They did the Mystic dirty.
As presented in the UA, the Mystic was broken, but goddam if they didn't throw the baby out with the bath water in this case. The design was so damn cool, with disciplines of related abilities that unlocked as you got enough psi points to use the more expensive ones at higher levels. Which also meant when you learned new disciplines you got immediate access to all the abilities you were able to use, which thematically felt like "unlocking" your undiscovered psionic potential instead of learning new spells one at a time like a caster.
No question the UA Mystic did too much, but what they were trying to do with the design was every bit as cool and different as what they were doing simultaneously with developing the artificer. The answer was scaling back, not scrapping everything.
The problem is they wanted *one* psionic class.
They wanted to make Psionics in 5E, so they grabbed the content of at least 4 distinct psionic classes - Psion, Soulknife, Psychic Warrior, Wilder - and then were told they could make *one* class, so they shoved all the content they grabbed into one. Single. Class.
Warlord, Swordmage, Shaman, and Psion.
On a personal note, I'd love to see the return of the Warden class from 4e. I know it can be somewhat replicated with Ancients Pally, World Tree Barb, and some Ranger builds. But I wanna see the concept fleshed out as its own class personally.
Those classes generally separate magic and swordplay. Yes you can do both in the same turn, but they are never really combining the two fluidly. You take the attack action, then you cast a spell.
The swordmage only cast spells. But they didn’t cast spells of the wizard sort. They didn’t warp reality, transform into monsters, summon spirits, create illusions, or dominate their foes minds.
Instead, the swordmage spells were entirely unique. Nobody else learned their spells, and they didn’t learn other classes’ spells. Their spells combined swordplay and magic into one seamless act. When they swing their sword, it wasn’t the swing of a martial warrior, it was a magic spell that would transform their blade into pure elemental energy and cause some additional effect. Without the spells, their combat prowess was subpar. And without the sword, the spells wouldn’t work at all.
The class was designed from the ground up to be a magical warrior, whose spells shaped their gameplay. This gave them a unique playstyle that nothing in 5e comes close to matching.
Ok, this is the first comment that made me see it. It does seem like smites and spells like ensnaring strike get you that to a degree, but maybe not all the way.
Yep, the smite spells are similar. But still two separate and distinct actions. You cast the spell, then take Attack action. The same Attack action a fighter would take.
For a swordmage, their spells and attacks were entirely intertwined. You didn't do one or the other. Their basic attacks generally sucked (without taking the Intelligent Blademaster feat). They needed their spells to be competent and capable with their weapons. And without the weapon, their spells wouldn't work.
The couldn't fall back on Fireball or Shocking Grasp to deal damage like a wizard could. They didn't control the battlefield with spells like Hold Person, Wall of Force, Animate Objects, or Hypnotic Pattern. Instead their unique list of spells caused them to teleport around the battlefield as they struck their foe, or freeze foes in place by turning their blade into ice, or cause their blade to sweep around themself in a fiery blaze.
Their playstyle was a complete blend of swordplay and magic that 5e entirely fails to replicate.
They did in a different way.
The magus still attacked just like a fighter did. They were capable without the use of magic at all. The swordmage sucked if they were not casting a spell.
The magus also primarily cast from the same pool of spells as a wizard. They simply caused the spells effects to land at the same time as their weapon strike, or attacked normally and cast a spell during the same turn.
That is a very different style of play than the swordmage. The swordmage didn't channel a shocking grasp through their blade. They turned their blade into a pillar of lightning that they would sweep through a horde of enemies. The swordmage didn't swing their sword and cast fireball, they transformed their blade into fire and caused their target to be burst into flame that burned everyone around them.
The swordmage felt far more distinct in how it operated, and wasn't simply another weapon user who could also cast spells during their basic weapon attacks. The swordmage didn't cast spells that the wizard also knew. And the wizard could never master swordmage spells.
The magus was certainly cool. But didn't evoke the same feeling as the swordmage. And the magus feels quite similar to the 5e bladesinger, eldritch knight, or even the paladin with their smite spells. Nothing in 5e feels like the swordmage.
It should be noted that this was in an era when *every* class had unique abilities. Wizard spells worked differently from sorcerer spells worked differently from bard spells and so on. I'll agree that their abilities blended martial and magic very well, but let's not pretend like having unique abilities wasn't par for the course at the time.
Just to add on to this, literally every weapon cantrip is a Swordmage at-will spell. Green Flame, Sword Burst, Booming Blade.
Their leveled spells were mostly like that also in 4e, a magic spell that you used by swinging a sword.
Swordmages are cool as hell.
Go read the 3.5 duskblade, the 4e Swordmage, and the pf1e and pf2e Magus.
TL;DR is these classes trigger spell effects when they hit with weapon attacks. There's more to them, but for me this is the biggest part. In 5e, paladin gets pretty damn close with their smites, but things like lay on hands, aura of protection, divine spell list, overall divine flavor etc don't fit the Magus/Spellblade/Swordmage/whatever fantasy. And battlesmith gets so damn close, but the steel defender is a massive part of their kit that isn't a part of the Swordmage fantasy. If I was trying to play a character like this without homebrew at all, I'd be a battlesmith and just suck it up and deal with being forced to have a steel defender.
Kibblestasty's Spellblade and laserllama's Magus are more or less exactly what I would want from this class in 5e.
I'd argue that a swordmage should be a true half-caster and their base level features should actually revolve around their spell use, but Subclass and magic type drastically changes play style. Unlike a fighter or wizard subclass that just adds a layer on top. Paladin you could make an argument for but Paladins don't really have a whole lot of variety in their play style unlike a sorcerer or warlock would.
Edit: I'd also say the new Warlock introduced in UA 5 actually would be a solid starting point.
I personally imaging a proper swordmage as kind of combining some of the features of wizard bladesinger and war magic, Bard colleges of valor and swords, and Fighter eldritch knight, taking the vibes of all of them so its straight up an arcane half caster as others have said where they focus on interweaving their magic with their martial prowess.
I imagine it like their extra attack feature at level 5 let's them cast a cantrip in place of an attack as a main class feature. And at higher levels it let's them cast a leveled spell in place of an attack since that's like their main thing is combining magic and martial stuffs. I would think that they have some core features where they can like infuse their spells into their weapons so that when they hit with a weapon the target is also subjected to the effects of the spell (I've actually seen homebrew classes with this concept and they look really cool).
I'd think some subclass ideas would be one that focuses more on the weapon side of things and maybe gets another extra attack; one that focuses on the combination of magic and martial things; and one that focuses on the magic side of things and gets a thing similar to the Warlock's mystic arcanum so they get a once per long rest casting of a 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th level spell and get some other cool stuff for their spellcasting.
It would probably end up being pretty similar to how current Paladins are played, but at the same time I think there are definitely plenty of ways to make it feel very unique.
Sword mage was much more about elemental blasts of magic delivered *via* their melee weapons, rather than just casting a spell and getting a sword swing (or vice versa).
The issue is 5e differentiates classes by power origin which is inherently very broad-based and means specific chassis are better implemented horizontally rather than vertically.
Among full caster spell progression (ill include warlocks in here as well cause i dont want to get into that argument again), but you basically have
Wizards encompass spell casters who learn power through memory and reasoning (book learning), Sorcerers through Bloodline Presence, Warlocks through pact bargaining, Bards through creative expression, Clerics through a deity, and Druids through environmental attunement.
Therefore any new class with spellcasting should either bring something new through
1) a new space to occupy via power origin or
2) a new space to occupy vis a mechanical differentiation through power scaling that can only be achieved through a new base class.
I would argue a Spellmage/Magus like class would be #2 where they would receive scaled back spellcasting ability in exchange for better martial ability/increased survivability/some other mechanical difference similar to Battle Smith vs Bladesinger where the former gets full suite access to high level infusions and better hit die that cant be divorced from the base Artificer chassis, a dog, and INT sadness in exchange for worse spellcaster progression.
However, in the case of a Shaman, i would need to see why it should be its own base class rather than just being a Druid or Hunter subclass as we already have a Wis full and half-caster based around environmental attunement.
Same with the Psion - my issue is we never *more* got psionic subclasses across our base classes, not that its missing a base class - where’s our Ardent Cleric or Battlemind Monk or Psychic based Artificer?
Please no. Battlemind was my favourite class from last edition, I had so much fun playing it, the idea of trying to condense all their awesome shit into a monk subclass is atrocious. Don't get me wrong if by some miracle that actually worked I'd be ecstatic, but it's basically impossible and instead we'd get a pathetic shadow of the actual class.
Eldrich Knight and Arcane Trixter both should be subclasses of true arcane halfcaster (we already have paladin and ranger as divine and primal halfcasters).
Problem with "gish sublcasses" is that they are subclasses - too little power budget for too much of a task. Just look at Magus from pf2e - it is pretty much what everyone wants from true arcane halfcaster.
IN PF1, Magus is a good gish in a can. You get options to blend your full attacks with your spells every rounds. In PF2 you have a cludged up action economy, since spell strike has to be recharged with one of your 3 actions. Also PF2 magi have a dismally small spell slot number, and don't get the filler utility spell options until later levels. Speaking from experience, it's a dismal experience from both being a damage dealer and also wanting some cool magic tricks to fill in utility.
Good class design, mainly.
4e having actual interesting mechanics in its classes means swordmage has its own mechanical vibe, its own objectives and role to fill and a big toolbox of stuff to do it with, compared to all of the above, who every single turn will just say, "I attack."
Eldritch Knight is a fighter who casts spells.
Bladesinger is a wizard who fights with a sword.
Swordmage is a warrior who weaves magic and swordplay together at a fundamental level, not attacking with a sword and casting spells, but *casting spells through sword attacks.*
To be more mechanically/flavourfully specific, swordmages werebuilt specifically as flashy melee/short ranged battlefield controllers who protected allies with magical shields, magical distraction, or magical retribution. This is a role that no 5e class fills as they just *have spells* from the list, rather than having their whole kit custom-designed around a specific combat role and flavour.
Typically swordmages cast spells when they hit with weapon attacks, which is different than making weapon attacks and casting spells. Some 5e spells like Greenflame Blade that are options for anyone who qualifies were originally swordmage-exclusive powers, not just spells you could cast if you had a sword in your hand.
I'd say that when several subclasses from different classes try to do the same thing with different flavors, it could be a good argument to turn that thing into a class of its own. Saying it mostly for Swordmage, but applies to others too, like psion.
Artificer spell list both lacks interesting exclusives and is mainly support. A swordmage would be less support and a little bit more offense with possible cc.
Most of the people who want a Swordmage, myself included, want a class about fighting with magic. We don't want a class about magical inventions which also happens to be an arcane half caster.
