another wash.
In 5E, if you are a bow weapon master, you have Archery fighting style. That other fighter with the same level and DEX is not just as good as you unless they also are a bow weapon master (or at least a "ranged" weapon master ;) ).

We did! But we also didn't know how good it could be when you had support for your concept. 3e let that cat out of the bag and it won't go back in.
Maybe it is better for you, but not for me. It makes the game too much about the character instead of the adventure and what choices they make in the story. Earlier someone mentioned the mini-game of character creation (and leveling also really) which I think you dismissed? (Sorry if that wasn't you, but I think it was?). I can't tell you how much time players in our group weigh different possibilities now. Should I stay in my same class or start a new one? What spells should I take, what feat should I take, etc. Sure, some choices are easy and if you have a concrete idea in mind it might not be a long process, but most of the time IME half of D&D has become about this mini-game in some ways. Also, now we see players complaining when the start a subclass, but get the next feature (which to them sucks) and they don't want it. Now they complain about wanting something else, or feeling they should have picked a different subclass in the first point. Of course people make poor choices or ones they later regret, but the trend in D&D now seems to be just let people change things and have all the versatility they want.

One thing I will say I did like was the concept of prestige classes when the requirements were not prior-class dependent. Being able to have two or more classes make their way into the same prestige class (through different routes obviously) was interesting.

Honestly, I wish subclasses were more generic and had been done like that. Certain ones might have to remain unique, but why should Assassin only be a Rogue subclass when anyone can really be an assassin? Or allow Arcane Archer to go to Rogues and/or Wizards or Sorcerers or Warlocks even? Creating a flexible system where options can mix-and-match is good game design IMO, but just giving more and more blanket options which leads to too many choices can slow things down.

Anyway, I know which way the wind is blowing and I am not going to fight against it, and fortunately none of it is stuff I have to use. shrug
 

TwoSix

Unserious gamer
Supporter
Maybe it is better for you, but not for me. It makes the game too much about the character instead of the adventure and what choices they make in the story. Earlier someone mentioned the mini-game of character creation (and leveling also really) which I think you dismissed? (Sorry if that wasn't you, but I think it was?). I can't tell you how much time players in our group weigh different possibilities now. Should I stay in my same class or start a new one? What spells should I take, what feat should I take, etc. Sure, some choices are easy and if you have a concrete idea in mind it might not be a long process, but most of the time IME half of D&D has become about this mini-game in some ways. Also, now we see players complaining when the start a subclass, but get the next feature (which to them sucks) and they don't want it. Now they complain about wanting something else, or feeling they should have picked a different subclass in the first point. Of course people make poor choices or ones they later regret, but the trend in D&D now seems to be just let people change things and have all the versatility they want.
I sympathize. I enjoy the character building mini-game in and of itself, but I also enjoy games with more procedural generation and progression that is more open-ended. What I've come to realize is that I like building a character to be unique within a concept, but I don't like fixed progression and waiting to get cool abilities until I've gathered enough XP. I like my growth to be random and determined by in-campaign events.
 

Then to me you wasted your money on a bunch of tools you don't end up using.

But that's fine. Use what you want, buy what you want. It's your game, so enjoy it! :)
If you're concerned about buying tools you don't use, can't you just not buy them? Other people can buy them if they want, WotC can continue producing things many people want and keep making money, and you can just be clear to your players that your campaign uses a reduced set of character options.
 

Undrave

Hero
Thank you, I can see your point. Not that all of these feel particularly distinct to me but some do. But this kinda comes down to the granularity level one wants. You can always subdivide any concept into even more specific concepts. For example perhaps the chosen one could be a class and there would be subclasses based on the sort of faith or divine entity that provides their divine spark.

My preference is to keep things pretty broad and flexible. I feel that more subclasses should be written in a manner that lets people choose from a list of options instead of just everyone getting the same ones. The totem barbarian is a good example of this done well. For each feature they can choose from a list of different totems, so you can make a bunch of totem barbarians who all have different set of traits. If done this way one subclass can provide a wide variety of builds.

One could also see some of your concepts being subclasses of classes other than fighter. For example divine warlord could be a type of a paladin, your rabble rouser could be a subclass of a rogue etc.

But yeah. I'm not saying your approach is 'wrong' just not how I'd prefer to do it.
Well, a few of them were specifically made on the 'MC-like' model of stuff like Eldritch Knight and Divine Soul Sorcerer, so of course the Rabble Rouser could feel Rogue-esque and the Marshal feel Ranger-esque.

But the core of the class is still the ability to support allies, things that the Rogue doesn't have, so you'd end up with a very front loaded subclass and a bit tonal shift.

