D&D 5E Which classes would you like to see added to D&D 5e, if any? (check all that apply)

[Guest 6801328]

I don't think all purely martial warrior archetypes should be shoehorned into the fighter class. For the fighter class to be broad enough to do what you're suggesting, we should only have a wizard class and not a sorcerer, a bard, and a warlock also. [/FONT][/COLOR]

Not sure I agree with that characterization. We do have four different martial classes already: rogue, barbarian, and fighter, and monk. I'm not suggesting that fighter should have fewer abilities in the base class in order to cover every martial archetype. But the current design is too restrictive.

 

[steeldragons]

Just out of curiosity, how do you distinguish the non-holy "Knight" from a Fighter, in both fluffy and crunchy ways?

How about Witch?

I (somewhat) agree with Witch...it is possible to build a decent Witch with existing classes. But the Knight thing really has me puzzled.

It possible to build both -Knight and Witch- using the avenues available to us. Dress yourself in the right trappings (get some plate armor, buy a horse, a lance, fancy heraldry on your shield/tabbard/pendants, etc...) and conduct yourself as a Knight, while your character sheet says "Fighter." Cast Find Familiar, walk around with a long twisted stick or broom, choose/cast enchantments and illusions and transmutations and conduct yourself as you feel a Witch would act, while your character sheet says "MU/Mage/Wizard."

Those are absolutely completely and currently viable options.

I think, on an archetypal level, in the grand fluffy and crunchy of the multiverse, that both Knight and Witch are certainly distinct enough concepts to warrant their own definitions and features.

To the knight, specifically, since you ask, I would probably begin by pilfering the Pathfinder "Cavalier" and Castles/Crusades "Knight" for starters...and, perhaps, even the D&D 4e class that dare not speak its name.

Features like a "Knight's Challenge", not necessarily incorporating the largely debated "forcing someone to fight you/taking control of other PCs/NPCs" but for some kind of attack and/or damage advantage to the chaleng-ee(?)...like a Ranger's Marks kind of mechanic that's not a "spell." A defensive bonus for allies' AC if the knight is mounted or on foot with a shield [or maybe heavy weapon, too] within, I dunno, 10' of the knight.

Perhaps a "field medic" ribbon for non-magical healing. Certainly a "charge" attack bonus, be it mounted or on foot. Maybe some kind of Charisma-based interactive or "leadership" feature. Hinge things on a list of "Virtues" [or "Ideals" or whatever non-magical source you want to dub it]...or at least a list of virtues/ideals the Knight can choose from -so someone who wants an "honor"-based/focused Samurai, for example, can choose, say, "valor, honesty, protection of the innocent, etc...," instead of a chivalry/piety/obedience to authority kind of western knight.

The flavor is certainly there and distinct enough [to me] to make a "fighter" who is not a solider or mercenary or wrestler or archer or expert swordsman (though a knight's weapon expertise/mastery with their specific weapons might also be a feature).

Same thing for a witch. Can it be a wizard [or sorcerer or warlock, in 5e]? Sure it can! You could even refluff things so that it's not about "preparing/studying your spellbook" and roleplay your character accordingly. You have a spellbook you consult, it holds your recipes for your "brews," notes on extraplanar entities, symbols to write up a protective [or offensive] talisman, and yeah among other things, some spells. You have the PC work their magic through rituals, as much as possible, pick up Nature Lore knowledge and herbalist tools and whatever else you feel a Witch should be. Totally valid and easily doable Witch, in game, right now...or for BECM, 1e, 2e, etc...

OR, you could say the archetypal creature, the variations and options from legend, history, literature, and pop culture are certainly distinct enough, as a core fantasy concept, to warrant its own class.

 

[mellored]

Except Rogues and the -5/+10 feats exist in the game. Give up your attack at will to enable a rogue dealing 1d8+5+5d6 at level 9.

The bonus attack is on the rogues turn. So it's only 1d6+5.

Though, feel free to play a divine soul sorcerer who spams command (flee) in a party with several rogues.

As for sharpshoter.
1d8+5+10 * (60% base +10% archery style -25% sharpshooter) = 8.775 damage
vs
2d8+5 * 60% = 8.4
vs
2d10+5 * 60% dragon sorcer firebolt = 9.6

So yea. Still less than a cantrip.