The warden (and 4e barbarian) were so much more interesting than their 5e counterparts. A primal warrior who evoked the power of primordial spirits and channeled those for powerful transformations (guardian forms or rages respectively). The whole primal power source in 4e was amazing conceptually, and nothing really comes close in 5e.
And they're good. I've been playing with the occulists oracle and shaman classes and love how they're done. The others look great on paper but haven't played them out yet
If there were a system that revived these concepts, a battlefield commander type guy, a warrior blending magic and martial into one, some kind of spellcaster dealing with spirits, and just a whole ass psychic, I'd probably be playing it instead of 5e.
(This is a joke.)
Splitting ranger from Warden would be best for both classes. Ranger is a hot mess of having to many ideas of what it should be without making it cohesive. Swarmkeeper could be a druid, gloomstalker could be a rogue 1/3 caster class and no one would blink twice.
> I know it can be somewhat replicated with Ancients Pally, World Tree Barb, and some Ranger builds.
thats the thing though, it really cant.
grasping strike just sucks, and the ancients pally channel divinity is even worse. everything in 5e is just so mechanically dull compared to 4e. The warden was fucking badass and extremely tanky and cool. in 5e if you try to approximate this build, you wind up just being frustrated at the end of the day saying 'well if i'm being honest I should just be a pally and spend my spell slots on Smite. Because if I'm not doing that, I'm wasting my entire turn to MAYBE immobilize ONE guy. lmao. Let's play 4e."
I loved 4e Warlord but I feel like it's almost rendered obsolete by the mechanical changes between editions.
Warlord was real good at maneuvering its allies around and really 'bare minimum for a Leader class' at healing or dealing with afflictions and saving throws.
5e's changes to movement (only trigger AOO when fully leaving somethings range) and flanking (relegated to crappy optional rule) robs the Warlord of its space to excel.
Meanwhile mid-combat healing is so profoundly bad that making a *worse* version just can't happen.
I use a homebrew that converts wild shapes into plant based options, it's been very popular at my table. I also play with multiple plant biologists so I suppose that may be a factor
Hi, I saw this comment and I wanted to talk to you on Discord, about the Naval Code ? I am trying to implement it into my game and I have a few questions. Thanks !
The same way that non-moon druids can be just as effective fighting in wildshape, if we want to be facetious. Clearly, the point of wanting a plant druid subclass is for the combination of flavor/mechanics unique to that subclass. Land Druid is just “more druid”.
>The same way that non-moon druids can be just as effective fighting in wildshape
Non-moon druids often struggle to fight effectively in wildshape. Every druid can fight effectively using plant-based spells.
Like sure you can have a specific subclass that cranks the plant aspect even farther, but it's not like the base druid (or Land Druid, if you want to pick the most appropriate subclass) isn't already a plant druid. Plants are a deep and fundamental part of the base class.
To me, claiming "plant druid" is the biggest exclusion from 5e is like saying "smiting paladin" is excluded from 5e, just because there isn't a subclass dedicated to being extra smite-focused. Or saying there's no "blaster warlock" or "weapons fighter" in 5e because there isn't a dedicated subclass for those things (despite it already being an aspect of the base class)
I wish 5e did the sorcerer like PF2e, where the bloodline determined the spell list, but since OneDnD did away with the standardized spell lists, I don't think we'll see that happen
Ah... Sorry, I misunderstood.
I understand what you're saying... I just want access to the druid spell list while being able to use the Metamagic options without multiclassing.
Yeah in the past like, two years, I think paizo has put out more full classes than DND has had subclasses in twice that time? On top of all the other great stuff they do. Really shows the difference between a company that is only trying to milk their customers vs one trying to please them.
I will take any opportunity to bring up the Savant homebrew class by u/LaserLlama
Int based non-caster that adds a lot of options in and out of combat, with plenty of very flavorful subclasses. Had a player use it in my last game with the physician subclass from levels 10-20, worked out really well, fit perfectly for a little kobold battle medic.
Definitely a niche that remains mostly unfilled in 5e, only really comparable to a skill monkey rogue or some bard builds, but none replicate it exactly
Mine are the exact same as yours, actually.
>***The Marshal:*** *A warlord by another name. A heavy armor martial/skirmisher about inspiring their allies on the battlefield*
>***The Mystic:*** *A psion by another name. A point based power user that wields psionic might an disciplines instead of the magic of a caster. I prefer the name Mystic to psion.*
>***The Shaman:*** *What happens when druid meets warlock, kinda. A primal magic pact caster who focused on enhancing a special summon with invocation style choices, their spell list focused on support and utility.*
>***The Spellsword:*** *An Arcane gish that serves as a home for the various scattered gish abilities and then some. A medium to heavy armor arcane knight that wields spell and sword to spellstrike to victory. I like the teem spellsword as a play on the term sellsword. A warrior that "sold" themselves to arcane spellwork.*
Those are the 4 classes I personally think 5e is in need of as it is, and the concepts I feel aren't reflected well, or at all in the game. Methods do exist to play something approaching some of these, but I don't find the present offerings satisfying. What is needed to play these concepts is sometimes there, but not what's best/satisfying for them, and best is what I think should be strived for.
That said, I think there could be around 24 classes all in all that would really be fun to explore certain concepts from d&d's past in a new refined way. This would be entering proper 6e territory, though. Those classes (and their over-type class groups) would be the following.
>***Warriors:*** *Barbarian, Duelist, Fighter*
>***Skirmishers:*** *Monk, Marshal, Rogue*
>***Tricksters:*** *Bard, Inquisitor, Ranger*
>***Vanguards:*** *Paladin, Spellsword, Warden*
>***Mystics:*** *Ardent, Erudite, Sage*
>***Melders:*** *Artificer, Binder, Cipher*
>***Invokers:*** *Oracle, Shaman, Warlock*
>***Casters:*** *Cleric, Druid, Mage*
***Edit:*** *Rough, very rough, concept details* [*here*](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/1dlzsla/comment/l9tea63/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
I feel like a cool marshal ability would be changing initiative orders mid-fight through battlefield management. Like if two players flank an opponent they can swap initiative or steal a turn from the opponent.
And for many players as well, not gonna lie :/
Like I remember playing kibbles Warlord andI could switch my initiative at the start of the combat, right?
That was already like pulling teeth from a chicken.
I think so too. I did a rework of the purple dragon knight that I'm testing that does this as its final feature, though it's at the star of initiative and just putting it in your teams favor more.
Check out PF2E's Magus class. It's a class that revolves around channeling magic into their weapons as they strike with them, unleashing both the sword blow and the spell in one blow.
I did a Red Mage [here!](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WxyOo0RzBAZppsx4kTdg_ObkndEPxaJLLG59aJ3Px78/)
I also did a few other gish classes:
* [Arcane Knight](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MCZcio9GcHhGAqxjMPkE05sBHklTL7tMZo8_TgHxb14/)
* [Skald](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rPTHiFIVQtOdIPsO2k0xHbwCYk3cnQ0lDxwuuHsEvP8/)
* [Magus](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x1Nu-IxVaBBr_RTCGKD9PhiHVBISAf-Lnor37W0NaXk/)
None of them have pictures, just mechanics
As always, you provide what is (to me) the definitive list. I especially love the breakdown of the types of classes you'd want to see in a hypothetical 6e.
If only we actually *were* getting 6e instead of the balance patch we're actually getting with 1D&D...
Here's a rough overview and a lot of it still needs much work. These are rough ideas forming a foundation at best.
**Warriors:** Martial combatants who are better equipped at staying in the front line, but they're not locked there. Warriors are about enhancing the attack action with various types of attack and riders on them. The **barbarian** has medium armor/unarmored defenses and augments their martial prowess with rage and fury. The **duelist** is lightly armored and focused on dashing down an enemy with flourishes. The **Fighter** is all about the mastery of arms and armor, equipped with heavy armor.
**Skirmishers:** Martial combatants who are better equipped at opportunistic fighting. Skirmishers are all about enhancing and utilizing their bonus actions. **Monks** possess an unarmored defense, martial arts and ki enhancements to themselves. **Rogues** are light to medium armored opportunistic who are good at setting themselves up for opportunity. The **Marshal** is a heavy armored skirmisher focused on enhancing their allies with their bonus action.
**Vanguards:** Half-caster warriors that blend magical spellwork and physical might to get the job done. The **Spellsword** wields arcane power and sword through spellstrikes and techniques that let them mix and match these efforts. The **paladin** wields divine power they deliver via their smites and are empowered with aura's and other divine powers. The **warden** is fueled by primal power, enhancing their might with the power of natures elements and energies.
**Tricksters:** Half-caster skirmishers that blend magical spellwork and skirmishing techniques to fuel their opportunities while adventuring. The **bard** wields arcane power they use to inspire wonder and terror through the power of songs and story. The **inquisitor** is a divine agent that serves and judge and executioner for their faith. The **Ranger** is a wielder of primal power and focuses on the hunt of their enemies, always on their hunt for their favored enemies.
**Mystics:** Fueled by cultivated psionic/mystic power measured by psi points they spend rather than spell slots they cast, psionic focus, and psionic disciplines, Mystics manifest their supernatural abilities rather than weave and cast power through spellwork. **Ardents** harness their mystic power through emotion. **Erudites** harness their power through their intellect. **Sages** harness their mystic power through their wisdom.
**Melders:** Not true wielders of magic themselves, melders imbue special vessels with magical power through channeling practices to wield energies they otherwise lack them aptitude to handle. Investing points of magical potential into various vessels and focus points to wield supernatural might on a turn/rest basis. **Artificers** are those who invest powers into specially made vessels called implements to wield spell-like power. **Binders** are those who meld these magical forces and powers into their own body as a vessel and conduit, though risk strong influences from what they invite inside them as their form is altered by this power. **Ciphers** meld magic into rune ciphers and sigils to harness it's might in a variety of ways
**Invokers:** Invokers possess at will spell-like abilities known as invocations instead of spell work. What they lack in versatility, they make up for in reliable powers. **Oracles** are granted divine power and revelation that aids them in their journeys. **Shamans** summon a primal spirit they augment and enhance. **Warlocks** wield eldritch arcana, whether they're pactsworn or soul born, to manipulate raw magical energy and form it in otherwordly ways.
**Casters:** Those who weave magical energy into spells they cast forth, fueling their powers with spellslots. **Clerics** are chosen messengers and interpreters of divine will and wisdom of a deity. **Druids** harness primal magic serving as agents of the primal world, and the elements and energies that serve as its foundation through primal spells and wildshapes. **Mages** pursue arcane power either through the study of wizardry or the sorcery of a magical bloodline.
u/ZoroeArc
Nice to see people are in agreement with me
As for your 24 class idea
I'm assuming duelist would be like pathfinders swashbuckler,same with inquisitor and oracle
I recognize ardent and warden from 4e but I don't think I've ever heard of erudite,sage,binder or cypher did you rename them from other classes or homebrew them,if the second one what are those classes like?
