If they do, it'd have to be to fulfill an underrepresented fantasy. Something not fulfilled by the existing classes or subclasses. We've got a lot of archetypes and fantasies already. One that is missing is a true pet class. One where a substantial amount of the power comes from the pet. That might be kinda fun. Another missing fantasy is a Mastermind type character whose power is derived from moving your team like a chess match. There might be something there too although that'd be tricky to pull off and still be fun.
Those are just a few ideas but there are certainly plenty more.
If they do, it'd have to be to fulfill an underrepresented fantasy. Something not fulfilled by the existing classes or subclasses. We've got a lot of archetypes and fantasies already. One that is missing is a true pet class. One where a substantial amount of the power comes from the pet. That might be kinda fun. Another missing fantasy is a Mastermind type character whose power is derived from moving your team like a chess match. There might be something there too although that'd be tricky to pull off and still be fun.
Those are just a few ideas but there are certainly plenty more.
Mastermind is already a Rogue subclass, and generally speaking you don't want to step on other players' agency so that kind of large scale maneuvering doesn't really fit the paradigm. There's a fair number of ways to give teammates a chance to maneuver on your round, but "pieces on a chessboard" is generally not a dynamic cooperative games want between one player and the others.
As for a "true" pet class, the issue there is unless the pet has the staying power of a PC, then the player is thoroughly hobbled anytime it's taken off the board, and if it's something that can be readily replaced mid-encounter then you're just creating an ablative layer for a PC, which opens up a lot of exploits based around expending the pet in suicide maneuvers. Probably not entirely unworkable, but from the perspective of a dev team that has to justify why they picked X project over all the other potential ones on the table, the juice probably isn't worth the squeeze.
Of course the monster pets show their own risks of breaking the power balance. They could be sent to open doors or chests, and if it is a trap or a mimic then no PC is hurt. A simple pigeon could fly toward the window of the princess's bedroom in the top of the highest tower carrying a little scroll with teletransporting rune.. ... or a simple mouse runs toward the horde of bugbears carrying with the cheeks to little stones, one with a teletransportation rune and other with a explosive rune. When the bugbear squad realised, this little mouse disappears in front of them, leaving a little stone with an explosive rune.
Or a monster pet could be like a hollow animated armour, can work like a construct-like mount or a sentient powered-armour.
We could bet Hasbro would be very happy with their own mon IP, something style Pokemon or Digimon. Maybe Project Sigil could offer some demo version.
If some monster pet was style swarm, you could imagine PCs playing a magical version of fantasy wargames. Something like Ash Kepchut playing a Pokemon version of the videogame "Heroes of Might & Magic". And this could be worse if the "monster trainer" are large sentient creatures like giants or dragons.
I can't know if WotC and "Roll for Combat" trusts each other enoughly for a "Battlezoo" collab in D&DBeyond. Maybe this publisher could grow enoughly to become a new Paizo.
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.
They could easily fix that mess, and likely would given the current direction of 5e.
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.
They could easily fix that mess, and likely would given the current direction of 5e.
They tried for 5e, an the resultant mess was the “Mystic” class that didn’t make it out of UA.
A possible solution would be those special powers with different game mechanics could be used thanks "classical" spells. For example with a spell a player could use martial maneuvers of the crusader (martial adept from 3.5 Tome of Battle) during a scene.
Other point is if spell slots could be spent for counterspell against other powers, for example echanter magic against telepatic powers. We are going to need a lot of playtesting, but playtesting is also playing D&D.
* I imagine the shadowcaster from 3.5 Tome of Magic as a subclass within elementalist class. The misteries would be reloaded thanks a long rest in the begining, with a short rest after, and in the end with a reload action like martial maneuvers.
* The truenamer (Tome of Magic) was boring to be played. It was using a little number of powers at-will. It doesn't allow many options for subclasses. My suggestion is to create a nPC monster mixing the truenamer and the archivist classes. Then the players could need a different strategy to defeat them.
* The dragonfire adept from Dragon Magic could be now a monk subclass.
* The dragon shaman (3.5 PH II) could be renamed dracolyte and each subclass would a different dragon.
* The shaman could work like a mixture of vestige binder and the totemist (magic of incarnum). The shaman summons a monster ally, and locking chakras (body slots for magic item) and spending essence points for metamagic effects or adding monster traits (for example better natural weapons and armour). WotC only has to show a "free demo" in Sigil and players will create a homemade D&D version of Pokemon.
* Spoiler: surprise leak! Here a preview of the future psion/mysthic class according the current preferences of the youngest generation of players
* The shaman could work like a mixture of vestige binder and the totemist (magic of incarnum). The shaman summons a monster ally, and locking chakras (body slots for magic item) and spending essence points for metamagic effects or adding monster traits (for example better natural weapons and armour). WotC only has to show a "free demo" in Sigil and players will creaa homemade D&D version of Pokemon.
Look at what they did with the Animist in PF2e they mixed the pf1e Medium (their take on the 3.5 binder)and Shaman together in the form of the Animist (the creator of the class outright said the class was his take on the pf1e shaman), end result is an adaptable cookie-cutter spell caster/middle field divine gish that the fills the whole spiritmancer/pactbinder theme.
