Well, look how popular Warlocks, Sorcerers, and Artificers are and they were first introduced (in any form currently recognizable) in 3/3.5. They are some of the most popular classes in 5e too.
You could have it so that the specific result of the ritual could be influenced by the type of caster that participated. How that occurred specifically could be interesting to explore... but maybe something like a sorcerer (or maybe just a wild magic sorcerer) rolling on the wild magic table for a random effect. Something that iconic for each type of caster might be hard to do. Maybe just get a specific bonus for each spell with each of the combinations of arcane, divine and primal magic.
Let's break this down, shall we? In order to justify any possible new class, you need someone to:
1.) Clearly define the entire mechanical structure of this class and how it is wildly distinct from any previous class.
2.) Define a universally agreed upon vision of that class's lore, fluff, story, what-have-you.
3.) Exhaustively prove that no amount of 'reflavoring' (God I'm coming to hate that word) of an existing class or subclass would not yield the desired aesthetic; this proof must be given explicitly and specifically for each and every single possible class/subclass, duplicating effort many times over. "Okay, you've proven why the Shaman wouldn't work as a druid subclass. Now prove why it wouldn't work as a warlock subclass. Now prove why the Nature Domain cleric doesn't work. Now prove why..."
4.) Exhaustively prove that no jank-ass multiclass combination will provide the desired aesthetic. Again, this must be proven explicitly and separately for each possible multiclass combination.
5.) Finally: exhaustively prove why the desired aesthetic cannot simply be homebrewed on a series of napkins one photocopies into the Internet to prove they did the work, because clearly none of us are using the Internet to account for the fact that we're not at an IRL table with a pen-and-paper sheet we can alter at will.
No one can meet that burden, Kotath. No one can meet the requirements you're laying on them to prove the desire for a new class. I understand that this is your intent, and you are actively seeking to convince people to never ask for a new base class or subclass ever again because all possible characters one could ever imagine playing are already abundantly represented in D&D 5e's perfect and all-encompassing class list.
But maybe...just maybe...your view that everything is perfect, flawless and without blemish is not, itself, as universal as you'd like to believe?
Which is fine. While playing with it in an expanded way with any new classes, you could also expand it independently of those new classes. More options are always welcome.
Oh my burbling beagle Jeebus, why is this so difficult?
Yes. DMs can ban whatever they like from their games. I'm actually a zealous proponent of culling options that do not make sense for the world or story being presented. The option has to EXIST before it can be culled from a given game, however. And who knows - maybe a new class emerges that inspires the imaginations of the DM as well as their players, and they find a cool new adventure they wouldn't have had without somebody at Wizards saying "Hey, there's a lot of demand for [X] idea that isn't in the books. Maybe we should tap into that?"
As for "a good DM will always find a way for the player to make their idea come to life!"...obviously this is untrue. A good DM may try, but again - many DMs absolutely, positively, and unbendingly ban any form of homebrew from their games. Those DMs will not 'find a way' - they will tell their player to play what's in the book and like it or find a new table. For whatever reason, those DMs refuse to tolerate unvetted content, and Wizards is the only entity they trust to vet content. And sometimes a newer or less confident DM may just fail at successfully homebrewing an option. Designing an entire base class is difficult. It takes a ton of time and effort even for professionals, and it's very likely to end up out of tune along the way. A lo9t of folks don't want to open themselves up to that kind of heat, especially when the tools aren't there to support it.
And finally, let me reverse this. To all the grognards who're so ardently shooting down the idea of new classes, new subclasses, new species, new backgrounds, new items. The people sitting here in this thread and in many others going "No no no no no! No new stuff! Not in MY D&D! No new, no new, no new no freaking new stuff in MY D&D!", I have one simple question. One question which is so incredibly simple I can ask it in two words, and yet so critical that I am going to make those two simple words as large and hard to miss as I possibly can, because I have not yet heard an answer to that question that amounts to anything but shitty gatekeeping, curmudgeonism, or simple outright fear. And that question is...
So to be clear, to answer your question very specifically. What your proposing, we have already done it and it almost destroyed D&D.
TSR did the same thing with 2e. Almost every race had their own individual handbook full of stuff, as did every class. At the end there were 3 different whole PHB sized “Players’ Options” books as well. In many ways, 2e was worse than 3/3.5e. That didn’t destroy D&D.
World of darkness at least used to have (in 2e/3e) a different book for each type of “Monster” as their own standalone setting, yet they were all compatible. Heck, there’s were even books for the subtypes, like the Tzimisce Clan had their own book in addition to the Vampire book, etc. That didn’t destroy World of Darkness.
Shadowrun 2e was not dissimilar either. What edition is that even in anymore?
I have been around almost as long as the groggiest or nards and my takeaway was different.
Also yeah you can build a paladin and say his armor is black and he's a 'death knight'. I agree that the two would fill a similar 'niche' in the party, but could have very different mechanics to do so.
But honestly even without deciding on exact mechanics, a death knight is clearly not a healing, radiant damage class, with a spell list full of things like 'bless', 'cure wounds', and 'summon celestial spirit'
As the only death knight I know of is the wow one (and then not much, as i've not played wow since 2014), i'll float some mechanics for it (no it's not balanced, it's a random off the top of my head first draft).
- Rune system. Certain class features would require casting runes. You can generate a limited amount through combat and doing damage to enemies. However on a rest you're reset to an empty pool, making them play in almost the opposite way to most classes.
- Spend the runes to place them on the weapon or armour as a bonus action, to discharge on hit. This could inflict drain health, deflect blows, give cursed wounds which cause enemies to explode on death, or freezing them solid.
- Damage is focused on necrotic and cold type damage.
- Spell list focused on raising the dead and various necromancy type powers.