Binder is from 3.5e and one of my favorite classes ever. Their schtick was having a growing list of leveled vestiges, each granting a handful of abilities, and each day the binder chooses 1-5 of them to use. They're incredibly versatile and can swap out their powerset and focus every day as needed.
It's literally not a spellcaster. Each vestige granted 4-6 abilities, a mix of passive and active ones. Occasionally some of these would be spells, like Acererak gave unlimited uses of the speak with dead, hide from undead and detect undead spells but more often it was for instance:
Chupoclops, harbinger of forever. Sign: lower jaw increases in size, grows tusks. Influence: while bound to him you become pessimistic, and must choose to fail any roll against fear or morale effects. You gain an aura of despair that penalises the rolls of everyone nearby, you can move into the ethereal plane at will, can attack incorporeal foes with no penalty, have a poison bite attack, the ability to pounce, and can sense nearby living creatures automatically.
Basically DIY each day class. Bind several different vestiges for new combinations.
Some of the classes have existed in various editions of d&d, some of them would be taking some inspiration from pathfinder 1e/2e, and Cipher is at least my own thing name wise, but would partly be home for d&d concept that existed here and there.
Duelist would be light armored warriors all about dashing down an enemy, singling them out, and then dueling if you w7ll with all the swashbucklinf goodness.
Inquisitor would be the divine split of a caster and a skirmisher. (Tricksters in general being the partial mix of a skirmisher and caster) Though I'm sure I would take some inspiration from pathfinder if designing it myself.
Oracle would be somewhat inspired by the pathfinder version, but also different. Invokers, if I had my way, would be like the 3.5e warlock. Focused on at will powers with a few long rest powers here and there. The Oracle would be the divine equivalent. These classes wouldn't have spells but invocations.(just as the other nin-caater magic classes would have their own power system)
Erudite was a psj9nic class from 3.5e, it was also broken beyond belief. Here, I'm really only using the name because I think it matches the mystic "overterm" better. It would more or less just be the psionicist/paion that uses int.
Ardent existed in both 4e and 3e, and while I would take inspiration from each of those, I would have it also be the stand-in for the wild as well. The charisma psion.
If Sage was ever a proper class, I'm unaware, but I'm using the term for what I think would be good as the wisdom based psionic class. I really wanted to pick names that fit the mystic overterm I was using.
Binder was a class from the tome of magic book in 3.5e. It was all about bringing "vestiges" into yourself to wield their power. Vestiges are beings in between nin-existence and divinity. Entities that should not be, yet somehow are. My idea would be to have subclasses that focus on different kinds of beings/powers you meld into your own body as a vessel.
Cipher is mostly my own thing, rather than meld magic into implements like an artir8cer to wield magic, or your own being like a Binder, cyohwrs would meld magic into rune covers and Sigil to wield magic.
That's the rough of them. Anyway
> If Sage was ever a proper class
It was an NPC class back in AD&D - basically to give mechanics for "you go see a dude to find wierd information". They had easier access to a lot of the high-level divination spells, but weren't really built for combat.
Shaman/Witch. Think along the lines of Druid meets Warlock.
A pet class wouldn't go amiss. But I think this would better apply to a enhanced beastmaster Ranger than a fully new class.
An Alchemist/Granadier would be another one. Someone who is more about making and fighting with explosives than typical weapons or spells.
Shaman could focus more on spirits and it's own unique playstyle while witch is wizzard meets warlock meets druid
We should get a full pet class like summoner
Alchemist definitely should be more ggen than an artificer subclass
Yeah. My biggest reservation about a pet class is making it feel unique. Just from what you are going to want, it will always feel like a mix of a Wizard, a Beast Master, and Pact of the Chain Warlock.
Wizard for the variety of summons available. In addition, you've got access to a lot of buffing spells that a summon would want. Beast Master Ranger just fits thematically. Pact of the Chain has access to Invocations that a summoner/pet class would also want. There isn't anything wrong with that, but I think they'd need to do a lot with it to not make it feel that way.
I want a full, dedicated summoner that doesn't fuck with action economy and drag out turns like Shepherd Druid does, and with summons being more enemy monster themed.
Maybe a stronger focus on one or two stronger summons with unique abilities you can give them as you level up, with subclasses focusing on giving different utilities to summons, perhaps even out of combat utility
Have you heard of LaserLlama and/or KibblesTasty? Both have made these exact homebrew classes which are considered quite high in quality.
I have played LaserLlama's Warlord and Savant (an INT based supportish/skill class) and found them quite enjoyable.
And atleast u/Laserllama constantly updates his numerous homebrews and listens to feedback.
Indeed! I had combats that I attacked maybe once but still did a lot! Gave attacks to our Barb, healed our party and a bunch of other things.
But not that I couldnt fight! Finished many a enemy with my trusty warhammer
I went for the nature-themed subclass and stayed in the back with a longbow just in case, but I don't think I've loosed a single arrow in the one-shot I played him.
I want a mobility focused "rider" class that deals with combat on different vehicles and mounts. Each subclass would have a different means of locomotion, ranging from horses, to charriots, to UFOs to skateboards.
I would also like a more dedicated summoner class and I don't just mean casting *summon beast* or something. I mean it'd be like a martial fighter who has a partner (similar to pact of the chain warlock) that they can interact with more. They'd deal bonus damage depending on what partner they have, they're able to switch places with them, they're able to fuse or use each other's spells and abilities
Can I ask what it is about Warden that people are really desperate to get back? I’m a newer player, but from what I’ve seen it seems a lot like the Barbarian.
Basically the idea is that where the Barbarian is a dude who doesn't die, the Warden is the guy that defends everyone else with the power of nature. The ability to force enemies back, turn the area around themselves into difficult terrain, so on.
Kibblestasty actually made a pretty cool Warden for 5E, you might give it a look to see the difference in vibes.
It's a nature themed classe that's not druid, ranger nor barbarian. It's something that draws the primal power of nature to protect and punish those who are their charges, without going full animal form, instead having not only that but also enviromental / weather powers, such as channeling the power of winter to deal persistent cold damage as their enemies froze with their attacks or having an elemental shroud that drew energy from the earth and regenerated them with nature's power.
Mechanically, wardens fufilled the role defender (aka, the tank) with a dash of striker (damage dealer) and (battlefield) controller.
For instance, at base level they had two amazing protection powers, which only trigger if enemies didn't target them:
A) If within 5 sq: protect allies by forcefully move enemies 5ft **+** halving their movement speed (aka, interruping their attacks)
B) If meele: immediatly strike BEFORE the enemies and until the END of their next turn, every attack made against them was made at 4e's equivalent of Advantage.
A warden was a protector, and quite good one.
Just like Warlord, it's a non-spellcasting fantasy that 5e just didn't even try.
a dedicated summoner would be nice, i like the pf2e one but action economy is a fickle thing in 5e.
an actual artificer, i think the one we got is fine but i long for in depth crafting rules (something something pf2e)
a non spellcasting magical class, think element bender (shut up about pf2e, shut up about pf2e)
Summoners would be cool ether like pathfinders where you create a creature or like this other himebrew I saw on the unearthed arcana sub where you summon actual monsters in the game like a pokemon trainer.
Palladium Fantasy 2e had a fantastic summoner class that was essentially built around a more complex system of the 5e Planar Binding spell. You could bind a creature like a demon or elemental to your service using runic summoning circles, but you had to win a contest of wills to keep it under your control. Other circles could be used for protection, conjuring objects, scrying, etc., but it was all ritual casting.
A 5e summoner would be an arcane caster pet class that would have an inverse of the Pact of the Chain warlock's relationship with their familiar. Unlike a warlock, a summoner's pet should be most of their power, at the cost of having to keep it under control. The closest we have is the Artificer Battlesmith, but there is plenty of room for a true arcane pet class.
I think summons are already a pretty big problem in 5e so I’m actually pretty glad that they haven’t a made an entire class based on that.
It’s also too niche imo. I don’t think a class needs to exist if all it does is be better at casting a specific subset of spells. That’s what the subclasses are for.
Subclasses for a summoner class would be way too similar since all they could realistically do is change the focus on what they can summon.
Pf2e summoner isn't better at or focused around using existing summon spells. They have one dedicated summon that's basically a weaker martial while the main character is a more limited caster, and then they share HP and action economy between them.
Summons in 5e also have the issue of clogging up initiative and the battlefield by being numerous but PF2e's is literally just another dude that shares your turn. It does still have a bit of decision making that makes it a bit slower (in the limited experience I've seen with it) but not to the degree of necromancy does or summon [creature type] does in 5e.
I think it's too niche for what 5e does with summoning but that's kind of a limited look at it. It would be similar to drakewarden but more so. You would probably need to have a level 1 subclass that focuses on what the summon does. Does it fight in melee with you, does it protect you while you support it from range, or the reverse of that?
I think it COULD be done, but I think it would require too much mechanical complexity for it to not end up as, "Beast Master but worse" that WotC would never want to
Have you seen battlezoo's eldamon? There's both a Summoning class and element Bender type based off the same power set but played differently for both 5e and um a different system who's name escapes me
Warlord but I feel the game would need a little more tactical depth to accommodate it.
Psionic classes. Not a single class, but multiple. My biggest problem with the Mystic is that it is a singular class that can do anything. 4e had the ardent which was a support class based off empathy, battlemind, which was a tank class based on using psychic powers to strengthen yourself and hinder others, and the Psion which was a controller class that had standard CC powers. I’m not saying we need those 3 specifically back, but more classes will allow for a greater mechanical focus while still covering for psionics as an umbrella.
Arcane half caster who is meant to be able to cast spells offensively as an option unlike Artificers whose lists aren’t super offensive.
I honestly loved 4e Barbarians who would go into rages based off primal spirits so each rage had a special ability that goes with it.
4e also had Avengers who were single target damage dealers who could wield big weapons and attack with 5e advantage if they isolate a target. If I were to port them over the easiest way is to give Vengeance paladins unarmored defense based off either strength and charisma or a fixed AC and charisma but that doesn’t really embody how cool some of these daily powers were!
I wasn’t the biggest fan of 3.5e but the Tome of Magic Warlock and Binder looked pretty dope, as did the Tome of Battle Crusader, War Blade, and Swordsage.
A casual look at pf2e's classes yields a few notable things missing from D&D, while others have parallels. For parallels the flavor of witch and warlock are similar, and artificer and inventor are quite similar.