Personally, I'd rather have a ton of narrow classes and no subclass at all rather than a few wide classes with ton of subclasses. If you go too wide (like, say, Star Wars SAGA edition that had Noble, Soldier, Scoundrel and Jedi as its only classes ever) I feel like the classes lose a lot of their own identity and the fluff is just entirely carried by the subclasses, at which point... why don't we just have the subclasses each be stand alone then?

Actually, there is another class-hole - Warden. There's a spell which sort of temporarily turns you into a Warden, but that's a terrible concept, and Ancient Oath Pallies stole a bit of the Warden vibe, but it's still missing, and no class has the subclass space to create an actual Warden, whose key thing is being a frontline fighter with all these vaguely Druidic magical abilities and is centered around a shapeshift (but not into an animal/monster, rather a "more powerful form") deal. However I think it's been chipped away at, niche-wise, by so many classes that we just have to go "LAAAAAAAAAAAME!" at the 5E developers and see it as a lost cause.
I think you're right on the chipped away deal, but they could still bring in the forms by making a Barbarian subclass that transforms when Raging, but, again, not in the beastial way of the Beast Soul Barbarian. Have a handful of forms to pick from, give each a passive boost and a special action they can take, maybe an effect that triggers on the first turn or when dismissing the rage sooner? (I could see an Harvest Spirit Form that casts Goodberry when you when the rage on your own). I was working on a similar concept for a while, maybe I could revive it?
 

dnd4vr

The Smurfiest Wizard Ever!
If you're concerned about buying tools you don't use, can't you just not buy them? Other people can buy them if they want, WotC can continue producing things many people want and keep making money, and you can just be clear to your players that your campaign uses a reduced set of character options.
Of course, but that also means they aren't working on things I would like them to work on. So, while others get to enjoy their shiny new toys, I am resigned to either doing it myself or just giving up on 5E (and if I can't convince others to join me--- D&D in general. :( ).

Of course, this is new material we know of is only one aspect of it. I am hopeful that maybe something in the new releases will actually be something I want to use and possible buy.
 


Undrave

Hero
Yes, and I feel that by dedicating the whole fighter subclass budget for support (and writing the rules well) we get about equal fight/support split than the clerics do (as they can use their magic for fighting as well as for support, whereas all fight in warlord has to come from their mundane abilities) so that seems like a decent balance for me.
I would argue the 5e Cleric is a terrible support class. They have literally no option for at-will support in Combat, everything is just tied to their spells and they can change those completely every day. One day they can spend the whole day on Bless and Cure Wounds, the next they can burn all their spell slots on Inflict Wound to maximize DPR. The 5e Cleric is too selfish for me. The Life Cleric is the closest but it's all healing focus, which is very limited.

I'm going to preface this by saying that I've never personally liked the Warlord class. I didn't play one before 5e and I wouldn't play a new one if WotC ever releases one. That said, I have looked at the class. The Warlord class has more abilities than any subclass can grant. The only way to make one for 5e that resembles the prior class is through a new class. That way the base class + whichever subclass will wind up similar to the prior versions. If WotC tries to make them Fighter subclasses, they will be giving the players deficient Warlords and that won't go over very well.
Like the Purple Dragon Knight, who is arguably one of the worse subclass in the game (alongside Battlerager and Wild Soul Sorcerer).

The Battlemaster is a great Fighter Subclass, (and it's name feels like a call back to Warlord, what with War>Battle, Lord>Master) but it's closer to the 4e Fighter than the 4e Warlord. It CAN support with Rally, Commander's Strike and a few others, but to me it always felt like the Eldritch Knight MC subclass to a full Warlord that doesn't exist. For one thing, your options never get better. You pick your best fitting Maneuvers at level 3, then spend the rest of the progression picking from the leftovers you didn't care for at level 3... But I am excited to play a Battlemaster with the new maneuvers, those will be fun to build with... but it's still not a real Warlord.

You still have the self-centred abilities of the Fighter that increase their survivability, their DPR and their action economy.
 

Undrave

Hero
Because they all share common features that are easier to build upon a common class.
Just repeat those common feature then? It's not like Extra Attacks and Expertise and Fighting Styles don't already repeat... If you just make narrow classes you can have your flavor right from level 1 and you can focus on the fluff more fully. No more 'is it weird my Rogue suddenly learns Nature skill when they become a scout at level 3?' or 'My Fighter suddenly learns Magic'. You'd start with it at level 1.

