I have a few ideas for custom classes and it would be nice if there was a system for making classes. Just make it easy and it’d stop me at least from making op classes. I thought it could have a set amount of damage for each level and a list of spells that you could add. And just teach you how to make a class.
I imagine people would take a bit more seriously if they named it something that wasn't "Bunnyfolk". Like how tabaxi, aarakocra, and kenku have actual names. Definitely not a new idea though.
Sorry that's off-topic.
As for the actual custom classes idea, it's okay? I think classes are way too diverse for WoTC to ever make some sort of universal class outline, even now all the classes that have released all have different damage numbers, levels they gain subclasses at (or how many subclass features), even different ASIs, and some (warlock) have entirely different spellcasting features. However yeah they could provide some guidelines on how to better balance classes, or at least a look into their philosophy behind the classes of 5E.
TDLR; Custom classes probably not happening, but WoTC could make guidelines on how to better balance HB classes.
No. It's already stupid. I mean Bunnyfolk? Hop? Seriously?
Not sure how something WotC puts out (albeit in UA, so playtest) makes homebrew mechanics stupid, to be honest.
That said though, I do think formalizing custom classes is a bad idea (as is custom lineage, for the same reason) because putting custom homebrew in a straightjacket defeats the purpose. If you want to create something new, you shouldn't start by tieing your hands behind your back. Especially since almost no actual races fit the custom lineage mold, and I'll bet no actual classes would fit this theoretical custom class.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
No. It's already stupid. I mean Bunnyfolk? Hop? Seriously?
One man's frivolous is another's deadly serious. Animal spirits are a thing in many mythologies. And as for rabbits themselves, read Watership Down.
Spirit Guides, especially in animal form have a very important place in the religious practices of many thousands of people around the world. Bunnyfolk and their hop ability is a direct insult to those of us who follow such paths. It has nothing to do with spreading diversity and everything to do with the spreading nonsense of all the blue haired, temper tantrum throwing Gen Z's. Many of whom seem to think that they can watch an episode of Buffy or read a book from Llewellyn and call themselves a witch, or watch a documentary on South America and become a Shaman, without having any concept of the knowledge and experience passed down through generations or actual practitioners.
No. It's already stupid. I mean Bunnyfolk? Hop? Seriously?
One man's frivolous is another's deadly serious. Animal spirits are a thing in many mythologies. And as for rabbits themselves, read Watership Down.
Spirit Guides, especially in animal form have a very important place in the religious practices of many thousands of people around the world. Bunnyfolk and their hop ability is a direct insult to those of us who follow such paths. It has nothing to do with spreading diversity and everything to do with the spreading nonsense of all the blue haired, temper tantrum throwing Gen Z's. Many of whom seem to think that they can watch an episode of Buffy or read a book from Llewellyn and call themselves a witch, or watch a documentary on South America and become a Shaman, without having any concept of the knowledge and experience passed down through generations or actual practitioners.
I feel like that statement could also apply to alot of races / backgrounds / classes that have been present in 5e (or even earlier D&D) for years. Take the Monk and Cleric classes for example. Is it fair to play one if you aren't fully engrossed in the culture that surrounds those practices IRL? Is it wrong for someone who has watched Harry Potter to want to play a wizard?
I don't think that WotC is trying to tie their new Feyfolk to any real-world religions or groups. I think they are just meant to be whimsical new race options.
Edit: Also worth reminding that the discussion of the Feyfolk is not the purpose of this thread. So I will not be responding on it from this point forward within this thread
Beardsinger, you do realize that a significant portion of the D&D audience are actual children right? If I have a 9 year old daughter/son that wants to play a rabbit-person, that's a perfect race/lineage for them to do so.
However, I do agree that they should have a new name. I would vote for "Lepus" or "Leporid" rather than Bunny-folk.
Now, about the OP; Custom class rules are probably never going to happen. Class features are too widely variable for there to be a "process" for making them up that could be communicated, and subclass features would have to be considered as well, and then the class playtested to ensure balance with other classes. At least, if they tried, it would likely require a whole chapter of a book, or a hefty rewrite of the DMG. The custom lineage rules are already pretty limited (a major complaint about the feature) so a custom class ruleset would likely be even more so.