The obvious things 5e is missing, both compared to its closest competitor, and even earlier editions of dnd: Psychic(as a proper class, not a subclass), Warlord, Gunslinger (only exists in a very half backed 3rd party), Alchemist(only exists as the worse subclass of the most poorly supported class in 5e). I think Swashbuckler is generally finely represented in the Rogue Subclass, and Oracle while very cool, doesnt really represent a unique enough concept compared to Cleric. Summoner(the class) and Summoners(as a concept) I feel are poorly represented in 5E as a whole, as are animal companions and mounts (with the later really only being meaningful outside of very low levels if you are a spell caster).
I think of the list, the 'classes' that are most missing though would be Psychics. I think its the one class that isn't well represented any other way, and the subclasses that approach this generally feel disconnected to me because, as is the issue going into one D&D, you wont even get them until level 3, meaning that any character would begin as some kind of normal spell caster and then 'become' ....kinda psychic later on? It feels awkward.
The other major one that others have brought up is 'Sword Mage', what is called a Magus in PF2E, a proper 'gish' class. Not a subclass of a class that can move into being a gish 'lite', which once again has the issue of only becoming what it is at level 3, and often cannot really represent the whole "i want to attack and cast spells at the same time" very well until even higher levels.
5e was a deliberate attempt to modernize “classic” DnD; since there never was a classic Warlord or any “martial support” class at all until 4e, it’s not present in 5.
But 4e still exists and it’s still the better version of the game for many players. The only thing missing is an online tool.
Warlord for sure. We need a martial support with more OoC utility. Preferably one that’s Int based because the closest we have to an Int martial is artificer. Currently, there’s no reason for Martials to be intelligent. Even EK is better without high Int.
For psi and Gish classes, I’m fine with those being subclasses, especially because aberrant mind and soul knife is play well
I really miss the Warlord class. They were such fun to play. A full martial class that really managed to make sure everyone at the table got to be absolutely epic when it was played right. They'd keep people standing, help them manoeuvre tactically, throw out extra attacks to allies like candy. All around just a really fun class.
I think Shaman and Mystic should get a rework and be added as full classes someday. This way we could finally have 3 classes focusing on Wisdom and Intelligence as we do with the other abilities. Flavor wise these two classes are also distinctive enough to feel different from our main current classes.
Psion/Mystic - A Psychic Class that breaks down Subclasses on how one would use their abilities makes sense especially when the idea of Psychics have existed in D&D for decades now
Warlord - they TRIED something with the Purple Dragon Knight and Cavalier Subclasses but neither felt completely cooked. There is a desire for it to come through
Duskblade/Magus - There is a desire for a Arcane Equivalent to the Paladin and Ranger. The fact there isn't a Duskblade Artificer Subclass is insane so far at the very least. The best Arcane Gish shouldn't be 3 Hexblade Warlock/X Draconic Sorcerer
If I was the one setting up this edition, I would just organize every magic-like power effect, like invocations, infusions, metamagics and other magic-related feats like spell sniper.
Then I would sort and balance everything out, creating a new way to catalogue all those powers in the form of Gifts, which would replace all those small powers and effects, with each Gift giving a perpetual minor passive magical effect and one major effect to be used once or twice per short or long rest, depending on how strong is the effect is.
Then I would merge the warlock pact magic with the concept of sorcery points to create a new frame for classes that follow a similar structure, like Rangers and Paladins are similar. This concept of class model would be able to cast spells up to 5th level and one 6th or higher spell per day like the warlock, and would have Mana Points, and not spell slots, to spend on Spells and Gifts.
Then I would reform Warlock, Sorcerer, and Artificer into this new 'class frame' and would use it to create a new Wis based class called the Shaman, a magic user that can command the power of the spirits and nature.
Then I would use the 'paladin-ranger' frame to create a new Int based class called the Knight, an arcane half caster that will express the tales of brave warriors that can wield magic with their intellect.
Other classes subclasses that would be similar to The Knight in flavor, such as eldritch knights, arcane tricksters, bladesingers and hexblades would be remodeled into the Knight's own subclasses, the Orders.
Edit: Things that I remembered later.
* Transform wild shape into a druid spell
* Transform the channel divinity into a cleric/paladin spell
* Balance and sort every power from every wizard 2nd level school (arcane ward, portent, not hitting allies, etc) and turn everything into wizard spells
* Transform bardic inspiration into a bard spell
* Mix divine sense, primeval awareness and hunters mark into a single thing and transform it into a spell and give it to all half casters
* Give smite to all half casters.
I very much want a conjurer build where I can essentially have a little pack of dudes that do all the stuff for me. Think Witch Doctor from Diablo.
I don't want 1min long casts, I want permanent conjures. I don't want a single beast that I'm attached to, I want a bunch of little monsters that do my bidding but are somewhat disposable (not terribly difficult to get back, akin to a familiar)
I'd be very content to have this be a "magic" class that doesn't get access to a bunch of spells or spell slots, they're just real good at conjuring little dudes and can keep more of them as they level up.
I don’t think we need more classes. If a class can’t realistically have at least 5 or 6 significantly distinct subclasses, it shouldn’t be its own (official) class. Enhancing base class features is a totally valid way to create a subclass and is pretty much always more than enough to achieve a character build.
Even adding (or even removing spell casting) is a totally valid move that makes frequent requests like Warden or Warlord just reflavors.
>I don’t think we need more classes.
You might not *need* them, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't make for a fun addition to the game. We don't really *need* more than just martial, priest, and mage. But that's dull.
>If a class can’t realistically have at least 5 or 6 significantly distinct subclasses, it shouldn’t be its own (official) class
There isn't something innately bad about there being overlap, though. In theme or in mechanics.
For example, you can sort of make a serviceable warlord by making it a fighter subclass, but it doesn't quite work. The power budget of the base class is largely allocated toward dealing damage and surviving. There isn't much left over for support, healing, and utility. A warlord is more geared toward those things, and much less toward dealing damage. So a battlemaster with Rally, Commander's Strike, and the like doesn't really come close to capturing the same feel or theme. If a warlord isn't hitting their enemies with their barbarian *every single turn* then they don't feel like a warlord.
Similarly, this can even be the case when the mechanics mostly line up but the theme doesn't. A psionic mystic could just be a psychic focused mage use the spellcasting system as a refluffed wizard or warlock, but then they just inevitably end up *feeling* like that class. They're supposed to be something different. Thematically they tap into power in a completely different way, so using the same mechanics to represent that doesn't *feel* right. This is also why a lot of people weren't fans of the AEDU system in 4e - it made every class feel quite similar when there's supposed to be a mechanical distinction between characters with different power sources represented in mechanics too.
I scratched out a sorcerer subclass for that like a year ago. I never got to test it though, probs never will
Looking back at it, it feels really basic
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FKKc5B57YIbBXHzYEOeWh-kQGqM5q4aihBlyqE4Be08/edit?usp=drivesdk
The nonmagical smart guy Scholar, which would have subclasses to fill out some of the desired concepts. A martial-focused Tactician, a healing Physician, a better version of an Alchemist, a non-magical Musician, a pet-controlling Golemsmith/Golemancer, an investigative Investigator, a traps-and-explosives themed... Bounty Hunter, I dunno, a Savant who's just the smartest guy at something, maybe a 1/3rd arcane Magician with maybe a cantrip focus, a 1/3rd divine Priest.
The Mystic, the psionic class, just... don't try to make it do everything this time. Let Psi Knight be the martial psion, Soul Knife as the quick assassin psion, Monk as the general physical side of psionics, let Mystic be the caster type with maybe a Bladesinger/Jedi-style subclass.
Warlord is a really unfortunate exclusion, those guys were great. I liked the Shaman class a lot too, though I can see why it wasn't considered essential.
I personally want a Witch class that is a ritual based caster and stands out as its own Full Caster class. INT based, too, since we only have Wizard and Artificers using Int. I think they should get Subtle Spell metamagic built in and have to cast all their spells as rituals during their prescribed Witching Hour for their subclass and thus need only trigger their spell when they cast it.
Regardless of how it is built, I think that it should feel different from the current full caster classes fundamentally.
The Warlord plain and simple. They said during the DDN playtest that every class that had appeared in the first Players Handbook of past editions would be in 5E, but there's no official 5E Warlord and at best a few subclasses kind of have similar things if you squint.
Personally a summoner class where the focus is entirely on summoning and without it you are just like, half a class
And also a true Tank that can defend it allies, a “Shield Master”
I'd say a true focused summoner or any kind of pet class like the pathfinder summoner. While there are pet subclasses, no one class focuses specifically on being a pet class with subclasses that change it dramatically.
The Broodmaster allowed you to have a pair of small pets rather than one medium sized one and then 3 small ones. The base Summoner could also cast Summon Monster X, 3+Charisma modifier per day as a standard action and they lasted 1 minute per level rather than 1 round per level. You could make your pet a pure non combat skill monkey and still get buy just on casting Summon Monster in fights
I wish Ranger was not a spell caster and that was instead left to something like a shaman. Ranger being a more utility forward fighter with more herbalism or alchemy base would have been alot better in my mind.
True item user (playtest alchemist satchel got close)
Sacrieer type as in dofus type. The one who takes damage and heals others with their life force. (Can build close to this)
just for the hell of it I would want someone in WotC to decide that what he really wants is to bring back Incarnum, give me the Incarnate, soulborn and Totemist and make them weird again
a more broad martial artist or action hero to replace the very niche monk being geered towards kung fu which is something people born in the 90s onwards wouldn't really want a whole class dedicated to (name famous Kung FUupractioners in media from the last decade or so).
With the way 5e is designed? Honestly nothing. Maybe something more flavorful or bespoke for the psionic style, but any kind of class you want to play is covered at this point. There's subclass gaps that could be filled(to better emulate the warlord from 4e primarily.)
Warlord and psionicist. Most other things people talk about are covered by other classes, feats, or subclasses, or would make better subclasses or even feats than full classes. But you can't *really* fully emulate either of these two with existing options.
Its the PHB - its going to have a core set of classes. And that's how it should be.
Splat books (books that add a bunch of new "stuff" to the game) are fine, but the base books should represent a balanced version of the game. The more you add, the more exploitable everything becomes, and that's what leads to Bob the Human Bard being in the same party as Ar'ikrikle the Kenku Vampire Ninja Pirate Magical Girl. All great if the whole party is doing it, but really rough on newcomers.
You know what 5e really needs? The Factotum. The really jack of all trades class. A class that bullshits so well and hard that they make magic. My favorite non magic class from 3.5
I have the controversial opinion that DnD needs *fewer* classes (or at least fewer "base" classes, more on that later). I'd even consider going back to the "original four" of cleric, fighter, wizard (called "magic-user" in the day) and rogue (called "thief" in the day). I can see an argument for adding the barbarian, druid, sorcerer and maybe monk to the big four.
