D&D (2024) Which subclasses “should” have been in 2024

Except spellcasters were already overshadowing the Monk and all martials, this subclass literally took away and gave to Bard very few remaining things that diffirentiated Monk enough to not be 100% overshadowed. Now any random loser who likes to dance will outdo a character who worked whole life to perfect their body and become pure master of martial arts because people who don't consider full casters best thing ever apparently exist to be humilated at the table in WotC's eyes

Then the answer is to give martials the supernatural abilities to keep pace. Make fighters breathe fire, barbarians radiate electricity, monks fly and roguesc teleport in shadows. Magic is the best tool in D&D, adapt or be obsolete.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


They unironically tried that in 4e, how did that work out again?
Nah. They tried making nonmagical stuff use the same mechanics as spells. I'm talking about giving supernatural power to everyone using all different types of mechanics. Spells, class features, feats, etc. Start giving everyone abilities on par with spells if the problem is spellcasters.
 

Nah. They tried making nonmagical stuff use the same mechanics as spells. I'm talking about giving supernatural power to everyone using all different types of mechanics. Spells, class features, feats, etc. Start giving everyone abilities on par with spells if the problem is spellcasters.
personally i think the AEDU structure of powers suits martials quite well more than any resource based designs, representing the 'stamina' that martials are typically touted as being strong at, but is something that still allows them some nova capability, i think a failing of designing martial power (power not powers) is the lack of a proper 'martial system' given equal respect and design space to that of spellcasting.
 
Last edited:

Absolutely, and what reason is there...other than it just hasn't been done yet...that the game /couldn't/ have both systems?

The magic-users get their levels of spell progression, their channeling abilities, their other supernatural magic innate things, depending on their class.

Design true mundane (in the sense of "non-magic," not "boring" or "not special")/martial classes that have/ receive an AEDU style suite of abilities that can choose from/stock up with each day...or each level or however you make it work...that can increase (in frequency and/or power) as they level up....broaden options of maneuvers/actions/stunts, increase damage or other secondary effects (stunning, slamming, forced movement, etc...).

Give the fighters/rogues more options for how to increase their power as they level up, just as casters do, but not as complex/still simple, single sub-system that belongs to non-casting classes.

There must be a way to have BOTH function in the same edition.
 

personally i think the AEDU structure of powers suits martials quite well more than any resource based designs, representing the 'stamina' that martials are typically touted as being strong at, but is something that still allows them some nova capability, i think a failing of designing martial power (power not powers) is the lack of a proper 'martial system' given equal respect and design space to that of spellcasting.
Any "martial" system that compares with spellcasting on a 1:1 ratio is effectively going to end up looking like magic anyway. If the concern is that a punch bard is going to beat a punch monk due to magic, then give the monk enough magic to counter play that.
 

Any "martial" system that compares with spellcasting on a 1:1 ratio is effectively going to end up looking like magic anyway. If the concern is that a punch bard is going to beat a punch monk due to magic, then give the monk enough magic to counter play that.
From where I sit, it seems to me automatic, that you just don't design a 'punch bard" to punch as well as the "punch monk." The bard -whatever their subclass- should have a wide array of options for their actions. Punch Bard can be good at punching. Better than most people. Not as good as a Monk. Just like Caster Bard should be good at casting. Better than other bards that aren't Caster bards. But, not/never as good as a Wizard.

If they cast some "punch enhancing" spell maybe they get even with the monk for a limited moment... I mean...that's just part of the game, right? While the monk can still (or should be able to) "do this all day."

The punch bard's punch effectiveness -not supernaturally enhanced- as compared to the monk's punch effectiveness should not ever be close. Better than Farmer Bob's punch? Sure. Better than Town Guard's punch? Sure. Maybe even en par with a Fighter-of-comparable-level's punch. But not as good as Monk's. ...presuming the design goal is for the Monk to be the "best at unarmed combat" class.
 

Any "martial" system that compares with spellcasting on a 1:1 ratio is effectively going to end up looking like magic anyway. If the concern is that a punch bard is going to beat a punch monk due to magic, then give the monk enough magic to counter play that.
sure but i'm not saying to equivilate them 1:1, i'm just saying martials ought to have a system in place to better structure the power distribution of their own abilities, you can't say AEDU works like 5e's spell slots in design or that you would mistake on for the other.

if you define them both as 'magic' then i think your definition is too loose to be practical for the discussion.

it's like masterwork weapons, they're not magic but they still bypass nonmagic resistance, martials can have things like that and be effective without needing to be magic, a rogue can have a climb speed but that doesn't make it spider climb.
 

