Because there are enough classes and subclasses to cover all fantasy eventualities :-)
No sir. Just, no. In fact that are serious gaps in the core class selection that can't effectively be handled with subclasses to the fluff and lore trappings that the various class have.
Curious what gaps you believe need to be filled? I’m not disagreeing with you just wonder what classes you would want that the current ones can’t. I’ve only played D&D (1E, a few sessions of 3E, and now 5E) so I’m pretty used to it just being the core we have now
Because there are enough classes and subclasses to cover all fantasy eventualities :-)
No sir. Just, no. In fact that are serious gaps in the core class selection that can't effectively be handled with subclasses to the fluff and lore trappings that the various class have.
Curious what gaps you believe need to be filled? I’m not disagreeing with you just wonder what classes you would want that the current ones can’t. I’ve only played D&D (1E, a few sessions of 3E, and now 5E) so I’m pretty used to it just being the core we have now
Personally I'd like to see a warlord, swordmage, summoner, and psion class.
And then something which is harder to define but like the playtest sorcerer. We've got nothing like the playtest sorcerer at all.
- As they spent their will points over the course of the day, they would gradually transform to be more and more like their bloodline. Losing their casting and gaining other abilities.
Sure it didn't necessarily suit a sorcerer. But both thematically and mechanically it was completely unique, and nothing is anything like it in 5e to this day. Maybe beast barbarian or bloodhunter is closest, but neither is much like it.
How different is a swordmage to a Bladesinger wizard or eldritch knight fighter?
Not sure what a warlord is but I thought it was kind of like Battlemaster or at least Battlemaster took cues from it. I might be wrong
It's actually true that 5e can do both of those concepts. It just does an atrocious job at it. For the swordmage, people want 50:50 fighter/wizard, not 90%/10% (eldritch knight) or 10%/90% (bladesinger). For the warlord, the battle master maneuvers that emulate warlord abilities (commander's strike, maneuvering strike, rally) are garbage.
How different is a swordmage to a Bladesinger wizard or eldritch knight fighter?
Not sure what a warlord is but I thought it was kind of like Battlemaster or at least Battlemaster took cues from it. I might be wrong
In 3.5, the class was called the duskblade and had a unique mechanic of being able to place touch spells through its weapon attacks. This class continued as the magus in pathfinder 1e and 2e.
In 4e, the class got renamed the swordmage, and it had lots of abilities/spells to empower its weapon strikes with elemental power, as well as tons of reaction based teleports.
In 5e, paladin and ranger got a load of spells which allow you to empower your weapon strikes with magic. However as the bladesinger and eldritch knight got turned into subclasses, they had to leech off the wizard list. The wizard list isn't designed for weapon based combat compared to the half caster classes. So essentially the 5e 'swordmages' have lost the very thing which made them fun to the ranger and paladin (both of which have a pretty heavy theme which is hard to work around).
A dedicated 5e swordmage class would probably have an arcane / elemental theme (genasi were said to be drawn to swordmage traditions). It may be a half caster with a d8 hit die and access to light or maybe medium armour. The spell list would be tailored for weapon combat (lots of spells like searing smite and ensnaring strike). The 'class mechanic' would be reaction based teleports. Things like an ally getting struck within 30ft allows you to teleport to the attacker and make a weapon attack.
However at this point a swordmage class won't happen. Every single bit of the 4e swordmage can be replicated in 5e. It's simply impossible to put all the bits together to make the class. Therefore the class wouldn't actually be adding anything to the game which is a dealbreaker to most.
Not sure what a warlord is but I thought it was kind of like Battlemaster or at least Battlemaster took cues from it. I might be wrong
The warlord was a 4e class which was a pure martial. It was pretty meh at actually fighting, but had lots of support abilities to buff allies and let them move around on turns other than their own.
It's one of the most requested classes as it's a support based martial, which doesn't exist in 5e.
Not sure what a warlord is but I thought it was kind of like Battlemaster or at least Battlemaster took cues from it. I might be wrong
The short version is a warlord is a fighter who can heal, and otherwise buff allies. They could also allow/force an ally to take an attack. The idea was sort of a battlefield commander who could hit enemies, but who could also kind of see where the enemies were weak and inspire their allies to attack those spots. They could be kind of difficult for some people to get a handle on, because to work well, they required a good tactical grasp not only of what your character could do, but also of the rest of the party, and the enemies for that matter. But in the hands of someone who knew what they were doing, they were incredible.
I'd just like to be able to play different classes than the basic ones, ones that have been playtested even, from other homebrew books or unearthed arcana. I just really want to play the UA revised ranger, and I can't easily swap out class features from a pre-made class with something new, even when using subclasses. The homebrew system on dnd beyond is already a bit confusing to use, but limiting this game that allows you to do pretty much anything this much? I'm just confused honestly. This website is incredibly useful and helps me keep track of so many things. But for now, if I want to play certain characters, I'll have to use other sites.
it is true that subclasses give a ton of additional opportunities for fleshing out concepts. Swordmage being an artificer subclass is a pretty good fit IMO. Still, I do think that being able to create actual classes is flexibility the toolset needs in the long run.