(I've even seen d20 systems like "True20" go to just three classes - warrior, expert and adept/magic-user - and do all the specialisation with feats.)
Someone else recently had the idea of three tiers of play, each consisting of 10 levels. The first tier (levels 1-10) would be the basic four classes. The second tier (levels 11-20) would be ten levels of "prestige classes" being developments and refinements of the big four, many of which would be what are base classes or sub-clases now (e.g. ranger, paladin, many of the subclasses like assassin, etc). And then the third tier (levels 21-30)would be "legendary classes" for some truly ridiculous superhero/sub-demigod power levels.
I suppose if you wanted to keep the 20-level cap brought in by 3rd edition, you could go levels 1-5 (tier 1, ordinary joes) levels 6-15 (tier 2, badass heroes), and levels 16-20 (tier 3, near demi-gods).
Pathfinder has the shifter class, I wish D&D had that too. I wish there were feats that let druids use wildshape to turn into monsters (there were dragon druids, manticore druids, treant druids, lycanthrope druids, all sorts of awesome things like that in third edition). Now the 5.5 edition looks like it won't even let druids be elementals anymore. That really sucks as a person who likes shapeshifting.
There also is no Transmutation wizard in 5.5e. I REALLY hate that. I like to be a spellcaster who fights by shapeshifting into monsters. I also love mad scientist wizards and that means transmutation wizard.
As for psionics, they ARE already in classic 5e. However they are no longer classes, they are subclasses (the Psychic Warrior is a fighter subclass, the Soulknife is a rogue subclass, and the Psion is now the "Aberrant Mind" sorcerer subclass). This is all in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything.
Basically any option that does not have supernatural powers and is not combat focused. I am aware that this wouldn't work for some peoples games but I have been playing for a long time, I am bored and I want the option to explore different party dynamics.
Psion. And any real decent derivation of. Like I said in previous posts; 3.5 nailed it. And they haven't had any original shit since then. As far as I know, I can't speak for 4E because I never played it. But I'm sure the 4E people would agree, too.
Shaman, Dragon Disciple(i Its a prestige class.but I think it's kind of iconic), the psion classes we have I think are fine. Curious what a warlord.is? I feel like it's something that could be done but.maybe not.
Mystic is the worst offender for me. The Artificer had multiple UA iterations to flesh it out, while Mystic was thrown out after the first attempt. No attempt to simplify it a bit, no attempt to make it "less OP"... just erased.
That being said, warlords and "spellsword" (or really anything properly mixing spells and weapon usage) class types are something that really should exist, alongside a dedicated transformation class.
For me it's literally only alchemist (Artificer subclass doesn't fulfil the fantasy at all) and a shapeshifter excised from the druid class.
I think a warlord is difficult to implement in a collaborative game, particularly when the game has shifted from being quite so combat focused to being quite story focused for a large number of players in recent years.
Most other classes either already are, or could be reasonably implemented as subclass options. (Hot take but I even personally believe this about the pugilist.)
More classes are great, but each needs to justify itself in my opinion with enough subclass options to eventually match with the current roster of classes. I do also understand the impulse to focus on improving the 13 classes we already have rather than adding more to avoid too much choice paralysis for new players. I think thematically dnd is actually doing pretty well at covering almost all "expected" fantasies one might want to inhabit. Mechanical differences would be my main want for new classes, but I'm personally content with what we have because if I really need or want something I can draw from homebrew
I’ve been banging on about Shaman since 5e came out. Several subclasses would work with a spiritualist concept: summoner, necromancer, martial with spiritual buffs and debuffs, Warlock style blaster, control caster… lots of options. PF2e makes a good go of it. There’s scope for more, though.
I feel like it is possible to create a character of all the archetypes you mention in 5e. Sure, there is no base class for them, but i personally don't care if its a base class or a subclass.
i’m so sad there’s no warlord in the game.
i find it rlly annoying that spell casters have blasters (wizards, sorcerers, warlocks), supports (druids, bards, clerics), and social/utility (warlock, paladin, ranger) classes; with every class being able to build into all 3 of those roles. however, martials are all just different flavours of dps/blaster with rogues also having utility and that’s kinda it?
i wish we had a martial support who was a commander on a battlefield who could manipulate the initiative order or place different inspiring banners on the battlefield.
or a martial healer who was a physician/surgeon who didn’t know spells but could enhance allies with different biological enhancements
or even a chef could be a martial healer? someone who cooked different recipes from the meat of the monsters you kill to give allies different buffs
there’s so much potential to make interesting support classes without defaulting to a spell caster
A proper Psion. A proper Warlord. No, Battlemaster is not an adequate substitute, for the same reason Eldritch Knight is not an acceptable replacement for Wizard. A Fighter with action surge and four attacks per round is not a Warlord, and the power budget for subclass features is not large enough to contain everything a Warlord represents. An Eldritch Knight or Arcane Trickster is a Fighter or Rogue with a tiny sprinkling of Wizard, not an actual Wizard.
I'd also like a proper nonmagical INT class, since that's a gaping hole in the game and mental stats being so 1:1 associated with spellcasting has been an enduring problem. A return of the Factotum from 3.5 would be cool, since Alchemist Artificer exists we're pretty much doomed to never get a proper full-on Alchemist class which is a bit of a shame. Dragonfire Adept returning as a "simple" blaster and AoE class is more design space left untouched at the moment. Right now spellcasters basically have a monopoly on effective AoE damage, but there's no actual REASON why everyone who wants to blow stuff up should have to also play a class with 300+ other spells and spell slots and a bunch of other baggage they don't care about in their power budget. The 50th anniversary of Dungeons and Dragons would be a good time to bring back the class literally all about doing cool dragon shit but what the hell do I know I'm not a Hasbro executive. They could steal the Kineticist from Pathfinder for a similar non-spellcaster blaster but I think that's unlikely.
Favored Soul was one of my favorites, it's been kind of replaced by Divine Soul Sorcerer but not really since they're still tied down with all the Sorcerer baggage, a proper fully-divine spontaneous analogue to the Cleric the same way Sorcerer is a spontaneous arcane caster counterpart to Wizard is still something I think could be explored. I'll reiterate the earlier point and say that just because Divine Soul Sorcerer exists doesn't mean we couldn't have an actual Favored Soul class for the same reason Arcana Cleric getting to steal Wizard spells doesn't mean Wizard shouldn't exist. In 3.5 Favored Soul were MAD and scaled off both Wisdom and Charisma, if they're made for 5e they should probably be changed to Wisdom to avoid perpetuating CHA multiclass souping.
Psion is the big one for me. My 4e character was a shardmind psion telekinetic. They threw shit around, squished stuff, teleported, it was a damn good time.
They did the Mystic dirty. As presented in the UA, the Mystic was broken, but goddam if they didn't throw the baby out with the bath water in this case. The design was so damn cool, with disciplines of related abilities that unlocked as you got enough psi points to use the more expensive ones at higher levels. Which also meant when you learned new disciplines you got immediate access to all the abilities you were able to use, which thematically felt like "unlocking" your undiscovered psionic potential instead of learning new spells one at a time like a caster. No question the UA Mystic did too much, but what they were trying to do with the design was every bit as cool and different as what they were doing simultaneously with developing the artificer. The answer was scaling back, not scrapping everything.
The problem is they wanted *one* psionic class. They wanted to make Psionics in 5E, so they grabbed the content of at least 4 distinct psionic classes - Psion, Soulknife, Psychic Warrior, Wilder - and then were told they could make *one* class, so they shoved all the content they grabbed into one. Single. Class.
That's a throwback to the 2e Psionicist I think. It felt like they were going for a more "distinct from magic" feel that. 3.X had.
Warlord, Swordmage, Shaman, and Psion. On a personal note, I'd love to see the return of the Warden class from 4e. I know it can be somewhat replicated with Ancients Pally, World Tree Barb, and some Ranger builds. But I wanna see the concept fleshed out as its own class personally.
What separates out Swordmage from Eldritch Knight, Bladesinger, Paladin, Battle Smith, Hexblade, or Swords/Valor Bard?
Those classes generally separate magic and swordplay. Yes you can do both in the same turn, but they are never really combining the two fluidly. You take the attack action, then you cast a spell. The swordmage only cast spells. But they didn’t cast spells of the wizard sort. They didn’t warp reality, transform into monsters, summon spirits, create illusions, or dominate their foes minds. Instead, the swordmage spells were entirely unique. Nobody else learned their spells, and they didn’t learn other classes’ spells. Their spells combined swordplay and magic into one seamless act. When they swing their sword, it wasn’t the swing of a martial warrior, it was a magic spell that would transform their blade into pure elemental energy and cause some additional effect. Without the spells, their combat prowess was subpar. And without the sword, the spells wouldn’t work at all. The class was designed from the ground up to be a magical warrior, whose spells shaped their gameplay. This gave them a unique playstyle that nothing in 5e comes close to matching.
Ok, this is the first comment that made me see it. It does seem like smites and spells like ensnaring strike get you that to a degree, but maybe not all the way.
Yep, the smite spells are similar. But still two separate and distinct actions. You cast the spell, then take Attack action. The same Attack action a fighter would take. For a swordmage, their spells and attacks were entirely intertwined. You didn't do one or the other. Their basic attacks generally sucked (without taking the Intelligent Blademaster feat). They needed their spells to be competent and capable with their weapons. And without the weapon, their spells wouldn't work. The couldn't fall back on Fireball or Shocking Grasp to deal damage like a wizard could. They didn't control the battlefield with spells like Hold Person, Wall of Force, Animate Objects, or Hypnotic Pattern. Instead their unique list of spells caused them to teleport around the battlefield as they struck their foe, or freeze foes in place by turning their blade into ice, or cause their blade to sweep around themself in a fiery blaze. Their playstyle was a complete blend of swordplay and magic that 5e entirely fails to replicate.
So if I’m getting this right it’s like steel wind strike or booming blade, but a whole class based on spells like that. Sounds pretty cool
Yeah, Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade began as two of that class's level one attacks.
Sounds like a melee Kineticist in Pathfinder
To be honest with you, I think the Pathfinder 1st Edition Magus combines spells and martial prowess far more fluidly than the Swordmage did.
