Remathilis
Legend
Yes. Heaven forbid we try to expand that. "Sorry guys, we made a supernatural warrior class already and we can't make another ever again. What do you mean there are 'six full caster classes in the game'?"
D&D 5E (2024) What should the 15th Class be?
- Thread starter Kobold Avenger
- Start date
Corinnguard
Hero
For a spell-less Ranger, you would need to check out 3pp sources like EN Publishing's Level Up. 5e tends towards settings that are high magic where everyone and everything needs magic to do mundane things.
jmartkdr2
Hero
Hmmm. Clearly the first six gish-as-subclass options aren't working for players. I think we need a seventh.
Making it a full class like the very popular and well-regarded versions in past editions can't possibly work in 5e!
/s
LuisCarlos17f
Legend
A ranger is a fighter with a piece of stealth and primal magic, and a witcher is like Bane(Batman enemy) with some magic tricks.
The artificer can disarm traps like rogues.
A magic-martial class can't be only a wizard with armour because then that would be a warmage. Teorically the "duskblade" is focused into close range, although a magic weapon with long range, for example a spiked chain, is a different thing, or a returning throwing axe.
Other point is if duskblade was published but later the martial adepts were updated the the previous gish class may become obsolete. Why to choose a class who becomes weaker after spending all the spell slots? The martial adepts have got a faster reload.
Somebody could say a "spirit spellcaster"+martial hybrid class would be more logical than arcane+martial. But then other could answer the psionic warrior should be only a fighter subclass.
And the classes aren't only a list of class features. WotC wants each class and subclass with its own mark of identity. A swordmage or duskblade can't be only a flamethrower with armour. It needs an interesting lore or background. Here the "dragonknight" or "dragoon" (mounted infantery) could be more comercial or "mainstream".
Other option could be a warrior linked to a simbiotic sentient weapon, armour or item, working this like a partial-time second PC,
A spellcaster with "mysteries" like the shadowcaster could need a lot of playtesting because she would spend the spell sooner than warlock and it would need to stop more times to reload. A "mystery-user" class like the shadowcaster from 3.5 Tome of Magic is possible but it may be the last to be playtested. I imagine those future "mysteries" to be about different elements (metal, wood, water, fire, air, earth) and not only shadow.
* I dare to say the witcher is more supersoldier-serum with batbelt, or said with other words: Captain America with gadgets from Batman's belt
* The blood hunter is a "monster-touched" class but officially it is by a 3PP and we are talking about possible classes created and published by WotC, aren't we?
The artificer can disarm traps like rogues.
A magic-martial class can't be only a wizard with armour because then that would be a warmage. Teorically the "duskblade" is focused into close range, although a magic weapon with long range, for example a spiked chain, is a different thing, or a returning throwing axe.
Other point is if duskblade was published but later the martial adepts were updated the the previous gish class may become obsolete. Why to choose a class who becomes weaker after spending all the spell slots? The martial adepts have got a faster reload.
Somebody could say a "spirit spellcaster"+martial hybrid class would be more logical than arcane+martial. But then other could answer the psionic warrior should be only a fighter subclass.
And the classes aren't only a list of class features. WotC wants each class and subclass with its own mark of identity. A swordmage or duskblade can't be only a flamethrower with armour. It needs an interesting lore or background. Here the "dragonknight" or "dragoon" (mounted infantery) could be more comercial or "mainstream".
Other option could be a warrior linked to a simbiotic sentient weapon, armour or item, working this like a partial-time second PC,
A spellcaster with "mysteries" like the shadowcaster could need a lot of playtesting because she would spend the spell sooner than warlock and it would need to stop more times to reload. A "mystery-user" class like the shadowcaster from 3.5 Tome of Magic is possible but it may be the last to be playtested. I imagine those future "mysteries" to be about different elements (metal, wood, water, fire, air, earth) and not only shadow.
* I dare to say the witcher is more supersoldier-serum with batbelt, or said with other words: Captain America with gadgets from Batman's belt
* The blood hunter is a "monster-touched" class but officially it is by a 3PP and we are talking about possible classes created and published by WotC, aren't we?
Clint_L
Legend
One thing that I have been thinking about is whether and how the widespread adoption of DnDBeYond affects WotC's decision making in all things, but especially on adding more stuff to the game.
