Seeing the recent UA releases, it made me wonder what the community thinks in other expansive ways: Given the current settings of Faerun, Dragonlance, Eberron, etc., essentially pre-industrial, pre-gunpowder fantasy worlds, what classes could be missing, obviously or at least arguably? Not subclasses, though we can see how one person’s subclass might be another person’s sincere belief of a true class. Your thoughts much appreciated.
The one class that is really needed in my opinion is what I like to call the "Hero" class, which the Paladin should honestly be a subclass of. Think of all the great conquerors and liberators in everyday fantasy. I think the best way to imagine them is "wearing plate armor, with one hand holding a sword raised to the sky and the other channeling magic" - their goals, alignments or color schemes don't matter, what matters is that they are the face of a "movement", they unite different people and then stand on a hill looking heroic. This would be the class for a fantasy version of Alexander the Great, for the Witch King in LotR, for a Jedi, and for pretty much every single protagonist in teen fantasy novels.
The Paladin fills one niche of this role, but there is so much more of that archetype that remains untapped because of the Paladin's religious nature. The Eldrich Knight also can do some similar stuff, but again, I believe it should be its own arcane/martial class to truly shine and to have the ability to go in different directions trough various subclasses.
Paladins don't have to be religious, and we just got the 'oath of heroism' UA which is basically what you described, along with the oath of the crown and even the oath of conquest if you flavour it right.
When using the term "hero" I mean the fantasy stereotype of the hero, I'm not implying that they would be better or always more heroic than any other character, it just seems like the best way to describe the idea behind the class.
I also have to disagree on the paladin not being inherently religious: while you can absolutely change the way they are presented and make them less divine-oriented, most of their base abilities have the words "divine" and "sacred" in the name, and the flavor text constantly implies religion or at least faith. Even when it comes to the oath of heroism, the first sentence in their description is "The Oath of Heroism is an affirmation of a destined path, one laid out for you by divine hands."
I do think that WotC did a good job of broadening the concept of the paladin in 5e, but I still find it lacking in many aspects.
If your DM allows it you could make a non-religious paladin, but that divine aspect would still be reflected in their abilities and in the concept of "the oath".
To be fair - just because it says divine or sacred in the flavour text - it doesn't mean you have to follow that.
To go along with what they said, the paladin doesn't need a religion because the thing powering their "sacred" and "divine" abilities is the strength of their oath, not their God.
To the original point, I think that "plate armored spellsword" archetype can be covered by multiple classes. You could do so with a paladin, EK, warlock, hell, even ranger (w/ heavy armor feat)
I definitely am generally more in favour of subclasses over classes.
However... There are a couple of things I would personally want to see class-wise.
> A Charisma-based martial class, similar in the way a Monk is to Wisdom, this class would be to Charisma. The one I've made is an "Outlaw" with subclasses like Dread Pirate, Highwayman, Musketeer and Pimpernel who fuel their battle prowess with special performance-like maneuvers. I like it, but I'd want to see what the actual game devs could come up with around this concept!
> Pact Magic (or another 'type' of casting) that uses a stat other than Charisma. I've toyed with various versions of either an INT or WIS based pact caster based on witchcraft and the idea that the knowledge or wisdom of the coven is like a shared 'pool' that you begin to gain access to when you initiate into the coven, but I'd love to see lots of different takes on this.
I think that a new class either has to fill a niche that hasn't been filled yet, or introduce a new mechanic that's different enough to be interesting. Who knows if any other classes will wind up in 5E after Artificer, maybe it's just subclasses from then on! Time will tell, I guess.
I think what the OP is saying is that he would like a better version of the Purple Dragon Knight. Perhaps based on the Battlemaster, only this Fighter boosts his companions instead of himself with uses of is Dice. For instance, they could allow a single friendly character within 30 feet of the "Valiant Hero" to make an attack for the use of one Superiority Die, or make a full move without being subject to an attack of opportunity, or Make or Reroll a Wisdom Saving Throw against an ongoing effect. To me this PC either needs Sidekicks, like in IceSpire or the UA, or needs a group of players delighted with the "Valiant Hero" having an "Avengers" style moment culminating in "Krom Smash!" to the Goliath Barbarian.