Heck, if I had the time to put into it I'd remake 5e where you pick from narrow classes for level 1 to 10, and then pick a Paragon/Elite Class for level 11 to 20. Classes would have only a few choices and wouldn't allow multi classing.
 

dnd4vr

The Smurfiest Wizard Ever!
Just repeat those common feature then?
Why not repeat spell descriptions then and have a better organized spell sections?

Because repeating too much was obviously a concern in the product cost.

As far as having your flavor right some level one, why bother? Characters are meant to grow into themselves, not just start that way. If you want to start out that way, start at higher levels (like a lot of people do when they start at level 3).

Heck, if I had the time to put into it I'd remake 5e where you pick from narrow classes for level 1 to 10, and then pick a Paragon/Elite Class for level 11 to 20. Classes would have only a few choices and wouldn't allow multi classing.
I'd be ok with that. :)
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
In 5E, if you are a bow weapon master, you have Archery fighting style. That other fighter with the same level and DEX is not just as good as you unless they also are a bow weapon master (or at least a "ranged" weapon master ;) ).
Any Tom, Dick or Fighter can also have that style. It does not represent mastery. It represents some training.

Maybe it is better for you, but not for me. It makes the game too much about the character instead of the adventure and what choices they make in the story.
This just isn't true. Not the part about it not being better for you, but rather the part about it being about the character instead of the adventure and choices. My prestige classed bow weapon master makes every bit as many and as important choices during an adventure as your basic fighter who just plays at being a bow master. I'm just making those important choices as a real bow weapon master.

Earlier someone mentioned the mini-game of character creation (and leveling also really) which I think you dismissed? (Sorry if that wasn't you, but I think it was?).
No, that was me. In 3e where you had hundreds if not thousands of feats to pick from at first level, classes, prestige classes, more feats if you were human, skills to put points into, etc., it could be called a min-game at character creation. In 5e there is no mini-game. You just choose race and class and you are done. Adding extra classes and sub-classes doesn't change that noticeably.

I can't tell you how much time players in our group weigh different possibilities now. Should I stay in my same class or start a new one? What spells should I take, what feat should I take, etc.
I've noticed that this is a personal issue. I have two players who like to plot and plan, one of whom will plan out his PC for 20 levels, then something in game will inspire his PC into a different direction, and he will create a new plan to 20th level. He likes doing that. One of my players just says something to the effect of, "I think I'll be an Orc Wizard this time." and then writes stuff down. The last one will narrow down to 2 choices and then spend 3 weeks going back and forth between them. Then right before session 1, I'll ask him which he picked and 7 times out of 10 he will give me one of those two choices. 3 times out of 10 he will have an impulse and announce a class he's never brought up before and show me his character.

Everyone is different and that doesn't have anything to do with how many classes or subclasses that there are.

Also, now we see players complaining when the start a subclass, but get the next feature (which to them sucks) and they don't want it. Now they complain about wanting something else, or feeling they should have picked a different subclass in the first point. Of course people make poor choices or ones they later regret, but the trend in D&D now seems to be just let people change things and have all the versatility they want.
I haven't experienced that in my group. It's hard to make choices you will regret in 5e as pretty much every choice is viable now.

One thing I will say I did like was the concept of prestige classes when the requirements were not prior-class dependent. Being able to have two or more classes make their way into the same prestige class (through different routes obviously) was interesting.
I liked both. I enjoyed the Paladin prestige classes, as well as the general divine ones that could see any number of divine classes go into it.

Honestly, I wish subclasses were more generic and had been done like that. Certain ones might have to remain unique, but why should Assassin only be a Rogue subclass when anyone can really be an assassin? Or allow Arcane Archer to go to Rogues and/or Wizards or Sorcerers or Warlocks even? Creating a flexible system where options can mix-and-match is good game design IMO, but just giving more and more blanket options which leads to too many choices can slow things down.
Yeah. I think they probably didn't do that to keep the game simpler.

Anyway, I know which way the wind is blowing and I am not going to fight against it, and fortunately none of it is stuff I have to use. shrug
Yep! I've gotten rid of Dragonborn. Can't stand the race.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
The Battlemaster is a great Fighter Subclass, (and it's name feels like a call back to Warlord, what with War>Battle, Lord>Master) but it's closer to the 4e Fighter than the 4e Warlord. It CAN support with Rally, Commander's Strike and a few others, but to me it always felt like the Eldritch Knight MC subclass to a full Warlord that doesn't exist. For one thing, your options never get better. You pick your best fitting Maneuvers at level 3, then spend the rest of the progression picking from the leftovers you didn't care for at level 3...
LOL Yeah. It would have been nice to see new maneuvers open up at say 7th and 14th levels(picked arbitrarily to demonstrate a spread of levels. :p)

But I am excited to play a Battlemaster with the new maneuvers, those will be fun to build with... but it's still not a real Warlord.
I hope you have a blast!
 

