D&D 5E What single new class would you like to see?

[Eltab]

I'd like a psion. Subclasses to mess with peoples' will (the evil version of a shepherd), to be a Jedi Knight, and to psychic blast.

Unmentionable class: seducer. CHR / WIS based. Sort of a Cleric/Bard combo.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I can't stand the kind of narrative disconnect that comes with potions per day and the such.

Potions an alchemist whips up quickly under adventuring conditions are not as stable as potions brewed carefully in a lab -- they break down after about 24 hours. The alchemist can spend time and money to "fix" them, making them permanent until consumed, like a wizard scribing a scroll.

 

[Ogre Mage]

Psionic/Psion/Psionicist.

 

[nomotog]

Potions an alchemist whips up quickly under adventuring conditions are not as stable as potions brewed carefully in a lab -- they break down after about 24 hours. The alchemist can spend time and money to "fix" them, making them permanent until consumed, like a wizard scribing a scroll.

I guess that works. I'll buy that. On the other hand, why make a new class and try and have it work like an old class.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I guess that works. I'll buy that. On the other hand, why make a new class and try and have it work like an old class.

Believe me, I get where you're coming from. I tried a lot of different ideas before settling on this one. But it really feels like the best fit for the concept. And since spellcasting no longer works this way in 5E, it's as good a place as any to give the mechanic a new home. Besides, it's not like it's all a rehash. Potions work differently by their very nature. You can't mix two spells together, or hand a spell to your fighter for him to use later.

 

[Ganders]

Gosh, there are lots of ways this could go.

Warlord isn't the only previous-editions class that could be updated. Cavalier, for instance, has appeared one way or another in every edition. If I must pick just one, I guess that's it.

Archer, perhaps? Oh sure, the Fighter and Ranger exist, but there are lots of ways to do archers.

Perhaps a class that makes as much special use of blunt weapons as rogues make use of piercing weapons. There are other ways to do this, for instance as a subclass of fighter, or by just making a feat akin to Crossbow Expert. But if Rogue is distinct enough from Fighter to be its own class, this could be too.

There's quite a lot of room to rework Warlocks into analogous classes, due to oddities in the mechanics. Fey patrons don't offer the spell Conjure Woodland Beings? Tomelocks have to drop Hex every time they use a ritual? And too many of the invocations have Prerequisite: one subclass. Lots of little conflicts and issues like those just have to make you think maybe you could design it better. While you're at it, how about a divine warlock, rather than arcane? And don't give me 'that's what a Cleric is'.

There have been classes that were for one specific race only. Spellsingers and Dwarven Defenders come to mind. Many others could be dreamed up. But I'd especially like to see something that's female-only. Partly because I just like thinking of various male players having to portray female characters. I believe that if the flavor is done well enough, you can actually keep it from turning into a scantily-clad farce. (Not that you couldn't have such a farce with any other class anyway) The one thing I wouldn't know how to avoid, though, is having female players guided, or pressured, toward playing this class.

There's certainly a lack of a class that's mostly defense, with little if any offensive power. Someone who simply survives long enough for the rest of the party to do the killing. Maybe that's intentional, but maybe it's just difficult to do in 5e. Anyone who has any access to cantrips gets a base level of offense. And it's really hard to block access to cantrips (ie one feat or one level multiclass). Maybe it's not feasible.

I've often thought there was room for more support classes. No, this is not another Warlord. I mean someone who stays out of the fray altogether, blends in the background, doesn't even participate in fights. Well, to be a balanced class, he'd probably have to toss buffs on the party, thus increasing the party's DPS just as much as if he was actually fighting. And certainly some non-combat roles (scouting, travel, social, etc). Maybe this is out of bounds: players are supposed to be forced to face tense moments, wondering if their character is about to die on the next attacks, and everyone is supposed to want to be heroic, and 'gets to' share the spotlight in every battle. Many DMs might ban such a class on principle. But there actually are players (and not just meek/shy ones) who would prefer to avoid all that. There would still need to be some way to keep this class from using damage-cantrips, though.

