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

[Seramus]

You can't tell me that there is no room for a warrior who has supernatural abilities but isn't a spellcaster?

Should definitely be room. Rune Knight, Echo Knight, World Tree, Ancestral Guardian, etc already exist. The door to supernatural fighter is open.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Me: I think a Witcher would be a martial character who has supernatural powers but doesn't use spells.

Pretty sure Geralt cast spells in the Witcher games.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

5e essentially is a superhero game, imo.

And the thing about superhero games is the player decides all the lore with regards to their character’s powers.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

A fighter with "superpowers" is possible, but with its own subclasses and these being really interesting concepts are a different thing.

OK, I suggest two examples from the fiction, the swordman and the black knight from Marvel Knights. But these are "ordinary" warriors with "special" weapons.

A magic warrior without spells slots would be something... like the hensin heroes from maga, for example the Power Rangers. The superhero "Darkhawk" by Marvel or "Blue Beetle" by DC may be good examples of warriors with "magic armors".

 

[Rainbow Scissors]

I think the 15th class should something that combines unarmed fighting with animal forms.

It would be like the monk version of a Totem Barbarian, with a tiny bit of druid mixed in.

 

[Uta-napishti]

After reading the whole thread, some points:
INT Martial:
WoTC doesn't care about the magic / martial divide very much... Arguably the monk is a WIS based pure martial, but they don't have a pure martial based on CHA or a pure martial based on INT. . But players do care! There is a desire for a non-magical character that is dangerous for a reason other than brawn. Yet, how and why are they dangerous exactly varies by class. Well, if they are really precise, quick, or really stealthy, that is Rogue (DEX). If they are really disciplined or mobile they are a monk (WIS, DEX). If they are really sensitive and atuned to the advantages of the terrain they are a ranger (WIS + woops, WoTC gave them magic after all, sorry). If they are dangerous because they are building machines or poisons to win they are an artificer (INT, Half caster snuck in again because of course tech is magic). If they are dangerous because they are organizing their side to fight better together they are a ......... WARLORD / Tactician (INT or CHA (maybe you pick?). If you had a spell-less BARD, they might be your CHA warlord.
So I think Warlord is the biggest missing class. I would assume INT based, but you could also have and INT and CHA MAD if you want kind of a spell-less bard take on the Warlord. Just don't give it spells. It should have maneuvers like the Battlemaster, but focused on givining the party an edge. And it was retroactively the class that Elgin had in the D&D Movie.

Monster Class:
I think the argument for a non-caster "Monstery" Shapeshifter / Beast class is pretty interesting, since it is such an archetype with so many sources. There is a design space here the size of the monster manual, but balancing it will be rough. There is also some argument here that it would be best water down the idea into a barbarian subclass.

GISH:
I would argue that the gish has been done enough ways people should probably be happy with it. The artificer, because of its (unusual for D&D) tech flavor and absence from the PHB, doesn't fill the INT halfcaster space as well as the Ranger does the WIS half caster or paladin as the CHA half caster do. I would have been happier with a non-tech half caster, with special magical maneuvers, but I don't know if we really need it.

The Wielder class people have been suggesting is just a Warlock Pact I think.

The Witch: in my mind is a great aesthetic archetype but a fuzzy mechanical one. What makes a witch hard in D&D is not that there is some clear "witch power" that we don't yet have mechanics for, but rather that witches are mostly defined by their gender and status as mystery outsiders and historical witches aren't cleanly on either side of the D&D hard barrier between divine and arcane magic. A witch might have spells smattered all over the Druid, Cleric, Wizard, Bard and Warlock lists. Then this unparalleled spell diversity would have to be balanced by giving them some power limits of another nature -- ones that hopefully would not ruin the enjoyment of playing the new class.

 

[ECMO3]

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.

Echo Knight, Psi Warrior and Rune Knight are pretty darn supernatural without spells.

 

[Clint_L]

Spellcasters get wish. I'm sure we can find a balance. We have 20 levels to work with.

A few spellcasters get wish, at levels where a vanishly small percentage of games are played.

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.

Well, there is a small but vocal contigent on this forum who make that demand. A lot.

Then there are a lot of folks who seem pretty satisfied with how martials play. From WotC's perspective, they probably note that martials, fighters in particular, are actually overrepresented as a class choice in DDB data. It's not even close, with fighters.

Whenever this debate happens, folks assert, without much evidence, that martials are struggling or there's this big demand for change. But that's hard to square with their persistent popularity. It's also hard to square with how powerful martials are since the 2024 rules update.

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.

There's room for zillions of classes if you don't care about making the game more complicated and expense isn't an issue. WotC seems pretty set on continuing their very successful strategy of keeping 5e's bloat to a minimum. I don't think they see adding niche classes as a good return on investment.

As for demand? IDK. Bloodhunter seems pretty popular...

I've never seen stats for the Bloodhunter, but I suspect they are a tiny proportion of characters, given that they are an unofficial class tied to one particular setting. Artificers have very low representation, lower than druids, and they are an official class that is in Tasha's.

 

[Remathilis]

A few spellcasters get wish, at levels where a vanishly small percentage of games are played.

So? Potential is there. And wizards can do a lot of things prior that is on par with a Superman type character. Balance is achievable.

Well, there is a small but vocal contigent on this forum who make that demand. A lot.

Then there are a lot of folks who seem pretty satisfied with how martials play. From WotC's perspective, they probably note that martials, fighters in particular, are actually overrepresented as a class choice in DDB data. It's not even close, with fighters.

Whenever this debate happens, folks assert, without much evidence, that martials are struggling or there's this big demand for change. But that's hard to square with their persistent popularity. It's also hard to square with how powerful martials are since the 2024 rules update.

Which is why I'm not saying change the fighter. I'm saying present a warrior who can do things unbound by the need to be "within the boundaries of what's possible on earth."

There's room for zillions of classes if you don't care about making the game more complicated and expense isn't an issue. WotC seems pretty set on continuing their very successful strategy of keeping 5e's bloat to a minimum. I don't think they see adding niche classes as a good return on investment.

We are talking about a third class in 12 years. If WotC wants to keep bloat down, they could have skipped about five setting books.

I've never seen stats for the Bloodhunter, but I suspect they are a tiny proportion of characters, given that they are an unofficial class tied to one particular setting. Artificers have very low representation, lower than druids, and they are an official class that is in Tasha's.

Bloodhunter is free on D&D Beyond. There are probably more Bloodhunters than artificers on Beyond. It's not the best designed class, but it's a good proof of concept that you can make a supernatural warrior without being a half-caster.

 

[Parmandur]

We are talking about a third class in 12 years.

No need for them to be so hasty, harum harooom

If WotC wants to keep bloat down, they could have skipped about five setting books.

I mean, Settings might be more in demand than a new Class.