I think we’re sorely lacking more half-casters. Considering that the charisma star has three full casters (bard, warlock, sorcerer) to one half caster (Paladin), a new charisma half-caster is in order. and since paladins are perfectly fine as the frontliners of the charisma gang, we could use a character with more of an emphasis on ranger attacks mixed with some utility.
ideas on which archetype this class could revolve around? I see a teacher/counselor archetype doing well. Like Chiron or Zhuge Liang, both capable of doing well in combat on their own but having their focus be on teaching and buffing up their allies. (Though a bard with a bow can probably do this just as good).
alternatively, a class with a focus around summoning would be pretty cool. Summoning mechanics have gotten more robust and refined as fifth edition has progressed and is like to see them use more of those better changes like with the newer pet subclasses.
The sorcerer was initially planned to be a charisma half caster. It was one during the playtest.
I'd love to see a swordmage as an int based half caster.
Also yeah a dedicated spellblade would be a good addition since Int isn’t used very much, but there are so many ways to already make one with the mechanics we already have that I think we would just need like, a handful of melee spells. Maybe ones that buff up a weapon with magical properties kinda like the arcane archer.
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
Summoner. Like it's nice to finally have the spells, but if they were a feature like beast shape druids (it could even be a damned druid subclass), it would scratch an itch.
I also want a geomancer where you get set spells but they change based on your setting/terrain.
The artificer needs work, but if I'm being honest, what we need is a true to form artillerist. Not as a subclass of artificer, but a gun slinging class of its own with subclasses like marksman, duelist, privateer, and spellshot, each with their own traits.
I know guns in D&D is controversial, but spelljammer has had them before, weapons guide in 2e had the crappy arquebus and waterdeep dragon heist has drow gunslingers.
It can be done and it can be done in a way that works without being overpowered. As it stands the pistols work like crossbows so ...
I think about a reboot of the warmage but this would use "arcane techniques", powers working like the martial maneuvers (Tome of Battle: Book of the nine Swords).
Other idea is a summoner class but mixing or adding differe But different game mechanics. You can choose among different monster allies, but to change you would need a ritual like the vestige pact magic. And you can spend "points of essence" and unlock chakras (body slots for magic items) to "buy upgraves" and unlocking monster traits, for example a special attack, a better natural armor or a new natural weapon. The summoned monster ally also could work like a mount, or a exosuit/powered armor. Let's imagine a gnome riding an arcanotek motorcycle and this become a transformer, or a machine like M.A.S.K. vehicles.
Or the dracolyte as an arcane fighter, with subclasses for each type of dragon. It wouldn't be really like a paladin with arcane magic but more sword&sorcery with some draconic traits.How would b a dragonborn dracolyte?
* Starfinder showed some potential ideas for D&D classes.
What about the haruspex? like the cousing of the necromancer, but working with living tissues. She could a healer, or a biopunk mad scientific. Do you remember the lifeshapers from Dark Sun?
I like the idea of "avenger" like a divine+stealth, a monster hunter or infidel punisher. More focused into longer time to get ready/buff but this is one-kill-hit.
Or a primal defender focused into monster or animal traits, close to the Totemist shaman. Would be using the name "nahualt" now "cultural apropiation"?
Or a knight/cavalier, but this wouldn't be like the classic fighter, but more focused into some legacy item only can be by her, as member of a lineage or a brotherhood.
Or "heir", working like a member of the nobility but enjoying some magic gift, for example a grimorium, a magic crown or a construct "monster pet".
Recently I've been thinking about what a new class would look like if another one was ever added, and I think while there are many cool ideas about mechanics, I personally have more interested in the role-playing aspects of a new class. I think a lot of the features that make current classes memorable is how they are typically perceived and role-played. While this is not true for all classes (aka fighter) I think that it's what brought some classes to huge popularity. For example we all know how a paladin acts and behaves, and it has become a critical part of D&D as a whole. I could say the same about the Barbarian, Wizard, or even the Bard. How would these new ideas interact in our DM's world? Are they noble like a Paladin, or do they bend the rules a little like a rouge? I believe more could be explored here.
When you choose this path at 3rd level, You are able to fuel your magical ability by accumulating the energy from magical attacks that you received in battle and that allows you redirect it towards your enemies.
Your energy pool is equal to your proficiency bonus. You regain all after a long rest.
Also, as a reaction, once per turn you have resistance to all magical energy attacks directed at you, except psychic. You can do this a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus.
