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

[doctorbadwolf]

Regular or extra-shadowy?

Obviously you mean more than a Sage background, what would that consist of? Would it be an outre exposition character unable to contribute much else, or would it be parlayed into a viable support role? Would it cast? Perform rituals but not cast?

A dex-based EK with archer style falls short, I'm sure, because of the enchant-an-arrow-with-a-spell tricks the AA (npi) would do.

There were so many PrCs like that in 3.x, in spite of it's modular MCing, and there's already multiple examples in 5e, and feats, and modular MCing (that handles casters better). I enjoyed the old fighter/magic-user as much as the next guy, but I wonder what made these builds and PrCs fall so far short that we were constantly seeing new ones?

How might 5e finally deliver?

(Oh, hey, and I never liked that 'Gish' was derived from the lingo of an Evil race. I should really demand they not exist. :shrug: Nah. )

Yes. There's no point in designing an optional class to please those who hate it.

I've designed a 5e assassin that does both. It's mildly underpowered in a dungeon crawl, but about right/on the powerful side in urban/social/intrigue campaigns/adventures. Which is where I like my home brews, bc it's less likely to break anything or feel OP to other players/DMs.
The shadow ass is based on a shadow form, while the more mundane ass is based on mundane mobility and asscreed style reaction kills. The main class feature involves killing targets that you reduce to low hp, or do massive damage to, scaled similar to sneak attack, kinda.

Scholar would use knowledge to make tasks easier. That includes skills stuff and combat. Combine that with rituals, and subclasses centered on runes, alchemy, maybe one that is kinda rangery and I think you gots a class.

The Gish should definitely not be called that. The AA would like ave a spell list designed for spell arrows, of course, but also things like an "archers stairway", an arrow that can fly 1day/caster level (min 1) to land at a target's feet whose name you speak aloud as part of the spell, turning into a scroll with a message when that person picks it up, etc.
basically, they make all manner of magic arrows, bypassing normal crafting rules, that only work for them, some of which are totally unique to them.

The other gishish types would need, I think, to work a bit like equal parts swordmages, 4e blade singer's at-wills, and the general 5e weapon user shtick. Ya know, fighting styles, extra attack, etc.

Also, each type should have its own couple cantrips purpose built for its concept.

from a mechanical standpoint there is a class mecanic i have been thinking about.

Where you have a caster that only knows low level spells, but can cast them as if cast with a higer level spell slot.
the mecanic that many spells have greater efect when cast with a higer level spell slot is something that isebn't used often in my experiance, usualy it is more efective to just cast a higer level spell.

Whelp.
Now I know how I'm rebuilding the warlock. Basically, my warlock would know a decent number of low level spells, cast them at a higher caster level, and know them as rituals, and then have some unique rituals. Perhaps gain some higher level spells later, but only as rituals, even if they are normally not.
I've some work to do regarding the patron, and making a curse mechanic work in 5e, but I like that basis.

Subclasses I want added: Divine monk, with lay on hands and some divine spells on a similar progrssion to the pally, but with list size more like the pally subclass lists.

A Kung fu monk that gets fighting styles and new ki abilities that are less flashy magic than the other subclasses.

Shaman as a Druid that uses wild shape to summon a spirit animal, and can cast through the spirit, do other cool spirit things.

Barb or ranger that is a spirit warrior, ala Connor in the assassins creed three dlc where Washington is an evil tyrant. Maybe assass subclassin. Lol

Puns. I'm going to bed.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Scholar would use knowledge to make tasks easier. That includes skills stuff and combat. Combine that with rituals, and subclasses centered on runes, alchemy, maybe one that is kinda rangery and I think you gots a class.

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.

The Gish should definitely not be called that.

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.

The AA would like ave a spell list designed for spell arrows, of course, but also things like an "archers stairway", an arrow that can fly 1day/caster level (min 1) to land at a target's feet whose name you speak aloud as part of the spell, turning into a scroll with a message when that person picks it up, etc.

OK, those are all cool bits.

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.

 

[Campbell]

I would really like to see the Avenger return as a full class. Something similar to Pathfinder's Inquisitor that combines sneakiness, quickness, dogged pursuit of enemies, and divine fervor without sneak attack.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I would really like to see the Avenger return as a full class. Something similar to Pathfinder's Inquisitor that combines sneakiness, quickness, dogged pursuit of enemies, and divine fervor without sneak attack.

Why does a Dex-based Oath of Vengeance paladin not accomplish that for you? (Honest question, not a "You shouldn't want that!" challenge. )

(Or maybe at most a slightly modified OaV paladin with something like the monk's unarmored defense.)

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Why does a Dex-based Oath of Vengeance paladin not accomplish that for you? (Honest question, not a "You shouldn't want that!" challenge. )

(Or maybe at most a slightly modified OaV paladin with something like the monk's unarmored defense.)

While I'm not Campbell, if I had to guess, it would be the presence of Lay on Hands (and its improvements), the Aura of Courage, Dex being unable to support a 2h weapon (the iconic Avenger weapon type), and the as-noted dependency on leather armor rather than being impressively well-defended in mere clothing. Avengers were either focused on personal damage-dealing, or on coordinating with allies to gang up on foes--of all the Divine classes in 4e, the Avenger was the least "Leader-y" IMO, and I feel that general stance should be embraced for a 5e version.