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

In EN5ider we made the Noble, our name for the Warlord, and it's one of our most popular articles ever.

We want to make a new 5E class. What would you like to see?

Well..... a ranger of course

 

[Guest 6801328]

Gosh, there are lots of ways this could go.

Warlord isn't the only previous-editions class that could be updated. Cavalier, for instance, has appeared one way or another in every edition. If I must pick just one, I guess that's it.

Archer, perhaps? Oh sure, the Fighter and Ranger exist, but there are lots of ways to do archers.

Perhaps a class that makes as much special use of blunt weapons as rogues make use of piercing weapons. There are other ways to do this, for instance as a subclass of fighter, or by just making a feat akin to Crossbow Expert. But if Rogue is distinct enough from Fighter to be its own class, this could be too.

There's quite a lot of room to rework Warlocks into analogous classes, due to oddities in the mechanics. Fey patrons don't offer the spell Conjure Woodland Beings? Tomelocks have to drop Hex every time they use a ritual? And too many of the invocations have Prerequisite: one subclass. Lots of little conflicts and issues like those just have to make you think maybe you could design it better. While you're at it, how about a divine warlock, rather than arcane? And don't give me 'that's what a Cleric is'.

There have been classes that were for one specific race only. Spellsingers and Dwarven Defenders come to mind. Many others could be dreamed up. But I'd especially like to see something that's female-only. Partly because I just like thinking of various male players having to portray female characters. I believe that if the flavor is done well enough, you can actually keep it from turning into a scantily-clad farce. (Not that you couldn't have such a farce with any other class anyway) The one thing I wouldn't know how to avoid, though, is having female players guided, or pressured, toward playing this class.

There's certainly a lack of a class that's mostly defense, with little if any offensive power. Someone who simply survives long enough for the rest of the party to do the killing. Maybe that's intentional, but maybe it's just difficult to do in 5e. Anyone who has any access to cantrips gets a base level of offense. And it's really hard to block access to cantrips (ie one feat or one level multiclass). Maybe it's not feasible.

I've often thought there was room for more support classes. No, this is not another Warlord. I mean someone who stays out of the fray altogether, blends in the background, doesn't even participate in fights. Well, to be a balanced class, he'd probably have to toss buffs on the party, thus increasing the party's DPS just as much as if he was actually fighting. And certainly some non-combat roles (scouting, travel, social, etc). Maybe this is out of bounds: players are supposed to be forced to face tense moments, wondering if their character is about to die on the next attacks, and everyone is supposed to want to be heroic, and 'gets to' share the spotlight in every battle. Many DMs might ban such a class on principle. But there actually are players (and not just meek/shy ones) who would prefer to avoid all that. There would still need to be some way to keep this class from using damage-cantrips, though.

I'm still trying to figure out if this is satire. I hope so. If it is, it's brilliant.

 

[Mephista]

The Binder, ala 3e.

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

As for another fighter class, I do agree that there are already plenty of magic types in the book, but I do not know how a different martial class can really be that much different that what is already available in the books by theme, weapon selection and play styles.

One thing that comes to mind is a class or subclass that is primary constitution based and designed around the concept of efficient hit dice and CON bonus use to provide increased self sufficiency (think the multiple HD UA ranger for HP mechanics). However..... i don't think being based on constitution is defining enough and we need something extra to flesh out the class. Like maybe, instead of making the class a primary striker or primary tank, making it some kind of heavy support, in such a way that say, it relies on skills a lot. And depending on the CON bonus, it can add expertise to it's skill use a limited times per day. Or using some of the classes hit dice to add to skill checks or attack/damage bonuses.

EDIT: to compliment the class' skill orientation, i'd make the class saving throw proficiency be at CON and INT and maybe have them learn and extra skill or two more then most classes.

EDIT2: perhaps instead of adding expertise, when using a hit die to add to a skill check, one can add CON bonus to the die roll and the total to the check. Using HD to augment capability would simulate the class' capability to labor hard and exert themselves in order to get better results and/or last longer then others without support, especially because CON bonus would be added to every HD roll.