Barbarian Smite
Also at 3rd level when you rage and you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can expend a point(s) from your magic pool dice to deal You choose acid, cold, fire, lightning, poison, or thunder, damage to the target, in addition to the weapon's damage. The extra damage is D6 for each magic pool point spent up to a maximum of 6 (depending on your proficiency bonus level).
Magical Insight
At 6th level, during your rage you sense the presence of magic within 10 feet of you. If you sense magic in this way, you can use your bonus action to see a faint aura around any visible creature or object in the area that bears magic, and you learn its school of magic, if any.
Your senses can penetrate most barriers, but is blocked by 1 foot of stone, 1 inch of common metal, a thin sheet of lead, or 3 feet of wood or dirt.
Sorcerous Invoker
Beginning at 10th level, As an bonus action when you rage, you can expend 2 energy pool points to invoke misty step or vortex warp without using any verbal, somatic, or material(s) needed.
Vortex warp: You magically twist space around another creature you can see within range. The target must succeed on a Constitution saving throw (the target can choose to fail), or the target is teleported to an unoccupied space of your choice that you can see within range. The chosen space must be on a surface or in a liquid that can support the target without the target having to squeeze.
The spell save DC= 8+proficiency bonus+ strength modifier
Misty step: Briefly surrounded by silvery mist, you teleport up to 30 feet to an unoccupied
Barbarian Surge
At 14th level, As an bonus action you can expend 3 energy pool points to invoke Haste on yourself only without any verbal, somatic, or material(s) needed
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Never let a rules lawyer dominate a conversation. Allowing this just takes the fun and joy out of D&D. Be creative, inspiring, and have meaningful discussions!
Actually, instead of new classes, wotc should remove some, and move others.
Druids should go back to being a subclass of Cleric. Paladins and Rangers should be subclasses of Fighter. Warlocks should be removed entirely as a class, but variations of Warlock Invocations would be available as ASI's.
Actually, instead of new classes, wotc should remove some, and move others.
Druids should go back to being a subclass of Cleric. Paladins and Rangers should be subclasses of Fighter. Warlocks should be removed entirely as a class, but variations of Warlock Invocations would be available as ASI's.
Why? The current system is awesome, and very few people would take a subclass over a full class merely because their concept would have far less unique features. And there would be less and less variance between party members, which would suck.
Personally, I would like a Witch class, a Blood Hunter class, an Artificer Class, and a Psionics class in 1DD.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
I think players sometimes feel forced into conforming their characters around the idealised versions of what the existing classes are, despite the fact that you can contort the visuals of your OC to be whatever you want to be roleplaying as.
Whilst I think there is room to push 5e's mechanics to introduce new classes, a good volume of ideas I've heard and seen tend to be concepts that're fulfilled with existing classes + subclasses. An example of this I've encountered is a player of mine really wanting to be a summoner. Their class desire was already fulfilled by a multitude of existing subclasses within 5e, but they wanted an entirely new class on account of things like conjuration wizards or beast master rangers not matching the summoning aesthetic they were interested in. (He eventually waned from the idea, and is now an alchemist I get to make pretty plants for.)
If you have a player that really wants to do a thing, it's best to sit with them to understand what their mechanical desires are and adjust pre-existing classes as best you can to match that want as opposed to building a new class from the ground up.
Anyway
Constitution Caster.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
20-somethin' LGBTQIA+ Player that's been table gaming for donkeys.
Only recently started moving outward from my regular group to get my filthy mitts into the larger D&D community.
Loveee low-level play, and most of my homebrew is focused around providing players with boons that don't throw GMs into enemy power scaling battles.
I think players sometimes feel forced into conforming their characters around the idealised versions of what the existing classes are, despite the fact that you can contort the visuals of your OC to be whatever you want to be roleplaying as.
Whilst I think there is room to push 5e's mechanics to introduce new classes, a good volume of ideas I've heard and seen tend to be concepts that're fulfilled with existing classes + subclasses. An example of this I've encountered is a player of mine really wanting to be a summoner. Their class desire was already fulfilled by a multitude of existing subclasses within 5e, but they wanted an entirely new class on account of things like conjuration wizards or beast master rangers not matching the summoning aesthetic they were interested in. (He eventually waned from the idea, and is now an alchemist I get to make pretty plants for.)
If you have a player that really wants to do a thing, it's best to sit with them to understand what their mechanical desires are and adjust pre-existing classes as best you can to match that want as opposed to building a new class from the ground up.
Anyway
Constitution Caster.
Having a class for something is much better than a subclass. Sure, there's going to be some overlap. There already is between ever existing class and some subclasses, but making another book with optional new class options would be great, and it would have next to no negative effect on the people who don't purchase the book or who choose not to roll with the options in it.