Personally, If my players want to create a new lineage/origin, I force them to use the Custom Lineage rules. If they want something different or more complex, then I, the DM, homebrew it as a DM (and they are subject to any limitations I deem appropriate as part of that homebrew). I have never viewed the custom lineage rules as a restriction for DMs; they are rules for players who want to control the makeup of their origin beyond the standard races.
It is not spiritually offensive that a bunny creature can jump well. The mechanics are solid. The tone is certainly different, but UA can hit weirdly because you're reviewing the content of a book without any of the context of the book. It's pretty clear this is aiming for kid-friendly Humblewood-type D&D. Having that type of material in D&D is not the political lightning rod you are trying to make it out to be.
This thread is for discussing the custom class frameworks, not for discussing the latest UA race offerings. That discussion should happen in the Unearthed Arcana subforum
Classes are too varied to make any kind of meaningful creation system without undue complexity.
Are you a martial class? d10 HP, Up to medium armo possibly heavy armor and simple/martial weapons,
not a martial d8, light armor, possibly medium armor, simple weapons
full caster d6. No armor, possibly light armor, simple weapons
Are you a half caster? X spell slot progression, third caster Y spell slot progression
ASI’s at levels 4, 8, 12, 16, 19
class features levels 2, 3, 5, 9, 11, 20.
now you have to come up with subclass with features at appropriate levels.
in the end I think it would hamper more than help or make custom classes too generic. This was just off the top of my head and I’m no expert on feature progression. Clerics get their domain (Subclass) at 1st level, wizards at 2nd. many others at 3rd so I assume a custom class would be at 3rd as well.
I have a few ideas for custom classes and it would be nice if there was a system for making classes. Just make it easy and it’d stop me at least from making op classes. I thought it could have a set amount of damage for each level and a list of spells that you could add. And just teach you how to make a class.
Get with you DM and other players and playtest this, And require honest feed. I had Ninja homebrew class in `1e looked okay till 8th or 9th level Then he was equal to about a 27th level PC. Also D&D has always been archtype/specfic class.
Thinking about this more. If they were to do this, the bones of it could be as follows:
3 "frameworks": Martial, Half Caster, and Full Caster
Framework would include basic level progression, with each level granting either 1) a "main class" feature, 2) a "subclass" feature, 3) an ASI, or 4) a new spell level (full/half casters only)
Half and Full casters would use standard spell level and slot progression (no options for "warlock" type or "artificer" type modifications)
Guidance and suggestions would be given on limitations on types and scaling of the main and subclass features ("no immunities before level 10" "damage from abilities capped at 1d8 until level 5, 2d8 until level 11, 3d8 until level 17, 4d8 until level 20" (similar to cantrip scale progression))
Ideas for "thematic" abilities for subclasses
"extra attack" at level 5 for martial classes and half caster classes ("main" feature), option additional extra attack as class feature for martial classes at higher levels (max of 2 additional attacks)
simplified guidance for "prepared spellcasters" vs "known spellcasters" (limits on spells known, limits on preparation, how to pick available spells, etc)
Advice on playtesting and balancing custom classes after creation.
Anything comprehensive, even if kept "simple" would be a whole chapter of a book (if not a whole book by itself, possibly with a 3 new classes as an example of each "framework")
Hm.... I've said this before, but.... I consider Tasha's to be the start of "5.5 edition" - so, we're seeing "power creep" (though, I personally call it a new base line for all 5e books from now on). Anyways, what does that have to do with the OP?
Custom Lineage is, imho, just the new Variant Human for post-Tasha material. Its got a few more levers, and its a bit better than Variant Human, but fundamentally it fits the same role and the same need. Any kind of Custom Class design would really have to be taken in a completely different direction from Custom Lineage.