Grant a cantrip casting how about eldritch blast+ hex or green flame blade?

No. At-will cantrip granting would be over powered.

Or rather, if you had it, you would have to sacrifice a lot of other things you can do.

At will attack granting doesn't play nice with other classes and the designers did not want to design the game around granting basic attacksand they can future proof the game as well.

Granting attacks already exsists.
Haste, command (flee), dissonant whispers already exsist. And all can be spammed all day by mid level.

A non-magic class that can do the same thing changes nothing.


Let's move past this topic. Granting attacks works, but what else do people want?

 

[Guest 6801328]

To the knight, specifically, since you ask, I would probably begin by pilfering the Pathfinder "Cavalier" and Castles/Crusades "Knight" for starters...and, perhaps, even the D&D 4e class that dare not speak its name.

Features like a "Knight's Challenge", not necessarily incorporating the largely debated "forcing someone to fight you/taking control of other PCs/NPCs" but for some kind of attack and/or damage advantage to the chaleng-ee(?)...like a Ranger's Marks kind of mechanic that's not a "spell." A defensive bonus for allies' AC if the knight is mounted or on foot with a shield [or maybe heavy weapon, too] within, I dunno, 10' of the knight.



Perhaps a "fiend medic" ribbon for non-magical healing. Certainly a "charge" attack bonus, be it mounted or on foot. Maybe some kind of Charisma-based interactive or "leadership" feature. Hinge things on a list of "Virtues" [or "Ideals" or whatever non-magical source you want to dub it]...or at least a list of virtues/ideals the Knight can choose from -so someone who wants an "honor"-based/focused Samurai, for example, can choose, say, "valor, honesty, protection of the innocent, etc...," instead of a chivalry/piety/obedience to authority kind of western knight.

The flavor is certainly there and distinct enough [to me] to make a "fighter" who is not a solider or mercenary or wrestler or archer or expert swordsman (though a knight's weapon expertise/mastery with their specific weapons might also be a feature).

I'm curious why you excluded Xanathar's Cavalier. It seems to cover everything except the healing that you enumerate. Is it that much different from what you're describing? Or just insufficient, because of the aforementioned problem that Fighters have too much built into the base class so sub-classes are overly constrained?

I'm also puzzled how you incorporate the healing, and specifically non-magical healing, into the archetype. I'm not expert, but just thinking through the various "Knight" archetypes I have, I can't really think of examples of healing. And if I do conjure an image, it's very Paladin-like. (Angels singing, light flooding down from above, knight in shining armor with helmet removed laying hands on an injured fawn....)

The idea of the virtues is kind of interesting/promising. That could either be the premise of the sub-classes (a Pious Knight, for example) sort of like Paladins, or it work like the Battlemaster in that you get to choose a sub-set of Virtues, adding more on at higher levels, and each one grants an ability.

OR, you could say the archetypal creature, the variations and options from legend, history, literature, and pop culture are certainly distinct enough, as a core fantasy concept, to warrant its own class.

Yes, I understand the sentiment. But once you go through that process what are the actual mechanics that you think are missing...or missing from a single class...that justify a new class?

I'm really not trying to be snarky: I really want more/better Witch options, but every time I start trying to design a class I end up with, "You know, this works perfectly well as a sub-class."

Heck, you can make a GREAT Witch right now with a Fae Tome Warlock.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Let's move past this topic. Granting attacks works, but what else do people want?

What I don't like about attack granting is that it's too abstract.

The Command("Flee!") trick is explained: you're standing within 5' of a mook, the caster uses Command, the mook flees, and that triggers an AoO.

But how exactly does attack granting work? What does this brilliant tactician actually do that allows the rogue to get more attacks per round than the rules allow?

Even if it were simply granting Advantage, which doesn't require any combat rules adjustments, I would want to know what the tactician does. Does he distract the enemy? Turn his armor into oatmeal? Throw sand in his eyes?

But grant an extra attack? If there were a rule that said "When X occurs, you get an extra attack action on your turn" we could just say that the tactician makes X happen. But there's no X here.

It kind of reminds me of this cartoon:

I need more detail on this miracle.

 

[Slit518]

Let's take a look at some of these concepts, and see how they would fit as a full-class, or a sub-class for a class.

