I guess that's true of any class. Our opinions of whether the fantasy is cool or not is highly personal. I grew up on Kung Fu and Wuxia movies, so I love Monks. Ever since I saw them in the first edition, I knew I wanted to play one. Just being able to fall forever and land gracefully in a cool pose sold me. Catching bullets is awesome! XD
The problem with Martials in general is that they all basically do the same thing, go in and attack. Paladins and Rangers get more versatility due to being half-casters and getting flavored features and spells, so much that they are distinctly their own separate thing.
The problem with Fighter, Barbarian and Monk is they aren't majorly doing that much different. Monks are more resource based and get some extra effects like stunning strike (which has it's own issues with how spam-able it can become) and they are MAD instead of SAD. Barbarians are brute tanks and fighters are bigger damage dealers else wise. So while there are thematic differences between Fighter, Barbarian and Monk, in combat (their main area), they really just aren't that different. Paladin is a divine smite and spell guy while Ranger is a terrain expert and master tracker with Primal spells.
Personally I'd like to see Monk become a bit tankier (more HP), with WIS based H2H and monk weapons option, with their unarmed AC becoming WIS+PB. Get them to being SAD. Limit stunning strike to once per round, increase base damage, reduce dependence on Ki, (I.E. does step of the wind really need to be using Ki?). Then to make Monk a bit different make their Ki strikes be things that inflict status effects, already have paralyze, why not bleed, poison, sleep, etc? perhaps even some crazier things like levitate or mind control (i.e. a punch which acts like dominate monster) could be done via subclass. The kind of stuff that spell casters get and pure martial characters don't.
Barbarian I am not as certain about, some of the subclasses have good thematic features but the base class itself is just an very angry person who takes more (/receives less) damage because they are literally too angry to take anything more... feels like it needs just a bit more.
All of those are awesome suggestions! While the current monk functions just fine with an increased damage die, it could definitely use some cleaning up. I would love to see even more abilities lean into the theme like you suggest.
On a bit of a tangent... related to the MAD, SAD problem. I kind of wish every class was MAD, rather than the other way around. You can max out your main stat so quickly, I would love to see every class have a reason to have a secondary stat be worthwhile. Something else that they are good at to define them. I think it opens up a lot of potential if balanced well.
And I think I see what you mean about monk. Okay, to stay on topic, hmmm...
It's a little difficult to say. Because I think one of the (small) reasons Artificer is still left out is because it hasn't been fully embraced as fitting the generic DnD theme by everyone yet. Some people just don't like the 'high tech' element and don't think it fits the feel of DnD. Putting it in the PHB, makes it harder to exclude from your worlds. I'm sure it will change in time, but a lot of classes have seen this over the years.
DnD classes have always reflected the media interests of the designers and the players. That's why we have 'Vancian' magic. In the early years, classes were influenced by the ideas of the time. They generally all fit within a Feudal, or Medieval fantasy, no matter which part of the world they drew influence from.
More recently, steampunk became a popular thing in the same circles. Jules Verne had been around for over a hundred years, but those kinds of fantasy just weren't as popular with the DnD crowd until much later. There were tinker gnomes and some mechanical magic items, but they always seemed to reflect a more clockwork kind of device rather than steam or magic-tech. Technology that existed as far back as the ancient world. A fantasy you saw in Clash of the Titans, etc.
With steampunk came miniature games like Warmachine, and many video games exploring the theme more. And shows like Arcane (the animation not the spell list), and the Eberron setting. So while steampunk might not be much of a trend anymore, the public has accepted a fantasy of magically powered technology. A lot of people love the idea of steam tanks, mechanical people, and magic guns. But some people still haven't accepted it as fully fitting in their idea of what DnD is. WotC made a lot of effort in Tasha's with the text and images to dial it back a little. A player might say 'I can play Iron Man!' but the art tries to make it look like a magical suit of classic fantasy armor.
The same goes for psionics. I have watched them try to shoehorn it into almost every edition. It worked best, thematically speaking, in Dark Sun. I think that is because the setting itself was reminiscent of Princess of Mars for people. But in most other settings, players just couldn't make it mentally mesh with the rest of the fantasy. Many people I played with said it had no place because it felt like sci-fi.
But we are finally, after 50 years, reaching a point where DnD is being thought of as its own unique type of fantasy. There is a little more breathing room for them to make their own path if they want. But there is still that many years of old setting lore that doesn't include psychic powers except for some alien monsters, and doesn't include cities of machine people. It would take a lot of work to incorporate those ideas into the volumes of old setting history. Because thus far, those ideas have only really worked in settings built for them.
