I love the subclasses for the additional flavour to the classes. I think it allows variations in characters and honestly there seems to be a simple, straight subclass for every class. Champion, thief, life domain, beserker, school of evocation, college of lore, etc....
I would like to see a class without a subclass return for 6e. I don't like how in 5e you can't be just a fighter or rogue. You have to be a champion fighter, or a assassin rogue, or some other subclass.
There the option for a straight line progression without touching a subclass at all.
I would pick an advanced Calculus class. People have their feet wet with the accessibility of 5e. Now, it's time to be graduated to the next level. :)
What? That's not what you meant? ;P
The main 4 seem to be topping out the list: Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric. We should give that grouping a specific name.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
It's interesting how cleric lags slightly behind. I guess some people think 'healer' is its own class, while others think that it can moved under a single 'caster' class.
It's interesting how cleric lags slightly behind. I guess some people think 'healer' is its own class, while others think that it can moved under a single 'caster' class.
That’s a common misconception that I think only serves to hurt D&D.
Cleric =/= “Healer”
Clerics can be healers, and they are very good at it. But I could build you a Cleric that can heal nothing, but DPRs like a mofo. And I could build you a Sorcerer that can heal like a mofo too.
In one campaign I’m in, my Bard is the party’s only healer. In another, my Artificer gave the party Hexblade a Spell-Storing Item chock full of Cure Wounds, and the two characters split Healer duty.
I guess I would prefer the classes exist the way they are, just be better designed and defined. I also agree with better defining and differentiating the power types of Martial, Arcane, Primal, Divine and Psionics.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Trouble is then the full casters can access all the half caster martial spells like searing smite or ensnaring strike.
Unless the act of multiclassing is what opens those spells up in that system. So a divine subclass caster couldn't access a radiant smite spell, and a pure fighter couldn't. But a mix of the two can access it.
You presume those spells would exist in that new system. They don’t have to. They didn’t exist in the older editions.
I mean what would be your solution to making half martials half casters feel like their own thing and be able to mix magic into their other abilities? Rather than just half a caster glued to half a fighter.
Thats what feats would do. Paladin smite could be a feat for example. And I wouldnt mind if this new "spellcaster" had access to all spells. With a given limit of spells known/prepared I wouldnt mind if they chose "Searing smite" and find greater steed. In short, most abilities could be made into feats accessible to almost anyone (sometimes keying of other feats for more fancy abilities). I would love to see d&d give a feat or two every level, and thats it. You can spend them to get spellcasting or abilities or whatnot.
To be frank, if it was my Ideal Dnd there wouldn't be a class system at all.
Then you're not playing D&D.
There are a ton of games out there that offer what you want.
Yeah, I know. That's why I said in my version I would make it that way. The question wasn't "What would happen in next addition" It was "what would you like to see" and I personally would prefer a system like this. Would it be wildly different? Yes. Would it still be Dnd? If Wizards published it with all the lore of the work, yeah.
While I agree with you that classless systems are better, it just wouldn't be D&D anymore. Maybe look into other RPGs? FFG's Star Wars RPG works pretty much the way you're talking about, and it's maybe the best game I've ever played. There's a generic version of it called Genesys if the original theme doesn't grab you.
Ive played other RPG systems and that why I bring up the concept. I think it would make sense given other RPGs both video game and tabletop.
It was just an idea since we brought up the hypothetical 6th edition.
Trouble is then the full casters can access all the half caster martial spells like searing smite or ensnaring strike.
Unless the act of multiclassing is what opens those spells up in that system. So a divine subclass caster couldn't access a radiant smite spell, and a pure fighter couldn't. But a mix of the two can access it.
You presume those spells would exist in that new system. They don’t have to. They didn’t exist in the older editions.
I mean what would be your solution to making half martials half casters feel like their own thing and be able to mix magic into their other abilities? Rather than just half a caster glued to half a fighter.
Thats what feats would do. Paladin smite could be a feat for example. And I wouldnt mind if this new "spellcaster" had access to all spells. With a given limit of spells known/prepared I wouldnt mind if they chose "Searing smite" and find greater steed. In short, most abilities could be made into feats accessible to almost anyone (sometimes keying of other feats for more fancy abilities). I would love to see d&d give a feat or two every level, and thats it. You can spend them to get spellcasting or abilities or whatnot.
If a classless class has one feat per level (plus d8 hit points), it should theoretically balance with a 5e class.