With 5e's awful subclass system, they have simultaneously suffered from massive class bloat, while not adding anything new.
Also there is a large area between 13 classes and 100 or so. There are a certain 3 or 4 same classes players have been wanting for years, and adding them will not 'destroy dnd'.
TSR did the same thing with 2e. Almost every race had their own individual handbook full of stuff, as did every class. At the end there were 3 different whole PHB sized “Players’ Options” books as well. In many ways, 2e was worse than 3/3.5e. That didn’t destroy D&D.
No, but it bankrupted TSR.
World of darkness at least used to have (in 2e/3e) a different book for each type of “Monster” as their own standalone setting, yet they were all compatible. Heck, there’s were even books for the subtypes, like the Tzimisce Clan had their own book in addition to the Vampire book, etc. That didn’t destroy World of Darkness.
No, but it bankrupted White Wolf.
Shadowrun 2e was not dissimilar either. What edition is that even in anymore?
Yep and the company that ran Shadowrun shared a similar fate.
You quite literally named what I would have used as examples to make my point.
I mean seriously, in 2e, The Complete Handbooks are universally known as some of the worst D&D material ever produced by TSR. Even in the OSR, people actually still play AD&D, refuse to allow those books in their games.
That didn’t bankrupt TSR, the rampant embezzlement and cronyism after they forced Gygax out is what bankrupted TSR.
And White Wolf when on for several more editions after 2nd. What bankrupted them was the fact that their product was already so good that people didn’t need new editions anymore.
And Fasa still exists, and still makes revenue from its IP. Its founder went on to create another little company you might have heard of called WizKids.
Inevitably, any RPG company hits a point where they have three choices: Expand, Revise, or close.
I’m not ready to drop another stack to upgrade to a 6e, so they won’t get my money if they revise. And I’m sure that goes for many people. And they don’t want to close, so that leaves expanding the current edition.
Oh my burbling beagle Jeebus, why is this so difficult?
Yes. DMs can ban whatever they like from their games. I'm actually a zealous proponent of culling options that do not make sense for the world or story being presented. The option has to EXIST before it can be culled from a given game, however. And who knows - maybe a new class emerges that inspires the imaginations of the DM as well as their players, and they find a cool new adventure they wouldn't have had without somebody at Wizards saying "Hey, there's a lot of demand for [X] idea that isn't in the books. Maybe we should tap into that?"
As for "a good DM will always find a way for the player to make their idea come to life!"...obviously this is untrue. A good DM may try, but again - many DMs absolutely, positively, and unbendingly ban any form of homebrew from their games. Those DMs will not 'find a way' - they will tell their player to play what's in the book and like it or find a new table. For whatever reason, those DMs refuse to tolerate unvetted content, and Wizards is the only entity they trust to vet content. And sometimes a newer or less confident DM may just fail at successfully homebrewing an option. Designing an entire base class is difficult. It takes a ton of time and effort even for professionals, and it's very likely to end up out of tune along the way. A lo9t of folks don't want to open themselves up to that kind of heat, especially when the tools aren't there to support it.
And finally, let me reverse this. To all the grognards who're so ardently shooting down the idea of new classes, new subclasses, new species, new backgrounds, new items. The people sitting here in this thread and in many others going "No no no no no! No new stuff! Not in MY D&D! No new, no new, no new no freaking new stuff in MY D&D!", I have one simple question. One question which is so incredibly simple I can ask it in two words, and yet so critical that I am going to make those two simple words as large and hard to miss as I possibly can, because I have not yet heard an answer to that question that amounts to anything but shitty gatekeeping, curmudgeonism, or simple outright fear. And that question is...
WHY NOT?
You know what a Gronard really is. A GM and/or player that has been around long enough to know how every avenue turns out, how every decision about what to do with D&D plays out in the end. What your proposing isn't new, we have already done it. It was called D&D 3rd edition and you know what happen when Wizards of the Coast started making a billion splat book with every race, class, feat, power and options that cross anyones mind? Everyone hated it, they accused Wizards of the Coast of ruining the game, demanded sweeping changes, mainly reducing the game with a huge focus on balance... the result, 4e, a game that almost destroyed the franchise.
I know your new to the hobby and I understand that you don't understand its history, but perhaps you should spend more time listening to people rather than having an opinion about stuff you clearly have no experience with.
So to be clear, to answer your question very specifically. What your proposing, we have already done it and it almost destroyed D&D.
BS. I’ve been playing since the early 80s and opposing change just for the sake of opposing change is ridiculous. If it weren’t for people trying to make adjustments we’d still have THAC0. Or trying to figure out how to convert movements speeds listed in inches onto a digital battle map that gets zoomed in and out. We’d still be playing with human only paladins and classes like “Halfling”. The original Barbarian class hated magic and got experience for destroying other people’s magic stuff, and lore wise was required to hate your party’s magic user.
Nobody here has proposed anything that would destroy D&D. If they feel they are missing a class then that’s how they feel. I may not agree with all of the proposals, but I can definitely see where they come from.
While everyone was arguing, I was working on a first draft of a Warlord. It's very rough, but hopefully it will pique someone's interest into playing one. It's in the spoiler.
A Warlord is a warrior who focuses on fighting intelligently, maximizing position and terrain. They coordinate attacks with their allies, allowing them to take down much greater threats.
Building a Warlord: Warlords focus around Strength or Dexterity and Intelligence. When building a Warlord, put your top score in one of those and your second highest into another.
Hit Dice: Warlords use a d10 for dit dice.
Proficiencies: Light and Medium armour, all weapons.
Tools: Choose one from Cartographers, Calligraphers, and Leatherworkers.
Saving Throws: Dexterity, Intelligence.