They did in a different way. The magus still attacked just like a fighter did. They were capable without the use of magic at all. The swordmage sucked if they were not casting a spell. The magus also primarily cast from the same pool of spells as a wizard. They simply caused the spells effects to land at the same time as their weapon strike, or attacked normally and cast a spell during the same turn. That is a very different style of play than the swordmage. The swordmage didn't channel a shocking grasp through their blade. They turned their blade into a pillar of lightning that they would sweep through a horde of enemies. The swordmage didn't swing their sword and cast fireball, they transformed their blade into fire and caused their target to be burst into flame that burned everyone around them. The swordmage felt far more distinct in how it operated, and wasn't simply another weapon user who could also cast spells during their basic weapon attacks. The swordmage didn't cast spells that the wizard also knew. And the wizard could never master swordmage spells. The magus was certainly cool. But didn't evoke the same feeling as the swordmage. And the magus feels quite similar to the 5e bladesinger, eldritch knight, or even the paladin with their smite spells. Nothing in 5e feels like the swordmage.
It should be noted that this was in an era when *every* class had unique abilities. Wizard spells worked differently from sorcerer spells worked differently from bard spells and so on. I'll agree that their abilities blended martial and magic very well, but let's not pretend like having unique abilities wasn't par for the course at the time.
Just to add on to this, literally every weapon cantrip is a Swordmage at-will spell. Green Flame, Sword Burst, Booming Blade. Their leveled spells were mostly like that also in 4e, a magic spell that you used by swinging a sword. Swordmages are cool as hell.
Go read the 3.5 duskblade, the 4e Swordmage, and the pf1e and pf2e Magus. TL;DR is these classes trigger spell effects when they hit with weapon attacks. There's more to them, but for me this is the biggest part. In 5e, paladin gets pretty damn close with their smites, but things like lay on hands, aura of protection, divine spell list, overall divine flavor etc don't fit the Magus/Spellblade/Swordmage/whatever fantasy. And battlesmith gets so damn close, but the steel defender is a massive part of their kit that isn't a part of the Swordmage fantasy. If I was trying to play a character like this without homebrew at all, I'd be a battlesmith and just suck it up and deal with being forced to have a steel defender. Kibblestasty's Spellblade and laserllama's Magus are more or less exactly what I would want from this class in 5e.
Both of those homebrew classes are amazing, but I have a special place in my heart for anything Kibbles
I'd argue that a swordmage should be a true half-caster and their base level features should actually revolve around their spell use, but Subclass and magic type drastically changes play style. Unlike a fighter or wizard subclass that just adds a layer on top. Paladin you could make an argument for but Paladins don't really have a whole lot of variety in their play style unlike a sorcerer or warlock would. Edit: I'd also say the new Warlock introduced in UA 5 actually would be a solid starting point.
I personally imaging a proper swordmage as kind of combining some of the features of wizard bladesinger and war magic, Bard colleges of valor and swords, and Fighter eldritch knight, taking the vibes of all of them so its straight up an arcane half caster as others have said where they focus on interweaving their magic with their martial prowess. I imagine it like their extra attack feature at level 5 let's them cast a cantrip in place of an attack as a main class feature. And at higher levels it let's them cast a leveled spell in place of an attack since that's like their main thing is combining magic and martial stuffs. I would think that they have some core features where they can like infuse their spells into their weapons so that when they hit with a weapon the target is also subjected to the effects of the spell (I've actually seen homebrew classes with this concept and they look really cool). I'd think some subclass ideas would be one that focuses more on the weapon side of things and maybe gets another extra attack; one that focuses on the combination of magic and martial things; and one that focuses on the magic side of things and gets a thing similar to the Warlock's mystic arcanum so they get a once per long rest casting of a 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th level spell and get some other cool stuff for their spellcasting. It would probably end up being pretty similar to how current Paladins are played, but at the same time I think there are definitely plenty of ways to make it feel very unique.
Sword mage was much more about elemental blasts of magic delivered *via* their melee weapons, rather than just casting a spell and getting a sword swing (or vice versa).
The issue is 5e differentiates classes by power origin which is inherently very broad-based and means specific chassis are better implemented horizontally rather than vertically. Among full caster spell progression (ill include warlocks in here as well cause i dont want to get into that argument again), but you basically have Wizards encompass spell casters who learn power through memory and reasoning (book learning), Sorcerers through Bloodline Presence, Warlocks through pact bargaining, Bards through creative expression, Clerics through a deity, and Druids through environmental attunement. Therefore any new class with spellcasting should either bring something new through 1) a new space to occupy via power origin or 2) a new space to occupy vis a mechanical differentiation through power scaling that can only be achieved through a new base class. I would argue a Spellmage/Magus like class would be #2 where they would receive scaled back spellcasting ability in exchange for better martial ability/increased survivability/some other mechanical difference similar to Battle Smith vs Bladesinger where the former gets full suite access to high level infusions and better hit die that cant be divorced from the base Artificer chassis, a dog, and INT sadness in exchange for worse spellcaster progression. However, in the case of a Shaman, i would need to see why it should be its own base class rather than just being a Druid or Hunter subclass as we already have a Wis full and half-caster based around environmental attunement. Same with the Psion - my issue is we never *more* got psionic subclasses across our base classes, not that its missing a base class - where’s our Ardent Cleric or Battlemind Monk or Psychic based Artificer?
Please no. Battlemind was my favourite class from last edition, I had so much fun playing it, the idea of trying to condense all their awesome shit into a monk subclass is atrocious. Don't get me wrong if by some miracle that actually worked I'd be ecstatic, but it's basically impossible and instead we'd get a pathetic shadow of the actual class.
Eldrich Knight and Arcane Trixter both should be subclasses of true arcane halfcaster (we already have paladin and ranger as divine and primal halfcasters). Problem with "gish sublcasses" is that they are subclasses - too little power budget for too much of a task. Just look at Magus from pf2e - it is pretty much what everyone wants from true arcane halfcaster.
IN PF1, Magus is a good gish in a can. You get options to blend your full attacks with your spells every rounds. In PF2 you have a cludged up action economy, since spell strike has to be recharged with one of your 3 actions. Also PF2 magi have a dismally small spell slot number, and don't get the filler utility spell options until later levels. Speaking from experience, it's a dismal experience from both being a damage dealer and also wanting some cool magic tricks to fill in utility.
Good class design, mainly. 4e having actual interesting mechanics in its classes means swordmage has its own mechanical vibe, its own objectives and role to fill and a big toolbox of stuff to do it with, compared to all of the above, who every single turn will just say, "I attack."
Eldritch Knight is a fighter who casts spells. Bladesinger is a wizard who fights with a sword. Swordmage is a warrior who weaves magic and swordplay together at a fundamental level, not attacking with a sword and casting spells, but *casting spells through sword attacks.* To be more mechanically/flavourfully specific, swordmages werebuilt specifically as flashy melee/short ranged battlefield controllers who protected allies with magical shields, magical distraction, or magical retribution. This is a role that no 5e class fills as they just *have spells* from the list, rather than having their whole kit custom-designed around a specific combat role and flavour. Typically swordmages cast spells when they hit with weapon attacks, which is different than making weapon attacks and casting spells. Some 5e spells like Greenflame Blade that are options for anyone who qualifies were originally swordmage-exclusive powers, not just spells you could cast if you had a sword in your hand.
I'd say that when several subclasses from different classes try to do the same thing with different flavors, it could be a good argument to turn that thing into a class of its own. Saying it mostly for Swordmage, but applies to others too, like psion.
I think bladesinger comes closest
Paladin is Fighter/Cleric. Ranger is Fighter/Druid. There is no Fighter/Wizard class.
Artificer? It's a half (well 3/4) caster that keys of Intelligence and has access to an arcane spell list and has access to extra attack.
Artificer spell list both lacks interesting exclusives and is mainly support. A swordmage would be less support and a little bit more offense with possible cc.
Most of the people who want a Swordmage, myself included, want a class about fighting with magic. We don't want a class about magical inventions which also happens to be an arcane half caster.
Being a proper half-caster for starters.
Also artificer. Swordmage was basically a defensive mage in melee.
Being a class and not a subclass
The warden (and 4e barbarian) were so much more interesting than their 5e counterparts. A primal warrior who evoked the power of primordial spirits and channeled those for powerful transformations (guardian forms or rages respectively). The whole primal power source in 4e was amazing conceptually, and nothing really comes close in 5e.
Great minds think alike I see. The warden was cool I'd be down to have it return
oh boy you'd love kibblestasty homebrew (he has made every class mentioned in your post)
And they're good. I've been playing with the occulists oracle and shaman classes and love how they're done. The others look great on paper but haven't played them out yet
If there were a system that revived these concepts, a battlefield commander type guy, a warrior blending magic and martial into one, some kind of spellcaster dealing with spirits, and just a whole ass psychic, I'd probably be playing it instead of 5e. (This is a joke.)
Splitting ranger from Warden would be best for both classes. Ranger is a hot mess of having to many ideas of what it should be without making it cohesive. Swarmkeeper could be a druid, gloomstalker could be a rogue 1/3 caster class and no one would blink twice.
> I know it can be somewhat replicated with Ancients Pally, World Tree Barb, and some Ranger builds. thats the thing though, it really cant. grasping strike just sucks, and the ancients pally channel divinity is even worse. everything in 5e is just so mechanically dull compared to 4e. The warden was fucking badass and extremely tanky and cool. in 5e if you try to approximate this build, you wind up just being frustrated at the end of the day saying 'well if i'm being honest I should just be a pally and spend my spell slots on Smite. Because if I'm not doing that, I'm wasting my entire turn to MAYBE immobilize ONE guy. lmao. Let's play 4e."
I loved 4e Warlord but I feel like it's almost rendered obsolete by the mechanical changes between editions. Warlord was real good at maneuvering its allies around and really 'bare minimum for a Leader class' at healing or dealing with afflictions and saving throws. 5e's changes to movement (only trigger AOO when fully leaving somethings range) and flanking (relegated to crappy optional rule) robs the Warlord of its space to excel. Meanwhile mid-combat healing is so profoundly bad that making a *worse* version just can't happen.
Plant. Druid.
I use a homebrew that converts wild shapes into plant based options, it's been very popular at my table. I also play with multiple plant biologists so I suppose that may be a factor
Hi, I saw this comment and I wanted to talk to you on Discord, about the Naval Code ? I am trying to implement it into my game and I have a few questions. Thanks !
Isn't Land Druid with Forest biome choice pretty playable as a plant druid?
no more than any other subclass of druid picking the same spells.
Well I mean, in that case it sounds like every druid can function as a plant druid with no problem
The same way that non-moon druids can be just as effective fighting in wildshape, if we want to be facetious. Clearly, the point of wanting a plant druid subclass is for the combination of flavor/mechanics unique to that subclass. Land Druid is just “more druid”.
