Warlord - Martials are really underrepresented this edition, and the warlord fills the gap of martial support class which is untouched. Battlemaster touches on the ability to buff allies without magic, but ultimately it's a fighter first, everything else second. A warlord would be based around the idea of non magical support from the start, and would be better off in the second or even third lines of combat.
Swordmage - Like the arcane version of paladin or ranger. Its signature ability is spellstrike, or at least a huge selection of spells which are cast through weapon attacks. This one existed in 3e, 4e, and pathfinder 1e and now 2e. But for some reason doesn't exist in 5e. The Eldritch Knight has the theme, but lacks the abilities or spells. Paladin and Ranger have some of the weapon attack spells like searing smite, but have quite engrained themes.
At the very least I'd like arcane/elemental paladin or ranger subclasses, but apparently that's 'against the theme' of those classes.
Classes I'd like axed:
Sorcerer - At this point the sorcerer is just vestigial. Its entire thing was spontaneous casting, which is now all casters. Its themes are all identical to warlocks. Anything which is a bloodline can also be a patron, and the warlock background could easily be extended to include bloodlines. Metamagic was always just a feat, and this edition has been badly taped onto sorcerers as WotC flailed around for something unique to give them. It should have remained a feat for all casters.
I don't agree with Sorcerer's getting the axe, but I do agree with some of the other options people have been proposing like the Warlord, Shaman, Summoner, and the Swordmage.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
I've always felt like a Tartar rider has been missing. Like a Barbarian Beast Master who specializes in mounts and exploration. Because D&DB won't let us make classes, I made it a subclass here:
I do miss the 4e shaman, and I think it could fill some of what people are looking for in a summoner class too. One of my all-time favorite characters to play was a shaman where I RPed the spirit companion as the primary PC - the ghost of a dwarf who couldn't yet move on - and the "real" shaman was more of an "I see dead people" party sidekick, although she also got more interesting as the adventure progressed. I just love the unique RP possibilities that can open up from a class where you take most of your actions through a proxy.
Looking where we are now though, I see this kind of thing much more likely to show up as a druid subclass, if at all. Something like star/spore druid where you expend Wild Shape to summon a spirit companion. Sadly I think warlord is unlikely as well since they have already (poorly) filled much of that design space with Purple Dragon Knight and the Order Domain.
I don't agree with Sorcerer's getting the axe, but I do agree with some of the other options people have been proposing like the Warlord, Shaman, Summoner, and the Swordmage.
I mean if sorcerer did stay, I'd want it to be completely different, rather than just a warlock theme, worse wizard spell list, and the metamagic feat glued onto the side. It needs to be a class in its own right.
Spell point casting, and an 'avatar state' type thing similar to the phoenix sorcerer would be how I'd go about it.
Sorcerer - At this point the sorcerer is just vestigial. Its entire thing was spontaneous casting, which is now all casters. Its themes are all identical to warlocks. Anything which is a bloodline can also be a patron, and the warlock background could easily be extended to include bloodlines. Metamagic was always just a feat, and this edition has been badly taped onto sorcerers as WotC flailed around for something unique to give them. It should have remained a feat for all casters.
I'd love to see Sorcerers redesigned as Con-based casters, like Pathfinder's Kineticists. Sorcery is about innate magical abilitiy - regardless of how poorly that may be implemented right now, bloodlines are not patrons. Patrons are an external source of power, not an internal one. I'm a big proponent of reflavoring mechanics, but reflavoring power you're born with and that's an integral part of your being as a pact with an outsider doesn't work for me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Sorcerer - At this point the sorcerer is just vestigial. Its entire thing was spontaneous casting, which is now all casters. Its themes are all identical to warlocks. Anything which is a bloodline can also be a patron, and the warlock background could easily be extended to include bloodlines. Metamagic was always just a feat, and this edition has been badly taped onto sorcerers as WotC flailed around for something unique to give them. It should have remained a feat for all casters.
I'd love to see Sorcerers redesigned as Con-based casters, like Pathfinder's Kineticists. Sorcery is about innate magical abilitiy - regardless of how poorly that may be implemented right now, bloodlines are not patrons. Patrons are an external source of power, not an internal one. I'm a big proponent of reflavoring mechanics, but reflavoring power you're born with and that's an integral part of your being as a pact with an outsider doesn't work for me.
This could be another way to distinquish them from the other casters....meta-magic while fun and interesting is not defining enough to solidify the class by itself...especially when you have so few spells known and SP are limited to long rest only.
The class needs more defining features that put it apart...and metamagic just ain't it.
