I am the only one who feels WOTC is being lazy refusing to make new classes after the Artificer. I would love to see sword mage, shaman, rune priest or warlord as full classes (even really cool from 3.5 like the Incarnate) and not shallow as-hell subclasses that barely change the parent class playstyle. Honestly, it is a big part of why PF2e is starting to appeal to me more with how dumbed-down DnD has become.
I feel warlord would be a fun class, and I also think that the mystic that was in UA a while ago, especially since there are less options for int based casters and a mystic full caster would balance things out.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm just your everyday dungeon master. Ignore that jar full of souls. And those bones in the corner are just props, don't worry. I'm definitely NOT a lich. Definitely.
Yes, I like beholders. Yes, I curated an exquisite personality for commoner #2864. Yes, my catchphrase is "are you sure?"
I am the only one who feels WOTC is being lazy refusing to make new classes after the Artificer. I would love to see sword mage, shaman, rune priest or warlord as full classes (even really cool from 3.5 like the Incarnate) and not shallow as-hell subclasses that barely change the parent class playstyle. Honestly, it is a big part of why PF2e is starting to appeal to me more with how dumbed-down DnD has become.
You mean like Bladedancer/Sword Bard/Valor Bard, Druids/Nature Clerics, pretty much any caster, or Battlemaster/most if not all Bards? Only so much granularity of class features is practical, particularly when you’re trying to keep everything balanced and straightforward.
I am the only one who feels WOTC is being lazy refusing to make new classes after the Artificer. I would love to see sword mage, shaman, rune priest or warlord as full classes (even really cool from 3.5 like the Incarnate) and not shallow as-hell subclasses that barely change the parent class playstyle. Honestly, it is a big part of why PF2e is starting to appeal to me more with how dumbed-down DnD has become.
You mean like Bladedancer/Sword Bard/Valor Bard, Druids/Nature Clerics, pretty much any caster, or Battlemaster/most if not all Bards? Only so much granularity of class features is practical, particularly when you’re trying to keep everything balanced and straightforward.
The answer to that is both yes and no, I suspect.
The classes that exist are fairly broad, and coming up with a new class that doesn't overlap with them significantly is pretty hard.
But also various concepts are often a poor fit for the extant classes and subclasses. (And the Warlord really doesn't have an equivalent in 5e. But without the systems and tactical combat emphasis of 4e, I'm not sure you can do it satisfactorily.)
But also many concepts that don't fit the extant classes well also don't fit 5e well.
There was an article, maybe on RobotRPG, that they should build a dedicated "tank" class, something based on Constitution.
We’ve already got Barbarians and Paladins for two flavors of tanking, and making CON a primary stat for a class would be a bit too broken; note that even Wizards want a decent spread between DEX and CON in addition to their main stat.
The problem with new classes is answering the question "how does this play differently than an existing class?" A new class needs to play in a completely different way from any existing classes without just being a subclass. It needs to fit within the framework of the overall game and it needs to do something ELSE. Sure, there are multiple spell-casting classes, two of them are even CHA casters! But they both operate differently and approach spellcasting differently. A ranger isn't just a fighter with a bow, a paladin isn't just a cleric with a damage spell.
What would make a new class actually different from what already exists? Otherwise, it should just be a subclass. There's nothing wrong with more subclasses, most people start play at level 3 anyways, just to get the flavor of the subclass on their characters from the start.
The warlord would work in different way if it is a four member squad or a true army. I would bet WotC wants for project Sigil something like Warhammer: Total War, but you could guess it would need a lot of playtesting.
I miss the martial adepts from "Tome of Battle: Book of nine Swords" but here we need the martial maneuvers to be simple and fast.
After the artificer the psionic/spiritual mystic should be the next but we don't know their ultimate plans. I love my 3.5 "Expanded Psionic Handbook" and I like several ideas of my "Complete Psionic" but to sell more two titles about psionic powers is more compllicated.