I, personally, would also add spellcasting to that list, since I don't really associate the Avenger with casting spells--it's still Divinely magical, to be sure, but it doesn't feel like a spellcaster to me. (Neither does the Paladin, but that's not really up for debate anymore.)

 

[Kabouter Games]

HP are an abstract. Is it that when you gain HP from warlord shouting that you are "yelling stab wounds close," or does the HP come from hidden reserves that exist beside those lost stab wound HP? If HP is an abstract of "flesh, exhaustion, morale, and luck," then regaining HP does not necessarily need to be narrated as 'your wounds heal up.' Those may very well still exist. Just as having 'stab wounds' that take you from 100 to 80 HP allows you to go around as if nothing had happened. This is, of course, a D&Dism, but it's one in which the Warlord's abilities are consistent within the framework of prior D&Disms.

This is something which has struck me.

[NB: I've skipped three or four pages of thread between a post which also brought up HP-as-abstract, so if this has been addressed, forgive me.]

It appears that the butt-hurt over a Warlord's healing is tied up with it being non-magical. I think that misses the point of HP in the first place, because I don't think HP are merely an aggregate of wounds received. When you go from 100 to 80 HP, it's not necessarily from stab wounds. In fact, if you as a GM specify wounds in battle description you end up painting yourself into the game-mechanics corner verily described in the folderol surrounding Warlord non-magical healing. To surmount that does not require a redefinition of the class. If requires a redefinition of what some people think HP mean.

I prefer to view HP as a numerical gauge of stamina in the fight. (Having a HEMA background greatly informs this, so bear with me.) In a fight, yes, you get knocked around. But really, what it does is wear you down. A fight engages every fiber of your being, causing physical tiring, as well as 100% of your attention. Both of those are difficult to maintain. When you tire, the more likely your guard slips; if your guard slips, your enemy will exploit your mistake and run you through (reduces you to 0 HP). I prefer to view the HP total as 100% of the PC's available stamina.

That's why regaining HP during rests is a perfectly understandable idea to me. It's also why I have zero problem with a Warlord inspiring greater exertion from allies whose store of fight stamina might be waning. Has nobody ever heard Henry V's speech at Harfleur?

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;
Or close the wall up with our English dead.
In peace there's nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility:
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage;
Then lend the eye a terrible aspect;
Let pry through the portage of the head
Like the brass cannon; let the brow o'erwhelm it
As fearfully as doth a galled rock
O'erhang and jutty his confounded base,
Swill'd with the wild and wasteful ocean.
Now set the teeth and stretch the nostril wide,
Hold hard the breath and bend up every spirit
To his full height. On, on, you noblest English.
Whose blood is fet from fathers of war-proof!
Fathers that, like so many Alexanders,
Have in these parts from morn till even fought
And sheathed their swords for lack of argument:
Dishonour not your mothers; now attest
That those whom you call'd fathers did beget you.
Be copy now to men of grosser blood,
And teach them how to war. And you, good yeoman,
Whose limbs were made in England, show us here
The mettle of your pasture; let us swear
That you are worth your breeding; which I doubt not;
For there is none of you so mean and base,
That hath not noble lustre in your eyes.
I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,
Straining upon the start. The game's afoot:
Follow your spirit, and upon this charge
Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George!'

I just regained 2d6+CON copying and pasting that. I want to go slaughter Frenchmen. And I'm an out-of-shape, middle-aged bloke who hasn't picked up a sword in 4 years, who has nothing against the French - indeed, who really likes a nice brioche and butter at a Parisian cafe of a morning - and isn't even English.

See what I mean?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

See what I mean?

Well, I do at least. And believe it or not, it means a lot, to me, coming from someone who self-identifies as a "cranky old opinionated dork^TM."

 

[Tony Vargas]

While I'm not Campbell, if I had to guess, it would be the presence of Lay on Hands (and its improvements), the Aura of Courage, Dex being unable to support a 2h weapon (the iconic Avenger weapon type), and the as-noted dependency on leather armor rather than being impressively well-defended in mere clothing.

Another case where the design option of a sub-class removing abilities might be called for, maybe?

I, personally, would also add spellcasting to that list, since I don't really associate the Avenger with casting spells--it's still Divinely magical, to be sure, but it doesn't feel like a spellcaster to me. (Neither does the Paladin, but that's not really up for debate anymore.)

Both Paladins & Avengers did have implement attack powers. Prayers, not spells, by the game's jargon, but functionally very similar to spells.

 

[Eric V]

My fav toon from all the 4e games I played was an Avenger.

I see [MENTION=1288]Mouseferatu[/MENTION]'s point that the Vengenace paladin is clearly meant to be along those lines. But as is, suffers from MAD way too much: Paladins need STR and CHA; an Avenger would need STR, DEX, and CHA (with CON being more important as well, since AC would be lower).

I'm not sure a full class is needed here, just some tweaking.

In another thread a while ago, some changes were proposed. Monk ac ability*. Switch spellcasting ability from CHA to WIS. Allow the use of WIS for one weapon related to the god (so they can still use greatsword effectively).

That said, they still have a bunch of paladin abilities that may not suit well, such as Lay on Hands. Spells, I'm not worried about, since I figure they just become smites.

It's a bit of work, but much of it is done by being a subclass, IMO.

*= This still doesn't match the normal Paladin's AC, btw. I'd let them have a free use of Shield of Faith, or say that spell is always active until they fall unconscious, then need to use a bonus action to reactivate it.

 

[Mouseferatu]

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.