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

[Corinnguard]

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

Any chance you are referring to the Wielder class from the Manual of Adventurous Resources: Complete by Purple Martin Games for Level Up?

 

[Remathilis]

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

Sauce?

 

[Parmandur]

Sauce?

Preferably Buffalo, but I do like a good BBQ spread now and then.

But as to a source...WotC product schedule over the past many years suggests they at least believe that. And what third party crowdfunders that seem to do well are Setting books bot big books of new Classes, that bring a different angle like "Ghibli Studio D&D" or "Adventure Time D&D".

But going back to the original question, I think moat are approaching the question in an unfruitful way. "Int-Based [fill in the blank]" or "half-caster without spells" or whatnot seem too game rules centric.

A better question is...what characters from Fantasy fiction are hard to get right in 5E currently? Most of the existing Classes were efforts to emulate very specific characters in literature. So, like, how can I play Kelsier, the Survivor of Hathsin, in 5E...?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Not really.

The spells for a Smordmage/Gish currently don't exist.

And if they did, they would be overpowered in the hands of a wizard as EK chose wizard spells.

That always has been the fundamental issue. You would have to create a separate spell list of Arcane spells that a wizard would not have access to. That is something that many fans have issues with existing.

The way to do it is a combination of a feature to add the effect of a cantrip to an attack with a weapon, and spells that are only work taking to use with weapon attacks.

Half caster spells aren’t weak, they’re only weak in the hands of someone not focused on weapon use. People compare them to wizard spells as if the wizard is also stabbing someone as a martial character in the same turn, rather than only casting the spell. The smites and similar Ranger spells make the paladin and Ranger deal damage and apply strong conditions to a degree that makes them competitive with any other class. (Ranger in 24 isn’t weak, just frustrating, and Paladin is still one of the best classes)

The other thing to do for a gish is to give monk-like discipline moves they can do as a BA or alongside casting or attacking, and/or warlock invocation style features that let you do basic magic stuff at-will that others need spell slots to do. The game doesn’t even fit from “what if Wish, but with a sword”, but it would benefit from a class that at high level can deal any damage type with each attack while making a spell into a rider effect on an attack, with some spells that do stuff that other classes don’t really do involving both magical effects and physical attack/movement/etc within the same action.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Preferably Buffalo, but I do like a good BBQ spread now and then.

But as to a source...WotC product schedule over the past many years suggests they at least believe that. And what third party crowdfunders that seem to do well are Setting books bot big books of new Classes, that bring a different angle like "Ghibli Studio D&D" or "Adventure Time D&D".

But going back to the original question, I think moat are approaching the question in an unfruitful way. "Int-Based [fill in the blank]" or "half-caster without spells" or whatnot seem too game rules centric.

A better question is...what characters from Fantasy fiction are hard to get right in 5E currently? Most of the existing Classes were efforts to emulate very specific characters in literature. So, like, how can I play Kelsier, the Survivor of Hathsin, in 5E...?

The Witcher can nearly be done with the Bloodhunter, but I’d rather see a less edgy take on it (which would probably be an arcane halfcaster)

Assassin’s Creed characters are more doable with the new Monk (deflect attacks is a vital change here), and kinda the new rogue, and the more shadow magic ninja assassins of anime and games can be done well at at least 6-8th level with Monk/Ranger mc. But a full class made to do those things would be better at those characters and be able to feel right before level 5.

Any summoner character is gonna be hard to do in a satisfying way.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

I think the spell diversity isn’t quite that great. No greater than the Bard, and probably less.

And like the bard, just don’t give it a lot of direct big damage spells. Focus on buff and debuff and weird utility and curses and whatever else.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It’s the case that more mechanics makes the game objectively worse.

Objectively? Really. That's....interesting. I don't agree with that any more than the previous thing!