"Magic of Incarnum" was interesting but here only the totemist shaman could return. I wonder how would be to use incarnum soulmelds with a summoned monster ally.
There is space for a primal defender, and this wouldn't be like a barbarian with magic powers but something like a tank with shapesifting powers style "Hulk smashs!", Venom simbiont, or Beast Boy(Teen Titans).
Other idea is the Avenger, a divine attacker style vampire-hunter or "assasin's creed".
There are so many classes. I'd like to see more subclasses, but not necessarily full classes. If a new full class is unique (has its own mostly unique spell list if it's a caster), i might be ok with it, but a lot of people just talk about a wizard with a sword, and we have an option for that or multiclassing.
I don’t think more full classes would be really great. In 3e we had separate full classes for pretty much every niche idea, especially toward the end of its run. It didn’t really make the game more fun, and it lead to multiclass dips that were crazy broken. I’m pretty happy with the 5e model of using subclasses to put different spins on base classes. Between that, reskinning, and feats that can give you a taste of another class, you can make almost any archetype.
Psionics doesn’t really have a good niche it can fill as a full class, particularly since the latest DMG makes it pretty clear they’re not interested in implementing any kind of spell points system. Given that, what exactly is their class identity? We’ve already got Psi Warrior and Soulblade covering telekinetic and psychic weapon combat, and Aberrant Mind Sorcerers and Great Old One Warlocks cover most of the psionic spins on spellcasting. What other kind of “psychic” thing can they do?
Why do I want to drink wine when the rest of people would rather beer? Why the members of certain urban tribe would rather to wear a different fashion style? Wizards and psion are so different like Harry Potter and Obi-Wan-Kenobi, Doctor Strange and X-men, Raven(teen titans)+Doctor Fate and Martian Manhunter + Gorilla Grodd. Always there is somebody who wants his own marks of personality.
The psion arrived years before the barbarian, warlock or the sorcerer classes
Maybe WotC doesn't need to publish a new book yet, but a "free demo" version in D&D Beyond and let the players to create their homemade version.
If the wuxia fiction is becoming popular then the psion/mystic could be the closest option to be a "D&D cultivator", or the jedir + force adepts.
That door shouldn't be closed forever, but to take the necessary time for a better product.
You mean kind of like how we already have Fighters, Rogues, Sorcerers, and Warlocks with psionic features, as well as two general feats for those powers? Narratively you can do whatever fits your DMs setting, but mechanically between the existing spell lists and subclasses, there’s no practical way to implement psionics as either an entire class separate from spellcasting or as a new spellcasting class. You may have noticed there’s some significant rough patches in making Artificers effectively balanced in their latest UA.
I am the only one who feels WOTC is being lazy refusing to make new classes after the Artificer. I would love to see sword mage, shaman, rune priest or warlord as full classes
The only FULL class I could see use for, is a full Psionic class like the Psion, (which you could pull from the 5e Darksun if you wish now).
Almost everything else including those you list, would be better suited as sub-classes of existing core classes. With a possible few exceptions. Which we have a lot of sub classes that offer quite a different play style for those they are modifying, and I'm sure more are coming.
Seems more a misunderstanding of what sub-classes are and how different they can vary their base, than it being dumbed down.
I would have to take the position of "no" on wanting or needing another class to be added to the game. Everything is already covered (at least 5 different ways).
An earlier edition tried to make a psionics system, and it was a disaster; they tried to have magic, shadow magic, and psionics each be 3 completely separate and it was unwieldly. Protections against one were useless against the other two, it was a mess.
There are already psionic subclasses, and any spell can be reskinned as psionic-based already. As for a "tank class" we already have them. Barbarians, full-plate wearing Fighters and Paladins we don't need yet another.
Every class should answer the question, what can this class do that none other can do. If you can't answer that easily, then I would suggest the new class isn't needed. In fact, I would even go so far as to say there are too many overlapping sub-classes as is.