To make a custom class thing... I'd actually probably start with Artificer as an inspiration. You see, the other 12 classes all nicely fit into one of the four traditional roles - tank, skirmisher, healer, mage. Meanwhile, Artificer is more of a jack-of-all class that can do any of the other things, but it primarily depends on what Invocations and magic item picks for your extended attunement slots you take. Infusions, feats, and magic items are all really good ways of customizing your abilities.
Thinking about this more. If they were to do this, the bones of it could be as follows:
3 "frameworks": Martial, Half Caster, and Full Caster
Framework would include basic level progression, with each level granting either 1) a "main class" feature, 2) a "subclass" feature, 3) an ASI, or 4) a new spell level (full/half casters only)
Half and Full casters would use standard spell level and slot progression (no options for "warlock" type or "artificer" type modifications)
Guidance and suggestions would be given on limitations on types and scaling of the main and subclass features ("no immunities before level 10" "damage from abilities capped at 1d8 until level 5, 2d8 until level 11, 3d8 until level 17, 4d8 until level 20" (similar to cantrip scale progression))
Ideas for "thematic" abilities for subclasses
"extra attack" at level 5 for martial classes and half caster classes ("main" feature), option additional extra attack as class feature for martial classes at higher levels (max of 2 additional attacks)
simplified guidance for "prepared spellcasters" vs "known spellcasters" (limits on spells known, limits on preparation, how to pick available spells, etc)
Advice on playtesting and balancing custom classes after creation.
Anything comprehensive, even if kept "simple" would be a whole chapter of a book (if not a whole book by itself, possibly with a 3 new classes as an example of each "framework")
I think this good. At 2nd level martial classes would get a fighting style.
No. It's already stupid. I mean Bunnyfolk? Hop? Seriously?
Hey, some people still enjoy Bloody Roar games and Alice kicked ass. Her hopping beast drive was quite decent.
No dunkin' on the bunnies, those buggers kick and bite somet' fierce.
--
I think Custom Lineages and optional race features and class features play well to bringing in a balanced way to make more unique characters. D&D is an imagination game, and these are fairly decent attempts to give us tools to bring more of that imagination into play.
So let them be bunnyfolk, or whatever label you feel best, or whatever.
The class options too help broaden the classes and mitigate some of the unnecessary restrictions in a way that feels balanced. I'd like to see more things like that - a way to build a class that fits what you want while still remaining balanced. It's freeing and fun. I appreciate the direction WotC is going with this. For those who prefer the more traditional D&D race/class systems, well, use those then. That's the point. Play your own way.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
As I said, there is no universal framework for classes (except for spellcasting, unless your a Artificer, or Warlock, or Wizard, or... nvm). Almost none of the classes fit the framework even provided by iconarising & Bobbill111 (Rogue doesn't get a Extra Attack, several full spellcasters can get Extra Attack such as the Warlock or Bladesinger, etc.)
My advice is that such a framework would be purely about the design process, not about making a template. You would basically do that last point of iconarising's post, "Advice on playtesting and balancing custom classes after creation." Things such as how to consider Bounded Accuracy & AC, Tiers of Play, common misconceptions and failures, how to playtest properly, that kinda stuff.
The "Guidance and suggestions would be given on limitations on types and scaling of the main and subclass feature" is sort of on-point, but it must also say why those rules exist so that people can deduce when it's okay to break said guidance (and def. don't scale it off of cantrips, caster cantrips are intentionally below average with the exception of warlock to give martial characters more power).
I'll seen a couple attempts, my personal favorite so far is Leuku's Guide to Balancing (and Judging the Balance of) Homebrew Classes (although I think the guide is very outdated, but most of the advice still holds up. Not going to critique it or anything cause that'll be getting off-topic).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I have a few ideas for custom classes and it would be nice if there was a system for making classes. Just make it easy and it’d stop me at least from making op classes. I thought it could have a set amount of damage for each level and a list of spells that you could add. And just teach you how to make a class.
No. It's already stupid. I mean Bunnyfolk? Hop? Seriously?
I imagine people would take a bit more seriously if they named it something that wasn't "Bunnyfolk". Like how tabaxi, aarakocra, and kenku have actual names. Definitely not a new idea though.
Sorry that's off-topic.