Sorcerer - At this point the sorcerer is just vestigial. Its entire thing was spontaneous casting, which is now all casters. Its themes are all identical to warlocks. Anything which is a bloodline can also be a patron, and the warlock background could easily be extended to include bloodlines. Metamagic was always just a feat, and this edition has been badly taped onto sorcerers as WotC flailed around for something unique to give them. It should have remained a feat for all casters.
I'd love to see Sorcerers redesigned as Con-based casters, like Pathfinder's Kineticists. Sorcery is about innate magical abilitiy - regardless of how poorly that may be implemented right now, bloodlines are not patrons. Patrons are an external source of power, not an internal one. I'm a big proponent of reflavoring mechanics, but reflavoring power you're born with and that's an integral part of your being as a pact with an outsider doesn't work for me.
Agreed. I'm not saying Sorcerers don't need some changes to it, however Sorcerers fill a role of being capable of great magical power without some form of external source like Gods, Oaths, Pacts, Spell books, Nature, ect. Sorcerers are their own source of magic.
Honestly, Sorcerer's should be heartier then Wizards because of the intense magics they have to control and master within themselves. I think Cha and Con are both fine for a Sorcerer, but if we were to keep Sorcerer's as Cha based caster they should have some abilities that also key of Con as well, like how some classes will benefit form two different stats being prioritized. Sorcerers as a whole should have access to nearly all forms of magic, but specific subclasses specialize in certain types of magic (Divine Sorcerers having access to clerical magic, nature based Sorcerers gaining druidic magics, elemental Sorcerers gaining access to elemental spells, Shadow sorcerers gaining access to shadow and necrotic magics, ect.). A few of the class and subclass abilities can be buffed too.
At the end of the day, it's not the Sorcerer's theme that's the problem, its that the mechanics are lacking to really play off the thematics.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Sorcerer - At this point the sorcerer is just vestigial. Its entire thing was spontaneous casting, which is now all casters. Its themes are all identical to warlocks. Anything which is a bloodline can also be a patron, and the warlock background could easily be extended to include bloodlines. Metamagic was always just a feat, and this edition has been badly taped onto sorcerers as WotC flailed around for something unique to give them. It should have remained a feat for all casters.
I'd love to see Sorcerers redesigned as Con-based casters, like Pathfinder's Kineticists. Sorcery is about innate magical abilitiy - regardless of how poorly that may be implemented right now, bloodlines are not patrons. Patrons are an external source of power, not an internal one. I'm a big proponent of reflavoring mechanics, but reflavoring power you're born with and that's an integral part of your being as a pact with an outsider doesn't work for me.
Agreed. I'm not saying Sorcerers don't need some changes to it, however Sorcerers fill a role of being capable of great magical power without some form of external source like Gods, Oaths, Pacts, Spell books, Nature, ect. Sorcerers are their own source of magic.
Honestly, Sorcerer's should be heartier then Wizards because of the intense magics they have to control and master within themselves. I think Cha and Con are both fine for a Sorcerer, but if we were to keep Sorcerer's as Cha based caster they should have some abilities that also key of Con as well, like how some classes will benefit form two different stats being prioritized. Sorcerers as a whole should have access to nearly all forms of magic, but specific subclasses specialize in certain types of magic (Divine Sorcerers having access to clerical magic, nature based Sorcerers gaining druidic magics, elemental Sorcerers gaining access to elemental spells, Shadow sorcerers gaining access to shadow and necrotic magics, ect.). A few of the class and subclass abilities can be buffed too.
At the end of the day, it's not the Sorcerer's theme that's the problem, its that the mechanics are lacking to really play off the thematics.
I've always felt like a Tartar rider has been missing. Like a Barbarian Beast Master who specializes in mounts and exploration. Because D&DB won't let us make classes, I made it a subclass here:
All in all, not a whole lot really "missing" per se, just things like summoners and psions, some homebrew classes are phenomenally good but are a bit too niche to ever become a part of official 5e, like Pyromancers, princesses, Geomancers, or a Half-Dragon Half-Ogre Vampire Ninja Samurai Gunslingers from outer space :).
All in all, not a whole lot really "missing" per se, just things like summoners and psions, some homebrew classes are phenomenally good but are a bit too niche to ever become a part of official 5e, like Pyromancers, princesses, Geomancers, or a Half-Dragon Half-Ogre Vampire Ninja Samurai Gunslingers from outer space :).
And Pugsnuggelers!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Lover of pugs, dinos, dragons, and chickens
FEAR AND LOVE ME MORTALS!
Leader of the cult of bwba (barbarians with big axes)
I’d love to see a psionic class, and actual psionic rules.
We have them, they're just not... great. And generally implemented as subclasses, racials, or feats, but given what we have, monks are functionally the psionic core class, as their core mechanics most closely match the other psionic powers we've seen.