As for Artificer, it doesn't even fit into every campaign and is one of the most frequently disallowed classes. Yes, they can be cool (in a campaign world that's built to allow them), but not every campaign is. Many campaigns actually want a medieval flavor or high fantasy that artificers just don't fit into.
I'm playing in a SteamPunk inspired campaign, and artifiers fit nicely into it. it is a lot of fun, but most of the other campaigns I have played in or run, artificers would have broken those worlds and as such were not allowed.
They are having trouble getting a 2024 version of it that isn't over-powered as heck. I hope they figure it out, but that won't change the fact that many campaigns still won't allow them. If your table does, great. If your table does not, that's great too.
We don't need any more full classes, and I would argue that we don't need any more subclasses either, there are already way too many that overlap one another and bring nothing unique to the table - just the opposite, because so many overlap, they water each other down.
Meh, the "artificers don't fit medieval fantasy" bit is frankly the result of a lack of imagination. Alchemists literally need no justification- magic potions are classic fantasy stuff, and there's nothing about the class or other subclass features themselves that can't just skew heavily into "specializes in laying magic enchantments on items"; Armorer creates a special suit of magic armor to channel their powers, Battle Smith creates a golem type creature to fight alongside, and Artillerist is just blasting through a different focus. Also, if you setting has most forms of siege weaponry, sea-going sailing ships, large buildings, telescopes etc. then the foundations of "artifice" already exist in the setting. The basic concepts of machining parts into complex devices have been around for millennia.
Subclasses may be right to explore or to put feelers out but saying we have enough classes is like saying DC and Marvel don't need to create new characters because they have got too much.
My opinion is the keys to create a new class are:
- Right power balance, of course, here we may agree.
- An interesting concept or idea, with its own mark of indivituality, its own "personality" or style. But also allowing enough space for different subclasses. Here two failed examples are the incarnate and soulborn from "Magic of Incarnum", too linked to aligment, and practically paladins with strange powers.
- Simple and fun gameplay. The reload of the martial maneuvers by the crusader class (Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords) slowed down the game. The psychic enervation by the wilder class wasn't interesting, only betting power points. This was "fixed" in the pathfinder version where the failure meant to be dazed a turn.
---
There is space for a divine attacker class style 4e Avenger or the archetype of vampire hunter. There is also space for a primal defender like 4e Warden, but I would advice to be focused into use primal magic for shapesifter traits, close to the shifter class from Pathfinder 1. Some players would be happy with a mini-kaiju PC, like Doric the tielfling druid with owlbear shape kickin-ass in the movie "Honor among thieves".
An update of the martial adepts shouldn't be too hard, because the martial maneuvers are like (almost) at-will spell-like powers with a turn to reload and without ranged effect.
The update of factotum class is possible is the subclasses are the multiclass version you can change. Today I am a divine spellcaster class and in the next week I will choose a stealth class.
A class about monster allies like the Pathfinder summoner would be really wellcome by the players. This concept could be useful to test an update of incarnum soulmelds.
A cultivator class is an idea should be explored, because today manhwa and xuanhua fiction are becoming more popular in the Western audicence. A cultivator would be like a monk with spiritual/psionic powers.
If you want a new class and you think you have a good idea for a new class - then go ahead and do it. Make your new class. Nothing's stopping you. You don't need written permission from Hasbro's legal department to homebrew a new class for your table. D&D has always been intentionally designed as a framework that invites customization. Just because your homebrew idea isn't printed in a $60 hardcover book doesn't mean you can't play it. But also - just because you think it's a great idea doesn't necessarily mean that it deserves to be printed in that $60 hardcover book either.
We all homebrew stuff for our tables. You might like the stuff I make, you might not. I might like the stuff you make, I might not. But the stuff that gets printed in the books is the stuff that has a legacy, and that has proven to be good enough for all the tables out there. Besides, if they printed a Player's Handbook with everybody's cool new homebrew class ideas in it, the dang thing would outweigh several of the Jovian moons.