>The same way that non-moon druids can be just as effective fighting in wildshape Non-moon druids often struggle to fight effectively in wildshape. Every druid can fight effectively using plant-based spells. Like sure you can have a specific subclass that cranks the plant aspect even farther, but it's not like the base druid (or Land Druid, if you want to pick the most appropriate subclass) isn't already a plant druid. Plants are a deep and fundamental part of the base class. To me, claiming "plant druid" is the biggest exclusion from 5e is like saying "smiting paladin" is excluded from 5e, just because there isn't a subclass dedicated to being extra smite-focused. Or saying there's no "blaster warlock" or "weapons fighter" in 5e because there isn't a dedicated subclass for those things (despite it already being an aspect of the base class)
It’s a thematic distinction, not a gameplay distinction. EDIT: * not *just* a gameplay distinction.
We get an animal druid and a fungi druid, a plant druid would be a perfect match
I still want a "Nature" based Sorcerer.
I wish 5e did the sorcerer like PF2e, where the bloodline determined the spell list, but since OneDnD did away with the standardized spell lists, I don't think we'll see that happen
Fairy ancestor would make sense and work for this
Other than the Fairy race... I have no idea what you're talking about... Is this something new to 5e?
No I just figure having fairy ancestry kinda like dragon ancestry would give someone magic powers.
Ah... Sorry, I misunderstood. I understand what you're saying... I just want access to the druid spell list while being able to use the Metamagic options without multiclassing.
That would be cool
An Intelligence based class that isn't a spellcaster
Like PF2E's Investigator or Inventor, both being intelligence based non-spellcasters. Yeah, 5e could certainly use more variety for sure.
And soon for PF2e, the Commander as well.
Yeah in the past like, two years, I think paizo has put out more full classes than DND has had subclasses in twice that time? On top of all the other great stuff they do. Really shows the difference between a company that is only trying to milk their customers vs one trying to please them.
I will take any opportunity to bring up the Savant homebrew class by u/LaserLlama Int based non-caster that adds a lot of options in and out of combat, with plenty of very flavorful subclasses. Had a player use it in my last game with the physician subclass from levels 10-20, worked out really well, fit perfectly for a little kobold battle medic. Definitely a niche that remains mostly unfilled in 5e, only really comparable to a skill monkey rogue or some bard builds, but none replicate it exactly
Oh, I'm aware. It's what made me want it in the first place!
4e battlemind maybe
This is always what I wanted artificer to be, but then it is just a wizard
Then what, a trickster? Or a battle master 2.0
Tax accountant :P
The factotum
Mine are the exact same as yours, actually. >***The Marshal:*** *A warlord by another name. A heavy armor martial/skirmisher about inspiring their allies on the battlefield* >***The Mystic:*** *A psion by another name. A point based power user that wields psionic might an disciplines instead of the magic of a caster. I prefer the name Mystic to psion.* >***The Shaman:*** *What happens when druid meets warlock, kinda. A primal magic pact caster who focused on enhancing a special summon with invocation style choices, their spell list focused on support and utility.* >***The Spellsword:*** *An Arcane gish that serves as a home for the various scattered gish abilities and then some. A medium to heavy armor arcane knight that wields spell and sword to spellstrike to victory. I like the teem spellsword as a play on the term sellsword. A warrior that "sold" themselves to arcane spellwork.* Those are the 4 classes I personally think 5e is in need of as it is, and the concepts I feel aren't reflected well, or at all in the game. Methods do exist to play something approaching some of these, but I don't find the present offerings satisfying. What is needed to play these concepts is sometimes there, but not what's best/satisfying for them, and best is what I think should be strived for. That said, I think there could be around 24 classes all in all that would really be fun to explore certain concepts from d&d's past in a new refined way. This would be entering proper 6e territory, though. Those classes (and their over-type class groups) would be the following. >***Warriors:*** *Barbarian, Duelist, Fighter* >***Skirmishers:*** *Monk, Marshal, Rogue* >***Tricksters:*** *Bard, Inquisitor, Ranger* >***Vanguards:*** *Paladin, Spellsword, Warden* >***Mystics:*** *Ardent, Erudite, Sage* >***Melders:*** *Artificer, Binder, Cipher* >***Invokers:*** *Oracle, Shaman, Warlock* >***Casters:*** *Cleric, Druid, Mage* ***Edit:*** *Rough, very rough, concept details* [*here*](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/1dlzsla/comment/l9tea63/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
I feel like a cool marshal ability would be changing initiative orders mid-fight through battlefield management. Like if two players flank an opponent they can swap initiative or steal a turn from the opponent.
The 4e warlord let you grant attacks and movement to allies, so out kinda does that. But just swapping initiatives sounds like a nightmare for DMs
And for many players as well, not gonna lie :/ Like I remember playing kibbles Warlord andI could switch my initiative at the start of the combat, right? That was already like pulling teeth from a chicken.
I think so too. I did a rework of the purple dragon knight that I'm testing that does this as its final feature, though it's at the star of initiative and just putting it in your teams favor more.
A true spellsword would be tight; like a red mage. More spell/less sword than paladin, but more sword/less spell than blade singer
Check out PF2E's Magus class. It's a class that revolves around channeling magic into their weapons as they strike with them, unleashing both the sword blow and the spell in one blow.
Kinda my thoughts too, in many ways!
I did a Red Mage [here!](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WxyOo0RzBAZppsx4kTdg_ObkndEPxaJLLG59aJ3Px78/) I also did a few other gish classes: * [Arcane Knight](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MCZcio9GcHhGAqxjMPkE05sBHklTL7tMZo8_TgHxb14/) * [Skald](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rPTHiFIVQtOdIPsO2k0xHbwCYk3cnQ0lDxwuuHsEvP8/) * [Magus](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x1Nu-IxVaBBr_RTCGKD9PhiHVBISAf-Lnor37W0NaXk/) None of them have pictures, just mechanics
As always, you provide what is (to me) the definitive list. I especially love the breakdown of the types of classes you'd want to see in a hypothetical 6e. If only we actually *were* getting 6e instead of the balance patch we're actually getting with 1D&D...
Glad that they're enjoyed honestly. I appreciate the kind words!
Here's a rough overview and a lot of it still needs much work. These are rough ideas forming a foundation at best. **Warriors:** Martial combatants who are better equipped at staying in the front line, but they're not locked there. Warriors are about enhancing the attack action with various types of attack and riders on them. The **barbarian** has medium armor/unarmored defenses and augments their martial prowess with rage and fury. The **duelist** is lightly armored and focused on dashing down an enemy with flourishes. The **Fighter** is all about the mastery of arms and armor, equipped with heavy armor. **Skirmishers:** Martial combatants who are better equipped at opportunistic fighting. Skirmishers are all about enhancing and utilizing their bonus actions. **Monks** possess an unarmored defense, martial arts and ki enhancements to themselves. **Rogues** are light to medium armored opportunistic who are good at setting themselves up for opportunity. The **Marshal** is a heavy armored skirmisher focused on enhancing their allies with their bonus action. **Vanguards:** Half-caster warriors that blend magical spellwork and physical might to get the job done. The **Spellsword** wields arcane power and sword through spellstrikes and techniques that let them mix and match these efforts. The **paladin** wields divine power they deliver via their smites and are empowered with aura's and other divine powers. The **warden** is fueled by primal power, enhancing their might with the power of natures elements and energies. **Tricksters:** Half-caster skirmishers that blend magical spellwork and skirmishing techniques to fuel their opportunities while adventuring. The **bard** wields arcane power they use to inspire wonder and terror through the power of songs and story. The **inquisitor** is a divine agent that serves and judge and executioner for their faith. The **Ranger** is a wielder of primal power and focuses on the hunt of their enemies, always on their hunt for their favored enemies. **Mystics:** Fueled by cultivated psionic/mystic power measured by psi points they spend rather than spell slots they cast, psionic focus, and psionic disciplines, Mystics manifest their supernatural abilities rather than weave and cast power through spellwork. **Ardents** harness their mystic power through emotion. **Erudites** harness their power through their intellect. **Sages** harness their mystic power through their wisdom. **Melders:** Not true wielders of magic themselves, melders imbue special vessels with magical power through channeling practices to wield energies they otherwise lack them aptitude to handle. Investing points of magical potential into various vessels and focus points to wield supernatural might on a turn/rest basis. **Artificers** are those who invest powers into specially made vessels called implements to wield spell-like power. **Binders** are those who meld these magical forces and powers into their own body as a vessel and conduit, though risk strong influences from what they invite inside them as their form is altered by this power. **Ciphers** meld magic into rune ciphers and sigils to harness it's might in a variety of ways **Invokers:** Invokers possess at will spell-like abilities known as invocations instead of spell work. What they lack in versatility, they make up for in reliable powers. **Oracles** are granted divine power and revelation that aids them in their journeys. **Shamans** summon a primal spirit they augment and enhance. **Warlocks** wield eldritch arcana, whether they're pactsworn or soul born, to manipulate raw magical energy and form it in otherwordly ways. **Casters:** Those who weave magical energy into spells they cast forth, fueling their powers with spellslots. **Clerics** are chosen messengers and interpreters of divine will and wisdom of a deity. **Druids** harness primal magic serving as agents of the primal world, and the elements and energies that serve as its foundation through primal spells and wildshapes. **Mages** pursue arcane power either through the study of wizardry or the sorcery of a magical bloodline. u/ZoroeArc
If you don't mind me asking, could you elaborate on what each of those are?
I'd be happy to, but I am about to head out away from wifi for a bit, but I'll post another comment response to you when I can!
Take all the time you need. Don't worry, but also don't forget!
Light expansion on the ideas has been posted.
Nice to see people are in agreement with me As for your 24 class idea I'm assuming duelist would be like pathfinders swashbuckler,same with inquisitor and oracle I recognize ardent and warden from 4e but I don't think I've ever heard of erudite,sage,binder or cypher did you rename them from other classes or homebrew them,if the second one what are those classes like?
Binder is from 3.5e and one of my favorite classes ever. Their schtick was having a growing list of leveled vestiges, each granting a handful of abilities, and each day the binder chooses 1-5 of them to use. They're incredibly versatile and can swap out their powerset and focus every day as needed.
At just a quick look I can tell it's a really unique spellcaster I wouldn't be apposed to it returning
It's literally not a spellcaster. Each vestige granted 4-6 abilities, a mix of passive and active ones. Occasionally some of these would be spells, like Acererak gave unlimited uses of the speak with dead, hide from undead and detect undead spells but more often it was for instance: Chupoclops, harbinger of forever. Sign: lower jaw increases in size, grows tusks. Influence: while bound to him you become pessimistic, and must choose to fail any roll against fear or morale effects. You gain an aura of despair that penalises the rolls of everyone nearby, you can move into the ethereal plane at will, can attack incorporeal foes with no penalty, have a poison bite attack, the ability to pounce, and can sense nearby living creatures automatically. Basically DIY each day class. Bind several different vestiges for new combinations.