UA Mystic v3 is pretty well balanced considering it gets 5th or 6th level spells tops and most mystics can only do one thing (i.e. planar travel, aoe spells, etc. ), unlike sorcerers, warlocks or wizards, it just needs a bit of refinement, I joking refered to 2020 Blood Hunter, UA Artificer, and Mystic as The good, the bad, and the ugly for just this reason, sorcerer and wizard are smooth and classic sort of casters, while mystic is, at best, extra chunky.
I wonder if the psi die system could be ported onto an actual full class. As its signature thing.
It would properly unify it with the psionic subclasses.
I'm sure it could be ported to a full class, but how many psi die that it would get could be a balance issue. Maybe 3 or 4 times their proficiency bonus?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I would say I want a focused class for Archers. Of course there is the subclass for fighters, and the ranger, however I believe that WotC could make a really cool class of Archers. And personally I did not think that the subclass Arcane Archer was all that great. I am still a noob with all the classes so correct me if I am wrong.
Starting to like the idea of a dedicated strategist class.
Regarding sorcerers, my ideal would be to reimagine them as the gish class, seeing how if they didn't need to study their magic they probably learned some other skills with the free time they have over wizards. It'd go well with them being Con based too.
Starting to like the idea of a dedicated strategist class.
Regarding sorcerers, my ideal would be to reimagine them as the gish class, seeing how if they didn't need to study their magic they probably learned some other skills with the free time they have over wizards. It'd go well with them being Con based too.
The DnDNext playtest tried that.
Sorcerers were half casters using the spell points system (called will points). They had d8 hit die, along with martial weapons and all armour. This was an attempt to make them unique due to spontaneous casting being made standard. And also to make an arcane half caster as a counterpart to the paladin and ranger.
The reception was mixed, so sorcerer vanished from the playtest, only to appear later on in the main release.
The result was the redundant mess of a sorcerer we have now, and no arcane swordmage type class at all.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'd both add classes, and remove a certain class.
Classes I'd like to see added:
Warlord - Martials are really underrepresented this edition, and the warlord fills the gap of martial support class which is untouched. Battlemaster touches on the ability to buff allies without magic, but ultimately it's a fighter first, everything else second. A warlord would be based around the idea of non magical support from the start, and would be better off in the second or even third lines of combat.
Swordmage - Like the arcane version of paladin or ranger. Its signature ability is spellstrike, or at least a huge selection of spells which are cast through weapon attacks. This one existed in 3e, 4e, and pathfinder 1e and now 2e. But for some reason doesn't exist in 5e. The Eldritch Knight has the theme, but lacks the abilities or spells. Paladin and Ranger have some of the weapon attack spells like searing smite, but have quite engrained themes.
At the very least I'd like arcane/elemental paladin or ranger subclasses, but apparently that's 'against the theme' of those classes.
Classes I'd like axed:
Sorcerer - At this point the sorcerer is just vestigial. Its entire thing was spontaneous casting, which is now all casters. Its themes are all identical to warlocks. Anything which is a bloodline can also be a patron, and the warlock background could easily be extended to include bloodlines. Metamagic was always just a feat, and this edition has been badly taped onto sorcerers as WotC flailed around for something unique to give them. It should have remained a feat for all casters.
I don't agree with Sorcerer's getting the axe, but I do agree with some of the other options people have been proposing like the Warlord, Shaman, Summoner, and the Swordmage.
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Characters for Tenebris Sine Fine
RoughCoronet's Greater Wills
I've always felt like a Tartar rider has been missing. Like a Barbarian Beast Master who specializes in mounts and exploration. Because D&DB won't let us make classes, I made it a subclass here:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/homebrew/subclasses?filter-name=Mounted Raider&filter-author=&filter-author-previous=&filter-author-symbol=&filter-rating=-34
It's called Mounted Raider.
I do miss the 4e shaman, and I think it could fill some of what people are looking for in a summoner class too. One of my all-time favorite characters to play was a shaman where I RPed the spirit companion as the primary PC - the ghost of a dwarf who couldn't yet move on - and the "real" shaman was more of an "I see dead people" party sidekick, although she also got more interesting as the adventure progressed. I just love the unique RP possibilities that can open up from a class where you take most of your actions through a proxy.
Looking where we are now though, I see this kind of thing much more likely to show up as a druid subclass, if at all. Something like star/spore druid where you expend Wild Shape to summon a spirit companion. Sadly I think warlord is unlikely as well since they have already (poorly) filled much of that design space with Purple Dragon Knight and the Order Domain.
