D&D 5E What Subclasses would you like to see?

[DammitVictor]

I mean, what does it take to turn the battlemaster into a swashbuckler or duelist sort? Swap out medium and heavy armor proficiency for a Char-based Unarmored Defense. That's it. Absolutely everything else is just a matter of choosing the right options: the duelist or two-weapon styles, the most swashbuckly combat maneuvers, and a selection of solely Dex-based weapons. I honestly can't think of anything else you really need.

Make Unarmored Defense a Battle Master maneuver with a Fighter level prerequisite (so that it can't be taken with Martial Adept). You could even be nice and give the Fighter a choice between Constitution, Intelligence, and Wisdom for this ability. Charisma, too, technically, but I'm really wondering where this comes from because CHA-to-AC is a very rare ability in D&D and doesn't really make a lot of sense as a "mundane" power;.

 

[shamsael]

I don't think the battlemasters needs unarmoured defense to fill the swashbuckler role. I don't understand the insistence that swashbucklers be unarmoured. Take leather armor and two-weapon defense.

 

[DammitVictor]

I don't think the battlemasters needs unarmoured defense to fill the swashbuckler role. I don't understand the insistence that swashbucklers be unarmoured. Take leather armor and two-weapon defense.

There's that, too, but if people want Unarmored Defense for their swashbucklers, I'd rather offer a solution, you know?

 

[Ratskinner]

You can play one, but not effectively. Because the D&D rules favor the stand-in-place in your armor fighters.

I really question that assertion for the 5e rules, but I wouldn't say that I've played or ran it enough to definitively know, yet. My reading and experiments writing up lvl3 characters give me the impression that 5e will be the easiest/most effective versions of swashbuckling types right out of the box...even if there's no (sub)class specifically labelled as such. OTOH, mobility-based character types will always suffer in mobility-restricted places like dungeons, which makes perfect sense, IMO.

<snippage>

There are few things more irritating than pointing out a consistent problem with D&D rules (another one would be lack of good chase rules, but that's neither here nor there) just to have someone tell me that clearly I need to be playing some other game then, because D&D doesn't address my problem.

No kidding. That's why I'm expressing the problem. And the notion that the only solution is "bloat" is simply not true.

Of course the only solution isn't bloat....you could go play another game! Sorry, I felt compelled. Although, also, if you (anyone) haven't gone out and tried a bunch of other games I highly recommend it (the weirder the game, the better).

In your first post, you were sounding agreement and enthusiasm with the thought that there were character types that D&D had neglected and that the solution to that was to write new (sub)class for these:

I'm with you on this one. One of the most consistently neglected archetypes in all versions of D&D (or, if they provide one, it's underpowered and fairly useless) is some kind of lightly armored swashbuckler archetype. Since most of my favorite movies are swashbuckler movies, this has consistently rankled me.

In response to the OP of this thread, and you quoted a good deal of that post, not just the one suggestion and the last line of what you quoted is: "We can use this list as project source material." Now, the attitude that a lot of things need a (sub)class is recipe for bloat. I think that's fairly obvious.* If you were expressing simply a desire to see good swashbucklers in 5e...that's fine, I think its already there in several possible versions. As a mea culpa, I think upon re-reading my previous reply to you that I didn't make it clear that I was addressing that attitude and not the swashbuckler in specific.

*Although whether bloat is good or bad is a matter of preference, some people like it that's why I said YMMV.

 

[Ratskinner]

The problem is then you are playing a rogue with a small selection of "nature" oriented abilities, not a Spell-less Ranger. There are a lot of people who want everything about the Ranger, as it exists, minus spells. They should have that option especially for campaigns where Rangers simple aren't spellcasters. This is nothing new and there have always been 2 camps on rangers when it comes to spells.
<rant snipped>

If the desire is that precise mechanically, then of course nothing else will do. Its sort of tautologocal at that point. (Although I think you mis-typed, I presume that they want something in their Ranger2's to replace the spellcasting, not just excise the spellcasting. If not, then just ignore the spells!) I was trying to address is the character concept/archetype.

 

[Mouseferatu]

A feat for Unarmored Defense would do it, and could apply to other classes as well (swashbuckling paladin? Yes please!).

Problem is, if it's a feat, it either has to have some very tight pre-reqs, or else it becomes a must-have for bards, sorcerers, and warlocks. And unlike the fighter, where it's replacing heavy armor, it's nothing but pure gain for those classes--and it's gain of a sort that I don't think is balanced with the game's assumptions.

Not saying it can't be done, but it's trickier than it looks.

 

[77IM]

Is it really a must-have? Those classes have access to defensive spells and (some) armor; they don't need especially high AC; and are a couple points of AC really worth not getting +1 to your spellcasting modifier?

 

[Mouseferatu]

Is it really a must-have? Those classes have access to defensive spells and (some) armor; they don't need especially high AC; and are a couple points of AC really worth not getting +1 to your spellcasting modifier?

You may be right. My view may be biased by the fact that I just don't want non-swashbuckly characters to have this; it's purely a mental image thing.

But it also sets a precedent I'm not crazy about. So far, all Unarmored Defense features are class-specific. Do we want to open the door to them being available for anyone? Because once a feat grants AD with Cha (or Int), there's no good reason not to allow it for every other stat.

 

[JEB]

I will be very surprised if we don't at least get elementalist wizards and elemental domains for cleric in next year's Adventurer's Handbook. Probably others as well (Sha'ir for warlock and Elemental/Genie bloodline for Sorcerer are likely).

Other subclasses already mentioned I'd like to see:
- Barbarian: A barbarian that can turn into a bear (or another animal) when raging (Path of the Skinchanger?).
- Fighter: Cavalier/Knight, and some sort of dedicated Tank/Defender type.
- Paladin: Oath of Liberation/Freedom (CG).
- Rogue: Scout (i.e. non-magical, less fighty ranger).
- Warlock: Vestige, Spirits of the Dead, Dragon, and Celestial patrons.
- Wizard: Generalist, Defiler, Preserver, Chronomancer (needs many new spells, though).
- A Shaman, somehow (cleric or druid is the thematic choice, but warlock might work better mechanically - this may require a new class entirely).

Subclasses not mentioned I'd like to see:
- Barbarian: Something like Pathfinder's Bloodrager, a barbarian that can transform into things based on their bloodline. I also have a weird idea for a sort of Warlord/Barbarian hybrid, a barbarian leader that can "broadcast" rage to others - something like "Ragecaller", but needs a better name.
- Fighter: An unarmed-focused fighter (already done here already, I see, and beautifully so).
- Paladin: Oath of Tyranny (LE), Oath of Slaughter (CE), Oath of Order (LN), Oath of Anarchy (CN), Oath of Protection (N, based on protecting a certain person, place, or thing).
- Sorcerer: A subclass that ISN'T a bloodline (like Wild Mage).

I was going to suggest an Investigator for Rogue (more "non-criminal rogue" than Pathfinder's alchemist hybrid) but that might be more a department for a custom background with the standard rogue/thief.

Also, a full class I'd like to see - something like "Inventor" or such, with 3E/4E's Artificer, 2E's Tinker, and Alchemist (Pathfinder-style) as subclasses. That won't be practical until we get guidelines for magic item creation, however.

 

[Steely Dan]

I would like to see a Clockwork Mage/Mechanician wizard subclass, not making magic items per se, but mechanisms/vessels to carry/cast spells and perform minor tasks.

I would like the Sha'ir, was thinking it could be a Genie pact, but doesn't really suit the warlock class as a whole.