Skills: tbd
1st level: Warlords gain a fighting style from the fighter list, as well as another feature: Know Thy Enemy. This feature allows you to use an action to use one of these features:
Evaluate defense: you learn the targets AC, and the next attack you or a friendly creature makes against it has advantage.
Experimental parry: the next time the target attacks you, the attack has disadvantage and you learn the target's health.
Feint: The next attack you make against the target has disadvantage. The target must target you with it’s next attacks.
2nd Level: At second level, you gain access to your core feature:Command Points and Tactics. Command Points are the fuel you use to activate Tactics, which are buffs that affect other players around you. You gain a number of commands points equal to your level*your intelligence modifier. (Yes, this is a lot of points. Having a large number lets you make things more specific.) You can choose up to your intelligence modifier plus your proficiency bonus Tactics. Here are some examples:
Overpower: As an action, select a target within 60 feet of you. Until the start of your next turn, creatures gain a bonus to their attack roles against that target equal to the number of creatures that have previously attacked it. For example, if a Warlord targetes a troll with overpower, the next creature to attack it gains no bonus. The second creature gets +1, the third +2, and so on and so forth. Cost [2]
Steady Position: As a bonus action, activate this Tactic. Friendly creatures within 10*your intelligence modifier adds your intelligence modifier to attack rolls if they did not move this turn. Cost[7]
3rd Level: At 3rd level, Warlords gain their subclass, called a Discipline. There are three Disciplines: The Discipline of the Wing focuses on one quick, decisive attack, The Discipline of the Hammer focuses on brute force, and the Discipline of the Shield focuses on defense. Each discipline also gives you exclusive tactics, which you can choose to select.
Tactic: Strike from Above (Available to Discipline of the Wing or Discipline of the Hammer) You may choose to activate this tactic as a bonus action on your turn. Until the start of your next turn, whenever you or a friendly creature within 10*your intelligence modifier feet attacks a creature at a lower elevation than it, they gain a bonus their attack roll equal to your intelligence modifier. Cost [5]
Tactic: Total Annihilation (Available to Discipline of the Hammer) You may activate this tactic as a bonus action on your turn. The next time you take the attack action, you may make an extra attack. If all of your attacks hit, an ally within five feet of you may make an attack targeting the same target. [3]
Tactic: Iron Wall (Available to Discipline of the Shield.) Activate this tactic as an action. Until the start of your next turn, friendly creatures within 10*int mod feet gain advantage on opportunity attacks. [1]
Tactic: Swift Retreat (Available to Discipline of the Wing) Activate this tactic as a bonus action. Until the start of your next turn, friendly creatures within 10*int mod feet can take the dash or disengage action as a bonus action until the start of your next turn. [2]
The fifth level feature would be something like this: Parry and Counter: As a reaction when you are being attacked, you can attempt to counter a melee attack. You do this by making an attack roll, and if you total if greater than the targets roll, the attack misses. If the attack misses, you may immediately make a weapon attack against the target.
That's my very rough first draft of a Warlord.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Kotath, I think you're misunderstanding what we're trying to do. We aren't trying to come up with a group definition that automatically everyone agrees with. We're trying to demonstrate that there are mechanical and thematic niches that can be filled out with new classes that don't work out nearly as well with existing ones. Now, we can try and come up with a group-defined framework for new classes, but I can tell you now the design process is more like sausage making than anything else...
The overall theme of the thread though is that 5e needs additional non-homebrewed classes, i.e. new official classes. Whenever anyone mentions homebrew, there seems to be a 'but we shouldn't have to homebrew' outcry.
Or at least 'we shouldn't have to use homebrew to adapt an existing class' (which to me is just a pride version of 'we shouldn't have to homebrew, because to me, it is only a fine distinction between the two.
I could be wrong on that but that is the sense I have gotten.
And given that, the problem is 'What definition of these missing classes is the 'right' one?'
Well first of all, most people aren't professional game designers. Now, me personally, I actually enjoy homebrewing quite a lot, but if someone were to ask if my homebrew is on par with content from a professional designer, I will be the first to tell them to stop smoking crack, of course it isn't.
Secondly, I keep getting the sense that you seem to be operating under the idea there needs to be unanimous consensus in order for a project-in this case, new classes-to go forward. That's not remotely true in the slightest. If it were, nothing would get done, ever.
While everyone was arguing, I was working on a first draft of a Warlord. It's very rough, but hopefully it will pique someone's interest into playing one. It's in the spoiler.
A Warlord is a warrior who focuses on fighting intelligently, maximizing position and terrain. They coordinate attacks with their allies, allowing them to take down much greater threats.
Building a Warlord: Warlords focus around Strength or Dexterity and Intelligence. When building a Warlord, put your top score in one of those and your second highest into another.
Hit Dice: Warlords use a d10 for dit dice.
Proficiencies: Light and Medium armour, all weapons.
Tools: Choose one from Cartographers, Calligraphers, and Leatherworkers.
Saving Throws: Dexterity, Intelligence.
Skills: tbd
1st level: Warlords gain a fighting style from the fighter list, as well as another feature: Know Thy Enemy. This feature allows you to use an action to use one of these features:
Evaluate defense: you learn the targets AC, and the next attack you or a friendly creature makes against it has advantage.
Experimental parry: the next time the target attacks you, the attack has disadvantage and you learn the target's health.
Feint: The next attack you make against the target has disadvantage. The target must target you with it’s next attacks.