We'll do this in alphabetical order -

Artificier
An Artificer is an inventor, who makes items. An example of an Artificer is Tubal-Cain from Biblical texts, or Leonardo Divinci from historical texts.

As a full-class an Artificer could not only have the ability to invent and come up with new things, but they could have a limited spell selection, mainly Enchantment spells.

As sub-class options they could have some of the following -

• Alchemist - creates potions, bombs, elixers
• Smith - creates new weapons, armors, mainly specializes in metalurgy
• Jeweler - creatres rings, necklaces, earings
• Tinkerer - creates scrolls, wands, little "tool" objects

The Artificer as a sub-class, does it fit well as a Wizard sub-class, or should it be realized as a full-class?

Party Roll - would be support, a character "shop," more of a social pillar type of character with item creation and invention.

Alchemist
An Alchemist is also an inventor, but a different kind of inventor. They mainly do many experiments, transmuting objects from one to another, looking for an elixer of life, searching and understanding life. Historical Alchemists were people such as the legendary Hermes Trismegistus, Chymes, Vallalar, Wei Boyang, Artephius, Pope John XXII, etc... just to name a few.

As a full-class an Alchemist could not only make potions, balms, salves, cremes, etc... but they could transmute materials, their bodies, creatures, etc... they could create Homunculus, Chimeras, turn into hulking beasts, search for the Elixer of Life, enter the Aether, just to name a few.

But, they Alchemist could be partially realized as a sub-class of either a Wizard of a full blow Artificer class. It would give one a small taste of what an Alchemist is, but not fully realize the vision.

Party Roll - would be support, not much different from an Artificer, a social pillar type of character, though more combat potential with bombs and transformations.

Duskblade (Arcane Fighter base class)
A Duskblade is a half arcane caster from D&D 3.5 and is suppose to bring back the the idea of the Elf class from D&D 1e, or the Fighter/Mage combination class Half-Elves and Elves could get in D&D 2e. Though, it could go by any name, Duskblade is the one that I recognized from D&D in an earlier version.

As a full-class a Duskblade would marry martial prowess with magical mayhem. The spells would go from 1st to 5th level, but one key difference to half-casters is that a Duskblade would get their spells at level 1. I always fancied the idea of running around in armor slinging spells, while having the fighting ability of a Fighter to back it up for when I run out of spells.

The Duskblade could fit in as a Fighter or Bard sub-class, and is mostly covered with the option of Eldritch Knight. Though Eldritch Knight is kind of a poor man's arcane half-caster, the option partially presents itself there. The Bard has the College of Valor, where they learn to wear Medium Armor and wield Martial Weapons, though they would have to depend on the Spell Secrets to dip into the Arcane spell pool with blaster spells. Some may say the Blade Singer Wizard sub-class may fit this roll too, but since I don't have the SCAG, are they allowed to wear armor?

Party Roll - medium combat and medium spell, the Duskblade/Arcane Battlecaster could fight on front lines or blast from the back.

Gladiator
A Gladiator as a full-class would be similar to a Fighter in most regards, d10 maybe even d12 HP because they fight very often. They would have the starting proficiences as All Armor & Shields, Simple, Martial Weapons, and hand-to-hand d4. One difference is it would probably be Str and Cha based, where a Gladiator's Charisma mod would play a huge roll in how the Gladiator plays. The Gladiator's main ability would be something called "Showboat." A famous Gladiator you may know is Spartacus.

Gladiator could be a sub-class of a Fighter, where the Showboat abilities could be obtained much like a Battle-Master Fighter obtains their abilities.

Party Roll - heavy combat, front line fighter, probably up there with a Barbarian or Fighter. They would also be social, as people may recognize them from their Gladiatorial days.

Jester
A Jester is a fool made to entertain a royal court. They usually sing, dance, tell jokes, dress in silly costumes, juggle, etc... In fact, they are similar to a modern day clown.

As a full-class a Jester would be a light blend of Bard & Rogue. It wouldn't have the complete attributes of each class, but instead a blend of a bit of each. Would this warrant a full-class? I'm not sure, the answer is probably not, but I've always been fascinated by the idea of a Jester character.

As a sub-class I could see it either being a Rogue or Bard sub-class. Though I feel the build of a Bard or Rogue do not quite fill the flavor of a Jester too well.