Well, no. I was suggesting blending them into a single subclass. But @Stormonu is correct. If the Fighter-Cleric (a.k.a. Paladin) is special enough to have had its own base class (forever), then the Fighter-Mage is definitely special enough (and loooong overdue) to have its own base class.

Paladin started as a Fighter subclass in 1E, while Fighter-Mage was originally a multiclass.

I could see undoing this before eliminating the mage subclass. Instead of moving Fighter-Mage out, move Paladin, Ranger and Barbarian back into fighter. I could also see Warlock and Sorcerer as subclasses of Wizard, along with things like Bladesinger, but I like having Eldritch Knight where it is.


Then that's your caster-warrior tropes. The Fighters, as they should always be, are a non-magic reliant class (other than enchanted weapons, armor, special items, potions, etc...).

See I totaly disagree with this and based on what you see at the table, most playing fighters do not see their characters as non-magic.

I get that there is a portion that do, mostly on message boards, but every single fighter I have seen played in 5E past about level 5 has had some kind of magic, every single one. A substantial number, easily 20% have had spells. I don't think the non-magic fighter is viable for modern players.


And, your observation is kinda my point. We do see few "completely non-magic PCs at all." For several editions now, 5e and this newer 5 being some of the most egregious, the game has been getting more and more "magic-based." "Give 'em spells" seems to be the sole design aesthetic and mechanic.

Players want magic, that is why the game is getting more magic focused. Spells are a key component, but not the only one.


We could have a lengthy and in depth conversation to examine the "why" that is....but that's not what this thread is for.

Considering magic is a choice, I think it is clear the reason is players want magic.


My interest/concern is that giving everyone magic flies in the face of the Dungeons & Dragons game. And -at the very least- more than 6 of 48 character options should have options for character archetypes -as MOST mythologies and legendary hero stories are/go- who do not cast spells/use magic (though, admittedly, most mythological figures receive magical aid or items to fulfill their quests).

From my POV one option is all you need to make it available, but when people refuse to play even that option without magic your argument starts to fall flat.

Even when playing with a relatively rare Champion or Battlemaster fighter with no racial magic; that player is usually actively looking for a magic weapon, or sometimes even whining to the DM about not having one if she gets to level 4 or sowithout one.

No one at the modern table is actually eschewing magic in modern 5E like they did back in 1E.

Also if you look at 1978 AD&D 1E, you had 11 total options (including Bard). Of those 11 only three had no spells - fighter (both subclasses had spells), Thief and Assassin. If you count multiclasses, that number is 5 non-casters out of 20 class options you could select at 1st level, so yes even back in the day casters dominated the available selections.


A group of Dungeons and Dragons adventurers with no casters should be able to go on adventures with a reasonable chance of survival and success. Find/avoid the traps. Beat the monsters. Get the treasures. Save the damsel/village/kingdom/world.

In 5E they can do this without spells relatively easily. IT is more difficult to do it without magic, although adventuring in 5E without magic is easier than it was in earlier editions.
 
Last edited:

From where I sit, it seems to me automatic, that you just don't design a 'punch bard" to punch as well as the "punch monk." The bard -whatever their subclass- should have a wide array of options for their actions. Punch Bard can be good at punching. Better than most people. Not as good as a Monk. Just like Caster Bard should be good at casting. Better than other bards that aren't Caster bards. But, not/never as good as a Wizard.

If they cast some "punch enhancing" spell maybe they get even with the monk for a limited moment... I mean...that's just part of the game, right? While the monk can still (or should be able to) "do this all day."

The punch bard's punch effectiveness -not supernaturally enhanced- as compared to the monk's punch effectiveness should not ever be close. Better than Farmer Bob's punch? Sure. Better than Town Guard's punch? Sure. Maybe even en par with a Fighter-of-comparable-level's punch. But not as good as Monk's. ...presuming the design goal is for the Monk to be the "best at unarmed combat" class.
The dance bard has one attack per round. They get an extra attack when they spend a bard dice. A monk has two, can spend points to get three, and gets an extra attack at 5th. The bard spell list (prior to 10th) doesn't have many good buff spells as of 14. No haste, no bless, no shield. They got silvery barbs. Once you get out of the white room theoreticals, you'll see the bard isn't overpowering the monk at punching for a good long while, if ever. Heck, most people are already considering the dance bard weaker than swords or the revised valor.

But sure, let's all light our hair on fire over stuff we haven't seen in context yet.
 

Remove ads

Top