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

[Zardnaar]

Between the EK and the Bladesinger, I'm not sure how much design space there is for a mystic warrior who casts spells. You have a 9 level spellcaster with the same number of attacks as a fighter in the level range that 95% of games end at. It gets to sub in an attack for true strike/other cantrip so is already dealing more damage than just attacking twice. It has great defense in any fight that actually matters. What design space is there between this and the EK that wouldnt be OP or a chump class?

Half caster int based. Something like 4E Swordnage or 3.5 duskblade is lacking in 5E.

EKs good not so much at blending magic with weapons though.

 

[Gradine]

The above options feels me with a sense of ugh. Not because I don't want them, I'm all for lots and lots of classes. But because... for whatever reason, these options feels like "take 2" (or I guess "take 3") on a failure to suit an archetype. Options one AND two are basically saying "We want you to give us this Fighter Archetype (or older Druid Subclass), but do it better this time". And it's not even that I don't disagree with the ask, it just... feels bad, man.

There are a few directions I'm more interested in, at this point. The first, as mentioned, is some kind of Witch-type class, which I'd be WAY more interested in than a Shaman or whatever. It's just such a strong fantasy archetype and nothing the game has done has come anywhere close to fulfilling it. There's a lot of fun directions to go with this one, too.

The real answer though, which has come up before, is a Book-of-the-Nine-Swords representative. I'm fond of the Swordsage, personally; a light-armor Int-focused martial character with plenty of maneuvers and access to the tactical and support skillsets that helps cover the Warlord archetype without taking up a whole class worth of design space.

 

[Minigiant]

I firmly believe that nothing should be a class unless you can think of 10 archetypes for it

That's just a matter of creativity.

I could make 10 archetypes of a chef class just by referencing different types of cooking before even thinking on fantasy implications.

 

[ECMO3]

The warlord is unpopular because of a bunch of nonsense arguments about realism in a game that absolutely sucks at simulating anything. They also seemed to come from old grumps, so I don;t know how much WOTC should bother catering to the 60+ OSR crowd. Most of them seem to hate WOTC anyways.

I love WOTC, hate the idea of a Warlord and am below 60.

 

[ECMO3]

Half caster int based. Something like 4E Swordnage or 3.5 duskblade is lacking in 5E.

EKs good not so much at blending magic with weapons though.

I am with Bergenstein on this one, a halfcaster Swordmage type PC in 5E is just sounds like a Bladesinger with fewer spell slots ... so why not just play a Bladesinger?

 

[Zardnaar]

I am with Bergenstein on this one, a halfcaster Swordmage type PC in 5E is just sounds like a Bladesinger with fewer spell slots ... so why not just play a Bladesinger?

Because you have more room to load other stuff on top. Arcanesmites, Aegis ability from 4E, etc. Maybe update dragon discipline from 3.6 as a half caster. Look at Paladin you can add in sone powerful abilities if you're a half caster.

I don't think there's to much point of sword mage either due to bladesinger over lap. But there's other concepts out there.

 

[Lanefan]

Thats a weird distinction, surely once you've included the Planes in your definition of 'Nature', then Nature includes Spirits? Especially as the conjure spell outright stats that Druids are conjuring nature/fey/elemental spirits

What are Shaman doing differently besides adding an 'ancestral' category?

The bolded is a step too far for some*, who see the non-Prime Planes as entirely supernatural and see "nature" as being only what we can see around us on Earth translated to a fantasy setting.

Robins are natural. Dragons are natural in the setting. The moons and stars are natural. Gladsheim or the Abyss are supernatural.

* - not necessarily me, as until reading this post I've never really thought about it.

 

[Lanefan]

On the whole a majority of GMs don’t want the game to be more complex. WotC gets it about right for most people, that’s why 5e is so successful. Those people who want more complex classes are a small minority, so if you pick a random GM out of a bag the chance that you will get one is slim. There are people who are playing that stuff, but they probably have plenty of players already. The more complex the rules, the more skilled the GM needs to be to run the game. The more skilled the GM, the less likely they are to be short of players.

Further to this, the DMs who are skilled enough to easily handle the more complex rules are also quite likely skilled enough to tweak and-or modify the game on their own; meaning they too will have less need for WotC's official rules-tweaking supplements (though they'll probably gobble up any lore-enhancing supplements or supplements that add extras to the game).

 

[Lanefan]

I’m pretty sure the statistics show that, yes. I don’t think anyone buys all three core rule books and nothing else. They either buy only the players handbook, or they have lots of books/digital books.

If you're including adventures (e.g. Out of the Abyss) as supplements then what you say is pretty much ironclad true.

But if you only include true supplements (e.g. Tasha's) as supplements then I'm not sure it's as ironclad as all that to say everyone who has the core three books buys them.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I am with Bergenstein on this one, a halfcaster Swordmage type PC in 5E is just sounds like a Bladesinger with fewer spell slots ... so why not just play a Bladesinger?

because while bladesinger might be powerful as a fullcaster wizard with additional martial capabilities on top it's actually pretty ass at actually capturing the desired fantasy of the swordmage, of someone who seamlessly synergizes martial technique and magical effects into a single fighting style.