2nd Level: At second level, you gain access to your core feature:Command Points and Tactics. Command Points are the fuel you use to activate Tactics, which are buffs that affect other players around you. You gain a number of commands points equal to your level*your intelligence modifier. (Yes, this is a lot of points. Having a large number lets you make things more specific.) You can choose up to your intelligence modifier plus your proficiency bonus Tactics. Here are some examples:
Overpower: As an action, select a target within 60 feet of you. Until the start of your next turn, creatures gain a bonus to their attack roles against that target equal to the number of creatures that have previously attacked it. For example, if a Warlord targetes a troll with overpower, the next creature to attack it gains no bonus. The second creature gets +1, the third +2, and so on and so forth. Cost [2]
Steady Position: As a bonus action, activate this Tactic. Friendly creatures within 10*your intelligence modifier adds your intelligence modifier to attack rolls if they did not move this turn. Cost[7]
3rd Level: At 3rd level, Warlords gain their subclass, called a Discipline. There are three Disciplines: The Discipline of the Wing focuses on one quick, decisive attack, The Discipline of the Hammer focuses on brute force, and the Discipline of the Shield focuses on defense. Each discipline also gives you exclusive tactics, which you can choose to select.
Tactic: Strike from Above (Available to Discipline of the Wing or Discipline of the Hammer) You may choose to activate this tactic as a bonus action on your turn. Until the start of your next turn, whenever you or a friendly creature within 10*your intelligence modifier feet attacks a creature at a lower elevation than it, they gain a bonus their attack roll equal to your intelligence modifier. Cost [5]
Tactic: Total Annihilation (Available to Discipline of the Hammer) You may activate this tactic as a bonus action on your turn. The next time you take the attack action, you may make an extra attack. If all of your attacks hit, an ally within five feet of you may make an attack targeting the same target. [3]
Tactic: Iron Wall (Available to Discipline of the Shield.) Activate this tactic as an action. Until the start of your next turn, friendly creatures within 10*int mod feet gain advantage on opportunity attacks. [1]
Tactic: Swift Retreat (Available to Discipline of the Wing) Activate this tactic as a bonus action. Until the start of your next turn, friendly creatures within 10*int mod feet can take the dash or disengage action as a bonus action until the start of your next turn. [2]
The fifth level feature would be something like this: Parry and Counter: As a reaction when you are being attacked, you can attempt to counter a melee attack. You do this by making an attack roll, and if you total if greater than the targets roll, the attack misses. If the attack misses, you may immediately make a weapon attack against the target.
That's my very rough first draft of a Warlord.
Sounds a lot like a battlemaster, with fewer features.... Personally, I would have gone with an emphasis on leadership and large unit tactics, war as opposed to battle.
It doesn't have a lot of features yet because it isn't even close to finished. And I would add more large scale unit tactics, but large scale battles are pretty much specifically discouraged in 5e.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
TSR did the same thing with 2e. Almost every race had their own individual handbook full of stuff, as did every class. At the end there were 3 different whole PHB sized “Players’ Options” books as well. In many ways, 2e was worse than 3/3.5e. That didn’t destroy D&D.
No, but it bankrupted TSR.
World of darkness at least used to have (in 2e/3e) a different book for each type of “Monster” as their own standalone setting, yet they were all compatible. Heck, there’s were even books for the subtypes, like the Tzimisce Clan had their own book in addition to the Vampire book, etc. That didn’t destroy World of Darkness.
No, but it bankrupted White Wolf.
Shadowrun 2e was not dissimilar either. What edition is that even in anymore?
Yep and the company that ran Shadowrun shared a similar fate.
You quite literally named what I would have used as examples to make my point.
I mean seriously, in 2e, The Complete Handbooks are universally known as some of the worst D&D material ever produced by TSR. Even in the OSR, people actually still play AD&D, refuse to allow those books in their games.
That didn’t bankrupt TSR, the rampant embezzlement and cronyism after they forced Gygax out is what bankrupted TSR.
And White Wolf when on for several more editions after 2nd. What bankrupted them was the fact that their product was already so good that people didn’t need new editions anymore.
And Fasa still exists, and still makes revenue from its IP. Its founder went on to create another little company you might have heard of called WizKids.
Inevitably, any RPG company hits a point where they have three choices: Expand, Revise, or close.
I’m not ready to drop another stack to upgrade to a 6e, so they won’t get my money if they revise. And I’m sure that goes for many people. And they don’t want to close, so that leaves expanding the current edition.
Oversaturation and overexpansion plus the rise of computer gaming bankrupted TSR.
The CEO forcing the company to pay exorbitant annual payments to maintain publishing rights to games their family owned the IP for that nobody played bankrupted TSR.
I'd argue the rise of video games is what almost destroyed 3e. Not the product being bad or hated. In fact I remember people seemed to worship the ground which 3e walked on to the point where a 'totallynotdnd3e' (pathfinder) appeared once dnd moved onto 4e.
Heh. Man. It must be nice to be able to assume that everyone you talk to is a teen-something yung'un with no idea what they're doing. You have no idea how hard I had to work to resist just 'Okay, boomer'-ing you.
I've been playing this specific game for 'bout two and a half years, yes. I've been playing games-in-general for over twenty. You say book bloat killed 3e because everybody hated new shit. Ask a TCG player what'd happen if their game never released another new set again, the way you're asking for Wizards to never release any new content for D&D again. Ask a video gamer what they'd think of no one ever releasing a new game ever again. Ask a freeform roleplayer, someone who's been telling stories on their own without dice or rules or any of that shit, what they'd think if they were told they could never create a new story again - the only thing they could ever do was rehash stories other people were telling forty or fifty years ago.
There is an entire gulf of space between 3e-style book bloat and No New Things Ever Again, BL. A proper game designer can operate in that space. A proper game designer needs to operate in that space, because stagnation is death and every game designer knows it. If you honestly believe it's best for the game to stagnate, never growing, never expanding beyond what a snapshot of what one batch of people thought would work five years ago because that snapshot is just absolutely perfect and must remain unchallenged and untarnished forever?