Ultimately, the fact that you can accomplish the concept of something in D&D without a class for it doesn't mean it wouldn't be epic to see that idea explored waaaaaaay more as the central theme of a whole class.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
Actually, instead of new classes, wotc should remove some, and move others.
Druids should go back to being a subclass of Cleric. Paladins and Rangers should be subclasses of Fighter. Warlocks should be removed entirely as a class, but variations of Warlock Invocations would be available as ASI's.
Why? The current system is awesome, and very few people would take a subclass over a full class merely because their concept would have far less unique features. And there would be less and less variance between party members, which would suck.
Personally, I would like a Witch class, a Blood Hunter class, an Artificer Class, and a Psionics class in 1DD.
Why? Because almost every time wotc releases new subclasses, they are more powerful than the preceding ones. This power creep needs to end. If you combine all the species, races within species, classes, and subclasses, that exist today no one could ever play 5% of all the combinations and permutations. I think 1% is not even possible.
When one then adds in feats, backgrounds, and attribute builds, there are 10's of thousands of potential chars, with the more recent ones getting ridiculous in power. How about people get good at the game, learning from a smaller set?
I've never met someone that thinks more options is bad. Just because a person might not play 99% of possible characters doesn't mean having options is bad. One character build might excite you, another might excite someone else. Personally I love playing a druid but think nature domain clerics (which is basically what you were suggesting as the druid as a cleric subclass) sound boring.
You make a fair point about power creep but with a few exceptions newer subclasses are relatively balanced. Way of the Ascendant Dragon Monk is just as mediocre as all the rest of the monk subclasses. No druid subclass comes close to being as powerful as the Moon druid. Bear totem barbarians are still probably the strongest. Divination is still likely the strongest wizard subclass (except maybe chronurgy which wasn't a WotC release). The new sorcerer subclasses from Tasha's are stronger, but only because the original subclasses had major issues with low numbers of spells known making them generally weaker than other full casters. Eloquence is likely on par with Lore as the strongest bard. Cleric subclasses in Tasha's are likely too strong though. I could go through the rest of the recent subclass additions but honestly none of them are popping out as substantially stronger than older ones except for cleric. Same goes for feats. Sharpshooter, crossbow expert, Polearm Master, and Great Weapon master are still considered the strongest feats and they're all PHB feats. The newer ones typically just enable a slightly different style of play.
Most importantly- no one is stopping you from playing 1e or 2e. Or just sticking to 5e PHB content. You don't have to use/buy the content if you don't want it at your table.
How about people get good at the game, learning from a smaller set?
no
How about you let people play the way they want? I for one like having a large pool of content and I think it's good for the game. I'd also consider myself pretty good at it.
How about people get good at the game, learning from a smaller set?
Having less options to use and coping with that doesn't mean you're good at the game, and wanting more choices doesn't mean you're bad at it. You may not want more classes in your games, and okay good for you. But there's no need to voraciously argue against other people being able to enjoy D&D more, and then telling them they need to "get better".
This ridiculous argument can be applied to literally any request for change, and it's clearly misunderstanding and misrepresenting whatever you're arguing against.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
I would rather more player options. If it is not published by WotC then it will be by a 3PP, and a little number of classes is like everybody wearing the same clothing, when you want to show a different fashion style, your own marks of urban tribe.
The number of classes could be smaller, but then it wouldn't be so funny.
Witch, Ninja (could be rogue subclass or its own class with spell like abilities like in Naruto), Elemental Mage (or Bender like in Avatar?), Diplomat.
I think that the Beast Master subclass should split off and become it's own separate class. I always kind of felt like it was a little weird to make the Ranger focused around a pet, but I think it would be cool to make it it's own class. I like the idea of a ranger, but I don't like how it plays out in DND. I think many aspects of the current Ranger should be given to the Beastmaster (like spellcasting) and make Rangers have some more tactical options, since Rangers are stereotypically the more aware, and wise of the classes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Also yeah a dedicated spellblade would be a good addition since Int isn’t used very much, but there are so many ways to already make one with the mechanics we already have that I think we would just need like, a handful of melee spells. Maybe ones that buff up a weapon with magical properties kinda like the arcane archer.
mail man I suppose. Some one needs to deliver the mail to the inn's
A noble quest! Might I propose someone to take out the trash?
we really need a dancer class anyone play octopath traveler one or two? I'm currently making classes for them
Summoner. Like it's nice to finally have the spells, but if they were a feature like beast shape druids (it could even be a damned druid subclass), it would scratch an itch.
I also want a geomancer where you get set spells but they change based on your setting/terrain.
The artificer needs work, but if I'm being honest, what we need is a true to form artillerist. Not as a subclass of artificer, but a gun slinging class of its own with subclasses like marksman, duelist, privateer, and spellshot, each with their own traits.
I know guns in D&D is controversial, but spelljammer has had them before, weapons guide in 2e had the crappy arquebus and waterdeep dragon heist has drow gunslingers.
It can be done and it can be done in a way that works without being overpowered. As it stands the pistols work like crossbows so ...
I think about a reboot of the warmage but this would use "arcane techniques", powers working like the martial maneuvers (Tome of Battle: Book of the nine Swords).
Other idea is a summoner class but mixing or adding differe But different game mechanics. You can choose among different monster allies, but to change you would need a ritual like the vestige pact magic. And you can spend "points of essence" and unlock chakras (body slots for magic items) to "buy upgraves" and unlocking monster traits, for example a special attack, a better natural armor or a new natural weapon. The summoned monster ally also could work like a mount, or a exosuit/powered armor. Let's imagine a gnome riding an arcanotek motorcycle and this become a transformer, or a machine like M.A.S.K. vehicles.
Or the dracolyte as an arcane fighter, with subclasses for each type of dragon. It wouldn't be really like a paladin with arcane magic but more sword&sorcery with some draconic traits.How would b a dragonborn dracolyte?
* Starfinder showed some potential ideas for D&D classes.
What about the haruspex? like the cousing of the necromancer, but working with living tissues. She could a healer, or a biopunk mad scientific. Do you remember the lifeshapers from Dark Sun?
I like the idea of "avenger" like a divine+stealth, a monster hunter or infidel punisher. More focused into longer time to get ready/buff but this is one-kill-hit.
Or a primal defender focused into monster or animal traits, close to the Totemist shaman. Would be using the name "nahualt" now "cultural apropiation"?
Or a knight/cavalier, but this wouldn't be like the classic fighter, but more focused into some legacy item only can be by her, as member of a lineage or a brotherhood.
Or "heir", working like a member of the nobility but enjoying some magic gift, for example a grimorium, a magic crown or a construct "monster pet".
Recently I've been thinking about what a new class would look like if another one was ever added, and I think while there are many cool ideas about mechanics, I personally have more interested in the role-playing aspects of a new class. I think a lot of the features that make current classes memorable is how they are typically perceived and role-played. While this is not true for all classes (aka fighter) I think that it's what brought some classes to huge popularity. For example we all know how a paladin acts and behaves, and it has become a critical part of D&D as a whole. I could say the same about the Barbarian, Wizard, or even the Bard. How would these new ideas interact in our DM's world? Are they noble like a Paladin, or do they bend the rules a little like a rouge? I believe more could be explored here.
Hey, here is a new class that I am working on.
Magic Pool
When you choose this path at 3rd level, You are able to fuel your magical ability by accumulating the energy from magical attacks that you received in battle and that allows you redirect it towards your enemies.
Your energy pool is equal to your proficiency bonus. You regain all after a long rest.
Also, as a reaction, once per turn you have resistance to all magical energy attacks directed at you, except psychic. You can do this a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus.
Barbarian Smite
Also at 3rd level when you rage and you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can expend a point(s) from your magic pool dice to deal You choose acid, cold, fire, lightning, poison, or thunder, damage to the target, in addition to the weapon's damage. The extra damage is D6 for each magic pool point spent up to a maximum of 6 (depending on your proficiency bonus level).
Magical Insight
At 6th level, during your rage you sense the presence of magic within 10 feet of you. If you sense magic in this way, you can use your bonus action to see a faint aura around any visible creature or object in the area that bears magic, and you learn its school of magic, if any.
Your senses can penetrate most barriers, but is blocked by 1 foot of stone, 1 inch of common metal, a thin sheet of lead, or 3 feet of wood or dirt.
Sorcerous Invoker
Beginning at 10th level, As an bonus action when you rage, you can expend 2 energy pool points to invoke misty step or vortex warp without using any verbal, somatic, or material(s) needed.
The spell save DC= 8+proficiency bonus+ strength modifier
Barbarian Surge
At 14th level, As an bonus action you can expend 3 energy pool points to invoke Haste on yourself only without any verbal, somatic, or material(s) needed
Never let a rules lawyer dominate a conversation. Allowing this just takes the fun and joy out of D&D. Be creative, inspiring, and have meaningful discussions!
1. Beast tamer
2. Spell sword
3. Potion master
4. Speedster
a spell sword is definitly a class we need
Speedster could be a monk subclass
no
Why? The current system is awesome, and very few people would take a subclass over a full class merely because their concept would have far less unique features. And there would be less and less variance between party members, which would suck.