I am the only one who feels WOTC is being lazy refusing to make new classes after the Artificer. I would love to see sword mage, shaman, rune priest or warlord as full classes (even really cool from 3.5 like the Incarnate) and not shallow as-hell subclasses that barely change the parent class playstyle. Honestly, it is a big part of why PF2e is starting to appeal to me more with how dumbed-down DnD has become.
There was an article, maybe on RobotRPG, that they should build a dedicated "tank" class, something based on Constitution.
I feel warlord would be a fun class, and I also think that the mystic that was in UA a while ago, especially since there are less options for int based casters and a mystic full caster would balance things out.
I'm just your everyday dungeon master. Ignore that jar full of souls. And those bones in the corner are just props, don't worry. I'm definitely NOT a lich. Definitely.
Yes, I like beholders. Yes, I curated an exquisite personality for commoner #2864. Yes, my catchphrase is "are you sure?"
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . .-.-.-
You mean like Bladedancer/Sword Bard/Valor Bard, Druids/Nature Clerics, pretty much any caster, or Battlemaster/most if not all Bards? Only so much granularity of class features is practical, particularly when you’re trying to keep everything balanced and straightforward.
The answer to that is both yes and no, I suspect.
The classes that exist are fairly broad, and coming up with a new class that doesn't overlap with them significantly is pretty hard.
But also various concepts are often a poor fit for the extant classes and subclasses. (And the Warlord really doesn't have an equivalent in 5e. But without the systems and tactical combat emphasis of 4e, I'm not sure you can do it satisfactorily.)
But also many concepts that don't fit the extant classes well also don't fit 5e well.
We’ve already got Barbarians and Paladins for two flavors of tanking, and making CON a primary stat for a class would be a bit too broken; note that even Wizards want a decent spread between DEX and CON in addition to their main stat.
The problem with new classes is answering the question "how does this play differently than an existing class?" A new class needs to play in a completely different way from any existing classes without just being a subclass. It needs to fit within the framework of the overall game and it needs to do something ELSE. Sure, there are multiple spell-casting classes, two of them are even CHA casters! But they both operate differently and approach spellcasting differently. A ranger isn't just a fighter with a bow, a paladin isn't just a cleric with a damage spell.
What would make a new class actually different from what already exists? Otherwise, it should just be a subclass. There's nothing wrong with more subclasses, most people start play at level 3 anyways, just to get the flavor of the subclass on their characters from the start.
The warlord would work in different way if it is a four member squad or a true army. I would bet WotC wants for project Sigil something like Warhammer: Total War, but you could guess it would need a lot of playtesting.
I miss the martial adepts from "Tome of Battle: Book of nine Swords" but here we need the martial maneuvers to be simple and fast.
After the artificer the psionic/spiritual mystic should be the next but we don't know their ultimate plans. I love my 3.5 "Expanded Psionic Handbook" and I like several ideas of my "Complete Psionic" but to sell more two titles about psionic powers is more compllicated.
"Magic of Incarnum" was interesting but here only the totemist shaman could return. I wonder how would be to use incarnum soulmelds with a summoned monster ally.
There is space for a primal defender, and this wouldn't be like a barbarian with magic powers but something like a tank with shapesifting powers style "Hulk smashs!", Venom simbiont, or Beast Boy(Teen Titans).
Other idea is the Avenger, a divine attacker style vampire-hunter or "assasin's creed".
There are so many classes. I'd like to see more subclasses, but not necessarily full classes. If a new full class is unique (has its own mostly unique spell list if it's a caster), i might be ok with it, but a lot of people just talk about a wizard with a sword, and we have an option for that or multiclassing.
Food, Scifi/fantasy, anime, DND 5E and OSR geek.
I don’t think more full classes would be really great. In 3e we had separate full classes for pretty much every niche idea, especially toward the end of its run. It didn’t really make the game more fun, and it lead to multiclass dips that were crazy broken.
