So, recently there was a thread about 5e needing more classes. It blew up, and people argued about it for a while (they still are). I was just wondering what are your guys' cool ideas for individual classes that could be added. I saw something about support characters that aren't magic (like battle master), and I would really like to see that fleshed out.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past, I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone, there will be nothing. Only I will remain.
While I don’t have any fleshed out ideas myself, we were discussing different options in the other thread. I know that Shaman, a proper Swordmage-like class, an Occultist (witchcraft) class, A Warlord, and a Psionic class were all discussed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
In my ideal world, 5e would have a more solid system for social and exploration encounters. In the former case, I would have loved to see a specialized social class in the way that a fighter is specialized in combat. In the Star Wars RPGs, the noble/officer archetype is of a similar idea. Unfortunately, social encounters in 5e come down to roleplaying (which some players can't easily do) and some random persuasion/deception rolls.
I think there food be room for a class where animal companion is front and centre. Like I get that you have the beast master subclass, pact of the chain, find familiar, summon etc, but these feel like optional extras. Like you are controlling this extra thing in the battlefield on top of what you do.
I think the game has space for a class that is purely about the companion.
this might open the game up to people playing Pokemon OC’s.....it’s a price I am willing to pay
I would like to see a class that does not fight themselves, but rather summons a number of critters to fight for them. One subclass could become a true necromancer, summoning undead minions. Another could create not-quite clones of themselves by sacrificing their own hitpoints. And another can trigger some spell-like effects through their summons, based on their positioning.
Shaman: Primal type caster with a similar list to druid, but without any wildshape. More focus on controlling the elements.
Warlord: Non magic support. Can buff allies and give things like more attacks.
Occultist (witch): Potion brewing, int based, claws, curses and hexes, sharing spell slots.
Psion: Covers the psionics theme. Keep soul knife and psi knight as subclasses for rogue and fighter.
Swordmage: Arcane/elemental half caster, which specialises in spells who empower their weapon on a bonus action and discharge on a successful hit. Can be built as melee or ranged.
@drag0n_77 - 2/3 of that you get with Echo Knight fighter
Not what I envision, no. Echo Knight can only sustain a single Echo until 18th level. A summoning class would start with 2 or 3 rather weak minions, but as they level the minions get stronger, and you can control more of them, up to 5 or so.
Different subclasses can use them in different ways. For example, the Necromancer can sacrifice them for an explosion of Necrotic Damage. The not-quite clones would cost health to create, but they'd have a lot more offensive potential than the others, almost another PC -- but this comes at the cost of you taking damage if they are destroyed, and their own health is extremely low. The quasi-magical effect one would be more of a support, able to initiate a number of supportive effects through their summons, relying on positioning them for optimal effect.
The classes I think that 5e needs, in rough order of relevance-
A non-spellcasting Psion- this is just exist, and you can't make it with multiclasses
A Warlord- An Intelligence based support character that fights with not just brute force, but also strategy and tactics. You can sorta do this with a Battlemaster, but not really.
Shaman- This is kinda multiclassable, but a dedicated class would be better.
An Occultist- Again, another one that can be made through multiclass, but wouldn't have the same feel as a dedicated class
A Gish/Magus/Spellblade/Duskblade/Arcane Smite Murdermachine/- This niche is already mechanically covered in numerous ways, from EK to Bladesingers. However, none of them feel like you are truly blending magic and combat well.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
I find a quick and dirty way to make a shaman is take a nature cleric, and replace its entire spell list with the druid spell list. It's cheap, but gets the feel of a primal caster without feeling like just playing a druid or cleric.
I read into that other thread far enough to realize that those clamoring for more classes want new classes that can do more than the existing ones. Very often, the suggestions presented are classes that can do in 1 round what it takes two current classes working together to do.
That is the definition of power creep. Power Creep is the bane of game balance.
Also, to continue on my 'party pooper' rant, a class that uses pets is thematically interesting, but mechanically BAD. And what I mean by this is: one player will have to play several characters worth of turns per round, where the other characters will not. Those kinds of shenanigans will make combat encounters boring and drawn out for the other players.
Also, the point was brought up in the other thread: Multi-classing is a thing. Every 'new' class that is proposed has to be conceptualized while keeping in mind that they can be mixed and matched with other classes and their abilities/flavor. The more classes you introduce, the more combinations can exist, the harder it is to keep the game balanced.
I think there are already classes/sub-classes that are too weak or too shallow. Those should be rebalanced or fleshed out before any effort is made to come up with unique new classes.
The classes wouldn't necessarily be more powerful, they would just be different. We don't have a non magical support class, or a psion, so you can't make those without multiclassing. And since those niches aren't filled at all, they don't have to overlap with other classes and don't have to be more powerful . The other ideas you could make with multiclassing, but as I and many other have already said, it wouldn't feel as authentic as a whole new class.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
It would be a half caster... just like paladin, ranger, and artificer.
