D&D 5E What classes do you want added to 5e?

[doctorbadwolf]

I'd make an avenger by swapping lay on hands with "armor of faith" which lets you add cha to defense unarmed, and have shield of faith as a bonus action cantrip, as long as you use no shield. Then use oath of vengeance. Maybe fewer spells, and you can use Dex for two handed weapons?

I'd be interested in seeing if that could be done in a viable way. It's certainly a concept I always liked, but there rarely seemed to be a way to do it and contribute meaningfully. Did a 3e Bard like that once, as a 'sage' and 'back seat adventurer,' but never got to try it out.

Don't worry about it, while I honestly don't like the Githyanki, I'd never let it get in the way of what words or class names other people use.

OK, those are all cool bidts.

Still vaguely curious about the 'Gish' issues, where EK or MCing falls short, what's the conceptual difference among some of 'em.

I guess I haven't explored such characters much. Hmm.... yeah, the only remotely 'gish' character I've played since AD&D was an Eladrin Wizard McFighter WotST, and he was mostly a callback to AD&D.

Yeah, I'm not sure how best to model the scholar. Mechanically it's a lot like what I want out of the captain, as well. In Star Wars saga they are both types of noble, but that class only really works in Star Wars.

The gishes are all pretty similar, which is why I like the idea of one class. Imo, the ED and blade warlock just don't bring it. The ED is a fine fighter wizard mc baked into a class, for what that's worth, but they don't do what, say, the swordmages did, conceptually.

I do think the runes, rituals and alchemy could be combined with party buffing/inspiration, but I don't have any inspiration right now for execution, for the scholar.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

As has been alluded to, it's possible to create some of these classes, not by starting over, but by altering base classes a little, swapping this ability for that. I'd love to see more support for that in UA and 3rd party materials.

For instance, it occurs to me that if you really do want to create something that's closer to the 4E avenger than the Oath of Vengeance paladin is, don't start with a paladin at all.

Start with a monk. Rename the ki to something about divine inspiration and tweak the weapons and flurry of blows mechanics, and you're well over halfway there already. Then build a monk subclass based on the OaV paladin subclass.

This could work, too, but I personally dislike the monks abilities for a pally. They aren't terrible, but...idk.

 

[Mouseferatu]

But it wouldn't be for a paladin. If the idea is to recreate the avenger as it was, it's not a paladin at all. Unarmored; Dex-based; high-movement; supernatural without being a spellcaster. That's a monk--in terms of mechanical framework, if not flavor text.

 

[Tony Vargas]

But it wouldn't be for a paladin. If the idea is to recreate the avenger as it was, it's not a paladin at all. Unarmored; Dex-based; high-movement;

5e is noticeably more flexible about DEX vs STR, no more 'Weapon Finesse' or 'Melee Training' feats or anything like that. Just pick a weapon that uses DEX and light armor and take a high DEX. Not that's a solution, just one nice thing about 5e that might have some bearing.

supernatural without being a spellcaster. That's a monk--in terms of mechanical framework, if not flavor text.

I'm sure I remember the Avenger having some Implement powers.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

But it wouldn't be for a paladin. If the idea is to recreate the avenger as it was, it's not a paladin at all. Unarmored; Dex-based; high-movement; supernatural without being a spellcaster. That's a monk--in terms of mechanical framework, if not flavor text.

Sure, but the language thing and immunities and stuff seem even less right for an avenger.

Also, it's totally a paladin, just by another name.

 

[Andor]

Sure, but the language thing and immunities and stuff seem even less right for an avenger.

Also, it's totally a paladin, just by another name.

I dunno. I never quite understood who the Avenger was supposed to be. Light armour and weapons, but killing with a divine vengence? I could never come up with an exemplar, unless maybe it's this guy, in which case monk does seem to fit....

 

[Yunru]

I liked 4e's Chaos Sorcerer, a lot more than 5e's at least which IMO was underwhelming.

 

[S'mon]

Don't want any more classes as such.

I'd like to see Avenger as a Monk subclass wielding big two-handed swords.
Warlord as a Fighter subclass.
A couple decent non-spellcasting Ranger subclasses.
A non-spellcasting Paladin subclass.
Possibly a non-casty Bard subclass like the one in C&C, not sure if this is doable in 5e given they made a Bard full-progression Sorcerer type.