All that was just to say... I'm not sure what classes are missing from the general fantasy of DnD. I might be tempted to bring some old ones back from the dust bin.
Acrobat could be the kind of martial artist that doesn't use ki. Or it could be the basis to rework Monk so that everyone in the class is good at martial arts but only some subclasses have a magical/energy/cultivation angle. With a new name probably.
Cavalier could be its own class focused on mounted fighters: from heavy cavalry, to light horse archers, to monster riders.
A lot of people try to homebrew a Witch class. I'm not sure their reason for it, but it's there. I think they'd have to be careful not to fall into any of the old problematic cultural stereotypes they might be tempted to, especially as they look outside of Europe for inspiration. But there could be room for a new Priest class here.
Maybe they could tie Psionics into the powers that already exist in DnD. Make it a connection to Aberrations and the Far Realm. Give it some history to latch onto.
Oh, and we have a 'Gish,' or spell-warrior for the Primal and Divine spell lists. We need one for Arcane. Maybe that's what Artificer was meant to be, but the theme isn't quite the same as what people who like Bladesingers want.
Warlord: A Charisma/Intelligence-based martial that plays support without magic
They tried to cover the warlord concept through a couple of battle master techniques (Commander's Strike, Distracting Strike, Maneuvering Attack, Rally), it's just that those techniques range from mediocre to bad. Another attempt at it was the purple dragon knight, which is again... underwhelming. However, it would be fairly straightforward to make a fighter subclass that does a competent job at the warlord, they just have to get rid of some of the flaws that make the current attempts inadequate.
The problem with Martials in general is that they all basically do the same thing, go in and attack. Paladins and Rangers get more versatility due to being half-casters and getting flavored features and spells, so much that they are distinctly their own separate thing.
The problem with Fighter, Barbarian and Monk is they aren't majorly doing that much different. Monks are more resource based and get some extra effects like stunning strike (which has it's own issues with how spam-able it can become) and they are MAD instead of SAD. Barbarians are brute tanks and fighters are bigger damage dealers else wise. So while there are thematic differences between Fighter, Barbarian and Monk, in combat (their main area), they really just aren't that different. Paladin is a divine smite and spell guy while Ranger is a terrain expert and master tracker with Primal spells.
Personally I'd like to see Monk become a bit tankier (more HP), with WIS based H2H and monk weapons option, with their unarmed AC becoming WIS+PB. Get them to being SAD. Limit stunning strike to once per round, increase base damage, reduce dependence on Ki, (I.E. does step of the wind really need to be using Ki?). Then to make Monk a bit different make their Ki strikes be things that inflict status effects, already have paralyze, why not bleed, poison, sleep, etc? perhaps even some crazier things like levitate or mind control (i.e. a punch which acts like dominate monster) could be done via subclass. The kind of stuff that spell casters get and pure martial characters don't.
Barbarian I am not as certain about, some of the subclasses have good thematic features but the base class itself is just an very angry person who takes more (/receives less) damage because they are literally too angry to take anything more... feels like it needs just a bit more.
Yep, everything is on point. Pure martials aren't very different. And while monk (who could at least have d10 hit dice) has ki to justify magic-like effects, fighter and barbarian are somewhat limited to mundane realism without magical subclass stuff. And in that, they both kinda stick to doing bonk. WotC have to diversify these two. And give barbarian subclasses that actually do different things, not just additional damage in a slightly different way.
So let's assume that no classes vanish or are combined, and contrary to lack of space three entirely-new classes are introduced. Let's assume one of them is a rebuilt psionic class with four subclasses and/or more similarity with warlocks. That's arbitrary, but let's start from there; what would the other two classes be?
The likelihood of that happening is incredibly low. For one, Wizards has already outlined all the classes and their groups (though they could always change things.) And secondly, they would have to add four more classes if they wanted to keep the amount of classes in each of the groups (experts, warriors, etc.) the same. Otherwise, they'd have three groups with four classes, and one with three. This would be incredibly confusing.
Anyways, if it were to happen, I'd assume that one of those classes would be about psionics. I haven't played any older editions, so I'm not exactly a good judge of whether psionics was a good mechanic. That being said, it certainly is a popular one that a lot of people support. Wizards wants to please their fanbase, and I think a lot of fans would be pleased by seeing psionics in the next edition.
Edit: Oops, you already mentioned psionics. Maybe we'd get Blood Hunter as an official class? I'd honestly like to see something creepy, like a more witch-like class so you don't have to just be a reflavored wizard.
So let's assume that no classes vanish or are combined, and contrary to lack of space three entirely-new classes are introduced. Let's assume one of them is a rebuilt psionic class with four subclasses and/or more similarity with warlocks. That's arbitrary, but let's start from there; what would the other two classes be?
I can only speak for myself; but I'd like to see a summoner and a kineticist as class choices. I'm aware the latter is basically a monk subclass; but they could do a lot more with it especially if they broke it off into its own subclass.
I used to have a "Scholar" class that I built for NPCs but also for cross-class players to take a level or two in. Basic purpose was an intelligence-based character that was neither edgy rogue nor magic-obsessed wizard, but somebody who could help the party figure out traps, puzzles, and some of the other important background information about the dungeons that "just might" come in handy later on. Feats helped the party in other ways, too, like granting extra EXP from encounters or jogging the wizard's memory in the middle of a battle so he can switch out a readied spell on-the-fly.
Most classes in 5e have one or two feats that basically cover this utility, so it doesn't adapt well in that edition. It would be nice if 1DD made it playable again. (I can dream, right?)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
~not a "lazy dungeon master"
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I guess that's true of any class. Our opinions of whether the fantasy is cool or not is highly personal. I grew up on Kung Fu and Wuxia movies, so I love Monks. Ever since I saw them in the first edition, I knew I wanted to play one. Just being able to fall forever and land gracefully in a cool pose sold me. Catching bullets is awesome! XD
The problem with Martials in general is that they all basically do the same thing, go in and attack. Paladins and Rangers get more versatility due to being half-casters and getting flavored features and spells, so much that they are distinctly their own separate thing.
The problem with Fighter, Barbarian and Monk is they aren't majorly doing that much different. Monks are more resource based and get some extra effects like stunning strike (which has it's own issues with how spam-able it can become) and they are MAD instead of SAD. Barbarians are brute tanks and fighters are bigger damage dealers else wise. So while there are thematic differences between Fighter, Barbarian and Monk, in combat (their main area), they really just aren't that different. Paladin is a divine smite and spell guy while Ranger is a terrain expert and master tracker with Primal spells.
Personally I'd like to see Monk become a bit tankier (more HP), with WIS based H2H and monk weapons option, with their unarmed AC becoming WIS+PB. Get them to being SAD. Limit stunning strike to once per round, increase base damage, reduce dependence on Ki, (I.E. does step of the wind really need to be using Ki?). Then to make Monk a bit different make their Ki strikes be things that inflict status effects, already have paralyze, why not bleed, poison, sleep, etc? perhaps even some crazier things like levitate or mind control (i.e. a punch which acts like dominate monster) could be done via subclass. The kind of stuff that spell casters get and pure martial characters don't.
Barbarian I am not as certain about, some of the subclasses have good thematic features but the base class itself is just an very angry person who takes more (/receives less) damage because they are literally too angry to take anything more... feels like it needs just a bit more.
All of those are awesome suggestions! While the current monk functions just fine with an increased damage die, it could definitely use some cleaning up. I would love to see even more abilities lean into the theme like you suggest.
On a bit of a tangent... related to the MAD, SAD problem. I kind of wish every class was MAD, rather than the other way around. You can max out your main stat so quickly, I would love to see every class have a reason to have a secondary stat be worthwhile. Something else that they are good at to define them. I think it opens up a lot of potential if balanced well.
That's good story, thanks :)
And I think I see what you mean about monk. Okay, to stay on topic, hmmm...
It's a little difficult to say. Because I think one of the (small) reasons Artificer is still left out is because it hasn't been fully embraced as fitting the generic DnD theme by everyone yet. Some people just don't like the 'high tech' element and don't think it fits the feel of DnD. Putting it in the PHB, makes it harder to exclude from your worlds. I'm sure it will change in time, but a lot of classes have seen this over the years.
DnD classes have always reflected the media interests of the designers and the players. That's why we have 'Vancian' magic. In the early years, classes were influenced by the ideas of the time. They generally all fit within a Feudal, or Medieval fantasy, no matter which part of the world they drew influence from.
More recently, steampunk became a popular thing in the same circles. Jules Verne had been around for over a hundred years, but those kinds of fantasy just weren't as popular with the DnD crowd until much later. There were tinker gnomes and some mechanical magic items, but they always seemed to reflect a more clockwork kind of device rather than steam or magic-tech. Technology that existed as far back as the ancient world. A fantasy you saw in Clash of the Titans, etc.
With steampunk came miniature games like Warmachine, and many video games exploring the theme more. And shows like Arcane (the animation not the spell list), and the Eberron setting. So while steampunk might not be much of a trend anymore, the public has accepted a fantasy of magically powered technology. A lot of people love the idea of steam tanks, mechanical people, and magic guns. But some people still haven't accepted it as fully fitting in their idea of what DnD is. WotC made a lot of effort in Tasha's with the text and images to dial it back a little. A player might say 'I can play Iron Man!' but the art tries to make it look like a magical suit of classic fantasy armor.
