I would want a remake of the Eldritch Knight subclass to be better at wielding magic and melee weapons together, maybe it could be called "Arcane Warrior."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Life is not a problem to be solved but a reality to be experienced"- Soren Kierkgaard
Maybe have a base Knight class, modeling the 5e Paladin.
However this Knight class can include all of the following subclasses:
Paladin
Eldritch Knight
Psi Knight
Cavalier (nonmagic with battle master dice)
Warlord (nonmagic inspirer or tactician)
Samurai
Because the Knight is a formally educated warrior, and often an aristocratic leader, every ability score is possible. Maybe focus on Strength and a choice of Charisma or Intelligence. Either Cha or Int can be the casting ability if applicable.
The Fighter is the formally educated Warrior, as opposed to the Barbarian.
Way back in D&D 1e when there were only four classes, then Fighter included every kind of combatant, including Barbarian.
But in modern D&D with say 13 classes, where each is more specialized, the Knight would be the more formally educated military officer, rather than a soldier, who might be a brawler or a bodyguard.
The Fighter is the formally educated Warrior, as opposed to the Barbarian.
Way back in D&D 1e when there were only four classes, then Fighter included every kind of combatant, including Barbarian.
But in modern D&D with say 13 classes, where each is more specialized, the Knight would be the more formally educated military officer, rather than a soldier, who might be a brawler or a bodyguard.
I’m not sure every psionic fighter, warlord or even paladin would require a formal education.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The Fighter is the formally educated Warrior, as opposed to the Barbarian.
Way back in D&D 1e when there were only four classes, then Fighter included every kind of combatant, including Barbarian.
But in modern D&D with say 13 classes, where each is more specialized, the Knight would be the more formally educated military officer, rather than a soldier, who might be a brawler or a bodyguard.
Okay, so a Martial umbrella with a Warrior, Fighter, Barbarian breakdown. Knight is a potential issue because it implies nobility and wealth. Warrior (or Soldier) implies the training and professionalism, but without the pigeonhole and the preconception.
D&D as a whole hasnt been able to get psionics to be functional (not over powered, not under powered, not overly complicated, or some combination of the three) with 8 different iterations of the game... odds do not look good for 6e either.
I'm finding it amusing that even the artificer has more votes than the sorcerer.
Honestly, Artificer is by far the better class in almost every aspect. It is better and more unique mechanically (not just a minorly tweaked wizard), has a more unique flavor, and generally works better overall. In the next edition, I would do away with Sorcerer entirely and replace it with a Psion.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
I'm finding it amusing that even the artificer has more votes than the sorcerer.
Honestly, Artificer is by far the better class in almost every aspect. It is better and more unique mechanically (not just a minorly tweaked wizard), has a more unique flavor, and generally works better overall. In the next edition, I would do away with Sorcerer entirely and replace it with a Psion.
I completely agree. At this point sorcerer is just a bad wizard with the metamagic feat glued onto the side, and fills up a space which could be filled with a much more interesting and unique class like psion or artificer.
Hell the anything which can be a bloodline can be a warlock patron too.
D&D as a whole hasnt been able to get psionics to be functional (not over powered, not under powered, not overly complicated, or some combination of the three) with 8 different iterations of the game... odds do not look good for 6e either.
That’s why I’m hopeful that if they make it a PHB class it’ll have a chance.
I could see them rolling ranger and monk into fighter TBH. The way the class feature variants went for ranger it would make sense to just have them be a fighter.
Fighter would get options at 3rd level: Monk, Ranger, Warrior
Fighter core class would have maneuvers that they could do and each of the above would unlock route specific maneuvers.
Monk would give you some basic Monk like abilities: faster speed, better unarmed attacks, stunning strike. You would use the maneuver die to power this stuff.
Ranger would give you limited spell casting and Hunter's Mark as a feature.
Warrior would have different choices for stuff like additional maneuvers.
All three would have subclasses you could pick that would give intrinsic features. Warrior subclasses would be like Battlemaster (More die/maneuvers), Samurai (Fighting Spirit), etc...
This way you have something akin to the Warlock template where you have more choices for the character but they carry the same chassis to be a bit more streamlined.
The Fighter is the formally educated Warrior, as opposed to the Barbarian.