 

[steeldragons]

Might I ask (without setting off a firestorm) where is this concept of the Avenger must wield two-handed weapons?

I mean, the only thing that comes to my mind (and I don't even PLAY video games) is the Assassin's Creed guy...a "holy/religiously sanctioned assassin", effectively. He's going on the missions to "avenge/deliver justice against" something[-one] for/from the church/religion/cause/what have you. He's the stick to the shadows, track you down wherever you're hiding, acrobatic flippy, who's going to sneak attack stab you in the neck when you're not looking guy...with, in D&D terms, the added benefit of some divine magicky powers and/or spells stuff. A "divine rogue" for lack of more concise way of putting it. Two-handed weapons as "necessary" doesn't really play into it at all...and would, seemingly, be a hindrance for speed, maneuverability, and remaining inconspicuous.

Why do we think, for a 5e Avenger (especially basing off of Monk, which I think makes total sense), two-handed weapons need to be part of the core subclass?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I dunno. I never quite understood who the Avenger was supposed to be. Light armour and weapons, but killing with a divine vengence? I could never come up with an exemplar, unless maybe it's this guy, in which case monk does seem to fit....

Well, at least within the fluff of 4e, the Avenger was typically cast as being the "inquisitor," "deity's secret police," or "Internal Affairs agent" archetype. That is, Avengers were relatively rare, and tended not to interact directly with the faithful very much. A simple ordained priest (a Theme in 4e) is one who can officiate the religion and carry out the sacrements, and a Cleric exhorts allies of the faithful more than "ministering" per se. The Avenger, on the other hand, likely does the "dirty work" of the church, or alternatively cleans up the messes caused by heretical or disobedient Invested characters.

If a Paladin of the Raven Queen started raising the dead for power, or if a Cleric of Ioun engaged in a program of disinformation or destroying libraries to keep knowledge "rare" and "valuable," the goddesses in question cannot do anything directly. The gift of power cannot simply be taken back once given, and the deities are unable to directly affect the mortal realm most of the time due to the Primal Spirits kicking them out. Individual heretics are too small a thing for a deity or even their major servants (Exarchs) to attend to, but someone is needed to deal with the rare times that an Invested character is no longer upholding the faith. So that necromancer-Paladin, and that Braniac-style Cleric, are gonna get a cordial visit from a squad of Avengers.

Alternatively, if you prefer, you can think of people like Daud and Corvo from Dishonored. Naturally possessed of impeccable skill and blessed (cursed?) by a godlike being with supernatural abilities that include teleportation, rapid movement ("slow time"), and mental manipulation/"possession."

As for your question, @steeldragons...it's just the way the original class worked. Since it seems like such a minimally-invasive detail to address, I feel it's reasonable to ask for something like it--even if it's changed in form. We already have classes that manipulate the damage dice of weapons (Monk), and classes that can manipulate attack and damage stats (Shillelagh, certain Warlock invocations, the upcoming Greenflame Blade), so it seems a small and reasonable extension of the currently-available tools. If there are concerns about balance, it could be limited in several ways--tying it to specific subclasses, for example, or making it a magical effect incompatible with other classes. E.g. something that would effectively be a "cantrip," but which is made a class or subclass feature to dodge stuff like Magical Secrets, and whose structure precludes combining it with the Extra Attack feature so you don't get weird interactions with the Fighter class (for instance).

May I ask--also, hoping it does not touch a nerve--why this is a problem? Frankly, I'm getting an impression of inherent opposition to even minor mechanical similarities to a 4e class, when someone mentions they'd like to see it. I'm not upset by that impression, but it seems a little odd--perhaps it is also a wrong impression, I'd say it's even likely. So, in a spirit of recognizing that I could be wrong on that, but wanting to respond to the idea even if you don't hold it yourself:

Yes, 5e is a new edition, we should try to be open-minded about new ways to do old things. However, being open to new ways precludes neither desiring something close (but not identical, of course) to the old ways, nor examining those old ways to see how they can be made appropriate to the new. If there's anything great about 5e--and I'm sure we agree there's plenty, even if we disagree about what and how much--it's that it specifically does that: being open to new ways of doing things, while listening intently to the old ways, and working hard to find links between the two.