Yeah...I'm going to homebrew this...:rubs hands together:
We don't need new classes, subclasses can do the job fine.
Good ideas, interesting to consider. One underlying point to my post is that I feel I can’t conceive of other classes since the standard ones have represented the D&D universe for so long, the usual set of classes seem complete. Then I stop and listen to what I just said and think “how ridiculous, there have to be other good classes, I just can’t think of them.”
It would be neat to have a sort of strategist class, á la legendary Chinese strategists, eg. Zhuge Liang. A character, who is int based, who doesn't have spells per se, but can grant bonuses to other characters, know weaknesses of monsters and devise stratagems. Perhaps if they have time to prepare for a battle, then can create bonuses and effects-- beyond what a clever player could normally. The idea is that the character is just so great at planning that they can foresee what the opposition will do and plan against it. The abilities would give a player ways to feel like a master planner, even if they don't have that foresight in real life (and let's be honest, sometimes you say "Hold on, we need a plan" and the party is like "nah mate, let's just rush in.") Perhaps they would go so far as committing the GM to tell the player (caused by an abilities used: not all of the time) what the next action for a monster would be, so that a strategy could be optimised. Maybe lower-level abilities would be to manipulate the initiative order.
I mean, you could play a mastermind like that, but it's not really a class that is designed for manipulating a battlefield. It seems more based in trickery than in strategy. Plus, the rogue as a base class has very little in common with the concept. I think the Mastermind is designed to be more of a spymaster than a master strategist.
For example, the above-mentioned strategist, Zhuge Liang, in order to break the spirit of the Nanman tribes, tricked them into a narrow pass. Then he proceeded to block the pass with rocks, and knowing that their ratan armour was soaked in flammable oil, he set the column alight. It was seen a vile, but necessary slaughter. However, it wasn't force of arms or the bravery of soldiers that finally convinced King Menghuo to surrender, it was the frightfulness of Zhuge Liang's strategy. Now, he wasn't an immoral man, like his counterparts are sometimes depicted, but he knew that his kingdom couldn't fight a war against the Kingdom of Wei and the Nanman tribes, so he had to end the conflict decisively. While every stratagem requires SOME deception, often the strategist or tactician isn't even present for the deception.
I think you aren't wrong in drawing that parallel between masterminds and what I was suggesting. I think you could also represent this idea as a bard, but I think the connections would be rationalising a concept into a structure that fits best, rather than having something that fits. I think it's a bit like looking at the warlock and sorcerer and saying that we could represent both of these classes as just wizards, or just magic-users.
In my opinion, this list is huge. So many classes missing. Think about the flaws in existing classes.
Bard must have an instrument? Where are your puppeteers, singers, actors, dancers, painter, the writer that never learned an instrument?
Ranger... Where is revised for the love of all goodness?
That's just two within the realm of the rules.
Diplomate and or Leader class such as upper-class snobs? Yes, there is a background. What if the character never picks up a weapon and is just a good/bad leader or tactician?
The Priest that never picks up a weapon yet casts holy spells.
This list is endless when you put thought behind it and imagination.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
THAC0 means "To-Hit Armor Class 0", and depending on who you ask, it was either pronounced "thack-oh" or "thay-ko". When a -5 was amazing and an insult was asking, "What alignment are you again?"
Bards don't need instruments, we have the college of swords and UA college of eloquence for starters
The revised ranger has been dropped because the idea of 'patching' classes (and thus forcing players to buy a new book or carry round sheets of print outs to get the 'fixed' class) didn't sit well.
A lot of 'missing' classes and sub classes can be created by reskinning existing classes and sub classes.
Bards don't need instruments, we have the college of swords and UA college of eloquence for starters
The revised ranger has been dropped because the idea of 'patching' classes (and thus forcing players to buy a new book or carry round sheets of print outs to get the 'fixed' class) didn't sit well.