Way back in D&D 1e when there were only four classes, then Fighter included every kind of combatant, including Barbarian.
But in modern D&D with say 13 classes, where each is more specialized, the Knight would be the more formally educated military officer, rather than a soldier, who might be a brawler or a bodyguard.
Okay, so a Martial umbrella with a Warrior, Fighter, Barbarian breakdown. Knight is a potential issue because it implies nobility and wealth. Warrior (or Soldier) implies the training and professionalism, but without the pigeonhole and the preconception.
The medieval knights include cash-poor nobles and knighted commoners, so can potentially include any backstory. What knights have in common is an extensive formal education (philosophy, history, politics, and especially military strategy, basically officer training), and at least a noble as a patron.
To me, "warrior" means a combatant from a family militia − each clan has its own men who fight to defend the clan. By contrast, "soldier" means a combatant from a town militia − each government has its own army. Probably a "fighter" can include both clan warriors and army soldiers.
In the sense that an aristocratic knight historically correlates with heavy armor:
Knight = heavy infantry or cavalry Fighter = light infantry skirmishers or artillery
If we are talking about wish-lists here. A main wish of mine, is a systematization of the six abilities, to make them equal to each other and distinct from each other.
One way to do this equity is four distinct abilities:
So for Fighter we have the Tough brute (with heavy armor) and the Agile gymnast (with light armor).
Rogue is mainly Perceptive and Agile.
Ranger is both Tough and Agile, simultaneously.
Paladin is Social and Tough.
Cleric is Social.
Wizard is Perceptive.
Note. • Tough correlates with size, so a Large character invests in being Tough. For the sake of convenience, Tough also handles longevity and immune system. • Agile includes anything athletic, especially gymnastic stunts involving running, jumping, falling, climbing, balancing, encompasses body coordination generally, and overall fitness. • Perceptive includes steady-aim manual dexterity, thus bow and gun, and stealth. Perceptive also includes intuition and education, which enhance perceptiveness. • Social skills include empathy and reading people, as well as influence, self-expression, and self-assertion.
Personally I would love to see the Duskblade make an official come back as a full-on 20 level base class. Aside from that why not make 6e based off race-specific classes all together instead of the usual base classes; I mean 5e already destroyed what was left of D&D after 4e got done with it. Almost nothing is left of D&D anymore aside from the unchanged names of everything in the game. It's hardly D&D anymore. Classes don't work the same way and have entirely different class features, items don't have the same abilities or functionality they used to, the races and monsters have all changed. I understand the goal was to make it easier for new players but this is utterly ridiculous; if you're going to change literally 90+% of the entire system than it shouldn't even be associated with or by the Dungeons and Dragons name. Ever since Wizards of the Coast bought out T.S.R., D&D has been consistently going downhill and getting worse and worse. Honestly it feels more like W.O.T.C. is trying to turn it into a T.T.R.P.G. version of Magic: The Gathering...… Give us back the D&D we all know and love instead of this [D&D-For-Dummies].
Personally I would love to see the Duskblade make an official come back as a full-on 20 level base class. Aside from that why not make 6e based off race-specific classes all together instead of the usual base classes; I mean 5e already destroyed what was left of D&D after 4e got done with it. Almost nothing is left of D&D anymore aside from the unchanged names of everything in the game. It's hardly D&D anymore. Classes don't work the same way and have entirely different class features, items don't have the same abilities or functionality they used to, the races and monsters have all changed. I understand the goal was to make it easier for new players but this is utterly ridiculous; if you're going to change literally 90+% of the entire system than it shouldn't even be associated with or by the Dungeons and Dragons name. Ever since Wizards of the Coast bought out T.S.R., D&D has been consistently going downhill and getting worse and worse. Honestly it feels more like W.O.T.C. is trying to turn it into a T.T.R.P.G. version of Magic: The Gathering...… Give us back the D&D we all know and love instead of this [D&D-For-Dummies].
The way I see it 4e was when dnd wemt of the traditional chart, wizards learned from that and 5e was their return to the traditional experience. It blended AD&D nostalgia with the core of 3e and some of the simplifications of 4e. When it comes down to it the biggest «invention» in 5e is advantage/disadvantage. Its not that big of a change.
as for tieing classes to race, I would see that as a step in the wrong direction. That would be going back to early editions when elves were warrior-mages etc. It really just pigeonholed everyone, and although it might fit a particular campaign it didnt give the flexibility needed for a multi-million user game.
