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

[UnadvisedGoose445]

Well this may have been covered earlier on in the thread, but I don't see much of a need for any classes outside of the 12 that we have already, with the exception of the Mystic. I really think that having one more Intelligence based full class, as well as from a new "power source" could be beneficial, and something that a subclass can't really provide.

I'm speaking from my own experience here, but I just can't think of much else that I would feel is warranted. Most any other concept or type can be done by adding a subclass, feats, or spells. I think that's the beauty of the design of this edition, as far as class structure goes. Subclass provides specific nuances and abilities within the class itself, and feats add in great variety of play and weapon choice for those martial classes that have the space for them. Spells really help round out the currently existing caster classes.

Obviously this is just my opinion, but I like that subclasses can be easily created to fill in the niches that most are looking for. Once the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide hits, I think I will be incredibly happy with the options that are available. Another Sorcerous Origin or two (and maybe Artificer and Witch as Wizard Traditions), a smattering of new feats that make unique weapon choices more interesting and fun (Daggermaster, something for flails!, etc.), and maybe a very few spells that provide something interesting, and the edition will be pretty much perfect for me.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Are you honestly saying that the non-casters in your group don't spend at least 75% of their total attack actions making to-hit rolls that do approximately the same damage every round?

Yes.

Edit: I didn't see your qualifier "attack actions" at first. They definitely don't spend 75+% of their actions making simple attacks. Maybe 40-60%. The other options I listed, such as Dodge, Disarm, Disengage, attack and move, Grapple, Push, Power Attack, Ready, Hide, and my homebrewed Delay are the other 40-60% of what they do. Only some of those actions qualify as "attack actions", and if you wanted the overall percentage I'd have to guesstimate.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

My only reservation about recharge mechanics is that 5e combats tend to be so short. Recharge takes some time to happen. I suppose that's an issue with any attempt at tactical depth, as well - it simply doesn't have time to develop.

I would argue that having differential advantage is what allows tactics to develop. If 5E battlemasters had an advantage that kicked in during longer combats, like an superiority die which recharges on 5-6, they'd have an incentive to do things like Hide behind total cover for a round, or Dodge to gain time, which gives them time to spend studying the opponent looking for weaknesses, in order to regain their superiority.

In other words, short combats are a choice. The longest combat we've had at my table in the last month or so took a session and a half of real time, and about fifteen minutes of game time, most of which was spent looking for boulders and trees to drop on the enemy from their spelljamming ship. The players took the enemy (40 hobgoblins) by surprise while they were asleep in their barracks, so they could have just Fireballed them all, but they were worried about what 40 hobgoblins could do to them if they retaliated, thus the indirect approach: tactics.

When you're talking viable options based on the class itself, not really. But, yes, /everyone/ has options in 5e, particularly the option to go 'outside the box' and declare an action the rules don't cover - a good DM will take advantage of that to make the game more fun and interesting, especially if it gives a neglected PC a shot at a little spotlight time. That a fighter PC is more likely to benefit from that sort of DM beneficence, though, only highlights how limited the class, itself, is.

It's not DM beneficence though. All the options I listed previously are built right into the system, either PHB or DMG variants. You can ask your DM, "Hey, is the Disarm option available in this game?" Fighters are good at using those maneuvers due to their extra attacks, and sometimes due to fighting style as well (Disarm via arrow is a +2 on your opposed role with Archery).

Yes, it's situational, but that's like claiming that only DM beneficence gives you targets of opportunity worth Fireballing. Yes, the DM can build a game where enemies always spend 100% of their time in skirmish formation while pelting with missile weapons, and in that game your Fireball is useless. But if you build for versatility and tactical options, you'll be well-placed to exploit the enemy disposition in a completely different way. Fighters are the same way: GWM is pretty useless against Fire Giants because of their high AC, and you can't really Push them around because they're Huge and have a great Athletics skill--but nothing stops you from Disarming them! (Even better if the warlock has Hexed their Strength.) Adapt your tactics to the opponent.

I haven't looked at GURPS in a long time. Has it really changed that much? I recall it as a heavily skill-based point-buy system with combat options as you describe in the first sentence. The idea of combat options as 'powers' in GURPS seems quite alien to me. Powers as powers - as in GURPS:Supers, sure, but combat options as powers?

Yeah, when I left GURPS 4E all the published products were neglecting the skills angle entirely and building everything as point-buy powers. It really turned me off, but it would probably turn some other people on.

My memory may be colored, so take my "building everything" with a grain of salt BTW. It certainly seemed that way to me at the time though.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I would argue that having differential advantage is what allows tactics to develop. If 5E battlemasters had an advantage that kicked in during longer combats, like an superiority die which recharges on 5-6, they'd have an incentive to do things like Hide behind total cover for a round, or Dodge to gain time, which gives them time to spend studying the opponent looking for weaknesses, in order to regain their superiority.

In other words, short combats are a choice.

The way 5e is tuned, though, it's generally a sub-optimal, probably even non-viable choice. Focus fire and novas will see you to victory in short order with minimal loss of resources. Artificially prolonging the combat will cost you hp resources, possibly even get your party wiped. The DM can certainly tweak things to enable longer combats and introduce variants to allow tactical play, but a player deciding to hide or buck for some kind of 'fighting defensively' advantage or 'probing attacks' where he holds back early to get an advantage later, will likely just be under-contributing.

It's not DM beneficence though. All the options I listed previously are built right into the system, either PHB or DMG variants. You can ask your DM, "Hey, is the Disarm option available in this game?"

And if he says 'yes' that's DM beneficence.

Yes, it's situational, but that's like claiming that only DM beneficence gives you targets of opportunity worth Fireballing. Yes, the DM can build a game where enemies always spend 100% of their time in skirmish formation while pelting with missile weapons, and in that game your Fireball is useless.

And, in that game, you have other spells you can use instead. There's nothing wrong with situational, 'situational' makes for more interesting decisions.

But if you build for versatility and tactical options, you'll be well-placed to exploit the enemy disposition in a completely different way. Fighters are the same way: GWM is pretty useless against Fire Giants because of their high AC, and you can't really Push them around because they're Huge and have a great Athletics skill--but nothing stops you from Disarming them! (Even better if the warlock has Hexed their Strength.) Adapt your tactics to the opponent.

It's not like a fighter can walk into a room and go "darn, Fire Giants, better retrain GWM before I attack."

Yeah, when I left GURPS 4E all the published products were neglecting the skills angle entirely and building everything as point-buy powers. It really turned me off, but it would probably turn some other people on.

That's very different. And, yeah, I might have found that an improvement. As innovative as skill-based systems were in 1978 when RuneQuest started that ball rolling (hmm, actually, if not Traveler before that), they run into problems, particularly in games like GURPS and Hero where the list of skills was always growing. IMHO point-buy works better with effects-based systems, like Hero, anyway.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The way 5e is tuned, though, it's generally a sub-optimal, probably even non-viable choice. Focus fire and novas will see you to victory in short order with minimal loss of resources. Artificially prolonging the combat will cost you hp resources, possibly even get your party wiped. The DM can certainly tweak things to enable longer combats and introduce variants to allow tactical play, but a player deciding to hide or buck for some kind of 'fighting defensively' advantage or 'probing attacks' where he holds back early to get an advantage later, will likely just be under-contributing.

*snip*

It's not like a fighter can walk into a room and go "darn, Fire Giants, better retrain GWM before I attack."

Why would the GWM fighter need to retrain GWM before he attacks? He's already got everything he needs: +9(ish) on his Athletics skill and three attacks. He can disarm that Fire Giant upwards of 80% of the time, take the sword with his object interaction, and move it out of reach or just hold on to it.

To say that fighting defensively is suboptimal, even nonviable in 5E is contrary to my lived experience. It costs you nothing in terms of HP/action surges/other resources to fight at long range, to hide behind total cover for a round, or to Dodge/Disengage/Blade Ward for a round while other PCs do damage. Fighting defensively is in fact the only good way to take on superior opposition.

I'm influenced by the fact that I prefer smaller groups, and smaller groups have an easier time coordinating their actions. Anecdotally, it is far, far easier to get one 7th level Shadow Monk PC to Hide from 7 hobgoblins (Deadly encounter) for a turn in order to gain advantage on her next shot, to cancel out the disadvantage from long range, than it would be to get twelve PCs to all hide from the hobgoblins for a turn. Large groups become unwieldy and defensive tactics stop working well, unless they are spells like Wall of Force. I can imagine how a large group with no real leadership might be forced into offensive mode by social dynamics which preclude tactical fighting. ("Leeroy Jenkins!") In fact, I've played in such groups and it was nightmarish.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Why would the GWM fighter need to retrain GWM before he attacks?