A lot of 'missing' classes and sub classes can be created by reskinning existing classes and sub classes.
My understanding of the topic was classes only. Considering the original question.
Case and point... reskinning existing classes, I can do this all day long with pencil and paper with great ease. I was just trying to stay in the line of what is available on DDB for classes only.
Thank you, I was unaware that revised Ranger has been dropped. That saddens me. It also brings up a good reason for allowing homebrew classes. It also shows why digital books are better. They could have just revised Ranger in the digital PHB as an update. Yet this is off topic too.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
THAC0 means "To-Hit Armor Class 0", and depending on who you ask, it was either pronounced "thack-oh" or "thay-ko". When a -5 was amazing and an insult was asking, "What alignment are you again?"
I feel like most archetypes are covered either by a class or a subclass. What I'd like to see is more classes that are half one thing and half another without the need to multiclass. Similar to how the paladin is basically a cleric/fighter and the hunter is basically a druid/fighter. Many of these are tackled via subclasses in 5e and that works. However, there are still plenty of opportunities here though. I'd personally love a sorcerer/rogue class that focuses on martial combat and stealth with using spells that augment their martial and social abilities. It's basically an Arcane Trickster though so they'd have a get creative on what differentiates it. I would also appreciate a rogue/fighter type.
I would also like to see a class focused on a pet. Currently there are subclasses or spells that give characters pets but they're either bad (beastmaster ranger) or a spell that doesn't really change the way the character is played much. It would be nice to see a class that gets the pet from level 1 and focuses on how pet throughout. Perhaps subclasses could focus on emphasizing the pet, the character, or both in interesting ways.
Interesting thought, a pet class would be fun to the role-playing side of things for sure.
Another would be an intelligent item class. I've played such as an NPC in the past. Just imagine it as a PC class.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
THAC0 means "To-Hit Armor Class 0", and depending on who you ask, it was either pronounced "thack-oh" or "thay-ko". When a -5 was amazing and an insult was asking, "What alignment are you again?"
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Seeing the recent UA releases, it made me wonder what the community thinks in other expansive ways: Given the current settings of Faerun, Dragonlance, Eberron, etc., essentially pre-industrial, pre-gunpowder fantasy worlds, what classes could be missing, obviously or at least arguably? Not subclasses, though we can see how one person’s subclass might be another person’s sincere belief of a true class. Your thoughts much appreciated.
The one class that is really needed in my opinion is what I like to call the "Hero" class, which the Paladin should honestly be a subclass of. Think of all the great conquerors and liberators in everyday fantasy. I think the best way to imagine them is "wearing plate armor, with one hand holding a sword raised to the sky and the other channeling magic" - their goals, alignments or color schemes don't matter, what matters is that they are the face of a "movement", they unite different people and then stand on a hill looking heroic. This would be the class for a fantasy version of Alexander the Great, for the Witch King in LotR, for a Jedi, and for pretty much every single protagonist in teen fantasy novels.
The Paladin fills one niche of this role, but there is so much more of that archetype that remains untapped because of the Paladin's religious nature. The Eldrich Knight also can do some similar stuff, but again, I believe it should be its own arcane/martial class to truly shine and to have the ability to go in different directions trough various subclasses.
Paladins don't have to be religious, and we just got the 'oath of heroism' UA which is basically what you described, along with the oath of the crown and even the oath of conquest if you flavour it right.
Also, all the classes are meant to be heroic.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
When using the term "hero" I mean the fantasy stereotype of the hero, I'm not implying that they would be better or always more heroic than any other character, it just seems like the best way to describe the idea behind the class.
I also have to disagree on the paladin not being inherently religious: while you can absolutely change the way they are presented and make them less divine-oriented, most of their base abilities have the words "divine" and "sacred" in the name, and the flavor text constantly implies religion or at least faith. Even when it comes to the oath of heroism, the first sentence in their description is "The Oath of Heroism is an affirmation of a destined path, one laid out for you by divine hands."
I do think that WotC did a good job of broadening the concept of the paladin in 5e, but I still find it lacking in many aspects.