ABILITY (SAVE): CLASS • Tough (fortitude): Fighter • Agile (reflex): Rogue • Perceptive (perception): Wizard • Social (will): Cleric
If and only the Cleric is radically more versatile, and normally accommodates character concepts other than polytheism, then and only then could I live with the foursome. Maybe the Bard should replace the Cleric.
I really think that half casters get overlooked when it comes to the 'back to basics' approach of fighting, skills, caster.
Simply multiclassing together a full caster a martial doesn't make a class which behaves like a half caster should, and you simply end up with a character who fights bad one turn and casts bad the next turn. A 'half caster' class should definitely be included in few classes approach as they play in a fundamentally different way to a multiclassed character, mixing magic into their other skills as a single ability, rather than being able to do them both separately but badly.
A paladins divine smite and smite spells, or a swordmages spellstrike are both good examples of this.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Imo a future druid shouldn't have wildshape as a base class ability. I'd rather it's moon druid exclusive.
Not every primal caster has to shapeshift. Luckily Tasha's has helped solve this in 5e.
I would want a remake of the Eldritch Knight subclass to be better at wielding magic and melee weapons together, maybe it could be called "Arcane Warrior."
"Life is not a problem to be solved but a reality to be experienced"- Soren Kierkgaard
Maybe have a base Knight class, modeling the 5e Paladin.
However this Knight class can include all of the following subclasses:
Paladin
Eldritch Knight
Psi Knight
Cavalier (nonmagic with battle master dice)
Warlord (nonmagic inspirer or tactician)
Samurai
Because the Knight is a formally educated warrior, and often an aristocratic leader, every ability score is possible. Maybe focus on Strength and a choice of Charisma or Intelligence. Either Cha or Int can be the casting ability if applicable.
he / him
The Fighter is the formally educated Warrior, as opposed to the Barbarian.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Way back in D&D 1e when there were only four classes, then Fighter included every kind of combatant, including Barbarian.
But in modern D&D with say 13 classes, where each is more specialized, the Knight would be the more formally educated military officer, rather than a soldier, who might be a brawler or a bodyguard.
he / him
I’m not sure every psionic fighter, warlord or even paladin would require a formal education.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Okay, so a Martial umbrella with a Warrior, Fighter, Barbarian breakdown. Knight is a potential issue because it implies nobility and wealth. Warrior (or Soldier) implies the training and professionalism, but without the pigeonhole and the preconception.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
D&D as a whole hasnt been able to get psionics to be functional (not over powered, not under powered, not overly complicated, or some combination of the three) with 8 different iterations of the game... odds do not look good for 6e either.
I'm finding it amusing that even the artificer has more votes than the sorcerer.
Honestly, Artificer is by far the better class in almost every aspect. It is better and more unique mechanically (not just a minorly tweaked wizard), has a more unique flavor, and generally works better overall. In the next edition, I would do away with Sorcerer entirely and replace it with a Psion.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
I completely agree. At this point sorcerer is just a bad wizard with the metamagic feat glued onto the side, and fills up a space which could be filled with a much more interesting and unique class like psion or artificer.
Hell the anything which can be a bloodline can be a warlock patron too.
That’s why I’m hopeful that if they make it a PHB class it’ll have a chance.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I could see them rolling ranger and monk into fighter TBH. The way the class feature variants went for ranger it would make sense to just have them be a fighter.
Fighter would get options at 3rd level: Monk, Ranger, Warrior
Fighter core class would have maneuvers that they could do and each of the above would unlock route specific maneuvers.
Monk would give you some basic Monk like abilities: faster speed, better unarmed attacks, stunning strike. You would use the maneuver die to power this stuff.
Ranger would give you limited spell casting and Hunter's Mark as a feature.
Warrior would have different choices for stuff like additional maneuvers.
All three would have subclasses you could pick that would give intrinsic features. Warrior subclasses would be like Battlemaster (More die/maneuvers), Samurai (Fighting Spirit), etc...
This way you have something akin to the Warlock template where you have more choices for the character but they carry the same chassis to be a bit more streamlined.