I’m pretty happy with the 5e model of using subclasses to put different spins on base classes. Between that, reskinning, and feats that can give you a taste of another class, you can make almost any archetype.
Psionics doesn’t really have a good niche it can fill as a full class, particularly since the latest DMG makes it pretty clear they’re not interested in implementing any kind of spell points system. Given that, what exactly is their class identity? We’ve already got Psi Warrior and Soulblade covering telekinetic and psychic weapon combat, and Aberrant Mind Sorcerers and Great Old One Warlocks cover most of the psionic spins on spellcasting. What other kind of “psychic” thing can they do?
Why do I want to drink wine when the rest of people would rather beer? Why the members of certain urban tribe would rather to wear a different fashion style? Wizards and psion are so different like Harry Potter and Obi-Wan-Kenobi, Doctor Strange and X-men, Raven(teen titans)+Doctor Fate and Martian Manhunter + Gorilla Grodd. Always there is somebody who wants his own marks of personality.
The psion arrived years before the barbarian, warlock or the sorcerer classes
Maybe WotC doesn't need to publish a new book yet, but a "free demo" version in D&D Beyond and let the players to create their homemade version.
If the wuxia fiction is becoming popular then the psion/mystic could be the closest option to be a "D&D cultivator", or the jedir + force adepts.
That door shouldn't be closed forever, but to take the necessary time for a better product.
You mean kind of like how we already have Fighters, Rogues, Sorcerers, and Warlocks with psionic features, as well as two general feats for those powers? Narratively you can do whatever fits your DMs setting, but mechanically between the existing spell lists and subclasses, there’s no practical way to implement psionics as either an entire class separate from spellcasting or as a new spellcasting class. You may have noticed there’s some significant rough patches in making Artificers effectively balanced in their latest UA.
The only FULL class I could see use for, is a full Psionic class like the Psion, (which you could pull from the 5e Darksun if you wish now).
Almost everything else including those you list, would be better suited as sub-classes of existing core classes. With a possible few exceptions.
Which we have a lot of sub classes that offer quite a different play style for those they are modifying, and I'm sure more are coming.
Seems more a misunderstanding of what sub-classes are and how different they can vary their base, than it being dumbed down.
And 5e system could need psionic powers for settings without magic, for example the post-apocalyptic Gamma World or Star*Drive/Star Frontiers.
I loved the concept of ardent class like a frienemy of the rest of divine spellcaster classes, with a strange love-hate relation.
I would have to take the position of "no" on wanting or needing another class to be added to the game. Everything is already covered (at least 5 different ways).
An earlier edition tried to make a psionics system, and it was a disaster; they tried to have magic, shadow magic, and psionics each be 3 completely separate and it was unwieldly. Protections against one were useless against the other two, it was a mess.
There are already psionic subclasses, and any spell can be reskinned as psionic-based already. As for a "tank class" we already have them. Barbarians, full-plate wearing Fighters and Paladins we don't need yet another.
Every class should answer the question, what can this class do that none other can do. If you can't answer that easily, then I would suggest the new class isn't needed. In fact, I would even go so far as to say there are too many overlapping sub-classes as is.
As for Artificer, it doesn't even fit into every campaign and is one of the most frequently disallowed classes. Yes, they can be cool (in a campaign world that's built to allow them), but not every campaign is. Many campaigns actually want a medieval flavor or high fantasy that artificers just don't fit into.
I'm playing in a SteamPunk inspired campaign, and artifiers fit nicely into it. it is a lot of fun, but most of the other campaigns I have played in or run, artificers would have broken those worlds and as such were not allowed.
They are having trouble getting a 2024 version of it that isn't over-powered as heck. I hope they figure it out, but that won't change the fact that many campaigns still won't allow them. If your table does, great. If your table does not, that's great too.