Everything listed above (but I would not cry if the next edition erases Bards or Barbarians)
What makes a Swordmage a swordmage is, it is a fullcaster whose spells are melee range and for melee combat. I can see Swordmage and Bladesinger, even Bard and Cleric, cluster together as melee competent fullcasters.
Everything listed above (but I would not cry if the next edition erases Bards or Barbarians)
What makes a Swordmage a swordmage is, it is a fullcaster whose spells are melee range and for melee combat. I can see Swordmage and Bladesinger, even Bard and Cleric, cluster together as melee competent fullcasters.
Swordmages should definitely be half casters along the lines of paladin and ranger. A full caster arcane class which can dabble in combat is much more suited as a wizard subclass.
Everything listed above (but I would not cry if the next edition erases Bards or Barbarians)
What makes a Swordmage a swordmage is, it is a fullcaster whose spells are melee range and for melee combat. I can see Swordmage and Bladesinger, even Bard and Cleric, cluster together as melee competent fullcasters.
Swordmages should definitely be half casters along the lines of paladin and ranger. A full caster arcane class which can dabble in combat is much more suited as a wizard subclass.
I love the 5e Paladin, and consider it th ideal model for what a hafcaster should look like. The 5e Paladin is an incredibly versatile class and can accurately represent anyone from Gandalf to Thor.
However the 4e Swordmage is something completely different, and is a melee fullcaster.
Everything listed above (but I would not cry if the next edition erases Bards or Barbarians)
What makes a Swordmage a swordmage is, it is a fullcaster whose spells are melee range and for melee combat. I can see Swordmage and Bladesinger, even Bard and Cleric, cluster together as melee competent fullcasters.
I don't know what Swordmages were like in previous editions, but an Arcane Half-Caster (like my homebrew Arcknight class) would definitely be its own class, not a subclass.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Everything listed above (but I would not cry if the next edition erases Bards or Barbarians)
What makes a Swordmage a swordmage is, it is a fullcaster whose spells are melee range and for melee combat. I can see Swordmage and Bladesinger, even Bard and Cleric, cluster together as melee competent fullcasters.
Swordmages should definitely be half casters along the lines of paladin and ranger. A full caster arcane class which can dabble in combat is much more suited as a wizard subclass.
I love the 5e Paladin, and consider it th ideal model for what a hafcaster should look like. The 5e Paladin is an incredibly versatile class and can accurately represent anyone from Gandalf to Thor.
However the 4e Swordmage is something completely different, and is a melee fullcaster.
And Bladesingers were their own class in previous editions with basically no connection to the Wizard. However, now they're a subclass of the Wizard. Classes change between editions.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Everything listed above (but I would not cry if the next edition erases Bards or Barbarians)
What makes a Swordmage a swordmage is, it is a fullcaster whose spells are melee range and for melee combat. I can see Swordmage and Bladesinger, even Bard and Cleric, cluster together as melee competent fullcasters.
Swordmages should definitely be half casters along the lines of paladin and ranger. A full caster arcane class which can dabble in combat is much more suited as a wizard subclass.
I love the 5e Paladin, and consider it th ideal model for what a hafcaster should look like. The 5e Paladin is an incredibly versatile class and can accurately represent anyone from Gandalf to Thor.
However the 4e Swordmage is something completely different, and is a melee fullcaster.
And Bladesingers were their own class in previous editions with basically no connection to the Wizard. However, now they're a subclass of the Wizard. Classes change between editions.
Yeah,as I mentioned earlier, I would group all the melee fullcasters together, including Bard, Cleric, Bladesinger, and Swordmage.
What distinguishes these classes is their choice of spells, such as Bladesinger mainly preferring offense spells and Cleric defense spells. Bard is defense, mobility, and mind control. Swordmage is both offense and defense, plus mobility, and often elemental themes.
I am unsure what to do with Druid. I view it as an awkward clump of three separate classes, that work better separately:
Life mage (life, animal, and plant)
Elementalist (air-water-weather and earth-fire)
Shapesifter (with specialist subclasses)
The shapeshifting is new, they didn’t used to do that.
While the other two might be fun to play, they are too specialized to be a base class like the Druid. If all of the classes are that focused, you’ll need a bajillian classes to cover everything.
I love the subclasses for the additional flavour to the classes. I think it allows variations in characters and honestly there seems to be a simple, straight subclass for every class. Champion, thief, life domain, beserker, school of evocation, college of lore, etc....