The same goes for psionics. I have watched them try to shoehorn it into almost every edition. It worked best, thematically speaking, in Dark Sun. I think that is because the setting itself was reminiscent of Princess of Mars for people. But in most other settings, players just couldn't make it mentally mesh with the rest of the fantasy. Many people I played with said it had no place because it felt like sci-fi.
But we are finally, after 50 years, reaching a point where DnD is being thought of as its own unique type of fantasy. There is a little more breathing room for them to make their own path if they want. But there is still that many years of old setting lore that doesn't include psychic powers except for some alien monsters, and doesn't include cities of machine people. It would take a lot of work to incorporate those ideas into the volumes of old setting history. Because thus far, those ideas have only really worked in settings built for them.
All that was just to say... I'm not sure what classes are missing from the general fantasy of DnD. I might be tempted to bring some old ones back from the dust bin.
Acrobat could be the kind of martial artist that doesn't use ki. Or it could be the basis to rework Monk so that everyone in the class is good at martial arts but only some subclasses have a magical/energy/cultivation angle. With a new name probably.
Cavalier could be its own class focused on mounted fighters: from heavy cavalry, to light horse archers, to monster riders.
A lot of people try to homebrew a Witch class. I'm not sure their reason for it, but it's there. I think they'd have to be careful not to fall into any of the old problematic cultural stereotypes they might be tempted to, especially as they look outside of Europe for inspiration. But there could be room for a new Priest class here.
Maybe they could tie Psionics into the powers that already exist in DnD. Make it a connection to Aberrations and the Far Realm. Give it some history to latch onto.
Oh, and we have a 'Gish,' or spell-warrior for the Primal and Divine spell lists. We need one for Arcane. Maybe that's what Artificer was meant to be, but the theme isn't quite the same as what people who like Bladesingers want.
They tried to cover the warlord concept through a couple of battle master techniques (Commander's Strike, Distracting Strike, Maneuvering Attack, Rally), it's just that those techniques range from mediocre to bad. Another attempt at it was the purple dragon knight, which is again... underwhelming. However, it would be fairly straightforward to make a fighter subclass that does a competent job at the warlord, they just have to get rid of some of the flaws that make the current attempts inadequate.
Yep, everything is on point. Pure martials aren't very different. And while monk (who could at least have d10 hit dice) has ki to justify magic-like effects, fighter and barbarian are somewhat limited to mundane realism without magical subclass stuff. And in that, they both kinda stick to doing bonk. WotC have to diversify these two. And give barbarian subclasses that actually do different things, not just additional damage in a slightly different way.
The likelihood of that happening is incredibly low. For one, Wizards has already outlined all the classes and their groups (though they could always change things.) And secondly, they would have to add four more classes if they wanted to keep the amount of classes in each of the groups (experts, warriors, etc.) the same. Otherwise, they'd have three groups with four classes, and one with three. This would be incredibly confusing.
Anyways, if it were to happen, I'd assume that one of those classes would be about psionics. I haven't played any older editions, so I'm not exactly a good judge of whether psionics was a good mechanic. That being said, it certainly is a popular one that a lot of people support. Wizards wants to please their fanbase, and I think a lot of fans would be pleased by seeing psionics in the next edition.
Edit: Oops, you already mentioned psionics. Maybe we'd get Blood Hunter as an official class? I'd honestly like to see something creepy, like a more witch-like class so you don't have to just be a reflavored wizard.
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 can only speak for myself; but I'd like to see a summoner and a kineticist as class choices. I'm aware the latter is basically a monk subclass; but they could do a lot more with it especially if they broke it off into its own subclass.
Barbarian could almost be a background, but with Rage being a special feat. I could totally see a ranger or druid having the Totem Warrior subclass.
~not a "lazy dungeon master"
I used to have a "Scholar" class that I built for NPCs but also for cross-class players to take a level or two in. Basic purpose was an intelligence-based character that was neither edgy rogue nor magic-obsessed wizard, but somebody who could help the party figure out traps, puzzles, and some of the other important background information about the dungeons that "just might" come in handy later on. Feats helped the party in other ways, too, like granting extra EXP from encounters or jogging the wizard's memory in the middle of a battle so he can switch out a readied spell on-the-fly.
Most classes in 5e have one or two feats that basically cover this utility, so it doesn't adapt well in that edition. It would be nice if 1DD made it playable again. (I can dream, right?)
~not a "lazy dungeon master"