It would empower its weapon with magic for striking... just like paladin and ranger.
It's essentially an arcane/elemental version of paladin and ranger and would be on par power wise.
Yes you can multiclass wizard and fighter. But then you don't blend magic and combat seamlessly like paladin and ranger. You can just choose to hit half as well as a fighter, or cast half as well as a wizard. You can multiclass fighter and cleric to make a 'paladin'. It's not a paladin though, and fails to play like one should.
i don’t mean multiple pets I mean a single creature. But a class where this a principal trait even beastmaster ranger this is more of an additional mechanic than the principal one .
i don’t want to litter the battlefield and slow up combat as much as I want something that works symbiotically. I would almost make it have zero weapon proficiencies
Edit - in essence the creature would be the character and the owner would be the familiar.
I am a fan of the Shaman and Psion since I would really like some new casters that introduce a different form of magic. The Warlord seems to make sense as a support character until you start to get down to low levels. Then it just stops making sense thematically. Why would a warlord be so low level and why would he be adventuring? There are clearly ways to make it work, it just feels weird to me. Swordmage/magus just feels unnecessary to me. We have so many half casters in the game, and just changing the source of the magic does not feel like a big enough diversion from the paladin. I also understand that there are mixed feelings about the EK, but I think it does it's job fine. It might be a little underpowered, but not in need of a new class.
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past, I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone, there will be nothing. Only I will remain.
It would be a half caster... just like paladin, ranger, and artificer.
It would empower its weapon with magic for striking... just like paladin and ranger.
It's essentially an arcane/elemental version of paladin and ranger and would be on par power wise.
Yes you can multiclass wizard and fighter. But then you don't blend magic and combat seamlessly like paladin and ranger. You can just choose to hit half as well as a fighter, or cast half as well as a wizard. You can multiclass fighter and cleric to make a 'paladin'. It's not a paladin though, and fails to play like one should.
I've seen concepts for sword/weapon mages or magus, like THIS one. I understand the theme, but as that example highlights, many who want new classes actually want power creep (or in that case, blatantly overpowered) levels of utility.
My main concern with sword-mages is this: Casters have to invest in their primary spell casting stat to increase their spell casting to-Hit and/or their save DC's. This is part of the balance in the game. Sword-mages would either be:
Overpowered if their spell to-hit or save DC is is replaced by the weapon attack To-Hit. IE: the spell is stored in the weapon, successfully hitting the target with the weapon delivers the spell. This would allow the class to focus heavily on their martial abilities and get spell levels of damage or utility for 'free'.
Overpowered if spells stored in their weapons are not lost on successful saving throws. IE: use a spell slot to cast a spell with a 100% chance it gets applied, given enough tries.
On the other hand, if a melee weapon attack hits but the spell doesn't take effect because the target still has to and succeeds a follow-up saving throw, then at best, this class would have better action economy than other classes by having the option to use their action to imbue their weapons with a spell, that will trigger in another round. Mild levels of power-creep.
In order to not make this concept overpowered, I really don't see how it doesn't become nothing more than a new martial class with a re-skinned smite.
It would be a half caster... just like paladin, ranger, and artificer.
It would empower its weapon with magic for striking... just like paladin and ranger.
It's essentially an arcane/elemental version of paladin and ranger and would be on par power wise.
Yes you can multiclass wizard and fighter. But then you don't blend magic and combat seamlessly like paladin and ranger. You can just choose to hit half as well as a fighter, or cast half as well as a wizard. You can multiclass fighter and cleric to make a 'paladin'. It's not a paladin though, and fails to play like one should.
I've seen concepts for sword/weapon mages or magus, like THIS one. I understand the theme, but as that example highlights, many who want new classes actually want power creep (or in that case, blatantly overpowered) levels of utility.
My main concern with sword-mages is this: Casters have to invest in their primary spell casting stat to increase their spell casting to-Hit and/or their save DC's. This is part of the balance in the game. Sword-mages would either be:
Overpowered if their spell to-hit or save DC is is replaced by the weapon attack To-Hit. IE: the spell is stored in the weapon, successfully hitting the target with the weapon delivers the spell. This would allow the class to focus heavily on their martial abilities and get spell levels of damage or utility for 'free'.
Overpowered if spells stored in their weapons are not lost on successful saving throws. IE: use a spell slot to cast a spell with a 100% chance it gets applied, given enough tries.
On the other hand, if a melee weapon attack hits but the spell doesn't take effect because the target still has to and succeeds a follow-up saving throw, then at best, this class would have better action economy than other classes by having the option to use their action to imbue their weapons with a spell, that will trigger in another round. Mild levels of power-creep.
In order to not make this concept overpowered, I really don't see how it doesn't become nothing more than a new martial class with a re-skinned smite.