Okay, boomer.
*
As for you, Kotath? Let's try this.
You want a design space that's being unfulfilled? Let's use the arcane/martial half-caster many desire as an example. Many people strongly desire this mix, which is currently only partially fulfilled by precisely and exactly two subclasses - the Eldritch Knight and the Arcane Trickster. Neither of these classes allow players to meld spellcraft and martial combat into a single fluid, harmonious action, which is a commonly held desire for any such class. Call it a Spellblade, call it a Magus, call it a Gish, call it whatever you feel like - we don't have it.
The core mechanic of this class would be the aforementioned Spell Strike - the ability to combine a spell with a melee (usually) attack, such that the success or failure of the spell rides on the success or failure of the attack. The desired fantasy is that of a badass swordsman with an empowered blade, able to mimic some of the eldritch power and cool spell effects of arcane full casters without needing to be a skinny twiggy-beard jackass standing in the back. A Spell Striker (and this line is important so lemme bold it for you, because this is the core of what many people are getting at) wants to be able to command magic physically the way a wizard commands magic mentally; they are essentially 'Bender'-style characters whose bending is magic, rather than an element.
The class's primary/defining class feature would be Imbued Blade, or the equivalent. Spell Strikers, to use as close to a universal term as I've got, would not gain cantrips and would likely be unable to cast spells directly. As an inversion of the artificer, who is an arcane half-caster with an almost universal emphasis on buff/support spells, the Spell Striker would use a modified/cut-down arcane spell list focusing entirely on enemy-targeted disruption, control, or damage spells. When a Spell Striker casts a spell, they do not target it normally. Instead, the spell is imbued into the blade, allowing it to be released upon a successful strike. Should the attack land, the spell successfully hits or the creature fails its saving throw (or at the absolute very least, has disadvantage on that save a'la the original Wisdom-based Blood Hunter). Should the attack whiff, the Spell Striker loses the spell.
As the Spell Striker is built for single, high-impact strikes, it does not get Extra Attack at 5th, as almost all martial classes do. Instead, it gains the ability to bind raw magical energy into its blade, adding magical damage to its single base attack per turn at a rate roughly half of that granted by the rogue's Sneak Attack. This furthers the fantasy of a warrior who commands magic with their blade, enabling the character to deal significant magical damage with their attacks at a rate generally comparable to a full caster's level-empowered cantrips, plus the damage from their blade.
A Spell Striker's secondary mechanics may allow them to cast a limited number of body-augmenting spells targeting themselves, or otherwise utilize magic in a more physical manner than any current caster. Subclasses could extend Spell Strike to thrown weapons, alter the rules of the Strike, replace secondary class mechanics, or do whatever it makes sense for subclasses of this eventual base class to do. Spell Strikers may use Intelligence as a casting ability, or may end up ignoring the idea of a spellcasting ability at all - instead, should a Spell Striker's spell require it, the casting ability for their spell is whatever ability they used for the attack.
Is that sufficient? No? I didn't think so. Let's start knocking down objections ahead of time, shall we?
First Objection: "Just make a freaking paladin, you stupid shit. Take Smite spells, use regular smite, and pretend you're a half-wizard instead of a half-cleric." Answer: Smite spells are almost universally weak. They tend to do very little save adding a little bit of damage, almost always radiant. What sidecar effects they have tend to be either weak, easily resisted, or both, and furthermore Smite spells don't actually depend on the success or failure of the attack. They require their own saves; targets can be struck by the weapon but ignore the effect of the Smite spell completely. This is not in line with the physical-magic fantasy desired by Spell Strikers, nor is the heaps of divine Holy Knight baggage attached to the paladin base class.
Second Objection: "This is outright freaking broken. Turning a saving-throw, save-or-suck spell into a melee weapon attack? Broken. Bee Are Ohh Kay Ee En." Answer: So is taking half damage from every single mundane damage source. So is being able to grant yourself hundreds of extra hit points on the spot by shapeshifting into a dinosaur. So is dealing 10d6 bonus damage once a turn without burning any kind of resource. So is being able to say to the DM "I Wish..." and the DM being forced to make it happen. Every single new idea in D&D started out as heckin' broke somewhere. With proper application of Actual Game Design, it ends up working anyways. Besides. Legendary resistances are still a thing, and maybe DMs have been leaning on all their big boss critters being immune to all saving throw abilities for long enough.
Third Objection: "This is new so I hate it." Answer: Okay, boomer. Also it's not actually new, I'm lifting Spell Strike directly from 3.5e. So double "I don't care if you hate it".
The CEO forcing the company to pay exorbitant annual payments to maintain publishing rights to games their family owned the IP for that nobody played bankrupted TSR.
Wait, was that the old Buck Rogers tabletop game? because if memory serves me correctly, that *whole* situation was insane...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Well, look how popular Warlocks, Sorcerers, and Artificers are and they were first introduced (in any form currently recognizable) in 3/3.5. They are some of the most popular classes in 5e too.
Clearly new =/= bad.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
You could have it so that the specific result of the ritual could be influenced by the type of caster that participated. How that occurred specifically could be interesting to explore... but maybe something like a sorcerer (or maybe just a wild magic sorcerer) rolling on the wild magic table for a random effect. Something that iconic for each type of caster might be hard to do. Maybe just get a specific bonus for each spell with each of the combinations of arcane, divine and primal magic.
You're asking for the impossible, Kotath.
Let's break this down, shall we? In order to justify any possible new class, you need someone to:
1.) Clearly define the entire mechanical structure of this class and how it is wildly distinct from any previous class.
2.) Define a universally agreed upon vision of that class's lore, fluff, story, what-have-you.