Thanks to DDB, they have a lot of data on class and subclass popularity (every now and then, they share bits of that data with us). So I imagine that they are looking at adding any new class or subclass very much through the lens of costs and benefits.
On top of the cost of creating, testing, and publishing, a primary cost of adding something as significant as a new class is that you have substantially increased the complexity of the game. I suspect that WotC is looking hard at their numbers for classes/subclasses that they see as analogous, as well as at their forums for a sense of demand, and, per their general 5e strategy, being very cautious about adding new stuff to the game.
So for something like, say, a Warlord, they are probably making internal projections of how much usage the class will actually get. They already have some Warlord-adjacent options, in terms of classes than can be used primarily for support, battlemaster fighters, various feats. Given that context, what percentage of players will want to play a Warlord, specifically? Unless it is going to be signficant (say, 3% or higher***), then WotC does not have much incentive to add the Warlord to the rules.
***My understanding is that this is around the percentage of characters that are artificers on DDB. Druids are the least popular of the PHB classes at around 5%, last time I saw data. Other classes were 7% or higher.
Edit: the addition of more classes also has very much to be considered in light of WotC's "less is more" strategy for 5e, which is super clear not just from the communications, but from our current threads looking at D&D's publication history through every edition. WotC has determined that publishing more stuff to serve every possible niche is actually counterproductive.
Thanks to DDB, they have a lot of data on class and subclass popularity (every now and then, they share bits of that data with us). So I imagine that they are looking at adding any new class or subclass very much through the lens of costs and benefits.
On top of the cost of creating, testing, and publishing, a primary cost of adding something as significant as a new class is that you have substantially increased the complexity of the game. I suspect that WotC is looking hard at their numbers for classes/subclasses that they see as analogous, as well as at their forums for a sense of demand, and, per their general 5e strategy, being very cautious about adding new stuff to the game.
So for something like, say, a Warlord, they are probably making internal projections of how much usage the class will actually get. They already have some Warlord-adjacent options, in terms of classes than can be used primarily for support, battlemaster fighters, various feats. Given that context, what percentage of players will want to play a Warlord, specifically? Unless it is going to be signficant (say, 3% or higher***), then WotC does not have much incentive to add the Warlord to the rules.
***My understanding is that this is around the percentage of characters that are artificers on DDB. Druids are the least popular of the PHB classes at around 5%, last time I saw data. Other classes were 7% or higher.
Edit: the addition of more classes also has very much to be considered in light of WotC's "less is more" strategy for 5e, which is super clear not just from the communications, but from our current threads looking at D&D's publication history through every edition. WotC has determined that publishing more stuff to serve every possible niche is actually counterproductive.
Last edited:
Remathilis
Legend
I'm not looking for a gish. I want a supernatural warrior without relying on spells. Since D&D won't allow the fighter to be supernatural, let's make something that can be.
I want a class that can emulate something like Hercules (supernaturally strong enough to divert rivers), Superman (who isn't casting spells to fly and freeze people) Geralt or similar. Akin to a monk but with swords and armor. You can't tell me that there is no room for a warrior who has supernatural abilities but isn't a spellcaster?
mellored
Legend
So... smites.
Longstride and jump are both non-concentration movement buffs the ranger has.
New ranger subclass: Gish.
Spells known: searing smite, thunderous smite, Misty Step.
Clint_L
Legend
This sounds like a hard class to balance - your examples are of extraordinarily powerful, primarily solo characters.
As to whether there is room...that's subjective. As I posted above, adding more complexity to the rules is a cost, and is something that a lot of players don't want (I'm among those who thinks there are already far too many classes and subclasses). I imagine from WotC's perspective, it's not so much a question of "room" as it is of "demand."
doctorbadwolf
Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Remathilis
Legend
Spellcasters get wish. I'm sure we can find a balance. We have 20 levels to work with.
There is a demand for martials who aren't strictly inferior to casters and a demand for more classes that don't use the spell system. I don't see an issue.
Do you think you monk is too complex? Do you feel there is little or no demand for it? Do you feel you game would be better without it? I think the monk is a good template for what I am looking for: a supernatural warrior without spells. Thing is, monk is dedicated to one combat style (unarmed martial arts) and I think there is room for an armed and armored version who does cool things. Dragon Knights. Divine prodigy. Stuff like that.
As for demand? IDK. Bloodhunter seems pretty popular...