Gishes would actually end up being pretty MAD. You have to invest in an attack stat, a casting stat, and Con so you don't lose concentration.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
i don’t mean multiple pets I mean a single creature. But a class where this a principal trait even beastmaster ranger this is more of an additional mechanic than the principal one .
i don’t want to litter the battlefield and slow up combat as much as I want something that works symbiotically. I would almost make it have zero weapon proficiencies
Edit - in essence the creature would be the character and the owner would be the familiar.
Ok, so in an adventuring party today, some characters would be melee-focused and others would be skills/social focused. 2 or more classes to get 2 or more jobs done (well).
Enter your 'beastmaster'. During combat, the 'beast' is a melee-focused or caster-focused combat pillar in the group. You pick your creature to have good AC, good action economy... good combat abilities. Outside of combat, the beast is a foot-note and your 'character' takes center stage as a focused skill character or a face character.
Congratulations, you've created a class concept that replaces what would have taken two characters to do before.
i don’t mean multiple pets I mean a single creature. But a class where this a principal trait even beastmaster ranger this is more of an additional mechanic than the principal one .
i don’t want to litter the battlefield and slow up combat as much as I want something that works symbiotically. I would almost make it have zero weapon proficiencies
Edit - in essence the creature would be the character and the owner would be the familiar.
Ok, so in an adventuring party today, some characters would be melee-focused and others would be skills/social focused. 2 or more classes to get 2 or more jobs done (well).
Enter your 'beastmaster'. During combat, the 'beast' is a melee-focused or caster-focused combat pillar in the group. You pick your creature to have good AC, good action economy... good combat abilities. Outside of combat, the beast is a foot-note and your 'character' takes center stage as a focused skill character or a face character.
Congratulations, you've created a class concept that replaces what would have taken two characters to do before.
Power Creep.
Okay you are clearly looking to just be mad at people for wanting something that you don’t want. Not everyone is looking to speed run D&D some of us just want to increase how we have fun with the game, it’s not all about “I want to be the very best, like no one ever was” but clearly you aren’t capable of seeing beyond min maxing mechanics.
enjoy the rest of your day
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So, recently there was a thread about 5e needing more classes. It blew up, and people argued about it for a while (they still are). I was just wondering what are your guys' cool ideas for individual classes that could be added. I saw something about support characters that aren't magic (like battle master), and I would really like to see that fleshed out.
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past, I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone, there will be nothing. Only I will remain.
- Litany Against Fear, Frank Herbert
While I don’t have any fleshed out ideas myself, we were discussing different options in the other thread. I know that Shaman, a proper Swordmage-like class, an Occultist (witchcraft) class, A Warlord, and a Psionic class were all discussed.
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
My Greater Will Google Doc
Proud member of the DragonClub! cult.
In my ideal world, 5e would have a more solid system for social and exploration encounters. In the former case, I would have loved to see a specialized social class in the way that a fighter is specialized in combat. In the Star Wars RPGs, the noble/officer archetype is of a similar idea. Unfortunately, social encounters in 5e come down to roleplaying (which some players can't easily do) and some random persuasion/deception rolls.
Hey, I was in that thread. Here's the links to my classes, still works in progress:
Gish Class
Occultist Class
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I think there food be room for a class where animal companion is front and centre. Like I get that you have the beast master subclass, pact of the chain, find familiar, summon etc, but these feel like optional extras. Like you are controlling this extra thing in the battlefield on top of what you do.
I think the game has space for a class that is purely about the companion.
this might open the game up to people playing Pokemon OC’s.....it’s a price I am willing to pay
I would like to see a class that does not fight themselves, but rather summons a number of critters to fight for them. One subclass could become a true necromancer, summoning undead minions. Another could create not-quite clones of themselves by sacrificing their own hitpoints. And another can trigger some spell-like effects through their summons, based on their positioning.
Shaman: Primal type caster with a similar list to druid, but without any wildshape. More focus on controlling the elements.
Warlord: Non magic support. Can buff allies and give things like more attacks.
Occultist (witch): Potion brewing, int based, claws, curses and hexes, sharing spell slots.
Psion: Covers the psionics theme. Keep soul knife and psi knight as subclasses for rogue and fighter.
Swordmage: Arcane/elemental half caster, which specialises in spells who empower their weapon on a bonus action and discharge on a successful hit. Can be built as melee or ranged.
Maybe a swashbuckler type full class.
@drag0n_77 - 2/3 of that you get with Echo Knight fighter
Not what I envision, no. Echo Knight can only sustain a single Echo until 18th level. A summoning class would start with 2 or 3 rather weak minions, but as they level the minions get stronger, and you can control more of them, up to 5 or so.
Different subclasses can use them in different ways. For example, the Necromancer can sacrifice them for an explosion of Necrotic Damage. The not-quite clones would cost health to create, but they'd have a lot more offensive potential than the others, almost another PC -- but this comes at the cost of you taking damage if they are destroyed, and their own health is extremely low. The quasi-magical effect one would be more of a support, able to initiate a number of supportive effects through their summons, relying on positioning them for optimal effect.
The classes I think that 5e needs, in rough order of relevance-
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
I find a quick and dirty way to make a shaman is take a nature cleric, and replace its entire spell list with the druid spell list. It's cheap, but gets the feel of a primal caster without feeling like just playing a druid or cleric.
I read into that other thread far enough to realize that those clamoring for more classes want new classes that can do more than the existing ones. Very often, the suggestions presented are classes that can do in 1 round what it takes two current classes working together to do.
That is the definition of power creep. Power Creep is the bane of game balance.
Also, to continue on my 'party pooper' rant, a class that uses pets is thematically interesting, but mechanically BAD. And what I mean by this is: one player will have to play several characters worth of turns per round, where the other characters will not. Those kinds of shenanigans will make combat encounters boring and drawn out for the other players.
Also, the point was brought up in the other thread: Multi-classing is a thing. Every 'new' class that is proposed has to be conceptualized while keeping in mind that they can be mixed and matched with other classes and their abilities/flavor. The more classes you introduce, the more combinations can exist, the harder it is to keep the game balanced.
I think there are already classes/sub-classes that are too weak or too shallow. Those should be rebalanced or fleshed out before any effort is made to come up with unique new classes.
The classes wouldn't necessarily be more powerful, they would just be different. We don't have a non magical support class, or a psion, so you can't make those without multiclassing. And since those niches aren't filled at all, they don't have to overlap with other classes and don't have to be more powerful . The other ideas you could make with multiclassing, but as I and many other have already said, it wouldn't feel as authentic as a whole new class.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Swordmage/Magus definitely isn't power creep.
It would be a half caster... just like paladin, ranger, and artificer.
It would empower its weapon with magic for striking... just like paladin and ranger.
It's essentially an arcane/elemental version of paladin and ranger and would be on par power wise.
Yes you can multiclass wizard and fighter. But then you don't blend magic and combat seamlessly like paladin and ranger. You can just choose to hit half as well as a fighter, or cast half as well as a wizard. You can multiclass fighter and cleric to make a 'paladin'. It's not a paladin though, and fails to play like one should.
@kerrec
i don’t mean multiple pets I mean a single creature. But a class where this a principal trait even beastmaster ranger this is more of an additional mechanic than the principal one .
i don’t want to litter the battlefield and slow up combat as much as I want something that works symbiotically. I would almost make it have zero weapon proficiencies
Edit - in essence the creature would be the character and the owner would be the familiar.
I am a fan of the Shaman and Psion since I would really like some new casters that introduce a different form of magic. The Warlord seems to make sense as a support character until you start to get down to low levels. Then it just stops making sense thematically. Why would a warlord be so low level and why would he be adventuring? There are clearly ways to make it work, it just feels weird to me. Swordmage/magus just feels unnecessary to me. We have so many half casters in the game, and just changing the source of the magic does not feel like a big enough diversion from the paladin. I also understand that there are mixed feelings about the EK, but I think it does it's job fine. It might be a little underpowered, but not in need of a new class.
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past, I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone, there will be nothing. Only I will remain.
- Litany Against Fear, Frank Herbert
I've seen concepts for sword/weapon mages or magus, like THIS one. I understand the theme, but as that example highlights, many who want new classes actually want power creep (or in that case, blatantly overpowered) levels of utility.
My main concern with sword-mages is this: Casters have to invest in their primary spell casting stat to increase their spell casting to-Hit and/or their save DC's. This is part of the balance in the game. Sword-mages would either be:
In order to not make this concept overpowered, I really don't see how it doesn't become nothing more than a new martial class with a re-skinned smite.
Gishes would actually end up being pretty MAD. You have to invest in an attack stat, a casting stat, and Con so you don't lose concentration.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Ok, so in an adventuring party today, some characters would be melee-focused and others would be skills/social focused. 2 or more classes to get 2 or more jobs done (well).
Enter your 'beastmaster'. During combat, the 'beast' is a melee-focused or caster-focused combat pillar in the group. You pick your creature to have good AC, good action economy... good combat abilities. Outside of combat, the beast is a foot-note and your 'character' takes center stage as a focused skill character or a face character.
Congratulations, you've created a class concept that replaces what would have taken two characters to do before.
Power Creep.
Okay you are clearly looking to just be mad at people for wanting something that you don’t want. Not everyone is looking to speed run D&D some of us just want to increase how we have fun with the game, it’s not all about “I want to be the very best, like no one ever was” but clearly you aren’t capable of seeing beyond min maxing mechanics.
enjoy the rest of your day