As for the actual custom classes idea, it's okay? I think classes are way too diverse for WoTC to ever make some sort of universal class outline, even now all the classes that have released all have different damage numbers, levels they gain subclasses at (or how many subclass features), even different ASIs, and some (warlock) have entirely different spellcasting features. However yeah they could provide some guidelines on how to better balance classes, or at least a look into their philosophy behind the classes of 5E.
TDLR; Custom classes probably not happening, but WoTC could make guidelines on how to better balance HB classes.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
Not sure how something WotC puts out (albeit in UA, so playtest) makes homebrew mechanics stupid, to be honest.
That said though, I do think formalizing custom classes is a bad idea (as is custom lineage, for the same reason) because putting custom homebrew in a straightjacket defeats the purpose. If you want to create something new, you shouldn't start by tieing your hands behind your back. Especially since almost no actual races fit the custom lineage mold, and I'll bet no actual classes would fit this theoretical custom class.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Just.........what?
Cat people, bird people, fish people, and angel people weren't a problem...but rabbit people are?
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Spirit Guides, especially in animal form have a very important place in the religious practices of many thousands of people around the world. Bunnyfolk and their hop ability is a direct insult to those of us who follow such paths. It has nothing to do with spreading diversity and everything to do with the spreading nonsense of all the blue haired, temper tantrum throwing Gen Z's. Many of whom seem to think that they can watch an episode of Buffy or read a book from Llewellyn and call themselves a witch, or watch a documentary on South America and become a Shaman, without having any concept of the knowledge and experience passed down through generations or actual practitioners.
I feel like that statement could also apply to alot of races / backgrounds / classes that have been present in 5e (or even earlier D&D) for years. Take the Monk and Cleric classes for example. Is it fair to play one if you aren't fully engrossed in the culture that surrounds those practices IRL? Is it wrong for someone who has watched Harry Potter to want to play a wizard?
I don't think that WotC is trying to tie their new Feyfolk to any real-world religions or groups. I think they are just meant to be whimsical new race options.
Edit: Also worth reminding that the discussion of the Feyfolk is not the purpose of this thread. So I will not be responding on it from this point forward within this thread
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Beardsinger, you do realize that a significant portion of the D&D audience are actual children right? If I have a 9 year old daughter/son that wants to play a rabbit-person, that's a perfect race/lineage for them to do so.
However, I do agree that they should have a new name. I would vote for "Lepus" or "Leporid" rather than Bunny-folk.
Now, about the OP; Custom class rules are probably never going to happen. Class features are too widely variable for there to be a "process" for making them up that could be communicated, and subclass features would have to be considered as well, and then the class playtested to ensure balance with other classes. At least, if they tried, it would likely require a whole chapter of a book, or a hefty rewrite of the DMG. The custom lineage rules are already pretty limited (a major complaint about the feature) so a custom class ruleset would likely be even more so.
Personally, If my players want to create a new lineage/origin, I force them to use the Custom Lineage rules. If they want something different or more complex, then I, the DM, homebrew it as a DM (and they are subject to any limitations I deem appropriate as part of that homebrew). I have never viewed the custom lineage rules as a restriction for DMs; they are rules for players who want to control the makeup of their origin beyond the standard races.
[REDACTED]
It is not spiritually offensive that a bunny creature can jump well. The mechanics are solid. The tone is certainly different, but UA can hit weirdly because you're reviewing the content of a book without any of the context of the book. It's pretty clear this is aiming for kid-friendly Humblewood-type D&D. Having that type of material in D&D is not the political lightning rod you are trying to make it out to be.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
This thread is for discussing the custom class frameworks, not for discussing the latest UA race offerings. That discussion should happen in the Unearthed Arcana subforum
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
A custom class feature, or at least a decent guide in creating a homebrew class, would be really nice to have.
It should definitely be an optional variant though, in order to let DM's know that it's not expected to be always allowed.
Classes are too varied to make any kind of meaningful creation system without undue complexity.