Personally I think MOST ideas of classes can be done with new subclasses and the classes that already exist. Even the Warlord could be a subclass of Fighter (Like Ghostfire Gaming's Commander). But, if some idea is brought up that can't be done with a subclass - like the Artificer, then by all means a new class is in order. I have a high bar for considering new classes, but not a hard no.
Dark Sun coming this fall? What are your sources? I believed it had been "cancelled" because it was not enough "family-friendly" to say it softly. Maybe it could be licenced to other publisher like Ravenloft in 3rd Ed.
Momo Ayase and her grandma from the manganime "Dandadan" are good examples of how psionic-mystics could be cool and interesting characters.
The key is to sell crunch of no-core classes is more difficult. If for example a little group love the psionic powers then the sales of a complete psionic will be lower than the first psionic handbook. Maybe the solution would be some magic items allowed to use those powers with a different game mechanic, for example scrolls to use martial maneuvers during a complete scene, not only during one attack.
* The sha'ir from al-Qadim could be right for a D&D summoner class.
I would love to see sword mage, shaman, rune priest or warlord as full classes
As other have said, conceptually these archetypes can easily fit into existing classes and work as subclasses (I've made Fighter(warlord) and Artificer(swordmage) subclasses for example). Although 2024 has kind of reigned things in, Tasha's-era subclasses and the alternate class features concept were really starting to explore how much variation you could have within a class. I think things will naturally move back in that direction, if only because new ideas and mechanics help with sales of new material.
Since existing classes cover most fantasy archetypes pretty well, a new class needs to be based on a mechanic rather than a fantasy concept. A class built around a pet as mentioned above, for instance. Classes should have a distinctive feel when you play them, and that feel is rooted in mechanics. How you wrap that up with flavor comes later.
This is where I think Psion is jammed up. Every edition there is a war about how psionics should work. There is a lot of passion and a lot of ideas. It should be magic. It absolutely should not be magic. It should be able to do anything (aka the Mystic). It should just be a wizard but with ki points. It should be a whole list of stuff and most of that stuff should do the same stuff spells do, but if you make them spells so gods help me I will jump off this bridge. It's so contentious that if a Psion class were ever released, I'm confident that more than half the people asking for the class would hate it. I'm pretty sure WotC's marketing research has shown them the same thing, so they are staying away from it.
Dark Sun coming this fall?
This was said as a joke in another thread. I'm not sure if the poster is saying this tongue-in-cheek or if they took it as fact.
The warlock has got a lot of witch vibes but I miss the storytelling potential of the vestige binder from 3.5 Tome of Magic.
The Ahtasian gladiator could be reimagined like a mixture of primal defender and martial adept.
Why not to add any style "experimental homebred classes"? D&D Beyonds publishes a sketch and the own players start to create and playtest their homemade versions.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If they do, it'd have to be to fulfill an underrepresented fantasy. Something not fulfilled by the existing classes or subclasses. We've got a lot of archetypes and fantasies already. One that is missing is a true pet class. One where a substantial amount of the power comes from the pet. That might be kinda fun. Another missing fantasy is a Mastermind type character whose power is derived from moving your team like a chess match. There might be something there too although that'd be tricky to pull off and still be fun.
Those are just a few ideas but there are certainly plenty more.
Mastermind is already a Rogue subclass, and generally speaking you don't want to step on other players' agency so that kind of large scale maneuvering doesn't really fit the paradigm. There's a fair number of ways to give teammates a chance to maneuver on your round, but "pieces on a chessboard" is generally not a dynamic cooperative games want between one player and the others.
As for a "true" pet class, the issue there is unless the pet has the staying power of a PC, then the player is thoroughly hobbled anytime it's taken off the board, and if it's something that can be readily replaced mid-encounter then you're just creating an ablative layer for a PC, which opens up a lot of exploits based around expending the pet in suicide maneuvers. Probably not entirely unworkable, but from the perspective of a dev team that has to justify why they picked X project over all the other potential ones on the table, the juice probably isn't worth the squeeze.
Of course the monster pets show their own risks of breaking the power balance. They could be sent to open doors or chests, and if it is a trap or a mimic then no PC is hurt. A simple pigeon could fly toward the window of the princess's bedroom in the top of the highest tower carrying a little scroll with teletransporting rune.. ... or a simple mouse runs toward the horde of bugbears carrying with the cheeks to little stones, one with a teletransportation rune and other with a explosive rune. When the bugbear squad realised, this little mouse disappears in front of them, leaving a little stone with an explosive rune.
Or a monster pet could be like a hollow animated armour, can work like a construct-like mount or a sentient powered-armour.
We could bet Hasbro would be very happy with their own mon IP, something style Pokemon or Digimon. Maybe Project Sigil could offer some demo version.
If some monster pet was style swarm, you could imagine PCs playing a magical version of fantasy wargames. Something like Ash Kepchut playing a Pokemon version of the videogame "Heroes of Might & Magic". And this could be worse if the "monster trainer" are large sentient creatures like giants or dragons.