Party Roll - medium skills, social, not really combat oriented.

Knight
If a Paladin is a warrior of the church, then a Knight is a warrior of the current ruler in command, usually a king or queen, but this can change depending on setting. A Paladin would defend their faith, spread the word, and defend the church, think the Knights Templar. Where as a Knight would defend their King, Queen, Czar, the rules of the land, and protect the people. Like Paladins, Knights also have a code of ethics they follow, but unlike Paladins, Knights are not granted magic by a Deity. Examples of Knights would be any of the 13 Knights of the Round Table, William Wallace, El Cid, Elton John, and Sean Connery.

As a full-class a Knight could start as a Squire, building it's way up to a Knight. Knights would belong to a Court or Order, have a Code, etc... Knights would be different than your basic marital class as they would evolve from d8 HP from being a Squire, to d12 HP at later Knight levels.

As a sub-class a Knight could fit into the Fighter category, issuing a Code of Ethics, Court, and Order as sub-class features. But there wouldn't be too much attention paid to them as they are only a sub-class feature, and not a sub-class of a full-class.

Party Roll - leader, heavy combat, medium social with belonging to a Court or Order.

Mystic
Mystic is a broad term, much like a Witch. Personally, I would see a Mystic as a person with some type of mysterious powers, much like a Spirit Medium, but WotC wants to present it to us a Psionic. I think they should just call it a Psionic instead of a Mystic.

As a full-class a Mystic could be some sort of Divine support, but we have enough of those. But seriously, that is what this leads me to. I don't see a Psionic lifting tables with their minds with a Mystic. I felt like they looked at the synonyms of the word Mystic instead of Mystic itself.

Sub-classes of the Mystic could be -

• Oracle - I don't know, look to Pathfinder, it seems to be something there!
• Prophet - the idea fits here more than a Cleric, considering Clerics focus on Domains, and a Prophet isn't a Domain
• Shaman - a Shaman could work as a sub-class for a Mystic as well, considering a Druid isn't a good fit, Druids focus on Circles, a Shaman isn't a Circle.
• Witch - the Witch could be a sub-class of this class as well, in fact, I like this idea better than the Psionic alternative we are getting.

They could of given us Artificer (class), Mystic (class), Psionic (class).

Party Roll - Psychic niche filled, a new set of magic different from Arcane, Divine, or Nature.

Ninja
The history of a ninja is rooted in Eastern culture, primarily Asia. Most may argue where the origin of a Ninja was, with most either considering Japan or Korea. Ninja were simple folk, usually farmers or commoners who practiced stealth and combat tactics to counter Samurai encounters. They would practice in basic tools, such as farming tools (staff, nunchaku, sai, pitchfork) and very few martial tools (blowgun, ninjato).

As a full-class a Ninja would be a light blend of Fighter/Monk and Rogue. They would practice stealth techniques, have limited use in martial weapons, be able to fight with multiple attacks (Extra Attack), probably have access to No Armor, or just Light Armor. And of course they would have mythical Ninja tricks to top off the cake. I like cake.

As a sub-class the Ninja could fit into the Rogue category, but how well? A Rogue has a lot of what a Ninja can do, and somebody in the thread mentioned one of the Monk's "Way of the" is basically a Ninja. So perhaps a Ninja could be a Monk sub-class as well.

Party Roll - medium combat, heavy skill.

Pirate
Pirates are mariners who assail ships with riches, or rob coastal/port towns/cities in hopes of getting immense riches. Pirates are feared due to the fact they raid, and kill through famous methods such as "walking the plank." Famous Pirates include Blackbeard, Davey Jones, Barbarossa, and Francis Drake.

As a full-class a Pirate would not only be proficient in Navigation tools, but have proficiency in Intelligence (History) checks about tales of treasures, wealth, items, objects, etc... A Pirate would be a light mix of Bard and Fighter. They would have many skills, light armor, Simple and Martial Weapons, their saves would be Dexterity and either Intelligence or Charisma. A Pirate in a party would enhance the amount of gold/treasure you find! Perhaps you find 10 - 20 - 30 % more coin? Or perhaps you find another Common Magic Item, or at higher levels item rarity is higher for an item you may find, so instead of Common you might find an Uncommon magic item. Pirate characters with their innate ability to lust treasures and gold could be the drive of a campaign or at least the sub-plot of a campaign.