Are you a martial class? d10 HP, Up to medium armo possibly heavy armor and simple/martial weapons,
not a martial d8, light armor, possibly medium armor, simple weapons
full caster d6. No armor, possibly light armor, simple weapons
Are you a half caster? X spell slot progression, third caster Y spell slot progression
ASI’s at levels 4, 8, 12, 16, 19
class features levels 2, 3, 5, 9, 11, 20.
now you have to come up with subclass with features at appropriate levels.
in the end I think it would hamper more than help or make custom classes too generic. This was just off the top of my head and I’m no expert on feature progression. Clerics get their domain (Subclass) at 1st level, wizards at 2nd. many others at 3rd so I assume a custom class would be at 3rd as well.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Get with you DM and other players and playtest this, And require honest feed. I had Ninja homebrew class in `1e looked okay till 8th or 9th level Then he was equal to about a 27th level PC. Also D&D has always been archtype/specfic class.
No Gaming is Better than Bad Gaming.
Thinking about this more. If they were to do this, the bones of it could be as follows:
3 "frameworks": Martial, Half Caster, and Full Caster
Anything comprehensive, even if kept "simple" would be a whole chapter of a book (if not a whole book by itself, possibly with a 3 new classes as an example of each "framework")
Hm.... I've said this before, but.... I consider Tasha's to be the start of "5.5 edition" - so, we're seeing "power creep" (though, I personally call it a new base line for all 5e books from now on). Anyways, what does that have to do with the OP?
Custom Lineage is, imho, just the new Variant Human for post-Tasha material. Its got a few more levers, and its a bit better than Variant Human, but fundamentally it fits the same role and the same need. Any kind of Custom Class design would really have to be taken in a completely different direction from Custom Lineage.
To make a custom class thing... I'd actually probably start with Artificer as an inspiration. You see, the other 12 classes all nicely fit into one of the four traditional roles - tank, skirmisher, healer, mage. Meanwhile, Artificer is more of a jack-of-all class that can do any of the other things, but it primarily depends on what Invocations and magic item picks for your extended attunement slots you take. Infusions, feats, and magic items are all really good ways of customizing your abilities.
I think this good. At 2nd level martial classes would get a fighting style.
Hey, some people still enjoy Bloody Roar games and Alice kicked ass. Her hopping beast drive was quite decent.
No dunkin' on the bunnies, those buggers kick and bite somet' fierce.
--
I think Custom Lineages and optional race features and class features play well to bringing in a balanced way to make more unique characters. D&D is an imagination game, and these are fairly decent attempts to give us tools to bring more of that imagination into play.
So let them be bunnyfolk, or whatever label you feel best, or whatever.
The class options too help broaden the classes and mitigate some of the unnecessary restrictions in a way that feels balanced. I'd like to see more things like that - a way to build a class that fits what you want while still remaining balanced. It's freeing and fun. I appreciate the direction WotC is going with this. For those who prefer the more traditional D&D race/class systems, well, use those then. That's the point. Play your own way.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
As I said, there is no universal framework for classes (except for spellcasting, unless your a Artificer, or Warlock, or Wizard, or... nvm). Almost none of the classes fit the framework even provided by iconarising & Bobbill111 (Rogue doesn't get a Extra Attack, several full spellcasters can get Extra Attack such as the Warlock or Bladesinger, etc.)
My advice is that such a framework would be purely about the design process, not about making a template. You would basically do that last point of iconarising's post, "Advice on playtesting and balancing custom classes after creation." Things such as how to consider Bounded Accuracy & AC, Tiers of Play, common misconceptions and failures, how to playtest properly, that kinda stuff.
The "Guidance and suggestions would be given on limitations on types and scaling of the main and subclass feature" is sort of on-point, but it must also say why those rules exist so that people can deduce when it's okay to break said guidance (and def. don't scale it off of cantrips, caster cantrips are intentionally below average with the exception of warlock to give martial characters more power).
I'll seen a couple attempts, my personal favorite so far is Leuku's Guide to Balancing (and Judging the Balance of) Homebrew Classes (although I think the guide is very outdated, but most of the advice still holds up. Not going to critique it or anything cause that'll be getting off-topic).
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.