Chilling kinda vibe.
I’d be happy to.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
That’s what “Champion” and “Thief” are for.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I would pick an advanced Calculus class. People have their feet wet with the accessibility of 5e. Now, it's time to be graduated to the next level. :)
What? That's not what you meant? ;P
The main 4 seem to be topping out the list: Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric. We should give that grouping a specific name.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
It's interesting how cleric lags slightly behind. I guess some people think 'healer' is its own class, while others think that it can moved under a single 'caster' class.
That’s a common misconception that I think only serves to hurt D&D.
Cleric =/= “Healer”
Clerics can be healers, and they are very good at it. But I could build you a Cleric that can heal nothing, but DPRs like a mofo. And I could build you a Sorcerer that can heal like a mofo too.
In one campaign I’m in, my Bard is the party’s only healer. In another, my Artificer gave the party Hexblade a Spell-Storing Item chock full of Cure Wounds, and the two characters split Healer duty.
Don’t pigeonhole Clerics like that.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Save the druids!
I guess I would prefer the classes exist the way they are, just be better designed and defined. I also agree with better defining and differentiating the power types of Martial, Arcane, Primal, Divine and Psionics.
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Characters for Tenebris Sine Fine
RoughCoronet's Greater Wills
Thats what feats would do. Paladin smite could be a feat for example. And I wouldnt mind if this new "spellcaster" had access to all spells. With a given limit of spells known/prepared I wouldnt mind if they chose "Searing smite" and find greater steed. In short, most abilities could be made into feats accessible to almost anyone (sometimes keying of other feats for more fancy abilities). I would love to see d&d give a feat or two every level, and thats it. You can spend them to get spellcasting or abilities or whatnot.
Yeah, I know. That's why I said in my version I would make it that way. The question wasn't "What would happen in next addition" It was "what would you like to see" and I personally would prefer a system like this. Would it be wildly different? Yes. Would it still be Dnd? If Wizards published it with all the lore of the work, yeah.
Ive played other RPG systems and that why I bring up the concept. I think it would make sense given other RPGs both video game and tabletop.
It was just an idea since we brought up the hypothetical 6th edition.
Buyers Guide for D&D Beyond - Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You - How/What is Toggled Content?
Everything you need to know about Homebrew - Homebrew FAQ - Digital Book on D&D Beyond Vs Physical Books
Can't find the content you are supposed to have access to? Read this FAQ.
"Play the game however you want to play the game. After all, your fun doesn't threaten my fun."
Monk is more like Rogue/Psion or Rogue/Cleric
he / him
If a classless class has one feat per level (plus d8 hit points), it should theoretically balance with a 5e class.
he / him
What makes a Swordmage a swordmage is, it is a fullcaster whose spells are melee range and for melee combat. I can see Swordmage and Bladesinger, even Bard and Cleric, cluster together as melee competent fullcasters.
he / him
Swordmages should definitely be half casters along the lines of paladin and ranger. A full caster arcane class which can dabble in combat is much more suited as a wizard subclass.
I love the 5e Paladin, and consider it th ideal model for what a hafcaster should look like. The 5e Paladin is an incredibly versatile class and can accurately represent anyone from Gandalf to Thor.
However the 4e Swordmage is something completely different, and is a melee fullcaster.
he / him
I don't know what Swordmages were like in previous editions, but an Arcane Half-Caster (like my homebrew Arcknight class) would definitely be its own class, not a subclass.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
And Bladesingers were their own class in previous editions with basically no connection to the Wizard. However, now they're a subclass of the Wizard. Classes change between editions.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Yeah,as I mentioned earlier, I would group all the melee fullcasters together, including Bard, Cleric, Bladesinger, and Swordmage.
What distinguishes these classes is their choice of spells, such as Bladesinger mainly preferring offense spells and Cleric defense spells. Bard is defense, mobility, and mind control. Swordmage is both offense and defense, plus mobility, and often elemental themes.
he / him
I am unsure what to do with Druid. I view it as an awkward clump of three separate classes, that work better separately:
Life mage (life, animal, and plant)
Elementalist (air-water-weather and earth-fire)
Shapesifter (with specialist subclasses)
he / him
The shapeshifting is new, they didn’t used to do that.
While the other two might be fun to play, they are too specialized to be a base class like the Druid. If all of the classes are that focused, you’ll need a bajillian classes to cover everything.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting