D&D General The 5e Ninja, would it be a class or a subclass?

[Benjamin Olson]

You could always just forbid ninjas in your game.

You could always just make a ninja class and institute it in your game. Why debate anything about how the game should be if we're going to pretend like shaping it to our whims requires no complication or social capital?

Default rules matter, because every deviation from them is a negotiation, even if your table indulges in fantasies of an autocratic DM. I'd like to avoid unnecessary complications to the defaults to support content I think will be underwhelming. Again a subclass really doesn't complicate things unless it has some wonky or confusing ability at levels people actually play. A new class does.

 

[Parmandur]

Background, taken by either an Assassin Rogue or Shadow Monk.

 

[Azzy]

The problem with making a ninja class or subclass is that ninja in pop media vary so much from character to character, so there's no single archetype that's one size fits all. Both the Shadow Monk and the Assassin Rogue make good traditional "ninja", but in some stories ninja wield magic while others are weapon masters. So, I agree with the other that the best method is making ninja a background.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The game wants for an assassin class tbh, and ninja would inform base class and multiple subclasses

 

[Silam]

Backgrounds, feats, spells and magic items would be perfect to enrich a ninja-themed campaign. I would say it should be a design goal to avoid at all costs adding classes or subclasses. Every single class can be a ninja.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Well, for me, there would be an Assassin class, of which the Ninja is one subclass. Other subclasses could be Agent (think "fantasy James Bond"), Cleaner (brutal "kill all witnesses" type), Poisoner (pretty obvious...), and some kind of esoteric-mysticism option that provides partial spellcasting.

All Assassins CAN kill. Some are more eager to than others.

 

[Corinnguard]

Ryoko's Guide to the Yokai Realms had the Shinobi as an archetype of the Wizard. Its' subclass features dealt with darkness-related abilities. Since it's a Wizard subclass in this book, you get nine levels of spellcasting that you can tailor to produce a ninja that can produce a large array of 'jutsu'.

 

[Corinnguard]

Can you make at least 4 subclasses for Ninja?

Atm, I can only think of 2 Ninja subclasses atm- Hunter-Nin and Medical Nin.

 

[Misanthrope Prime]

Fun note: That's because of traditional japanese theatre!

In traditional japanese theatre you had actors wearing costumes performing on stage, you had sets and staging in the form of furniture and the like, and you had people who wore all black from head to toe that weren't part of the "Scene" but existed as stagehands.

They'd come in during scenes to move furniture around, wave fans to represent winds, or otherwise do "Special Effects" for the actors.

And in at least a few plays, -one- stagehand represented an assassin that you couldn't see. So you'd have the stagehands doing their thing, and then one would pull a knife and murder one of the actors and it was a big shocking moment because those guys 'didn't exist' within the conceit of the play!

And that's why ninja wear black in most pop culture, even in Japan.

Also you could do it as a monk or rogue archetype, or you could do it as a full standalone class even more completely, which would take notes from both monk and rogue to be 'perfect' based on fantasy tropes.

What I'm hearing is that a historically accurate ninja would be a bard subclass. And frankly, a bard subclass that's rogue-like (in the same way the valor bard is fighter-like and the lore bard is wizard-like) wouldn't be half bad.

 

[Tigris]

One is that to run smoothly the game basically requires that a DM have a rough understanding of the basic abilities of each class, which means that while occasional new classes might get to come to the table, there is a strong bias against adding a whole bunch.

Why should this be necessary? As long as the player knows what it does its enough.

Its really just authoritorian fantasy of many GMs that they need to know what player classes do (in order to forbid it etc.)

The GM will learn what the class does when playing and might get surprised which can also be a form of joy.


Still I agree that in the way 5e works it would just be a subclass. 5e is about not taking risks ans about doing the bare minimum to add new things. Also the design space in 5e is so limited especially with having 90% of conplexity just in spells, that its hardly possible to make another martial class with a clear identity.

Ranger already struggles even though its a half caster. And even though I like the idea of an assassin class (like in 4e) with different subclasses I cant see it happening.


If 5.5 would have at least succeeded ro make subclasses universal (same level same power budget) I ninja could have been a nice subclass for ranger, rogue and monk and maybe fighter, but alas thats not the case and ranger subclasses need to be a lot stronger especially at level 11.


I can see the argument for background, but background just has not enough power in 5e. Just a origin feat is not powerfull enough to make a ninja distinct.


I would think it would be a rogue subclass overall. Rogue is the sneeky character with hit and run built in base. Thrown weapons (shuriken) also work with the class feature.