3.) Exhaustively prove that no amount of 'reflavoring' (God I'm coming to hate that word) of an existing class or subclass would not yield the desired aesthetic; this proof must be given explicitly and specifically for each and every single possible class/subclass, duplicating effort many times over. "Okay, you've proven why the Shaman wouldn't work as a druid subclass. Now prove why it wouldn't work as a warlock subclass. Now prove why the Nature Domain cleric doesn't work. Now prove why..."
4.) Exhaustively prove that no jank-ass multiclass combination will provide the desired aesthetic. Again, this must be proven explicitly and separately for each possible multiclass combination.
5.) Finally: exhaustively prove why the desired aesthetic cannot simply be homebrewed on a series of napkins one photocopies into the Internet to prove they did the work, because clearly none of us are using the Internet to account for the fact that we're not at an IRL table with a pen-and-paper sheet we can alter at will.
No one can meet that burden, Kotath. No one can meet the requirements you're laying on them to prove the desire for a new class. I understand that this is your intent, and you are actively seeking to convince people to never ask for a new base class or subclass ever again because all possible characters one could ever imagine playing are already abundantly represented in D&D 5e's perfect and all-encompassing class list.
But maybe...just maybe...your view that everything is perfect, flawless and without blemish is not, itself, as universal as you'd like to believe?
Please do not contact or message me.
Which is fine. While playing with it in an expanded way with any new classes, you could also expand it independently of those new classes. More options are always welcome.
Oh my burbling beagle Jeebus, why is this so difficult?
Yes. DMs can ban whatever they like from their games. I'm actually a zealous proponent of culling options that do not make sense for the world or story being presented. The option has to EXIST before it can be culled from a given game, however. And who knows - maybe a new class emerges that inspires the imaginations of the DM as well as their players, and they find a cool new adventure they wouldn't have had without somebody at Wizards saying "Hey, there's a lot of demand for [X] idea that isn't in the books. Maybe we should tap into that?"
As for "a good DM will always find a way for the player to make their idea come to life!"...obviously this is untrue. A good DM may try, but again - many DMs absolutely, positively, and unbendingly ban any form of homebrew from their games. Those DMs will not 'find a way' - they will tell their player to play what's in the book and like it or find a new table. For whatever reason, those DMs refuse to tolerate unvetted content, and Wizards is the only entity they trust to vet content. And sometimes a newer or less confident DM may just fail at successfully homebrewing an option. Designing an entire base class is difficult. It takes a ton of time and effort even for professionals, and it's very likely to end up out of tune along the way. A lo9t of folks don't want to open themselves up to that kind of heat, especially when the tools aren't there to support it.
And finally, let me reverse this. To all the grognards who're so ardently shooting down the idea of new classes, new subclasses, new species, new backgrounds, new items. The people sitting here in this thread and in many others going "No no no no no! No new stuff! Not in MY D&D! No new, no new, no new no freaking new stuff in MY D&D!", I have one simple question. One question which is so incredibly simple I can ask it in two words, and yet so critical that I am going to make those two simple words as large and hard to miss as I possibly can, because I have not yet heard an answer to that question that amounts to anything but shitty gatekeeping, curmudgeonism, or simple outright fear. And that question is...
WHY NOT?
Please do not contact or message me.
TSR did the same thing with 2e. Almost every race had their own individual handbook full of stuff, as did every class. At the end there were 3 different whole PHB sized “Players’ Options” books as well. In many ways, 2e was worse than 3/3.5e. That didn’t destroy D&D.
World of darkness at least used to have (in 2e/3e) a different book for each type of “Monster” as their own standalone setting, yet they were all compatible. Heck, there’s were even books for the subtypes, like the Tzimisce Clan had their own book in addition to the Vampire book, etc. That didn’t destroy World of Darkness.
Shadowrun 2e was not dissimilar either. What edition is that even in anymore?
I have been around almost as long as the groggiest or nards and my takeaway was different.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
This is getting far too heated. ;-;
Also yeah you can build a paladin and say his armor is black and he's a 'death knight'. I agree that the two would fill a similar 'niche' in the party, but could have very different mechanics to do so.
But honestly even without deciding on exact mechanics, a death knight is clearly not a healing, radiant damage class, with a spell list full of things like 'bless', 'cure wounds', and 'summon celestial spirit'
As the only death knight I know of is the wow one (and then not much, as i've not played wow since 2014), i'll float some mechanics for it (no it's not balanced, it's a random off the top of my head first draft).
- Rune system. Certain class features would require casting runes. You can generate a limited amount through combat and doing damage to enemies. However on a rest you're reset to an empty pool, making them play in almost the opposite way to most classes.
- Spend the runes to place them on the weapon or armour as a bonus action, to discharge on hit. This could inflict drain health, deflect blows, give cursed wounds which cause enemies to explode on death, or freezing them solid.
- Damage is focused on necrotic and cold type damage.
- Spell list focused on raising the dead and various necromancy type powers.
With 5e's awful subclass system, they have simultaneously suffered from massive class bloat, while not adding anything new.
Also there is a large area between 13 classes and 100 or so. There are a certain 3 or 4 same classes players have been wanting for years, and adding them will not 'destroy dnd'.
I'm not sure how wanting a swordmage or warlord class is 'hating the hobby'.
That didn’t bankrupt TSR, the rampant embezzlement and cronyism after they forced Gygax out is what bankrupted TSR.
And White Wolf when on for several more editions after 2nd. What bankrupted them was the fact that their product was already so good that people didn’t need new editions anymore.
And Fasa still exists, and still makes revenue from its IP. Its founder went on to create another little company you might have heard of called WizKids.
Inevitably, any RPG company hits a point where they have three choices: Expand, Revise, or close.
I’m not ready to drop another stack to upgrade to a 6e, so they won’t get my money if they revise. And I’m sure that goes for many people. And they don’t want to close, so that leaves expanding the current edition.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
BS. I’ve been playing since the early 80s and opposing change just for the sake of opposing change is ridiculous. If it weren’t for people trying to make adjustments we’d still have THAC0. Or trying to figure out how to convert movements speeds listed in inches onto a digital battle map that gets zoomed in and out. We’d still be playing with human only paladins and classes like “Halfling”. The original Barbarian class hated magic and got experience for destroying other people’s magic stuff, and lore wise was required to hate your party’s magic user.
Nobody here has proposed anything that would destroy D&D. If they feel they are missing a class then that’s how they feel. I may not agree with all of the proposals, but I can definitely see where they come from.
While everyone was arguing, I was working on a first draft of a Warlord. It's very rough, but hopefully it will pique someone's interest into playing one. It's in the spoiler.
A Warlord is a warrior who focuses on fighting intelligently, maximizing position and terrain. They coordinate attacks with their allies, allowing them to take down much greater threats.
Building a Warlord: Warlords focus around Strength or Dexterity and Intelligence. When building a Warlord, put your top score in one of those and your second highest into another.
Hit Dice: Warlords use a d10 for dit dice.
Proficiencies: Light and Medium armour, all weapons.
Tools: Choose one from Cartographers, Calligraphers, and Leatherworkers.
Saving Throws: Dexterity, Intelligence.
Skills: tbd
1st level: Warlords gain a fighting style from the fighter list, as well as another feature: Know Thy Enemy. This feature allows you to use an action to use one of these features:
Evaluate defense: you learn the targets AC, and the next attack you or a friendly creature makes against it has advantage.
Experimental parry: the next time the target attacks you, the attack has disadvantage and you learn the target's health.
Feint: The next attack you make against the target has disadvantage. The target must target you with it’s next attacks.
2nd Level: At second level, you gain access to your core feature:Command Points and Tactics. Command Points are the fuel you use to activate Tactics, which are buffs that affect other players around you. You gain a number of commands points equal to your level*your intelligence modifier. (Yes, this is a lot of points. Having a large number lets you make things more specific.) You can choose up to your intelligence modifier plus your proficiency bonus Tactics. Here are some examples:
Overpower: As an action, select a target within 60 feet of you. Until the start of your next turn, creatures gain a bonus to their attack roles against that target equal to the number of creatures that have previously attacked it. For example, if a Warlord targetes a troll with overpower, the next creature to attack it gains no bonus. The second creature gets +1, the third +2, and so on and so forth. Cost [2]
Steady Position: As a bonus action, activate this Tactic. Friendly creatures within 10*your intelligence modifier adds your intelligence modifier to attack rolls if they did not move this turn. Cost[7]
3rd Level: At 3rd level, Warlords gain their subclass, called a Discipline. There are three Disciplines: The Discipline of the Wing focuses on one quick, decisive attack, The Discipline of the Hammer focuses on brute force, and the Discipline of the Shield focuses on defense. Each discipline also gives you exclusive tactics, which you can choose to select.
Tactic: Strike from Above (Available to Discipline of the Wing or Discipline of the Hammer) You may choose to activate this tactic as a bonus action on your turn. Until the start of your next turn, whenever you or a friendly creature within 10*your intelligence modifier feet attacks a creature at a lower elevation than it, they gain a bonus their attack roll equal to your intelligence modifier. Cost [5]
Tactic: Total Annihilation (Available to Discipline of the Hammer) You may activate this tactic as a bonus action on your turn. The next time you take the attack action, you may make an extra attack. If all of your attacks hit, an ally within five feet of you may make an attack targeting the same target. [3]
Tactic: Iron Wall (Available to Discipline of the Shield.) Activate this tactic as an action. Until the start of your next turn, friendly creatures within 10*int mod feet gain advantage on opportunity attacks. [1]
Tactic: Swift Retreat (Available to Discipline of the Wing) Activate this tactic as a bonus action. Until the start of your next turn, friendly creatures within 10*int mod feet can take the dash or disengage action as a bonus action until the start of your next turn. [2]
The fifth level feature would be something like this: Parry and Counter: As a reaction when you are being attacked, you can attempt to counter a melee attack. You do this by making an attack roll, and if you total if greater than the targets roll, the attack misses. If the attack misses, you may immediately make a weapon attack against the target.
That's my very rough first draft of a Warlord.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Well first of all, most people aren't professional game designers. Now, me personally, I actually enjoy homebrewing quite a lot, but if someone were to ask if my homebrew is on par with content from a professional designer, I will be the first to tell them to stop smoking crack, of course it isn't.
Secondly, I keep getting the sense that you seem to be operating under the idea there needs to be unanimous consensus in order for a project-in this case, new classes-to go forward. That's not remotely true in the slightest. If it were, nothing would get done, ever.
It doesn't have a lot of features yet because it isn't even close to finished. And I would add more large scale unit tactics, but large scale battles are pretty much specifically discouraged in 5e.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
The CEO forcing the company to pay exorbitant annual payments to maintain publishing rights to games their family owned the IP for that nobody played bankrupted TSR.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
It's a rough draft. If you were expecting perfection from the first go, that's...not how anything works...
I'd argue the rise of video games is what almost destroyed 3e. Not the product being bad or hated. In fact I remember people seemed to worship the ground which 3e walked on to the point where a 'totallynotdnd3e' (pathfinder) appeared once dnd moved onto 4e.
As long as we all stay respectful.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Heh. Man. It must be nice to be able to assume that everyone you talk to is a teen-something yung'un with no idea what they're doing. You have no idea how hard I had to work to resist just 'Okay, boomer'-ing you.
I've been playing this specific game for 'bout two and a half years, yes. I've been playing games-in-general for over twenty. You say book bloat killed 3e because everybody hated new shit. Ask a TCG player what'd happen if their game never released another new set again, the way you're asking for Wizards to never release any new content for D&D again. Ask a video gamer what they'd think of no one ever releasing a new game ever again. Ask a freeform roleplayer, someone who's been telling stories on their own without dice or rules or any of that shit, what they'd think if they were told they could never create a new story again - the only thing they could ever do was rehash stories other people were telling forty or fifty years ago.
There is an entire gulf of space between 3e-style book bloat and No New Things Ever Again, BL. A proper game designer can operate in that space. A proper game designer needs to operate in that space, because stagnation is death and every game designer knows it. If you honestly believe it's best for the game to stagnate, never growing, never expanding beyond what a snapshot of what one batch of people thought would work five years ago because that snapshot is just absolutely perfect and must remain unchallenged and untarnished forever?
Okay, boomer.
*
As for you, Kotath? Let's try this.
You want a design space that's being unfulfilled? Let's use the arcane/martial half-caster many desire as an example. Many people strongly desire this mix, which is currently only partially fulfilled by precisely and exactly two subclasses - the Eldritch Knight and the Arcane Trickster. Neither of these classes allow players to meld spellcraft and martial combat into a single fluid, harmonious action, which is a commonly held desire for any such class. Call it a Spellblade, call it a Magus, call it a Gish, call it whatever you feel like - we don't have it.
The core mechanic of this class would be the aforementioned Spell Strike - the ability to combine a spell with a melee (usually) attack, such that the success or failure of the spell rides on the success or failure of the attack. The desired fantasy is that of a badass swordsman with an empowered blade, able to mimic some of the eldritch power and cool spell effects of arcane full casters without needing to be a skinny twiggy-beard jackass standing in the back. A Spell Striker (and this line is important so lemme bold it for you, because this is the core of what many people are getting at) wants to be able to command magic physically the way a wizard commands magic mentally; they are essentially 'Bender'-style characters whose bending is magic, rather than an element.
The class's primary/defining class feature would be Imbued Blade, or the equivalent. Spell Strikers, to use as close to a universal term as I've got, would not gain cantrips and would likely be unable to cast spells directly. As an inversion of the artificer, who is an arcane half-caster with an almost universal emphasis on buff/support spells, the Spell Striker would use a modified/cut-down arcane spell list focusing entirely on enemy-targeted disruption, control, or damage spells. When a Spell Striker casts a spell, they do not target it normally. Instead, the spell is imbued into the blade, allowing it to be released upon a successful strike. Should the attack land, the spell successfully hits or the creature fails its saving throw (or at the absolute very least, has disadvantage on that save a'la the original Wisdom-based Blood Hunter). Should the attack whiff, the Spell Striker loses the spell.
As the Spell Striker is built for single, high-impact strikes, it does not get Extra Attack at 5th, as almost all martial classes do. Instead, it gains the ability to bind raw magical energy into its blade, adding magical damage to its single base attack per turn at a rate roughly half of that granted by the rogue's Sneak Attack. This furthers the fantasy of a warrior who commands magic with their blade, enabling the character to deal significant magical damage with their attacks at a rate generally comparable to a full caster's level-empowered cantrips, plus the damage from their blade.
A Spell Striker's secondary mechanics may allow them to cast a limited number of body-augmenting spells targeting themselves, or otherwise utilize magic in a more physical manner than any current caster. Subclasses could extend Spell Strike to thrown weapons, alter the rules of the Strike, replace secondary class mechanics, or do whatever it makes sense for subclasses of this eventual base class to do. Spell Strikers may use Intelligence as a casting ability, or may end up ignoring the idea of a spellcasting ability at all - instead, should a Spell Striker's spell require it, the casting ability for their spell is whatever ability they used for the attack.
Is that sufficient? No? I didn't think so. Let's start knocking down objections ahead of time, shall we?
First Objection: "Just make a freaking paladin, you stupid shit. Take Smite spells, use regular smite, and pretend you're a half-wizard instead of a half-cleric."
Answer: Smite spells are almost universally weak. They tend to do very little save adding a little bit of damage, almost always radiant. What sidecar effects they have tend to be either weak, easily resisted, or both, and furthermore Smite spells don't actually depend on the success or failure of the attack. They require their own saves; targets can be struck by the weapon but ignore the effect of the Smite spell completely. This is not in line with the physical-magic fantasy desired by Spell Strikers, nor is the heaps of divine Holy Knight baggage attached to the paladin base class.
Second Objection: "This is outright freaking broken. Turning a saving-throw, save-or-suck spell into a melee weapon attack? Broken. Bee Are Ohh Kay Ee En."
Answer: So is taking half damage from every single mundane damage source. So is being able to grant yourself hundreds of extra hit points on the spot by shapeshifting into a dinosaur. So is dealing 10d6 bonus damage once a turn without burning any kind of resource. So is being able to say to the DM "I Wish..." and the DM being forced to make it happen. Every single new idea in D&D started out as heckin' broke somewhere. With proper application of Actual Game Design, it ends up working anyways. Besides. Legendary resistances are still a thing, and maybe DMs have been leaning on all their big boss critters being immune to all saving throw abilities for long enough.
Third Objection: "This is new so I hate it."
Answer: Okay, boomer. Also it's not actually new, I'm lifting Spell Strike directly from 3.5e. So double "I don't care if you hate it".
Anything else?
Please do not contact or message me.
Wait, was that the old Buck Rogers tabletop game? because if memory serves me correctly, that *whole* situation was insane...