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 mean if sorcerer did stay, I'd want it to be completely different, rather than just a warlock theme, worse wizard spell list, and the metamagic feat glued onto the side. It needs to be a class in its own right.
Spell point casting, and an 'avatar state' type thing similar to the phoenix sorcerer would be how I'd go about it.
I'd love to see Sorcerers redesigned as Con-based casters, like Pathfinder's Kineticists. Sorcery is about innate magical abilitiy - regardless of how poorly that may be implemented right now, bloodlines are not patrons. Patrons are an external source of power, not an internal one. I'm a big proponent of reflavoring mechanics, but reflavoring power you're born with and that's an integral part of your being as a pact with an outsider doesn't work for me.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
This could be another way to distinquish them from the other casters....meta-magic while fun and interesting is not defining enough to solidify the class by itself...especially when you have so few spells known and SP are limited to long rest only.
The class needs more defining features that put it apart...and metamagic just ain't it.
Agreed. I'm not saying Sorcerers don't need some changes to it, however Sorcerers fill a role of being capable of great magical power without some form of external source like Gods, Oaths, Pacts, Spell books, Nature, ect. Sorcerers are their own source of magic.
Honestly, Sorcerer's should be heartier then Wizards because of the intense magics they have to control and master within themselves. I think Cha and Con are both fine for a Sorcerer, but if we were to keep Sorcerer's as Cha based caster they should have some abilities that also key of Con as well, like how some classes will benefit form two different stats being prioritized. Sorcerers as a whole should have access to nearly all forms of magic, but specific subclasses specialize in certain types of magic (Divine Sorcerers having access to clerical magic, nature based Sorcerers gaining druidic magics, elemental Sorcerers gaining access to elemental spells, Shadow sorcerers gaining access to shadow and necrotic magics, ect.). A few of the class and subclass abilities can be buffed too.
At the end of the day, it's not the Sorcerer's theme that's the problem, its that the mechanics are lacking to really play off the thematics.
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Characters for Tenebris Sine Fine
RoughCoronet's Greater Wills
Very much agree!
That is so cool! I love it! :p
Lover of pugs, dinos, dragons, and chickens
FEAR AND LOVE ME MORTALS!
Leader of the cult of bwba (barbarians with big axes)
All in all, not a whole lot really "missing" per se, just things like summoners and psions, some homebrew classes are phenomenally good but are a bit too niche to ever become a part of official 5e, like Pyromancers, princesses, Geomancers, or a Half-Dragon Half-Ogre Vampire Ninja Samurai Gunslingers from outer space :).
Mystic v3 should be official, nuff said.
And Pugsnuggelers!
Lover of pugs, dinos, dragons, and chickens
FEAR AND LOVE ME MORTALS!
Leader of the cult of bwba (barbarians with big axes)
I’d love to see a psionic class, and actual psionic rules.
We have them, they're just not... great. And generally implemented as subclasses, racials, or feats, but given what we have, monks are functionally the psionic core class, as their core mechanics most closely match the other psionic powers we've seen.
I wonder if the psi die system could be ported onto an actual full class. As its signature thing.
It would properly unify it with the psionic subclasses.
UA Mystic v3 is pretty well balanced considering it gets 5th or 6th level spells tops and most mystics can only do one thing (i.e. planar travel, aoe spells, etc. ), unlike sorcerers, warlocks or wizards, it just needs a bit of refinement, I joking refered to 2020 Blood Hunter, UA Artificer, and Mystic as The good, the bad, and the ugly for just this reason, sorcerer and wizard are smooth and classic sort of casters, while mystic is, at best, extra chunky.
Mystic v3 should be official, nuff said.
I'm sure it could be ported to a full class, but how many psi die that it would get could be a balance issue. Maybe 3 or 4 times their proficiency bonus?
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I would say I want a focused class for Archers. Of course there is the subclass for fighters, and the ranger, however I believe that WotC could make a really cool class of Archers. And personally I did not think that the subclass Arcane Archer was all that great. I am still a noob with all the classes so correct me if I am wrong.
A New DM up against the World
Starting to like the idea of a dedicated strategist class.
Regarding sorcerers, my ideal would be to reimagine them as the gish class, seeing how if they didn't need to study their magic they probably learned some other skills with the free time they have over wizards. It'd go well with them being Con based too.
The DnDNext playtest tried that.
Sorcerers were half casters using the spell points system (called will points). They had d8 hit die, along with martial weapons and all armour. This was an attempt to make them unique due to spontaneous casting being made standard. And also to make an arcane half caster as a counterpart to the paladin and ranger.
The reception was mixed, so sorcerer vanished from the playtest, only to appear later on in the main release.
The result was the redundant mess of a sorcerer we have now, and no arcane swordmage type class at all.