Why would the wizard cast spells other than fireball at Fire Giants? Because it would be more effective.

For a more complex, tactical experience, you need a number of choices that are viable as a base-line, but may each be situtationally more or less so - not that that's all you need, it's just one of 'em. The 5e Fighter is not designed that way, you pick a Style or a Feat and you're committed to it, you can't swap GWM for Sharpshooter because you're defending a mountain pass from cover high up on a cliff face. That inflexibility can make a comically bad option mechanically superior.

To say that fighting defensively is suboptimal, even nonviable in 5E is contrary to my lived experience. It costs you nothing in terms of HP/action surges/other resources to fight at long range, to hide behind total cover for a round, or to Dodge/Disengage/Blade Ward for a round while other PCs do damage. Fighting defensively is in fact the only good way to take on superior opposition.

D&D's hps are great for some things, but they do make it a trivially optimal tactic to just burn down one enemy at a time, and that means attacking every round and maximizing DPR. It's not always the best tactic, but when it's not, the initiative passes to classes that have the flexibility to back off DPR and do something else, entirely. The Fighter simply isn't one of those classes as written. A fighter can refrain from blowing such tactical decisions for the rest of the group, but it may well be unable to contribute much, if anything beyond that.

Thus the interest in a 'more tactical' class, where the tactical flexibility is built into the mechanics.

I'm influenced by the fact that I prefer smaller groups, and smaller groups have an easier time coordinating their actions.

I can see how that might make a difference. It sounds more like avoiding combat or choosing the time of combat more than fighting defensively, and not exactly like in-combat 'tactics,' though. 'Tactical' may even be the wrong word. Maybe 'flexible' or, not so seriously, 'less boring.'

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Why would the wizard cast spells other than fireball at Fire Giants? Because it would be more effective.

For a more complex, tactical experience, you need a number of choices that are viable as a base-line, but may each be situtationally more or less so - not that that's all you need, it's just one of 'em. The 5e Fighter is not designed that way, you pick a Style or a Feat and you're committed to it, you can't swap GWM for Sharpshooter because you're defending a mountain pass from cover high up on a cliff face. That inflexibility can make a comically bad option mechanically superior.

D&D's hps are great for some things, but they do make it a trivially optimal tactic to just burn down one enemy at a time, and that means attacking every round and maximizing DPR. It's not always the best tactic, but when it's not, the initiative passes to classes that have the flexibility to back off DPR and do something else, entirely. The Fighter simply isn't one of those classes as written. A fighter can refrain from blowing such tactical decisions for the rest of the group, but it may well be unable to contribute much, if anything beyond that.

Thus the interest in a 'more tactical' class, where the tactical flexibility is built into the mechanics.

I can see how that might make a difference. It sounds more like avoiding combat or choosing the time of combat more than fighting defensively, and not exactly like in-combat 'tactics,' though. 'Tactical' may even be the wrong word. Maybe 'flexible' or, not so seriously, 'less boring.'

I think we should talk more about the GWM fighter vs. the Fire Giant, because that will clarify a number of things including your feeling that defensive fighting doesn't happen "in combat," which I disagree with.

I originally gave the example of a GWM-specialized fighter engaging in combat with a Fire Giant. I showed him mentally running through his options: "GWM isn't favorable due to high AC, can't Push or Grapple because the giant is too big--aha! I can Disarm him, which pulls his teeth without impairing my offense, tilting the combat in my favor." It's a tactically favorable option. You can pull the Fire Giant's teeth with one successful attack instead of having to wear him down with fifteen or twenty successful attacks first. He can of course respond by trying to grab his sword back, or grab my sword, or try to hit me with a boulder as an improvised melee weapon, but the mere fact that I have more attacks than he does gives me an advantage in such contests. Plus the fact that there are other PCs who are killing him while he tries to grab his sword back from me--time is on my side.

You then commented that the GWM fighter can't retrain GWM before entering combat, and in the post above you reiterate that you believe Disarm is ineffective without "retraining" GWM first, but you haven't actually enumerated any deficiencies. You assert that the 5E fighter is "committed" to GWM because he's GWM specialized, and that "that inflexibility can make a comically bad option mechanically superior," but that clearly doesn't apply in this case--Disarm is actually a better choice than making a simple attack, and the "trivially optimal tactic" of burning down the enemy one at a time turns out not to be optimal at all.

Thus my skepticism of the claim that the Fighter is a one-trick pony with no tactical flexibility. Yes, I'm using a DMG option (in fact I use several including Climb Aboard and Overrun), and those variants exist specifically to make tactical combat more sophisticated and interesting--but they don't require the PC Fighter to change his build one iota. In fact, the PC who uses non-attack options most frequently at my table is actually a protection-minded paladin with Str 16 and only +7 to Athletics and two attacks, and yet he is still effective with them. A fighter with Str 20 and 3 attacks would be roughly twice as effective, even if he specialized in GWM instead of Shield Master/Tavern Brawler.

Avoiding combat or choosing the time of combat is a thing in my games, but there's also "choosing who engages whom during combat," which is actually a major thing in which the paladin specializes and at which he is quite good (though not as excellent as a specialized fighter would be). The thing that makes combats dicey isn't the attack and damage rolls, it's when the Fire Giant backs off and starts hurling boulders from behind cover, or when the dying Chuuls fail a morale check and go berserk, charging the back line with no regard for getting surrounded and thereby threatening the careless wizard who got within 40' of the front line. (He can't just Disengage because the Chuul has the same movement rate as he does, so either he spends his concentration to Expeditious Retreat, or he Dodges and hopes he doesn't get hit. But fortunately he doesn't have to because the paladin charged in already and Grappled the Chuul from behind. Yay Paladin! Wizard Disengages and retreats while bardlock and shadow monk finish killing Chuul with Paladin's help.)

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think we should talk more about the GWM fighter vs. the Fire Giant, because that will clarify a number of things including your feeling that defensive fighting doesn't happen "in combat," which I disagree with.

I originally gave the example of a GWM-specialized fighter engaging in combat with a Fire Giant. I showed him mentally running through his options: "GWM isn't favorable due to high AC, can't Push or Grapple because the giant is too big--aha! I can Disarm him, which pulls his teeth without impairing my offense, tilting the combat in my favor." It's a tactically favorable option.

Does it though? Won't many DMs figure you can't disarm a greatsword the size of a telephone pole? Won't he just pick it up again? Or throw boulders, or, since a little outside the box thinking is open to DMs, pick you up and beat your friends to death with your armored body?

You then commented that the GWM fighter can't retrain GWM before entering combat, You assert that the 5E fighter is "committed" to GWM because he's GWM specialized, and that "that inflexibility can make a comically bad option mechanically superior,"

Yes, though that was in reference to a different example (the rational option of sniping enemies from cover discarded in favor of doing vastly more damage in melee).

Thus my skepticism of the claim that the Fighter is a one-trick pony with no tactical flexibility. Yes, I'm using a DMG option (in fact I use several including Climb Aboard and Overrun)

And those options are open to anyone competent at attacking. A ranger or paladin for instance. You can always try anything you can think of, based on the abilities you do have, but having more abilities gives you more to choose from, /and/ more to use as a foundation for outside-the-box thinking.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Does it though? Won't many DMs figure you can't disarm a greatsword the size of a telephone pole? Won't he just pick it up again? Or throw boulders, or, since a little outside the box thinking is open to DMs, pick you up and beat your friends to death with your armored body?

Yes, though that was in reference to a different example (the rational option of sniping enemies from cover discarded in favor of doing vastly more damage in melee).

And those options are open to anyone competent at attacking. A ranger or paladin for instance. You can always try anything you can think of, based on the abilities you do have, but having more abilities gives you more to choose from, /and/ more to use as a foundation for outside-the-box thinking.

If you can Disarm a normal greatsword with a dagger (perhaps by striking at the hand holding the greatsword), why couldn't you Disarm a triple-size Greatsword (much smaller than a telephone pole in my neighborhood) with a greatsword? There's a reason why Push maneuvers are size-restricted and Disarm is not. If the DM disallows it during combat after introducing it, that's on him, in the same way that it's on him if he refuses to allow Evasion vs. dragon breath because "there's nowhere to hide." It's not germane to the discussion of what tactics are available to the class as written, it's more of a playstyle issue with how your DM runs his game.

I already discussed what happens if he tries to grab it back from you ("pick it up again"). That costs him time, and time is on your side because the other PCs are busy killing him while you fight over his sword. And you have an inherent advantage in the contest over his sword because you have more attacks--and your advantage is even more pronounced if the Warlock has him Hexed. Edit: see retraction below.

If he tries to attack you barehanded or with a boulder, great! That's what defensive fighting is all about. Instead of taking 6d6+7 (28) damage per hit, you'll take 3d1+7 (10) unarmed or 3d4+7 (14) with the improvised boulder. He can try to chuck boulders instead, but he'll have disadvantage because you're within 5' of him, and he only gets one boulder attack per turn instead of two with the greatsword, and he only has 2-5 boulders per MM guidelines. You've pulled his teeth, allowing you to defeat him with less loss. That's tactics right there.

I disagree that merely having more discrete abilities is a good foundation for outside-the-box thinking. I certainly don't see any evidence that the plethora of discretized abilities in 5E encourages players to use the existing abilities outside the box. No one that I've ever heard of tries to use Smite to enhance his Disarm attempt, or to Rage as part of his attempt to Intimidate. Instead, the highly-specific nature of the abilities encourages players and DMs to keep them in their little mental boxes: Smite enhances damage and that's it, and using it on anything else is illegal. On the other hand, a generic ability like the fighter's multiple Extra Attacks interacts in rich and rewarding ways with rules features which leverage Extra Attacks, such as Disarming, to make the fighter much, much better at those things than anybody else. You get a geometric increase in tactical depth without combinatoric increase in complexity, the way you would with discretized powers.

Think of it this way: there's a (bonus) action economy in 5E, and there's a concentration economy, and there's a gold economy, and there's a reaction economy, and there's an attack economy. Paladins, rangers, and barbarians can be pretty good at the attack economy, but the fighter excels, so if there's something you want the fighter to excel at, tie it to the attack economy. So far that's what 5E has done with most combat options; although a few of them are tied to the movement or action economies instead. (I'm looking at you, Overrun/Athletics, Disengage/Cunning Action and Dodge/Patient Defense.) And because the fighter has a great attack economy, he can make things economical that the paladin can't, such as pushing someone prone and then Power Attacking them twice before retreating, which basically trades two Power Attacks at advantage for one opportunity attack at disadvantage. That doesn't work so well when you've only got two attacks.






Edit/Retraction: BTW, the DMG Disarm already incorporates advantage/disadvantage mechanics for two-handed weapons and size, which I had forgotten about when I estimated 80% earlier, and which should also assuage your concerns about disarming a giant sword. It will be quite difficult unless Hex is involved. The giant has advantage on his Athletics check because he's larger than you, and you have disadvantage on your attack roll because he's using it two-handed. Since he's already got +2 Athletics relative to you, even with your three attacks you might not prevail. Unless someone has him Hexed, Disarm might be a losing strategy after all, compared to Dodge. But Dodge comes with its own problems including the fact that he can just target someone else.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I disagree that merely having more discrete abilities is a good foundation for outside-the-box thinking. I certainly don't see any evidence that the plethora of discretized abilities in 5E encourages players to use the existing abilities outside the box. No one that I've ever heard of tries to use Smite to enhance his Disarm attempt, or to Rage as part of his attempt to Intimidate.

I've seen the latter in earlier eds. In particular, spells, which have discrete and wildly varied effects, tended to get used as a foundation for some 'outside the box' off label trick /constantly/. Adjudicating players trying to do weird things with spells probably accounted for most of my time at the table back in the day.

Of course, it also depends on how things are rendered discrete. A half-dozen discrete - but universal - combat options gives you a half-dozen things to do, but their things anyone can do, carved out of the pre-existing universe of things any one could dream up and try. You're more likely to be able to do them, but not more likely to be able to do anything else.

OTOH, if you're given a half-dozen things to do that not just anyone could have tried to begin with, you can still try anything anyone could, and you could use any of those half-dozen things as a springboard to try yet other things that not just anyone could.

The latter sort of 'discrete thing' really does expand your options, the hard part is that there's an entrenched mind-set in D&D circles that only casters should get things like that. Under that mind-set, it's impossible to have a non-caster class that has more options than even the most basic of mindless beatstick 'simple fighter' builds.

Edit/Retraction: BTW, the DMG Disarm already incorporates advantage/disadvantage mechanics for two-handed weapons and size, which I had forgotten about when I estimated 80% earlier, and which should also assuage your concerns about disarming a giant sword...Unless someone has him Hexed, Disarm might be a losing strategy after all, compared to Dodge. But Dodge comes with its own problems including the fact that he can just target someone else.

That's an example of the kind of thing I was concerned a DM might do, and it turns out it's already in the optional rule. So, no, not assuaged, confirmed.