Here is a case in point: the pathfinder kineticist is a pretty exact fit for the “spellless psion” you are so keen on. It has magical abilities that are not spells, and if it uses more powerful abilities its maximum hit points are reduced. So far, so novel. But the problems start to become apparent when you see them in play, and the Pathfinder CRPGs are a good place to see that. Some of the issues:

• It’s powers are so novel that it needs its own set of feats, because most of the standard feats do little to enhance its abilities;

Every class should get feats specific to it, so the fact that it warrants class-specific feats is not a bad thing. Now, if it is completely incapable of interacting with all or nearly all feats anyone else would use, that would certainly be bad! But I have enough knowledge of PF1e, at least, to say that that isn't going to apply here.

Of course, there's a converse to this. Why have we made the space of feats so exclusionary? If feats being inaccessible is a problem, perhaps this is a criticism of feat design, not class design. Design better, more-inclusive feats.

• For the same reason it needs its own magic items because lots of standard items (such as weapons) are useless for it;

This is not objectively terrible. It can be good or bad depending on execution.

• It’s powers have no interaction with other class abilities, making all multi-class options uniformly terrible, and hence the class has very little variety in unconventional build options;

Then it is a badly-designed class. Interactions should be possible. If it is uniformly terrible at any basic elements of the game, that's a fairly reliable sign of bad game design. You haven't shown that more rules is bad.

• No one knows what the class’s role in the party is. No one ever says “we need a kineticist!” So they stay on the bench.

But roles were bad and horrible and wrong in 4e. Therefore this is has to be a positive, not a negative! Not being told what a class is or does is a good thing. Unless you are saying the opposite? In which case, it should be saying what the Kineticist's role is, just as 4e did, but it does not. So....all this is saying is either "exactly how 5e does it already", or "classes should be designed with roles, and tell the audience what those roles are".

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Any summoner character is gonna be hard to do in a satisfying way.

I've got a half-built concept that I think would do just fine. It is, however, genuinely only half-built, so it's missing a bunch.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Can we use the name "nagual" for a monster-shifter class?

I imagine the nagual class like a primal defender, a remade of warden class from 4e but with elements from totemist shaman (Magic of Incarnum), using "essence points" to unlock or upgrade special traits.

My mind also see the summoner class with "incarnum soulmelds". In 5e the incarnum soulmelds would be introduced with spell format, to be more expansion friendly. These "incarnum spells" could be casted by the other classes but for the points of essence and chakras (body slots) special magic item would be necessary. I also imagine runemaster using a game mechanic like incarnum but weapons, shields and pieces of armor of allies could work like "chakras".

---

Now I imagine the witch like a primal+arcane hybrid. She could cast spontaneosly primal magic like sorcerers but she could create arcane "infusions" like an artificer.

I imagine the warlord class like a martial adept with maneuvers from the "white raven" and "devoted spirit" schools (from Tome of Battle: Book of the nine swords), are subclasses about different kind of "minions". Some thing like a pokemon trainer but with a "squad" as monster-ally. The challenge of designing a warlord class is this has to be playtested three times, the first for dungeon-crawling with near four-six adventures, second for a skirmish warbard near 12-15 members and the third time for mass battles.

If classes can be published by 3PPs then maybe WotC should bet for something more "exclusive", the classes with special game mechanices (vestige pacts, martial adepts, incarnum, elemental mysteries).

I imagine the remade of the truenamer class (3.5 Tome of Magic) with a mixture of archivist from Tome of Horror. She could use "unknown" utterances when she was holding a "prayer book" on her hands. The utterances would be like martial maneuvers, almost at-will catrips but special action is necessary to reload. It would be interesting if the truenamer+archivist could give orders to a monster-ally, like in the manganime Zatchbell.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

But roles were bad and horrible and wrong in 4e

That’s enough edition war strawmaning. Roles (all be it loosely defined) have been part of D&D from the start. Everyone knows a cleric is for healing (even though they can do lots of other stuff). I can’t say what was wrong, if anything, with the way 4e dealt with roles because I didn’t understand the rules. It may have been a perfectly good game poorly explained.

This is not objectively terrible

Having to change the universe just because a player has chosen to play an obscure class is pretty terrible, as is the converse of the player being left out of the cool loot.

interesting. I don't agree with that any more than the previous thing

Didn’t expect you too, we clearly have very different ideas about what makes for a well designed game, but there is nothing wrong in that.