As a sub-class I don't feel the Pirate fits well into a Bard, Fighter, or Rogue category. Those all feel too extreme in one direction to make a good and accurate Pirate.

And yes, I am aware Pirate is an alternate Background under Sailor.

Party Roll - medium combat, social, and skill, propeller of quests.

Prophet
A Prophet is a person with a direct connection with a/the divine being. A Cleric is a bad example of this, they are more like a battle priest. In fact, I always felt like a D&D Cleric was the half way point between Priest and Paladin. Why doesn't D&D have a Priest class instead? I want a generic Priest, dammit! Anyway, a Prophet has a direct connection with the divine being, and can speak their words to the masses. Examples of Prophets can be found in religious texts, and ones I will list would be ones from Biblical texts such as Moses, Ezekiel, Isaiah, Noah, and Paul just to name some.

A Prophet as a full-class would be a Divine caster who has a direct connection to the divine being they worship and wish to spread the word of. A Prophet would influence the game world by word, book, and miracles, trying to gain converts. The Prophet would be a d6 caster with No Armor.

As a sub-class the Prophet doesn't really fit in with a Cleric. Honestly, Cleric should of just been a sub-class of a class called Priest. And back in the day, Magic-User was a broad term which Cleric fit into way before it gained it's own identity much like the Illusionist (which later lost it to the Wizard).

Party Roll - support heavy, social heavy, very little combat if any, works around obstacles in an alternate manner.

Samurai
A Samurai is a warrior caste class employed either by a master or by the Emperor/Empress of Asian Eastern nations, thought mainly to be Japanese. A Samurai was a highly skilled warrior with a blade and many other types of weapons to fit various circumstances. Famous Samurai throughout history would be Yasuke, Uesugi Kenshin, Miyamoto Musashi, Date Masamune, Oda Nobunaga just to name some.

The Samurai as a full-class would employ certain special training techniques. It would be a martial class that would employ strikes with deadly precision, use special moves, and strike fear into the hearts of their enemy.

As a sub-class the Samurai could fit into the Fighter, though they did a pretty piss poor job with it in Xanathar's Guide to Everything. Seriously, who gets paid to come up with this crap? Don't answer that! I know who, and most of them are really nice people. Actually, after reviewing the Samurai sub-class in Xanathar's Guide to Everything, I take back what I said, it's a decent sub-class.

Party Roll - heavy combat, medium leader.

Shaman
A Shaman is a spiritual leader to a small community, such as a village. Shaman's commune with nature, commune with spirits, can forecast weather, some can even control weather, and some are believed to transform into animal/human hybrids. A Shaman is also called to for guidance, healing, and some are said to have sway over the elements.

As a full-class the Shaman can fill the generic roll of healing and support with a small command over nature, while a bigger roll set into sub-classes would focus on such things as spirits, hybrid transformations, and command of the elements.

As a sub-class a Shaman wouldn't really fit into a Druid class, as a Druid is a part of a Circle. Instead, a Shaman would make a good sub-class on the Mystic class with the proposed change, but even then that would only cover a small breadth of what a Shaman is and could be.

Party Roll - Heavy leader, medium support, party roll dependent on sub-class, either blaster, tank, or heavy support.

Summoner
When I think Summoner I think either something similar to Pokemon, Digimon, Monster Rancher, or Final Fantasy. Somebody who has command over a creature or creatures and uses them for defense and offensive tactics.

As a full-class the Summoner could either command one large creature or several smaller creatures. A summoner should only be able to command X amount of summons to attack a round, while all other summons are on stand by and for Reaction purposes only.

As a sub-class a Summoner would be a part of what? A Wizard? A Druid? A Wizardruid? I feel a Conjurer was slightly on the right path to a Summoner, but only gave us a baby formula taste of what a fully realized Summoner could of been. Though I think the D&D team's big hangup is finding a way to integrate these things, making them fun and interesting, and making them balanced, while maintaining a lack of bloat.

Party Roll - battle field control, summon hoards to attack and defend, take focus off party and put it on summoned creature(s).