We don't need any more full classes, and I would argue that we don't need any more subclasses either, there are already way too many that overlap one another and bring nothing unique to the table - just the opposite, because so many overlap, they water each other down.
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
Not sure they should considder whole new classes. Maybe some more subclasses for some of the more exoting ideas.
TO DEFEND: THIS IS THE PACT.
BUT WHEN LIFE LOSES ITS VALUE,
AND IS TAKEN FOR NAUGHT-
THEN THE PACT IS, TO AVENGE.
Meh, the "artificers don't fit medieval fantasy" bit is frankly the result of a lack of imagination. Alchemists literally need no justification- magic potions are classic fantasy stuff, and there's nothing about the class or other subclass features themselves that can't just skew heavily into "specializes in laying magic enchantments on items"; Armorer creates a special suit of magic armor to channel their powers, Battle Smith creates a golem type creature to fight alongside, and Artillerist is just blasting through a different focus. Also, if you setting has most forms of siege weaponry, sea-going sailing ships, large buildings, telescopes etc. then the foundations of "artifice" already exist in the setting. The basic concepts of machining parts into complex devices have been around for millennia.
Subclasses may be right to explore or to put feelers out but saying we have enough classes is like saying DC and Marvel don't need to create new characters because they have got too much.
My opinion is the keys to create a new class are:
- Right power balance, of course, here we may agree.
- An interesting concept or idea, with its own mark of indivituality, its own "personality" or style. But also allowing enough space for different subclasses. Here two failed examples are the incarnate and soulborn from "Magic of Incarnum", too linked to aligment, and practically paladins with strange powers.
- Simple and fun gameplay. The reload of the martial maneuvers by the crusader class (Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords) slowed down the game. The psychic enervation by the wilder class wasn't interesting, only betting power points. This was "fixed" in the pathfinder version where the failure meant to be dazed a turn.
---
There is space for a divine attacker class style 4e Avenger or the archetype of vampire hunter. There is also space for a primal defender like 4e Warden, but I would advice to be focused into use primal magic for shapesifter traits, close to the shifter class from Pathfinder 1. Some players would be happy with a mini-kaiju PC, like Doric the tielfling druid with owlbear shape kickin-ass in the movie "Honor among thieves".
An update of the martial adepts shouldn't be too hard, because the martial maneuvers are like (almost) at-will spell-like powers with a turn to reload and without ranged effect.
The update of factotum class is possible is the subclasses are the multiclass version you can change. Today I am a divine spellcaster class and in the next week I will choose a stealth class.
A class about monster allies like the Pathfinder summoner would be really wellcome by the players. This concept could be useful to test an update of incarnum soulmelds.
A cultivator class is an idea should be explored, because today manhwa and xuanhua fiction are becoming more popular in the Western audicence. A cultivator would be like a monk with spiritual/psionic powers.
If you want a new class and you think you have a good idea for a new class - then go ahead and do it. Make your new class. Nothing's stopping you. You don't need written permission from Hasbro's legal department to homebrew a new class for your table. D&D has always been intentionally designed as a framework that invites customization. Just because your homebrew idea isn't printed in a $60 hardcover book doesn't mean you can't play it. But also - just because you think it's a great idea doesn't necessarily mean that it deserves to be printed in that $60 hardcover book either.
We all homebrew stuff for our tables. You might like the stuff I make, you might not. I might like the stuff you make, I might not. But the stuff that gets printed in the books is the stuff that has a legacy, and that has proven to be good enough for all the tables out there. Besides, if they printed a Player's Handbook with everybody's cool new homebrew class ideas in it, the dang thing would outweigh several of the Jovian moons.
Anzio Faro. Protector Aasimar light cleric. Lvl 18.
Viktor Gavriil. White dragonborn grave cleric. Lvl 20.
Ikram Sahir ibn-Malik al-Sayyid Ra'ad. Brass dragonborn draconic sorcerer Lvl 9. Fire elemental devil.
Wrangler of cats.