If your DM allows it you could make a non-religious paladin, but that divine aspect would still be reflected in their abilities and in the concept of "the oath".
To be fair - just because it says divine or sacred in the flavour text - it doesn't mean you have to follow that.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
With subclasses, the right character choices and just altering flavor text most standard tropes can be covered.
The one I see really missing is a tinkerer/inventor. The articifier doesn't really cover it because it's about making magic items.
While the mystic is really over powered a mind magic class that use power paths based on basic psychic tropes.
To go along with what they said, the paladin doesn't need a religion because the thing powering their "sacred" and "divine" abilities is the strength of their oath, not their God.
To the original point, I think that "plate armored spellsword" archetype can be covered by multiple classes. You could do so with a paladin, EK, warlock, hell, even ranger (w/ heavy armor feat)
I definitely am generally more in favour of subclasses over classes.
However... There are a couple of things I would personally want to see class-wise.
> A Charisma-based martial class, similar in the way a Monk is to Wisdom, this class would be to Charisma. The one I've made is an "Outlaw" with subclasses like Dread Pirate, Highwayman, Musketeer and Pimpernel who fuel their battle prowess with special performance-like maneuvers. I like it, but I'd want to see what the actual game devs could come up with around this concept!
> Pact Magic (or another 'type' of casting) that uses a stat other than Charisma. I've toyed with various versions of either an INT or WIS based pact caster based on witchcraft and the idea that the knowledge or wisdom of the coven is like a shared 'pool' that you begin to gain access to when you initiate into the coven, but I'd love to see lots of different takes on this.
I think that a new class either has to fill a niche that hasn't been filled yet, or introduce a new mechanic that's different enough to be interesting. Who knows if any other classes will wind up in 5E after Artificer, maybe it's just subclasses from then on! Time will tell, I guess.
I think what the OP is saying is that he would like a better version of the Purple Dragon Knight. Perhaps based on the Battlemaster, only this Fighter boosts his companions instead of himself with uses of is Dice. For instance, they could allow a single friendly character within 30 feet of the "Valiant Hero" to make an attack for the use of one Superiority Die, or make a full move without being subject to an attack of opportunity, or Make or Reroll a Wisdom Saving Throw against an ongoing effect. To me this PC either needs Sidekicks, like in IceSpire or the UA, or needs a group of players delighted with the "Valiant Hero" having an "Avengers" style moment culminating in "Krom Smash!" to the Goliath Barbarian.
Yeah...I'm going to homebrew this...:rubs hands together:
We don't need new classes, subclasses can do the job fine.
Isn't that a bard?
Nah. The bard is drinking all the ale and eyeing a handsome man for the night.
Good ideas, interesting to consider. One underlying point to my post is that I feel I can’t conceive of other classes since the standard ones have represented the D&D universe for so long, the usual set of classes seem complete. Then I stop and listen to what I just said and think “how ridiculous, there have to be other good classes, I just can’t think of them.”
It would be neat to have a sort of strategist class, á la legendary Chinese strategists, eg. Zhuge Liang. A character, who is int based, who doesn't have spells per se, but can grant bonuses to other characters, know weaknesses of monsters and devise stratagems. Perhaps if they have time to prepare for a battle, then can create bonuses and effects-- beyond what a clever player could normally. The idea is that the character is just so great at planning that they can foresee what the opposition will do and plan against it. The abilities would give a player ways to feel like a master planner, even if they don't have that foresight in real life (and let's be honest, sometimes you say "Hold on, we need a plan" and the party is like "nah mate, let's just rush in.") Perhaps they would go so far as committing the GM to tell the player (caused by an abilities used: not all of the time) what the next action for a monster would be, so that a strategy could be optimised. Maybe lower-level abilities would be to manipulate the initiative order.
Isn't that the Mastermind Rogue subclass?
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
I mean, you could play a mastermind like that, but it's not really a class that is designed for manipulating a battlefield. It seems more based in trickery than in strategy. Plus, the rogue as a base class has very little in common with the concept. I think the Mastermind is designed to be more of a spymaster than a master strategist.