Minigiant

Legend
Backgrounds can provide that, as well as potentially swapping out Thieves tools/Cant.
Additional skills or expertise are also a common subclass feature.
Backward focus.
If the rogue doesn't get the skill it can't improve its application.
Also this sucks up the customization option for known lores by taking up the background.




Do you have Xanathar's Guide to Everything? Because that sounds almost exactly like the Inquisitive. (Enabling Sneak attack through an Insight check.
It's the closest one. Unfortunately it feels too much like an underhanded scoundrel still and the rogue base class snags too much off the design phase for improvement in lore.
The four rogue subclasses in Xanathar's are not criminal-flavoured and at least two have other methods of enabling sneak attack.

I mean Dex is useful to a rogue, but it is useful to everyone. That is an issue with the ability score balance, not the class
The issue is the base class. The 5e rogue is a sneaky sneaky class not a loremaster class.
Why do you feel that you would be dragging down the team by making one of those stats your primary?
Because the way I want to build the character is blatantly suboptimal for any noncaster? The Primary, secondary, and tertiary scores as the mental ones.
 

jmartkdr2

Adventurer
Because they all share common features that are easier to build upon a common class.
The slippery slope on this is: if the only feature they share is "proficient with martial weapons", we aren't really making the game any easier to access/learn/use.

There's only so far you can go with reducing complexity by re-arranging the book.
 

Crimson Longinus

Adventurer
I can actually see an argument for some sort of 'expert' class. A person who is skilled in non-combat stuff that is not directly thievery related. It could could be used to represent merchants, scholars, artisans, explorers etc. Not that I can think how that could be executed in a manner that wouldn't feel strange in the 5E framework and I generally feel that such concepts can be built with skills as a secondary role for any of the existing classes, but in theory it is a distinct enough of a niche. Of course it is questionable how essential such roles are for the action adventure genre of D&D.
 

Undrave

Hero
I can actually see an argument for some sort of 'expert' class. A person who is skilled in non-combat stuff that is not directly thievery related. It could could be used to represent merchants, scholars, artisans, explorers etc. Not that I can think how that could be executed in a manner that wouldn't feel strange in the 5E framework and I generally feel that such concepts can be built with skills as a secondary role for any of the existing classes, but in theory it is a distinct enough of a niche. Of course it is questionable how essential such roles are for the action adventure genre of D&D.
There's the upcoming Sidekick rules that could be use as basis?
 

Hatmatter

Explorer
I wanted to pause for a moment and just celebrate how amazing you all are. I mean, you are some really, thoughtful, intelligent, creative people.

I have read every page of this post, and I totally want to play one of Undrave’s nine warlords. They look awesome! What an epic campaign…and if you added some war gaming elements in it, I can imagine an awesome (and true) campaign of epic battles, skirmishes, and military objectives being met and thwarted.

I also want to play in Saelorn’s campaign and play his unique sorcerer-warlock class created by him that realizes his vision of a sorcerer-warlock where the mechanics fulfill the story background of the class. I love the variation in each D&D campaign and I love unique takes on classes, especially because it can enrich the collaborative storytelling at the table.

And, on that note of storytelling, I want to play D&D DMed by dnd4vr, where the mini-game of character creation is de-emphasized in favor of drama. Dnd4vr has some excellent and creative ideas about subclasses not attached to specific classes…subclasses that are a little reminiscent of prestige classes. Even though dnd4vr seems a bit disgruntled at having to do it himself, I don’t feel too bad for dnd4vr, because, having created classes and homebrewed 2nd edition to no end and had a blast myself, I am certain that dnd4vr, would love creating something that is unique to that campaign…people tend to feel good about creating something new, so I think the work dnd4vr invested would make that D&D campaign special and one in which I would like to play, and – I suspect – it would give dnd4vr and all the players enriching story and character ideas as well…good D&D rules tend to fertilize story ideas in my experience.

And, if I played in Minigiant’s, campaign, I could create an awesome Professor Plum scholar. Heck, I might make a few different scholars from among Minigiant’s subclasses that he offered. I would have my magnifying glass and library card at hand…I would feel like Gandalf in the archives of Mina Tirith researching the most important hidden truth in the world.

Crimson Longinus, in whose campaign there would be a few broad but flexible classes: can I play in one of your campaigns? I love Adventures in Middle Earth where there are only a few classes available and it is a relatively low-magic setting set in one of my favorite fantasy worlds (It was a dream of mine in the 1980s to see D&D for Middle Earth published with that degree of care, given that I loved both D&D and MERPS)…I think you would create a thoughtful world where choices greatly impacted the world. I want to play in your campaign!

