Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Zardnaar" data-source="post: 7323597" data-attributes="member: 6716779">This thread is about what makes a class and what can be introduced into 5E as a new class. Other editions of D&D have often had a  a lot of classes (30-60 of them in various splats, 200+ for 2E if you count speciality priests). With the 5E archetype system however it has obsoleted the need for a lot of them. So what makes a good class? I think a good argument boils down to the name. Al of the 5E classes tend to give you a hint from earlier D&D or generic fantasy in regards to what the class does. A wizard is a spell caster, so is a warlock, a Paladin is a holy knight (or unholy these days). Assume that the name has to appeal to casuals or people whio have never played D&D before. What does a class do, well the name should be a major clue.Good Class Names IMHOAlchemistArtificerPsion/Psychic/PsykerMarshallHealerOK namesMageknightSwordmage Warden (at least implies something defensive)Dragonshaman (magic related to dragons)Hexblade (implies warrior with curses)Bad Class NamesArdent (whats an ardent)Avenger (revenge related perahps but whats it do?)Duskblade (something to do with weapons and shadow?)Mystic (implies spellcaster or perhaps something religious) Warlord (if you have not played D&D this name is very bad) Not that the classes with good names do not imply the class is actually good, the healer for example was a bad class but it was themed around its name very well.  So what makes a weak class concept. Put simply if its a class variant it should probably be an archetype. For example 3.5 had a scout class which was very similar to the Rogue, in 5E its a Rogue archetype and that is a perfect place for it IMHO. Most of the 2E speciality priests, wizards and class variants can be an archetype. The 2E crusader for example can be a war cleric in 5E, elementalist and shadow wizards definitely an archetype. A gunslinger can easily be a fighter archetype.  Having a quick look at the A Touch of CLass book from EN5ider I will rate the class names. This is just an example and IMHO of course.GoodAlchemistDiabolist (the class is about fiends)OKCardcasterMorph ( may have been better off called shapeshifter or whatever)BadFeywalker (whats a feywalker?)Noble (title/job description)Occultist (could almost be anything) So for 5E what would I want from a new class? That is one that is exactly that and it is not an archetype.1. It can't really be done with existing mechanics.2. It has a strong concept/theme that exists in D&D or fantasy/sci fi in general.  Something that is niche (Vampire Hunter) should probably be an archetype or even feats. So what would be the best candidates?  A few of the leading ones IMHO.The PsionPsion may not be a great name but its better than the mystic which is terrible on all kinds of levels. There was a 2E mystic class, I think it was a priest that used candles. Yup they made a candle magic themed class. Anyway the Psion has been in 1E-4E, is key to one of the D&D setting (Darksun) and is important in another (Eberron). It can't really be replicated with the existing classes so needs its own book. The Alchemist Another archetype that seems popular, exists in Pathfinder (basically D&D) and exists in pop culture. Can't really be done in the 5E PHB rules. Artificer. This class existed in 2E as a wizard speciality but it has become associated with Eberron. Would be a good candidate in a new Eberron book which presumably would overhaul the magic item rules. Fighter/Mage Technically this has been done at least 3 times in the PHB, Xanathars has tried again (and mostly failed) and the designers can't get this one right since 1989 or so. The Valor Bard and pact blade warlock are to much spellcaster while the eldritch knight is to much fighter and this is before you factor in MAD, being proficient in con saves, armor proficinecy or casting spells with your hands full. The hexblade in Xanathars at least identified the MAD problem gish classes have. The archetype is strong both from previous editions of D&D and various fantasy work (Elric being the prime example). 5E also lacks an arcane half caster like the ranger/paladins. The concept has been done, just not well I would make it a half caster with fighter saving throws, proficient in all armor, and it has part of the warcaster feat in regards to somatic gestures built in or they use a single one handed weapon and get an AC bonus from a magical aegis. That fixes most of issues the concept has.  Shapeshifter Yes 5E has the Moon Druid but people may want to play a shapeshifter. A certain popular fantasy based MMO has Druids as shapeshifters I believe. EN5ider has covered the concept and it may be the best designed of the EN5ider classes. A poll last year IIRC also had people associate the conscript with the Druid class more than spellcasting. I don't think they would be insane enough in 6E to replace the D&D Druid with a World of Warcraft druid but I think the concept is fine. The Warlord Problem.This class has multiple problems, he 1st one is the name. If you have never played D&D before you hear the name warlord what are you going to think? The next problem with the class is that it does not have a strong basis in D&D or fantasy literature to build off. Sure there have been leaders and generals but they did not have warlord like powers and anyone with charisma and/or intelligence could be a good leader, general, or officer. So even if you buy into the concept why should a warlord get the nod over the Marshall (a better name for the idea it implies military/officer/leadership), or even an AD&D fighter that attracted followers at name level? The AD&D fighter with followers is also the stronger archetype it existed in D&D for a lot longer (23 years), had support in books, and carving out a domain was a thing. Caesar, Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Rommel, all could be fighters/officers or even NPC nobles with no need to actually give them any powers (or class levels) whatsoever. And this is before you factor in any other problems the warlord has (mostly its hated). Outside of the 4E metragame the concept is weak overall and without having a game designed around it the mechanics are a problem as well.</blockquote>

Verification