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

[Tony Vargas]

Right, I meant what is there to a "witch" that wouldn't fit in the already present archetypes?

If we held every tradition to that standard, we wouldn't need any traditions. I mean evokers go around blowing enemies away with spells that say 'evocation' on the tin, they do it a little better, but they don't do it particularly differently, nor do anything else that screams 'evoker' that's not just casting evocation spells.

The last witch got a familiar and the ability to swap out one known spell each day with it's help, and had an association with the moon that determined some of it's powers. And, of course, it added Witch Bolt to the game. Part of the flavor was that witches were an ancient tradition that played a role in society closer to that of a priest or shaman, in spite of being arcanists - might be able to work that in somehow, as well.

 

[jgsugden]

I'd like an Invoker class. It needs more wrathful spells than a cleric, so I would not build it on the chassis of the cleric.

 

[Parmandur]

If we held every tradition to that standard, we wouldn't need any traditions. I mean evokers go around blowing enemies away with spells that say 'evocation' on the tin, they do it a little better, but they don't do it particularly differently, nor do anything else that screams 'evoker' that's not just casting evocation spells.

The last witch got a familiar and the ability to swap out one known spell each day with it's help, and had an association with the moon that determined some of it's powers. And, of course, it added Witch Bolt to the game. Part of the flavor was that witches were an ancient tradition that played a role in society closer to that of a priest or shaman, in spite of being arcanists - might be able to work that in somehow, as well.

Well, in four years, we've seen all of two new traditions: so, yeah, they are holding it to a fairly picky standard. Most of that could be done with a Background...

 

[Elderbrain]

Re: The Witch. I envision a Witch as being a combination of Arcane and Divine spellcaster, as I see Witchcraft as a religion much as Druidism is. (If I had to drop Arcane or Divine magic, I'd keep Divine for the Witch.) Not that every Witch in the game would have to match that archetype - but it's one model. You could have Good, Neutral, and Evil Witches, with the evil ones being outcasts along the lines of an Oathbreaker Paladin. ("An' it harm none, do what you will.")

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well, in four years, we've seen all of two new traditions: so, yeah, they are holding it to a fairly picky standard. Most of that could be done with a Background...

Standards can be picky, but a standard that'd exclude something already in the PH is too picky.

 

[Parmandur]

Standards can be picky, but a standard that'd exclude something already in the PH is too picky.

Well, but the traditions in the book are Traditional.

Thing is, I can cook up a witch with multiple Class/Background combos from the PHB.

One fun way to go would be to pull a Druidish "Mystic Theurge" and give a Wizard the Circle of the Land abilities from the Druid subclass.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well, but the traditions in the book are Traditional.

The Witch is older than 1e. OK, it was pretty warlock-y back then, but still.

Thing is, I can cook up a witch with multiple Class/Background combos from the PHB.

You could do the same to get a Paladin or Ranger, and they're full classes.

One fun way to go would be to pull a Druidish "Mystic Theurge" and give a Wizard the Circle of the Land abilities from the Druid subclass.

Interesting thought.

 

[Mercule]

I voted for Artificer, Alchemist, and Mystic. Pretty much everything else I think is, at best, a sub-class of something else. Many of them don't even need that much and are already fully covered. Honestly, I think Alchemist should be one of the sub-classes of Artificer, but it was listed and isn't currently covered, so I clicked it.

 

[Parmandur]

The Witch is older than 1e. OK, it was pretty warlock-y back then, but still.

You could do the same to get a Paladin or Ranger, and they're full classes.

Interesting thought.

I don't think the Paladin and Ranger have super strong reasons to exist.

 

[Mercule]

I don't think the Paladin and Ranger have super strong reasons to exist.

With the 5E backgrounds, I think you could easily just roll Ranger into a woodsy background + Fighter class. I'd miss some of the "spec ops" bits, but not so much I'd have an internet rage quit over it.

The Paladin could really just be a divine flavored Eldritch Knight knock-off. I see no reason why we need a bunch of variants for Paladin, anyway. The PHB sub-classes are mostly fine, but I don't think there have been any expanded options that don't seem pointless, to me. Since I've only seen two paladins played since 1983, I can't say I'd really miss it.

Regardless, I'd happily give up both of those to put a stake in the heart of the Barbarian. If there was ever a class that should be a sub class of another, it's Barbarian. Just make an "angry Fighter" subclass and call it a day. Totem warrior stuff could be a sub-class of Druid or, if inclined to keep the Ranger, a subclass of that -- just without the "I'm angry" bit, which is silly, anyway.