D&D 5E What Would Your Perfect 50th PHB Class List Be?

[Tales and Chronicles]

1) Warrior (fighter + party martial support ala warlord-lite)
2) Rogue (Jack-of-all-trades, deceive magic items/use magic items, trickster and dilettante)
3) Wizard (magic as science)
4) Invoker (aka warlock. Old Faith/Ye ol' black magick; divination + curses + either divine, primal or arcane magic)
5) Warden (aka ranger/paladin/4e warden/4e seeker/inquisitor = protector of something; nature, faith etc)
6) Chanter (bard, shaman, oracles/prophetess and other communal magic. Cleric goes here)
7) Beastmaster (archetypes based on the type of beast you hang with. One could be a shapeshifter)
8) Slayer (non-primal barbarians)
9) Scion (chosen one, heir of something, bloodline magic = mix sorcerer and monk, power from mastery of self)
10) Artificer (alchemist, rune carver, warsmith, totemist, reanimator)
11) Psion (magic of the mind, dream, time and space)

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I'd definitely do that, or at least by around levels 2-3 give them some minor sensory benefit, and it would scale as they level up in the class. I just explicitly called out Truesight to give an example of what they could do.


I know Pathfinder has an Oracle class. I don't know how it worked, but I am a fan of Oracles in fantasy (you know that I'm a fan of Rick Riordan's books, and Oracles play a major part in at least two of his series).

Hell yeah. I’d totally add the Oracle. I’d say that it’s more evocative and important to stories than the cleric. Perhaps the Oracle should steal my “priest”s stuff, and let the Paladin fully represent the martial priestly person.

Especially if you push Druid more into spirit-caller territory and expand what wildeshape can do, Druid, Oracle, Paladin, and Mystic/Ascetic do a great job of filling out that whole space. Bard rightfully straddles the space between these classes and the experts (Rogue, Ranger, Jack, Captain) with the ability to optionally lean toward warrior or mage.

I might also rename fighter and focus it more on melee combat and leave the archery to the Archer. Warrior, Archer, and Assassin would be the main fighters, with Captain and Ranger strongly straddling the line with Experts, and Paladin and Mystic between Warrior and Divine.

Damn I really like that. I may keep chugging along on my alternate classes and present them as a full set at some point…

 

[Minigiant]

Artificer
Barbarian
Bard
Berserker
Champion
Cleric
Druid
Fighter
Gish
Monk
Paladin
Psion
Ranger
Rogue
Scholar
Sorcerer
Warlock
Wizard

Just to clarify

The Barbarian would be split. The Barbarian would focus more of the martial and athletic aspects of a warrior. The Berserker would focus on Rage and get the more supernatural rages.

The Champion is striped out the Fighter for a simple warrior with subclasses focused on figthing styles. The Fighter would get all the "I minor in X" stuff like Eldritch/Rune/Psi/Fairy/Shadow Knights, Demon Warriors, and Battlemasters.

The Gish would the full on warrior who is a half caster of "arcane tilted" magic.

The Psion would be a supernatural class with all the mental and psychic abilities.

The Scholar would be the upgrade of the Expert. A non-underworld version of the rogue focused on the nonmagicalapplications of the mind like tactics, invention, zoology, geology, and botany. Basically nonmagical mad scientist or army officer.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

Or, maybe you don't get it. Because "it" isn't old game trivia. "It" is learning from and trading ideas with your fellow gamers.

Your approach here, trying to divide people into those who "get it" and those who don't, dividing into Them and Us, is not going to serve you well here. I suggest you leave that behind with the Cheetos and Mountain Dew.

Lmao, k. I realize that being a forum mod is Very Serious™, but maybe develop a sense of humor or thicker skin. There's no "approach" being taken here, just lol'ing at someone who thinks that I don't know that TCoE has stripped down classes.

The topic is what classes we'd like to see in 5.5. I answered it and then responded to a pedantic response to my response.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Hell yeah. I’d totally add the Oracle. I’d say that it’s more evocative and important to stories than the cleric. Perhaps the Oracle should steal my “priest”s stuff, and let the Paladin fully represent the martial priestly person.

It's a matter of personal taste and flavor, but I do agree that Oracles can often be cooler than Cleric characters (seeing into the future and behind the multiverse's secrets is inherently awesome, after all).

Especially if you push Druid more into spirit-caller territory and expand what wildeshape can do, Druid, Oracle, Paladin, and Mystic/Ascetic do a great job of filling out that whole space. Bard rightfully straddles the space between these classes and the experts (Rogue, Ranger, Jack, Captain) with the ability to optionally lean toward warrior or mage.

I might also rename fighter and focus it more on melee combat and leave the archery to the Archer. Warrior, Archer, and Assassin would be the main fighters, with Captain and Ranger strongly straddling the line with Experts, and Paladin and Mystic between Warrior and Divine.