Warlord
For some reason a lot of people are passionate (love or hate) about this one, I am not sure as to why. Personally, I think the name is cool. I get, it could be described another way such as Tactician, General, Commander, etc... but Warlord is an evocative name that puts an image in my head. I just picture a Bugbear with face pain, furs and bones hanging from it's clothes, it holding a giant bone club coming up over a hill to meet another small army. The Bugbear shouts with a roar of detest, holding the bone forward as the other creature's behind it charge forward. A Warlord is one who commands war, builds strategies on how to take what they want, they are basically a lord of war. Famous Warlords include but are not limited to, William the Conqueror, Alexandria the Great, Genghis Khan, Attila the Hun, Vlad the Impaler, Joseph Kony, Lu Bu, Cao Cao, Sun Tzu and the list goes on and on and on.

As a full-class the Warlord would be a light mix of Bard and Battle-Master Fighter. A Warlord would have Short Rest and Long Rest powers that would employ certain tactics for the team. The Warlord should also be able to sacrifice it's own Hit-Dice (not actual Hit Points, but the Hit-Dice it can use to recover on a Short/Long Rest) to fuel it's Warlike needs!

Warlord sub-classes could include -

• Butcher - roams from land to land, raping, pillaging, claiming what they want, when they want. They only care about materialistic gain. Think Vlad the Impaler or Genghis Khan
• Conqueror - the go from land to land warring but bringing a melding of cultures togehter. They cease control of certain lands, but not to erase or erradicate, but instead spread their own culture, while allowing the other culture to keep it's identity. Think Alexander the Great or Xerxes
• Defender - the Defender is either hired to defend a certain point, city, or country, or their own land from constant invasion. Think the Empty Fort Strategy or Wen Ping.

Warlord as a sub-class could work, it could be a Fighter sub-class that issues commands/tactics as the expense of a Warlord's resources.

Party Roll - medium combat, heavy support, heavy leader.

Witch
The Witch is a pretty vague category. It's mainly a caster of magic and can fit in many different categories, but most notably it's been related to nature. The modern day Witch is usually shown as green, ugly, warty, black pointy hat, black cat, broom, and a cauldron.

As a full-class a Witch would have an Origin of Power much like a Warlock, but their main feature would be a Coven, a group of like minded witches that empower each other. A Coven would be a unique feature and grant the Witch a source of roleplaying opportunity built right into the class.

As a sub-class the Witch could fit into the Warlock or Sorcerer, but with access to some nature spells. The Witch could also be a sub-class of the proposed Mystic and not the WotC Psionic Mystic.

Party Roll - moderate all types of magic because why not? Curse heavy.

 

[steeldragons]

I'm curious why you excluded Xanathar's Cavalier. It seems to cover everything except the healing that you enumerate. Is it that much different from what you're describing? Or just insufficient, because of the aforementioned problem that Fighters have too much built into the base class so sub-classes are overly constrained?

Truly, because this is the first I'm hearing that there is one. Believe it or not, not everyone possesses [or desires to possess] a XGtE.

I'm also puzzled how you incorporate the healing, and specifically non-magical healing, into the archetype. I'm not expert, but just thinking through the various "Knight" archetypes I have, I can't really think of examples of healing. And if I do conjure an image, it's very Paladin-like. (Angels singing, light flooding down from above, knight in shining armor with helmet removed laying hands on an injured fawn....)

*shurg* Doesn't have to include healing. I wa just coming up with stuff off the top of my head....looking for something non-combat. An above average knowledge of first aid...since they're usually portrayed as well-read, spend time as squires taking care of their mentor knights before becoming knights themselves, being off questing and dueling having to patch themselves up...doesn't seem far-fetched to have a knight know how to bind up themselves, reasonably well, without using magic. Could be something akin to the UA ranger's herbal poultices...but using first aid...a Healer's/Medic's Kit instead of an Herbalist Pouch. It's not difficult to mechanically come up with a way to do it.

The idea of the virtues is kind of interesting/promising. That could either be the premise of the sub-classes (a Pious Knight, for example) sort of like Paladins, or it work like the Battlemaster in that you get to choose a sub-set of Virtues, adding more on at higher levels, and each one grants an ability.

I was thinking more of the latter...but the former is certainly an option...like, build in 2 virtues to set a subclass on a direction, and let the players pick their own at later levels.

Yes, I understand the sentiment. But once you go through that process what are the actual mechanics that you think are missing...or missing from a single class...that justify a new class?

I'm really not trying to be snarky: I really want more/better Witch options, but every time I start trying to design a class I end up with, "You know, this works perfectly well as a sub-class."

Heck, you can make a GREAT Witch right now with a Fae Tome Warlock.

I would say, as I have elsewhere, that I think a Witch class should be built around the concept of "crafting" magic rather than solely or primarily accumulating spells...making items and working more magic through rituals than your typical "spell caster." Concocting "brews" is a feature I think should be specific to a class or subclass. A probability altering "Hex" ability -for weal or woe as I believe your witch homebrew was working on- is a feature I think should be particular to the class or subclass. MAybe some kind of innate "counter-/reverse spell" ability... or manipulating the effects of spells that OTHERS cast? "Punching over their weight" by being able to cast spells in slots higher than their own level would permit...by combining levels [casting in conjunction] with other casters...which might be OP'd in 5e since everyone and their mother is a spellcaster...

But, yeah. I can think of many independent features that could be part of a Witch class or subclass that are not currently Wizard or Warlock options.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Truly, because this is the first I'm hearing that there is one. Believe it or not, not everyone possesses [or desires to possess] a XGtE.

Mom?!?! I didn't know you were on Enworld....

*shurg* Doesn't have to include healing. I wa just coming up with stuff off the top of my head....looking for something non-combat. An above average knowledge of first aid...since they're usually portrayed as well-read, spend time as squires taking care of their mentor knights before becoming knights themselves, being off questing and dueling having to patch themselves up...doesn't seem far-fetched to have a knight know how to bind up themselves, reasonably well, without using magic. Could be something akin to the UA ranger's herbal poultices...but using first aid...a Healer's/Medic's Kit instead of an Herbalist Pouch. It's not difficult to mechanically come up with a way to do it.

Oh, I see. Yes, I could see abilities that make Medicine/Healer's Kits more effective, especially out of combat (as opposed to instant heals).

I was thinking more of the latter...but the former is certainly an option...like, build in 2 virtues to set a subclass on a direction, and let the players pick their own at later levels.

I prefer the latter, too...it seems like fun, and the idea that you increase your collection of virtues as you gain experience seem flavorful.

But what would subclasses be, then?

I would say, as I have elsewhere, that I think a Witch class should be built around the concept of "crafting" magic rather than solely or primarily accumulating spells...making items and working more magic through rituals than your typical "spell caster." Concocting "brews" is a feature I think should be specific to a class or subclass. A probability altering "Hex" ability -for weal or woe as I believe your witch homebrew was working on- is a feature I think should be particular to the class or subclass. MAybe some kind of innate "counter-/reverse spell" ability... or manipulating the effects of spells that OTHERS cast? "Punching over their weight" by being able to cast spells in slots higher than their own level would permit...by combining levels [casting in conjunction] with other casters...which might be OP'd in 5e since everyone and their mother is a spellcaster...

But, yeah. I can think of many independent features that could be part of a Witch class or subclass that are not currently Wizard or Warlock options.

Cool.

 

[mellored]

What I don't like about attack granting is that it's too abstract.

Everything in D&D are abstract. About half have a 1 line generic introduction.

you have a Spellbook containing six 1st-level wizard Spells of your choice.
You speak a one-word command to a creature you can see within range. The target must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or follow the command on its next turn.
In battle, you fight with primal ferocity.
you tap into a deep wellspring of magic within yourself.
you have refined your chosen skills until they approach perfection.
your training allows you to harness the mystic energy of ki.
you can push yourself beyond your normal limits for a moment.

And half just have the name and the mechanic.

While you are wearing no armor and not wielding a Shield, your AC equals 10 + your Dexterity modifier + your Wisdom modifier.
You can Attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on Your Turn.
You can use your action to magically assume the shape of a beast that you have seen before.
Your weapon attacks score a critical hit on a roll of 18-20
When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon.
Choose a humanoid that you can see within range.

What does a wizard do to cast magic missile? How does a druid wild shape? How do any of those things work?


And I won't get started on hit points. That's several threads worth of abstraction.

Even if it were simply granting Advantage, which doesn't require any combat rules adjustments, I would want to know what the tactician does.