The medieval knights include cash-poor nobles and knighted commoners, so can potentially include any backstory. What knights have in common is an extensive formal education (philosophy, history, politics, and especially military strategy, basically officer training), and at least a noble as a patron.
To me, "warrior" means a combatant from a family militia − each clan has its own men who fight to defend the clan.
By contrast, "soldier" means a combatant from a town militia − each government has its own army.
Probably a "fighter" can include both clan warriors and army soldiers.
In the sense that an aristocratic knight historically correlates with heavy armor:
Knight = heavy infantry or cavalry
Fighter = light infantry skirmishers or artillery
he / him
If things did get rolled into fighter, rogue, caster, then there would need to be an insane more class customisation and options than there is now.
Not just a subclass which has like 3 minor features different like 5e classes.
If we are talking about wish-lists here. A main wish of mine, is a systematization of the six abilities, to make them equal to each other and distinct from each other.
One way to do this equity is four distinct abilities:
• Tough (fortitude)
• Agile (reflex)
• Perceptive (perception)
• Social (will)
So for Fighter we have the Tough brute (with heavy armor) and the Agile gymnast (with light armor).
Rogue is mainly Perceptive and Agile.
Ranger is both Tough and Agile, simultaneously.
Paladin is Social and Tough.
Cleric is Social.
Wizard is Perceptive.
Note.
• Tough correlates with size, so a Large character invests in being Tough. For the sake of convenience, Tough also handles longevity and immune system.
• Agile includes anything athletic, especially gymnastic stunts involving running, jumping, falling, climbing, balancing, encompasses body coordination generally, and overall fitness.
• Perceptive includes steady-aim manual dexterity, thus bow and gun, and stealth. Perceptive also includes intuition and education, which enhance perceptiveness.
• Social skills include empathy and reading people, as well as influence, self-expression, and self-assertion.
he / him
Personally I would love to see the Duskblade make an official come back as a full-on 20 level base class. Aside from that why not make 6e based off race-specific classes all together instead of the usual base classes; I mean 5e already destroyed what was left of D&D after 4e got done with it. Almost nothing is left of D&D anymore aside from the unchanged names of everything in the game. It's hardly D&D anymore. Classes don't work the same way and have entirely different class features, items don't have the same abilities or functionality they used to, the races and monsters have all changed. I understand the goal was to make it easier for new players but this is utterly ridiculous; if you're going to change literally 90+% of the entire system than it shouldn't even be associated with or by the Dungeons and Dragons name. Ever since Wizards of the Coast bought out T.S.R., D&D has been consistently going downhill and getting worse and worse. Honestly it feels more like W.O.T.C. is trying to turn it into a T.T.R.P.G. version of Magic: The Gathering...… Give us back the D&D we all know and love instead of this [D&D-For-Dummies].
The way I see it 4e was when dnd wemt of the traditional chart, wizards learned from that and 5e was their return to the traditional experience. It blended AD&D nostalgia with the core of 3e and some of the simplifications of 4e. When it comes down to it the biggest «invention» in 5e is advantage/disadvantage. Its not that big of a change.
as for tieing classes to race, I would see that as a step in the wrong direction. That would be going back to early editions when elves were warrior-mages etc. It really just pigeonholed everyone, and although it might fit a particular campaign it didnt give the flexibility needed for a multi-million user game.
If going for the classic four:
ABILITY (SAVE): CLASS
• Tough (fortitude): Fighter
• Agile (reflex): Rogue
• Perceptive (perception): Wizard
• Social (will): Cleric
If and only the Cleric is radically more versatile, and normally accommodates character concepts other than polytheism, then and only then could I live with the foursome. Maybe the Bard should replace the Cleric.
he / him
I really think that half casters get overlooked when it comes to the 'back to basics' approach of fighting, skills, caster.
Simply multiclassing together a full caster a martial doesn't make a class which behaves like a half caster should, and you simply end up with a character who fights bad one turn and casts bad the next turn. A 'half caster' class should definitely be included in few classes approach as they play in a fundamentally different way to a multiclassed character, mixing magic into their other skills as a single ability, rather than being able to do them both separately but badly.
A paladins divine smite and smite spells, or a swordmages spellstrike are both good examples of this.