D&D 5E (2024) What should the 15th Class be?

[Lanefan]

No. As a class, it should not be weaker that either a dedicated martial or a dedicated spellcaster. It should be just as powerful, in and of itself, as either.

In total, yes; but the martial side and the caster side would each have to be weaker than their single-class counterparts such that the total of the two parts is roughly the same strength as the dedicated classes.

To clarify:

You have a pure Fighter. You have a pure Wizard. You have a third class that tries to be both a Fighter and a Wizard at the same time - call it Gish, call it Swordmage, call it whatever.

If this combination third class is as good a warrior as the pure Fighter AND-OR as good a caster as the pure Wizard, you've got a problem because now there's no reason whatsoever to play either the pure Fighter or the pure Wizard: this class completely overshadows one or both.

Thus, the third class has to be weaker at fighting than the pure Fighter AND weaker at casting than the pure Wizard such that when added together the two elements make up a class of about-equal strength to the 'pure' classes.

 

[Hussar]

If I had had even the slightest success with getting 3PP material while playing 5e, I would take this much more seriously.

It's not players who insist on "WotC has to make it". It's GMs. Specifically 5e GMs, and their hyperconservative attitude toward this kind of content unless they specifically make it themselves. I have seen this attitude over and over again, I see it here on ENWorld all the time.

Oy, if you want to play something 3pp, bring it to the table. I'm all in.

 

[Minigiant]

In total, yes; but the martial side and the caster side would each have to be weaker than their single-class counterparts such that the total of the two parts is roughly the same strength as the dedicated classes.

To clarify:

You have a pure Fighter. You have a pure Wizard. You have a third class that tries to be both a Fighter and a Wizard at the same time - call it Gish, call it Swordmage, call it whatever.

If this combination third class is as good a warrior as the pure Fighter AND-OR as good a caster as the pure Wizard, you've got a problem because now there's no reason whatsoever to play either the pure Fighter or the pure Wizard: this class completely overshadows one or both.

Thus, the third class has to be weaker at fighting than the pure Fighter AND weaker at casting than the pure Wizard such that when added together the two elements make up a class of about-equal strength to the 'pure' classes.

This is why I'm growing to the idea that the gish class does not get extra attack.

Not as Strong in fighting as a Fighter
Not as Strong in wizardry as Wizard

The 5.5e ranger's FE would be the example. Rather than a traditional spell slot paradigm, the Gish would get to cast a lot of slotless 1st level spells.

Teleport then Attack
Jump then Attack
Attack then Flamethrower
Attack then Drain
Attack then Charm
Turn invisible then Attack
Predict and Counterattack
Attack and Aegis

 

[Hussar]

In my opinion any class ability that lets one player do something on another player’s turn is bad. This was the problem I experienced with the twilight cleric. Not that was overpowered (although it was) but that it got to butt in on every single players turn. When it is your turn the spotlight should be on you.

But... that's not how warlords ever worked. It was almost always the warlord's turn when the character took an action and then granted actions to other PC's. Very, very few warlord actions were reactive. I agree, a reactive warlord would be a PITA.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Oy, if you want to play something 3pp, bring it to the table. I'm all in.

Your game is of course the primary exception to my previous experiences--but I'm quite content with what Kalthor is.

 

[Minigiant]

As for the Warlord, my idea to not cause the Warlord to be a battlemap slog or a turn interuptor is to have a Command aura.

Those in the Command Aura or informed during the rest are "in on the plan".

Those "in on the plan" get to either

1. Do some Action as a bonus action
   1. Dash
   2. Dodge
   3. Disengage
   4. Help
   5. Flank (Warlord exclusive)
   6. Attack (High level)
   7. Cast (Subclass only)
2. Enhance a basic Action
   1. Dash with bonus movement
   2. Attack while Disengage
   3. Bonus attack (Hasted)
   4. Ready to Volley fire
3. Get a buff
   1. Int to damage
   2. Wis to AC
   3. Cha to Death saving throws

 

[Corinnguard]

Like, say you have a Ninja subclass of Assassin.

If the Ninja subclass was a Wizard subclass, you could then have something like the Shinobi in the Naruto anime. At 2nd level, you could give them some additional proficiencies in Light armor and weapons typically associated with the Monk. You could also have it where they gain bonus spells at 2nd level based off of their Nature Affinity (Air, Earth, Fire, Lightning and Water). As they go up in level, they could expand their Nature Affinity by picking up another element or two.

As for the rest of the subclass, it could be designed like the Bladesinger Wizard, but instead of having the Wizard lean Fighter, it instead leans towards the Rogue class.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

The original gish was designed to be a nPC.

I love the idea of ninja like an arcane+stealth hybrid, allowing space for different subclasses. I guess a shinobi class would be wellcome thanks popularity of Naruto anime (Hey, you! This is a family-friendly place! if you want to do "harem do jutsu" then go to hotel!). Could we use the Korean name "sulsa" because now ninja is a rogue subclass?

The assasin class I imagine it is stealth and martial maneuvers of the school "shadow hand" but it needs subclasses with enough "brand power".

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If the Ninja subclass was a Wizard subclass, you could then have something like the Shinobi in the Naruto anime. At 2nd level, you could give them some additional proficiencies in Light armor and weapons typically associated with the Monk. You could also have it where they gain bonus spells at 2nd level based off of their Nature Affinity (Air, Earth, Fire, Lightning and Water). As they go up in level, they could expand their Nature Affinity by picking up another element or two.

As for the rest of the subclass, it could be designed like the Bladesinger Wizard, but instead of having the Wizard lean Fighter, it instead leans towards the Rogue class.

Where are we going with this, counselor? I'm genuinely not sure what you're aiming for with this. That there could be--functionally--a Rogue-based, rather than Fighter-based, Bladesinger-like subclass? I suppose that we could do that, but...why?

I'd also say that any Wizard getting "bonus spells" is a bit lackluster given the Wizard's special thing is rampant plagiarism being limited only by what spells they can copy, not what spells they're permitted to learn through advancement.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The original gish was designed to be a nPC.

I love the idea of ninja like an arcane+stealth hybrid, allowing space for different subclasses. I guess a shinobi class would be wellcome thanks popularity of Naruto anime (Hey, you! This is a family-friendly place! if you want to do "harem do jutsu" then go to hotel!). Could we use the Korean name "sulsa" because now ninja is a rogue subclass?

The assasin class I imagine it is stealth and martial maneuvers of the school "shadow hand" but it needs subclasses with enough "brand power".

At least four subclasses come to mind:

Ninja -- as stated, though I'd accept a more culturally-neutral name if one could be found
Poisoner -- classic trope whether East or West, with plenty of room for mechanical expression
Operative -- James Bond, medieval-style, perhaps with elements of Batman as well (and yes, even medieval/renaissance times had spies!)
Reaper -- Literally, becoming a herald of Death itself, drawing on both myth and superhero comics

If I spent a bit more time on it, I'm sure I could come up with more, but four seems adequate for now.