Damn I really like that. I may keep chugging along on my alternate classes and present them as a full set at some point…

I'm not on board with everything you've suggested (I certainly don't like splitting Melee and Ranged Fighters into two separate classes), but feel free to do whatever with the Oracle idea for your class system. Use what you like and what works for your table. I'm glad you like it.

 

[Malmuria]

Fighter
Ranger
Rogue

Cleric
Druid
Paladin

Wizard
Psion
Warlock

 

[cbwjm]

Pretty much the classes we have now (including the artificer, though I often don't use it) however, I'd also add in an actual arcane warrior half-caster, the arcane counterpart to the paladin and ranger.

 

[Mind of tempest]

"Pure martials" - barbarian, fighter, rogue, warlord
"Kind of pure martial but with alternate magic" - monk
"Hybrid martial/casters" - paladin, ranger, spellblade (arcane "half-caster")
"Semi-Vancian casters" - cleric, druid, wizard
"Alternate casters" - artificer, bard, shaman [*], sorcerer, warlock
"Psionic classes" - psion and psychic warrior

At the back of the book, in a set of appendices, a fighter-y class for people who don't want their fighters to have fancy mechanical levers to pull, and simpler spellcasters.

[*] Ideally, evocative of 3.X spirit shaman, 4e shaman, or WoW shaman, probably with a different name, but the general idea being one who treats with local spirits, compared to the cosmic entities that clerics and warlocks deal with or the more abstract forces that D&D druids come across as drawing from.

---

The primary sub-systems for special abilities:

• combat exploits, which use points (I like the term stamina; I think ENworld's "level up" game does this and calls their points exertion);
• spells, which use spell slots (maybe sorcery points for sorcerers);
• psionics, which uses dice pools.

Each pure martial class would have easy access to combat exploits, with different classes favouring different sorts of exploits - barbarians like brute force, rogues like trickery, warlords like leadership, and fighters can run a gamut.

Each hybrid martial/caster class would have partial access to combat exploits, with paladins probably emphasising defense and a bit of leadership, and rangers switch-hitting between ranged and melee-but-not-quite-slugging-it-out-barbarian-style, and partial access to spells. Although probably what they'd look like is the current class base (1/2 spellcasting with a shtick to burn spell slots on not-spells), and with a subclass that leans into the combat exploits more

The monk kind of does its own things, with martial exploits (preferring skirmishing) enhanced with ki effects, with some monks going more for ki stuff (four elements) and some going more for martial stuff.

The "semi-Vancian" casters have spellcasting with some other secondary feature (wild shape for druids, channel for clerics, not sure for wizards), with their subclasses changing up some element of both as well as giving them alternate ways to use their secondary feature. (Clerics and newer druid subclasses are kind of where I would see this going).

Ideally, the "alternate" casters, while often using spells, can build to either be primary casters or somewhere between primary casters and the "hybrid" classes in terms of what they like to do, and with each having some particular shtick that differentiates it from the "semi-Vancian" classes, such as the way warlocks do Pact Magic instead of standard spellcasting.

what does psionic warrior even do? as I have seen ways the monk would work as the psionic half caster which might make both a little easier to deal with?

Bah, what nonsense! Young whippersnapper, it should be Fighting-Man!

More seriously, I'm happy with the current classes of D&D 5E. If I must have changes, add the artificer, but cut up the ranger and turn it into subclasses for fighter, druid, and rogue.

finally, some said it for me.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It's a matter of personal taste and flavor, but I do agree that Oracles can often be cooler than Cleric characters (seeing into the future and behind the multiverse's secrets is inherently awesome, after all).

Yeah for sure. I also just feels like the prophet/seer type archetype has more weight than…whatever the cleric is. (Anyone thinking to give a history lesson, please don’t. I know.)

I'm not on board with everything you've suggested (I certainly don't like splitting Melee and Ranged Fighters into two separate classes), but feel free to do whatever with the Oracle idea for your class system. Use what you like and what works for your table. I'm glad you like it.

Thanks! If I develop soemthing I’ll probably make a thread about it, in which case I’ll tag ya.

I totally get not liking splitting the two, and tbh I’m fine with the fighter staying mostly as is in spite of the Archer being added. I just agree with Brennan Lee Mulligan that The Archer is one of the most prevalent and pervasive archetypes, and it should be a class. But I get that not everyone agrees. (I made a whole thread about it)

 

[Minigiant]

Pretty much the classes we have now (including the artificer, though I often don't use it) however, I'd also add in an actual arcane warrior half-caster, the arcane counterpart to the paladin and ranger.

I would be okay with this list plus one additional no spellcasting class.

I think WOTC and many fans overreliance on spells that "do everything" and the use of overtly supernatural big effects is beginning to handicap D&D creatively.

One additional martial, skills, or tech class would balance out the addition of artificer and arcane warrior.