I would start with what's already written.
You feint, distract the target, or in some other way team up to make your ally’s attack more effective.

Hmm... actually. I'll steal from the samarui.

Tacticians Help
"When you take the help action to help with an attack, the ally can forgo the advantage for that roll to make an additional weapon attack against that target, as part of the same action".

That works nicely. 1 line, no issues.

And at level 11, you can help 2 people at the same time.

 

[mellored]

The Artificer as a sub-class, does it fit well as a Wizard sub-class, or should it be realized as a full-class?

Full class.
You want the room to explore a unique mechanic. And there's so many thing to build.

But, they Alchemist could be partially realized as a sub-class of either a Wizard of a full blow Artificer class. It would give one a small taste of what an Alchemist is, but not fully realize the vision.

Agreed.
Sub-class of the artificer.

As a full-class a Duskblade would marry martial prowess with magical mayhem. The spells would go from 1st to 5th level, but one key difference to half-casters is that a Duskblade would get their spells at level 1. I always fancied the idea of running around in armor slinging spells, while having the fighting ability of a Fighter to back it up for when I run out of spells.

Hexblade seems to check all the boxes.
Armor, weapons, and spells.

Though, I think there may be room for a full class magical swordsman. Not just a fighter with spells, but something that blends the two together.

Gladiator could be a sub-class of a Fighter, where the Showboat abilities could be obtained much like a Battle-Master Fighter obtains their abilities.

I really don't see what makes gladiators different from other fighters.
What does "showboat" do?

As a full-class a Jester would be a light blend of Bard & Rogue. It wouldn't have the complete attributes of each class, but instead a blend of a bit of each. Would this warrant a full-class? I'm not sure, the answer is probably not, but I've always been fascinated by the idea of a Jester character.

IMO, make it a Tactican sub-class.

Granting attacks by playing bait, blind with a custard pie, and making a fool of the enemies until they charge at you and tumble away behind the fighter.

As a full-class a Knight could start as a Squire, building it's way up to a Knight. Knights would belong to a Court or Order, have a Code, etc... Knights would be different than your basic marital class as they would evolve from d8 HP from being a Squire, to d12 HP at later Knight levels.

As you describe it, it's a background. I mean, Elton John is a Knight. And I don't see how extra HP makes you more knightly.

So you'll have to come up with something that makes it actually stand out. Otherwise, paladin have shiney armor and codes.

As a full-class a Mystic

Agree. Psyonic would be a better name. And there is enough to fill a class and sub-classes.

As a full-class a Ninja would be a light blend of Fighter/Monk and Rogue. They would practice stealth techniques, have limited use in martial weapons, be able to fight with multiple attacks (Extra Attack), probably have access to No Armor, or just Light Armor. And of course they would have mythical Ninja tricks to top off the cake.

I think this could fit in with the magical swordsman, along with duskblade. Something that blends magic and weapons.

Actually. I think the best option would be to re-do the monk, and open it up to all the mystical fighters.

Duskblade, Ninja, Monk (Jacki-Chan), Monk (Dragonball Z), The last Air Bender, Book of 9 Sword, could all fit nicely together. Mixing martial attacks and Ki powered effects.

A Pirate in a party would enhance the amount of gold/treasure you find!

That seems like a really contrived mechanic.
Keep as a background.

The Prophet would be a d6 caster with No Armor.

See divine soul.

Honestly, Cleric should of just been a sub-class of a class called Priest.

Agreed.
But that ship has sailed, and it's not worth the rework.

As a full-class the Shaman can fill the generic roll of healing and support with a small command over nature, while a bigger roll set into sub-classes would focus on such things as spirits, hybrid transformations, and command of the elements.

I'm iffy on it. It doesn't seem that as being different enough from a regular druid.
Circle of the Shepard covers the missing points.

But, if I had a redo. I would split them. A Shapeshifter class, and a Spirit Caster class that doesn't use spell slots.

A summoner should only be able to command X amount of summons to attack a round, while all other summons are on stand by and for Reaction purposes only.

That's not a bad idea. Still adds a lot of rolling if the enemy ever casts fireball.

So maybe??

The Witch is a pretty vague category.

Agreed. People need to define what they mean by Witch before it can be put anywhere.