I can't know if WotC and "Roll for Combat" trusts each other enoughly for a "Battlezoo" collab in D&DBeyond. Maybe this publisher could grow enoughly to become a new Paizo.
They could easily fix that mess, and likely would given the current direction of 5e.
They tried for 5e, an the resultant mess was the “Mystic” class that didn’t make it out of UA.
A possible solution would be those special powers with different game mechanics could be used thanks "classical" spells. For example with a spell a player could use martial maneuvers of the crusader (martial adept from 3.5 Tome of Battle) during a scene.
Other point is if spell slots could be spent for counterspell against other powers, for example echanter magic against telepatic powers. We are going to need a lot of playtesting, but playtesting is also playing D&D.
* I imagine the shadowcaster from 3.5 Tome of Magic as a subclass within elementalist class. The misteries would be reloaded thanks a long rest in the begining, with a short rest after, and in the end with a reload action like martial maneuvers.
* The truenamer (Tome of Magic) was boring to be played. It was using a little number of powers at-will. It doesn't allow many options for subclasses. My suggestion is to create a nPC monster mixing the truenamer and the archivist classes. Then the players could need a different strategy to defeat them.
* The dragonfire adept from Dragon Magic could be now a monk subclass.
* The dragon shaman (3.5 PH II) could be renamed dracolyte and each subclass would a different dragon.
* The shaman could work like a mixture of vestige binder and the totemist (magic of incarnum). The shaman summons a monster ally, and locking chakras (body slots for magic item) and spending essence points for metamagic effects or adding monster traits (for example better natural weapons and armour). WotC only has to show a "free demo" in Sigil and players will create a homemade D&D version of Pokemon.
* Spoiler: surprise leak! Here a preview of the future psion/mysthic class according the current preferences of the youngest generation of players
Look at what they did with the Animist in PF2e they mixed the pf1e Medium (their take on the 3.5 binder)and Shaman together in the form of the Animist (the creator of the class outright said the class was his take on the pf1e shaman), end result is an adaptable cookie-cutter spell caster/middle field divine gish that the fills the whole spiritmancer/pactbinder theme.
Personally I think MOST ideas of classes can be done with new subclasses and the classes that already exist. Even the Warlord could be a subclass of Fighter (Like Ghostfire Gaming's Commander). But, if some idea is brought up that can't be done with a subclass - like the Artificer, then by all means a new class is in order. I have a high bar for considering new classes, but not a hard no.
Dark Sun coming this fall? What are your sources? I believed it had been "cancelled" because it was not enough "family-friendly" to say it softly. Maybe it could be licenced to other publisher like Ravenloft in 3rd Ed.
Momo Ayase and her grandma from the manganime "Dandadan" are good examples of how psionic-mystics could be cool and interesting characters.
The key is to sell crunch of no-core classes is more difficult. If for example a little group love the psionic powers then the sales of a complete psionic will be lower than the first psionic handbook. Maybe the solution would be some magic items allowed to use those powers with a different game mechanic, for example scrolls to use martial maneuvers during a complete scene, not only during one attack.
* The sha'ir from al-Qadim could be right for a D&D summoner class.
As other have said, conceptually these archetypes can easily fit into existing classes and work as subclasses (I've made Fighter(warlord) and Artificer(swordmage) subclasses for example). Although 2024 has kind of reigned things in, Tasha's-era subclasses and the alternate class features concept were really starting to explore how much variation you could have within a class. I think things will naturally move back in that direction, if only because new ideas and mechanics help with sales of new material.
Since existing classes cover most fantasy archetypes pretty well, a new class needs to be based on a mechanic rather than a fantasy concept. A class built around a pet as mentioned above, for instance. Classes should have a distinctive feel when you play them, and that feel is rooted in mechanics. How you wrap that up with flavor comes later.
This is where I think Psion is jammed up. Every edition there is a war about how psionics should work. There is a lot of passion and a lot of ideas. It should be magic. It absolutely should not be magic. It should be able to do anything (aka the Mystic). It should just be a wizard but with ki points. It should be a whole list of stuff and most of that stuff should do the same stuff spells do, but if you make them spells so gods help me I will jump off this bridge. It's so contentious that if a Psion class were ever released, I'm confident that more than half the people asking for the class would hate it. I'm pretty sure WotC's marketing research has shown them the same thing, so they are staying away from it.
This was said as a joke in another thread. I'm not sure if the poster is saying this tongue-in-cheek or if they took it as fact.
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
I've never felt that any class gives witch vibes for me sure you can flavour things easily enough in that direction, but thats heavy on the user.
And what exactly are "witch vibes"? Having a familiar? Laying hexes and curses on people? Brewing stuff up in a cauldron? Flying on a broomstick?
The warlock has got a lot of witch vibes but I miss the storytelling potential of the vestige binder from 3.5 Tome of Magic.
The Ahtasian gladiator could be reimagined like a mixture of primal defender and martial adept.
Why not to add any style "experimental homebred classes"? D&D Beyonds publishes a sketch and the own players start to create and playtest their homemade versions.