And AcererakTriple6, your gish class is awesome. Can’t say I am a fan of the name, but I’d play that class! Heck, I like the eldritch knight (I hope that you don’t think less of me for saying that), and I would love to play a gish in a party that also included an eldritch knight, a hexblade warlock, and a bladesinger. But your thoughtfulness concerning the class you created is impressive.

I was so thankful to have met Gary Gygax back in 1993…he was deep into Dangerous Journeys back then. He loved playing with the mechanical stuff, and about the only time I heard him speak ill of another system’s mechanics was about Eric Wujick’s (I lived in the same town, Detroit, as Wujick and played a few games with him always as the GM) Amber Diceless Roleplaying…and Gygax’s disagreement was on strictly theoretical level. Wujick was brilliant, by the way (and a terrific guy..a really dynamo). And I don’t use that adjective lightly.

You are all embodying Gygax's dream of crunchy and narrative-driven gamers creating their own worlds and games to enrich our time on this planet. Well done! If any of you want to invite me to play in your games, and if I have the time, it would be an honor. Contact me through Enworld.

Speaking for myself, I would like to see 5th edition D&D stay as the final version of the game till the end of time. Not because it cannot be improved – Saelorn and Undrive and AcererakTriple6 and others dispel that – but because it has proven to be an effective game of coalescing the role-playing community. For every improvement, there is some subsequent error or mistake made and for every new edition, we see more splintering of the community, and more divisiveness. I think perfection is probably best pursued at each individual D&D table, and that Wizards managed to satisfy the most people possible back in 2014. They will never produce the perfect game for everyone. The increase of people reevaluating 4th edition and now using 4th edition to critique 5th edition is an interesting testimony to that. That process will never end. For every element one does not like in 5th edition, if there was a 6th edition that “fixed it,” someone would come along in a forum post five years after 6th edition’s release and criticize 6th edition for not retaining that element that was previously disliked by others.

If you are not bound to Adventurers League, which I realize has to deal with official product releases in a different way than home games, then each game can manifest the creativity and intelligence of its DM simply by the DM disallowing what are, after all, already designated as options throughout all published D&D material. As many have pointed out here, there is a great creative energy and power in limiting options in some areas as well as increasing them in others.

Thanks for enduring my little soapbox moment. I have appreciated each post here. I get exhausted reading the newspaper these days and I enjoy what you all have to write much better.
 

dnd4vr

The Smurfiest Wizard Ever!
And, on that note of storytelling, I want to play D&D DMed by dnd4vr, where the mini-game of character creation is de-emphasized in favor of drama. Dnd4vr has some excellent and creative ideas about subclasses not attached to specific classes…subclasses that are a little reminiscent of prestige classes. Even though dnd4vr seems a bit disgruntled at having to do it himself, I don’t feel too bad for dnd4vr, because, having created classes and homebrewed 2nd edition to no end and had a blast myself, I am certain that dnd4vr, would love creating something that is unique to that campaign…people tend to feel good about creating something new, so I think the work dnd4vr invested would make that D&D campaign special and one in which I would like to play, and – I suspect – it would give dnd4vr and all the players enriching story and character ideas as well…good D&D rules tend to fertilize story ideas in my experience.
Thanks for your interest, but frankly my enjoyment in homebrewing is in rules and mechanics, not in classes or subclasses. I like to find the balance for the best feeling for the game I can create. I an not adverse to a player asking "Hey, I have proficiency in medium armor, which I know I won't benefit from, do you mind if I take a skill instead?" Sure, knock yourself out. :) I wouldn't mind if a player wanted to play a Fighter with only Light Armor and Shield proficiency and asked to get vehicles for land and water instead of Medium and Heavy armor.

I guess that might explain things better towards my outlook. I don't feel more classes are needed because as long as balance seems reasonable, you can change things out. Want to play a Fighter/Cleric sort of Eldritch Knight, getting cleric spells instead of wizard? Sounds cool, just swap out INT for WIS and we'll look quickly to see if evocation/abjuration schools have a decent blend of cleric spells (FYI, they do). This idea would work great for a game where you don't want the oath of a paladin, but there is no MCing allowed either. BAM! Reskin Eldritch Knight to "Holy Warrior" or something, swap some things around, and you're basically there.

So, flexibility with the current classes would help make up a lot of the concepts people seem to want otherwise IMO.
 

COMING SOON: 5 Plug-In Settlements for your 5E Game

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top