For example, the above-mentioned strategist, Zhuge Liang, in order to break the spirit of the Nanman tribes, tricked them into a narrow pass. Then he proceeded to block the pass with rocks, and knowing that their ratan armour was soaked in flammable oil, he set the column alight. It was seen a vile, but necessary slaughter. However, it wasn't force of arms or the bravery of soldiers that finally convinced King Menghuo to surrender, it was the frightfulness of Zhuge Liang's strategy. Now, he wasn't an immoral man, like his counterparts are sometimes depicted, but he knew that his kingdom couldn't fight a war against the Kingdom of Wei and the Nanman tribes, so he had to end the conflict decisively. While every stratagem requires SOME deception, often the strategist or tactician isn't even present for the deception.
I think you aren't wrong in drawing that parallel between masterminds and what I was suggesting. I think you could also represent this idea as a bard, but I think the connections would be rationalising a concept into a structure that fits best, rather than having something that fits. I think it's a bit like looking at the warlock and sorcerer and saying that we could represent both of these classes as just wizards, or just magic-users.
In my opinion, this list is huge. So many classes missing. Think about the flaws in existing classes.
Bard must have an instrument? Where are your puppeteers, singers, actors, dancers, painter, the writer that never learned an instrument?
Ranger... Where is revised for the love of all goodness?
That's just two within the realm of the rules.
Diplomate and or Leader class such as upper-class snobs? Yes, there is a background. What if the character never picks up a weapon and is just a good/bad leader or tactician?
The Priest that never picks up a weapon yet casts holy spells.
This list is endless when you put thought behind it and imagination.
THAC0 means "To-Hit Armor Class 0", and depending on who you ask, it was either pronounced "thack-oh" or "thay-ko". When a -5 was amazing and an insult was asking, "What alignment are you again?"
Bards don't need instruments, we have the college of swords and UA college of eloquence for starters
The revised ranger has been dropped because the idea of 'patching' classes (and thus forcing players to buy a new book or carry round sheets of print outs to get the 'fixed' class) didn't sit well.
A lot of 'missing' classes and sub classes can be created by reskinning existing classes and sub classes.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
My understanding of the topic was classes only. Considering the original question.
Case and point... reskinning existing classes, I can do this all day long with pencil and paper with great ease. I was just trying to stay in the line of what is available on DDB for classes only.
Thank you, I was unaware that revised Ranger has been dropped. That saddens me. It also brings up a good reason for allowing homebrew classes. It also shows why digital books are better. They could have just revised Ranger in the digital PHB as an update. Yet this is off topic too.
THAC0 means "To-Hit Armor Class 0", and depending on who you ask, it was either pronounced "thack-oh" or "thay-ko". When a -5 was amazing and an insult was asking, "What alignment are you again?"
I feel like most archetypes are covered either by a class or a subclass. What I'd like to see is more classes that are half one thing and half another without the need to multiclass. Similar to how the paladin is basically a cleric/fighter and the hunter is basically a druid/fighter. Many of these are tackled via subclasses in 5e and that works. However, there are still plenty of opportunities here though. I'd personally love a sorcerer/rogue class that focuses on martial combat and stealth with using spells that augment their martial and social abilities. It's basically an Arcane Trickster though so they'd have a get creative on what differentiates it. I would also appreciate a rogue/fighter type.
I would also like to see a class focused on a pet. Currently there are subclasses or spells that give characters pets but they're either bad (beastmaster ranger) or a spell that doesn't really change the way the character is played much. It would be nice to see a class that gets the pet from level 1 and focuses on how pet throughout. Perhaps subclasses could focus on emphasizing the pet, the character, or both in interesting ways.
Interesting thought, a pet class would be fun to the role-playing side of things for sure.
Another would be an intelligent item class. I've played such as an NPC in the past. Just imagine it as a PC class.
THAC0 means "To-Hit Armor Class 0", and depending on who you ask, it was either pronounced "thack-oh" or "thay-ko". When a -5 was amazing and an insult was asking, "What alignment are you again?"