I would really enjoy it, there's a handful of classes I feel 5e is missing. Then there's some old abandoned concepts I really liked and feel should've made the cut.
I would really enjoy it, there's a handful of classes I feel 5e is missing. Then there's some old abandoned concepts I really liked and feel should've made the cut.
What kind of classes do you think 5e is missing?
I would like to say that we could have more "nonmagical" (and I use this term loosely because every class gets a magical subclass eventually, even if there's no magic at the base level) classes.
I would really enjoy it, there's a handful of classes I feel 5e is missing. Then there's some old abandoned concepts I really liked and feel should've made the cut.
What kind of classes do you think 5e is missing?
I would like to say that we could have more "nonmagical" (and I use this term loosely because every class gets a magical subclass eventually, even if there's no magic at the base level) classes.
Swordmage, Warlord, Summoner, and Psion are the ones I'd like to see.
With warlord being the most important by far.
The others are all covered (badly) in 5e, so adding them would just result in a lot of stepping on toes.
As a DM the thought of every player bringing their own homebrewed class or subclass to the table frankly makes me shudder. There's already a lot to contend with when setting up a game with new characters - be it for a longer term campaign or a one shot.
The idea of having to scan through all of these and evaluate their balancing would take a long time.
Then there's the concept of Role playing and mechanics. Increasingly, it seems that people consider it absolutely necessary to pinpoint their character in a subclass instead of working a bit more creatively with the structure already in place and align it with other options such as backgrounds and feats.
If you want a completely free-form/skills based combination game, then it might actually be better to look at other systems that are built for just that.
I would really enjoy it, there's a handful of classes I feel 5e is missing. Then there's some old abandoned concepts I really liked and feel should've made the cut.
What kind of classes do you think 5e is missing?
I would like to say that we could have more "nonmagical" (and I use this term loosely because every class gets a magical subclass eventually, even if there's no magic at the base level) classes.
Swordmage, Warlord, Summoner, and Psion are the ones I'd like to see.
With warlord being the most important by far.
The others are all covered (badly) in 5e, so adding them would just result in a lot of stepping on toes.
I think the newer maneuvers for the Battle Master in Tasha's Cauldron are meant to somewhat cover for what the Warlord can do.
For me personally, a Summoner class would have been nice, with subclasses for demonologists (as a nod to Tasha), necromancers (ones that I don't get nervous about because of the logistics of hauling around a bunch of corpses and the thought of having to manage a million skeletons in combat), and even summoners of objects instead of creatures.
If they just created some blank classes (d6, d8, d10, d12)
This seems like the Winning compromise here. Just a base blank class per hit die with the option to do a subclass at 1st level. Would allow the existing tools to be used. I know it would fit my needs.
I would really enjoy it, there's a handful of classes I feel 5e is missing. Then there's some old abandoned concepts I really liked and feel should've made the cut.
What kind of classes do you think 5e is missing?
I would like to say that we could have more "nonmagical" (and I use this term loosely because every class gets a magical subclass eventually, even if there's no magic at the base level) classes.
Swordmage, Warlord, Summoner, and Psion are the ones I'd like to see.
With warlord being the most important by far.
The others are all covered (badly) in 5e, so adding them would just result in a lot of stepping on toes.
I think the newer maneuvers for the Battle Master in Tasha's Cauldron are meant to somewhat cover for what the Warlord can do.
For me personally, a Summoner class would have been nice, with subclasses for demonologists (as a nod to Tasha), necromancers (ones that I don't get nervous about because of the logistics of hauling around a bunch of corpses and the thought of having to manage a million skeletons in combat), and even summoners of objects instead of creatures.
A beastmaster class and a summoner class could almost be subclasses of the same thing.
A class focused around controlling a character which isn't the PC essentially.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Curious what gaps you believe need to be filled? I’m not disagreeing with you just wonder what classes you would want that the current ones can’t. I’ve only played D&D (1E, a few sessions of 3E, and now 5E) so I’m pretty used to it just being the core we have now
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Personally I'd like to see a warlord, swordmage, summoner, and psion class.
And then something which is harder to define but like the playtest sorcerer. We've got nothing like the playtest sorcerer at all.
What was the playtest sorcerer like?
- Half caster.
- Used will points rather than spell slots.
- D8 hit die.
- All armour and weapon proficiencies.
- As they spent their will points over the course of the day, they would gradually transform to be more and more like their bloodline. Losing their casting and gaining other abilities.
Sure it didn't necessarily suit a sorcerer. But both thematically and mechanically it was completely unique, and nothing is anything like it in 5e to this day. Maybe beast barbarian or bloodhunter is closest, but neither is much like it.
How different is a swordmage to a Bladesinger wizard or eldritch knight fighter?
Not sure what a warlord is but I thought it was kind of like Battlemaster or at least Battlemaster took cues from it. I might be wrong
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
It's actually true that 5e can do both of those concepts. It just does an atrocious job at it. For the swordmage, people want 50:50 fighter/wizard, not 90%/10% (eldritch knight) or 10%/90% (bladesinger). For the warlord, the battle master maneuvers that emulate warlord abilities (commander's strike, maneuvering strike, rally) are garbage.
In 3.5, the class was called the duskblade and had a unique mechanic of being able to place touch spells through its weapon attacks. This class continued as the magus in pathfinder 1e and 2e.
In 4e, the class got renamed the swordmage, and it had lots of abilities/spells to empower its weapon strikes with elemental power, as well as tons of reaction based teleports.
In 5e, paladin and ranger got a load of spells which allow you to empower your weapon strikes with magic. However as the bladesinger and eldritch knight got turned into subclasses, they had to leech off the wizard list. The wizard list isn't designed for weapon based combat compared to the half caster classes. So essentially the 5e 'swordmages' have lost the very thing which made them fun to the ranger and paladin (both of which have a pretty heavy theme which is hard to work around).
A dedicated 5e swordmage class would probably have an arcane / elemental theme (genasi were said to be drawn to swordmage traditions). It may be a half caster with a d8 hit die and access to light or maybe medium armour. The spell list would be tailored for weapon combat (lots of spells like searing smite and ensnaring strike). The 'class mechanic' would be reaction based teleports. Things like an ally getting struck within 30ft allows you to teleport to the attacker and make a weapon attack.
However at this point a swordmage class won't happen. Every single bit of the 4e swordmage can be replicated in 5e. It's simply impossible to put all the bits together to make the class. Therefore the class wouldn't actually be adding anything to the game which is a dealbreaker to most.
The warlord was a 4e class which was a pure martial. It was pretty meh at actually fighting, but had lots of support abilities to buff allies and let them move around on turns other than their own.
It's one of the most requested classes as it's a support based martial, which doesn't exist in 5e.
The short version is a warlord is a fighter who can heal, and otherwise buff allies. They could also allow/force an ally to take an attack. The idea was sort of a battlefield commander who could hit enemies, but who could also kind of see where the enemies were weak and inspire their allies to attack those spots. They could be kind of difficult for some people to get a handle on, because to work well, they required a good tactical grasp not only of what your character could do, but also of the rest of the party, and the enemies for that matter. But in the hands of someone who knew what they were doing, they were incredible.
Wrong sir. Very wrong
I'd just like to be able to play different classes than the basic ones, ones that have been playtested even, from other homebrew books or unearthed arcana. I just really want to play the UA revised ranger, and I can't easily swap out class features from a pre-made class with something new, even when using subclasses. The homebrew system on dnd beyond is already a bit confusing to use, but limiting this game that allows you to do pretty much anything this much? I'm just confused honestly. This website is incredibly useful and helps me keep track of so many things. But for now, if I want to play certain characters, I'll have to use other sites.
it is true that subclasses give a ton of additional opportunities for fleshing out concepts. Swordmage being an artificer subclass is a pretty good fit IMO. Still, I do think that being able to create actual classes is flexibility the toolset needs in the long run.
I would really enjoy it, there's a handful of classes I feel 5e is missing. Then there's some old abandoned concepts I really liked and feel should've made the cut.
You ask why, we ask why not.
Also, no there aren't.
What kind of classes do you think 5e is missing?
I would like to say that we could have more "nonmagical" (and I use this term loosely because every class gets a magical subclass eventually, even if there's no magic at the base level) classes.
Swordmage, Warlord, Summoner, and Psion are the ones I'd like to see.
With warlord being the most important by far.
The others are all covered (badly) in 5e, so adding them would just result in a lot of stepping on toes.
As a DM the thought of every player bringing their own homebrewed class or subclass to the table frankly makes me shudder. There's already a lot to contend with when setting up a game with new characters - be it for a longer term campaign or a one shot.
The idea of having to scan through all of these and evaluate their balancing would take a long time.
Then there's the concept of Role playing and mechanics. Increasingly, it seems that people consider it absolutely necessary to pinpoint their character in a subclass instead of working a bit more creatively with the structure already in place and align it with other options such as backgrounds and feats.
If you want a completely free-form/skills based combination game, then it might actually be better to look at other systems that are built for just that.
I think the newer maneuvers for the Battle Master in Tasha's Cauldron are meant to somewhat cover for what the Warlord can do.
For me personally, a Summoner class would have been nice, with subclasses for demonologists (as a nod to Tasha), necromancers (ones that I don't get nervous about because of the logistics of hauling around a bunch of corpses and the thought of having to manage a million skeletons in combat), and even summoners of objects instead of creatures.
This seems like the Winning compromise here.
Just a base blank class per hit die with the option to do a subclass at 1st level. Would allow the existing tools to be used.
I know it would fit my needs.
A beastmaster class and a summoner class could almost be subclasses of the same thing.
A class focused around controlling a character which isn't the PC essentially.