Personally, I would like a Witch class, a Blood Hunter class, an Artificer Class, and a Psionics class in 1DD.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.I think players sometimes feel forced into conforming their characters around the idealised versions of what the existing classes are, despite the fact that you can contort the visuals of your OC to be whatever you want to be roleplaying as.
Whilst I think there is room to push 5e's mechanics to introduce new classes, a good volume of ideas I've heard and seen tend to be concepts that're fulfilled with existing classes + subclasses. An example of this I've encountered is a player of mine really wanting to be a summoner. Their class desire was already fulfilled by a multitude of existing subclasses within 5e, but they wanted an entirely new class on account of things like conjuration wizards or beast master rangers not matching the summoning aesthetic they were interested in. (He eventually waned from the idea, and is now an alchemist I get to make pretty plants for.)
If you have a player that really wants to do a thing, it's best to sit with them to understand what their mechanical desires are and adjust pre-existing classes as best you can to match that want as opposed to building a new class from the ground up.
Anyway
Constitution Caster.
20-somethin' LGBTQIA+ Player that's been table gaming for donkeys.
Only recently started moving outward from my regular group to get my filthy mitts into the larger D&D community.
Loveee low-level play, and most of my homebrew is focused around providing players with boons that don't throw GMs into enemy power scaling battles.
Having a class for something is much better than a subclass. Sure, there's going to be some overlap. There already is between ever existing class and some subclasses, but making another book with optional new class options would be great, and it would have next to no negative effect on the people who don't purchase the book or who choose not to roll with the options in it.
Ultimately, the fact that you can accomplish the concept of something in D&D without a class for it doesn't mean it wouldn't be epic to see that idea explored waaaaaaay more as the central theme of a whole class.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.I've never met someone that thinks more options is bad. Just because a person might not play 99% of possible characters doesn't mean having options is bad. One character build might excite you, another might excite someone else. Personally I love playing a druid but think nature domain clerics (which is basically what you were suggesting as the druid as a cleric subclass) sound boring.
You make a fair point about power creep but with a few exceptions newer subclasses are relatively balanced. Way of the Ascendant Dragon Monk is just as mediocre as all the rest of the monk subclasses. No druid subclass comes close to being as powerful as the Moon druid. Bear totem barbarians are still probably the strongest. Divination is still likely the strongest wizard subclass (except maybe chronurgy which wasn't a WotC release). The new sorcerer subclasses from Tasha's are stronger, but only because the original subclasses had major issues with low numbers of spells known making them generally weaker than other full casters. Eloquence is likely on par with Lore as the strongest bard. Cleric subclasses in Tasha's are likely too strong though. I could go through the rest of the recent subclass additions but honestly none of them are popping out as substantially stronger than older ones except for cleric. Same goes for feats. Sharpshooter, crossbow expert, Polearm Master, and Great Weapon master are still considered the strongest feats and they're all PHB feats. The newer ones typically just enable a slightly different style of play.
Most importantly- no one is stopping you from playing 1e or 2e. Or just sticking to 5e PHB content. You don't have to use/buy the content if you don't want it at your table.
no
How about you let people play the way they want? I for one like having a large pool of content and I think it's good for the game. I'd also consider myself pretty good at it.
Having less options to use and coping with that doesn't mean you're good at the game, and wanting more choices doesn't mean you're bad at it. You may not want more classes in your games, and okay good for you. But there's no need to voraciously argue against other people being able to enjoy D&D more, and then telling them they need to "get better".
This ridiculous argument can be applied to literally any request for change, and it's clearly misunderstanding and misrepresenting whatever you're arguing against.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.I would rather more player options. If it is not published by WotC then it will be by a 3PP, and a little number of classes is like everybody wearing the same clothing, when you want to show a different fashion style, your own marks of urban tribe.
The number of classes could be smaller, but then it wouldn't be so funny.
Witch, Ninja (could be rogue subclass or its own class with spell like abilities like in Naruto), Elemental Mage (or Bender like in Avatar?), Diplomat.
Food, Scifi/fantasy, anime, DND 5E and OSR geek.
I think that the Beast Master subclass should split off and become it's own separate class. I always kind of felt like it was a little weird to make the Ranger focused around a pet, but I think it would be cool to make it it's own class. I like the idea of a ranger, but I don't like how it plays out in DND. I think many aspects of the current Ranger should be given to the Beastmaster (like spellcasting) and make Rangers have some more tactical options, since Rangers are stereotypically the more aware, and wise of the classes.