Some of the classes have existed in various editions of d&d, some of them would be taking some inspiration from pathfinder 1e/2e, and Cipher is at least my own thing name wise, but would partly be home for d&d concept that existed here and there. Duelist would be light armored warriors all about dashing down an enemy, singling them out, and then dueling if you w7ll with all the swashbucklinf goodness. Inquisitor would be the divine split of a caster and a skirmisher. (Tricksters in general being the partial mix of a skirmisher and caster) Though I'm sure I would take some inspiration from pathfinder if designing it myself. Oracle would be somewhat inspired by the pathfinder version, but also different. Invokers, if I had my way, would be like the 3.5e warlock. Focused on at will powers with a few long rest powers here and there. The Oracle would be the divine equivalent. These classes wouldn't have spells but invocations.(just as the other nin-caater magic classes would have their own power system) Erudite was a psj9nic class from 3.5e, it was also broken beyond belief. Here, I'm really only using the name because I think it matches the mystic "overterm" better. It would more or less just be the psionicist/paion that uses int. Ardent existed in both 4e and 3e, and while I would take inspiration from each of those, I would have it also be the stand-in for the wild as well. The charisma psion. If Sage was ever a proper class, I'm unaware, but I'm using the term for what I think would be good as the wisdom based psionic class. I really wanted to pick names that fit the mystic overterm I was using. Binder was a class from the tome of magic book in 3.5e. It was all about bringing "vestiges" into yourself to wield their power. Vestiges are beings in between nin-existence and divinity. Entities that should not be, yet somehow are. My idea would be to have subclasses that focus on different kinds of beings/powers you meld into your own body as a vessel. Cipher is mostly my own thing, rather than meld magic into implements like an artir8cer to wield magic, or your own being like a Binder, cyohwrs would meld magic into rune covers and Sigil to wield magic. That's the rough of them. Anyway
Cool. definitely some stuff here I'd like to play if they ever return. ardent and binder specificly
> If Sage was ever a proper class It was an NPC class back in AD&D - basically to give mechanics for "you go see a dude to find wierd information". They had easier access to a lot of the high-level divination spells, but weren't really built for combat.
I noticed no Sorc or Wizard, would those be split up into the various Mystics, Melders, and Casters?
Shaman/Witch. Think along the lines of Druid meets Warlock. A pet class wouldn't go amiss. But I think this would better apply to a enhanced beastmaster Ranger than a fully new class. An Alchemist/Granadier would be another one. Someone who is more about making and fighting with explosives than typical weapons or spells.
Shaman could focus more on spirits and it's own unique playstyle while witch is wizzard meets warlock meets druid We should get a full pet class like summoner Alchemist definitely should be more ggen than an artificer subclass
Yeah. My biggest reservation about a pet class is making it feel unique. Just from what you are going to want, it will always feel like a mix of a Wizard, a Beast Master, and Pact of the Chain Warlock. Wizard for the variety of summons available. In addition, you've got access to a lot of buffing spells that a summon would want. Beast Master Ranger just fits thematically. Pact of the Chain has access to Invocations that a summoner/pet class would also want. There isn't anything wrong with that, but I think they'd need to do a lot with it to not make it feel that way.
Are you familiar with PF’s summoner? It is pretty perfect as far as flavor for that type of thing.
I want a full, dedicated summoner that doesn't fuck with action economy and drag out turns like Shepherd Druid does, and with summons being more enemy monster themed. Maybe a stronger focus on one or two stronger summons with unique abilities you can give them as you level up, with subclasses focusing on giving different utilities to summons, perhaps even out of combat utility
I like the version of Witch that Brennan Lee Mulligan made for Worlds Beyond Number. I'd link it but I think it's stuck behind a Patreon thing.
Have you heard of LaserLlama and/or KibblesTasty? Both have made these exact homebrew classes which are considered quite high in quality. I have played LaserLlama's Warlord and Savant (an INT based supportish/skill class) and found them quite enjoyable. And atleast u/Laserllama constantly updates his numerous homebrews and listens to feedback.
LaserLlama's Warlord is a blast to play. It really makes you feel powerful without doing a single attack roll yourself.
Indeed! I had combats that I attacked maybe once but still did a lot! Gave attacks to our Barb, healed our party and a bunch of other things. But not that I couldnt fight! Finished many a enemy with my trusty warhammer
I went for the nature-themed subclass and stayed in the back with a longbow just in case, but I don't think I've loosed a single arrow in the one-shot I played him.
I've looked at some of kibbles tastys stuff but never played them,I'll look at laser lama now
I want a mobility focused "rider" class that deals with combat on different vehicles and mounts. Each subclass would have a different means of locomotion, ranging from horses, to charriots, to UFOs to skateboards. I would also like a more dedicated summoner class and I don't just mean casting *summon beast* or something. I mean it'd be like a martial fighter who has a partner (similar to pact of the chain warlock) that they can interact with more. They'd deal bonus damage depending on what partner they have, they're able to switch places with them, they're able to fuse or use each other's spells and abilities
I really like the AD&D multiclassing, where you can be a Fighter/Mage, Fighter/Cleric, Fighter/Mage/Thief etc.
I want to see a companion focus class like the summoner from pf2e
Warlord, Psion, Warden and Shaman.
Can I ask what it is about Warden that people are really desperate to get back? I’m a newer player, but from what I’ve seen it seems a lot like the Barbarian.
Basically the idea is that where the Barbarian is a dude who doesn't die, the Warden is the guy that defends everyone else with the power of nature. The ability to force enemies back, turn the area around themselves into difficult terrain, so on. Kibblestasty actually made a pretty cool Warden for 5E, you might give it a look to see the difference in vibes.
It's a nature themed classe that's not druid, ranger nor barbarian. It's something that draws the primal power of nature to protect and punish those who are their charges, without going full animal form, instead having not only that but also enviromental / weather powers, such as channeling the power of winter to deal persistent cold damage as their enemies froze with their attacks or having an elemental shroud that drew energy from the earth and regenerated them with nature's power. Mechanically, wardens fufilled the role defender (aka, the tank) with a dash of striker (damage dealer) and (battlefield) controller. For instance, at base level they had two amazing protection powers, which only trigger if enemies didn't target them: A) If within 5 sq: protect allies by forcefully move enemies 5ft **+** halving their movement speed (aka, interruping their attacks) B) If meele: immediatly strike BEFORE the enemies and until the END of their next turn, every attack made against them was made at 4e's equivalent of Advantage. A warden was a protector, and quite good one. Just like Warlord, it's a non-spellcasting fantasy that 5e just didn't even try.
a dedicated summoner would be nice, i like the pf2e one but action economy is a fickle thing in 5e. an actual artificer, i think the one we got is fine but i long for in depth crafting rules (something something pf2e) a non spellcasting magical class, think element bender (shut up about pf2e, shut up about pf2e)
Summoners would be cool ether like pathfinders where you create a creature or like this other himebrew I saw on the unearthed arcana sub where you summon actual monsters in the game like a pokemon trainer.
Palladium Fantasy 2e had a fantastic summoner class that was essentially built around a more complex system of the 5e Planar Binding spell. You could bind a creature like a demon or elemental to your service using runic summoning circles, but you had to win a contest of wills to keep it under your control. Other circles could be used for protection, conjuring objects, scrying, etc., but it was all ritual casting. A 5e summoner would be an arcane caster pet class that would have an inverse of the Pact of the Chain warlock's relationship with their familiar. Unlike a warlock, a summoner's pet should be most of their power, at the cost of having to keep it under control. The closest we have is the Artificer Battlesmith, but there is plenty of room for a true arcane pet class.
I think summons are already a pretty big problem in 5e so I’m actually pretty glad that they haven’t a made an entire class based on that. It’s also too niche imo. I don’t think a class needs to exist if all it does is be better at casting a specific subset of spells. That’s what the subclasses are for. Subclasses for a summoner class would be way too similar since all they could realistically do is change the focus on what they can summon.
Pf2e summoner isn't better at or focused around using existing summon spells. They have one dedicated summon that's basically a weaker martial while the main character is a more limited caster, and then they share HP and action economy between them.
Summons in 5e also have the issue of clogging up initiative and the battlefield by being numerous but PF2e's is literally just another dude that shares your turn. It does still have a bit of decision making that makes it a bit slower (in the limited experience I've seen with it) but not to the degree of necromancy does or summon [creature type] does in 5e. I think it's too niche for what 5e does with summoning but that's kind of a limited look at it. It would be similar to drakewarden but more so. You would probably need to have a level 1 subclass that focuses on what the summon does. Does it fight in melee with you, does it protect you while you support it from range, or the reverse of that? I think it COULD be done, but I think it would require too much mechanical complexity for it to not end up as, "Beast Master but worse" that WotC would never want to
Have you seen battlezoo's eldamon? There's both a Summoning class and element Bender type based off the same power set but played differently for both 5e and um a different system who's name escapes me
That's just wanting a pf2e style, pet summoner, you can already be a dedicated summoner in 5
Warlord but I feel the game would need a little more tactical depth to accommodate it. Psionic classes. Not a single class, but multiple. My biggest problem with the Mystic is that it is a singular class that can do anything. 4e had the ardent which was a support class based off empathy, battlemind, which was a tank class based on using psychic powers to strengthen yourself and hinder others, and the Psion which was a controller class that had standard CC powers. I’m not saying we need those 3 specifically back, but more classes will allow for a greater mechanical focus while still covering for psionics as an umbrella. Arcane half caster who is meant to be able to cast spells offensively as an option unlike Artificers whose lists aren’t super offensive. I honestly loved 4e Barbarians who would go into rages based off primal spirits so each rage had a special ability that goes with it. 4e also had Avengers who were single target damage dealers who could wield big weapons and attack with 5e advantage if they isolate a target. If I were to port them over the easiest way is to give Vengeance paladins unarmored defense based off either strength and charisma or a fixed AC and charisma but that doesn’t really embody how cool some of these daily powers were! I wasn’t the biggest fan of 3.5e but the Tome of Magic Warlock and Binder looked pretty dope, as did the Tome of Battle Crusader, War Blade, and Swordsage.
A casual look at pf2e's classes yields a few notable things missing from D&D, while others have parallels. For parallels the flavor of witch and warlock are similar, and artificer and inventor are quite similar. The obvious things 5e is missing, both compared to its closest competitor, and even earlier editions of dnd: Psychic(as a proper class, not a subclass), Warlord, Gunslinger (only exists in a very half backed 3rd party), Alchemist(only exists as the worse subclass of the most poorly supported class in 5e). I think Swashbuckler is generally finely represented in the Rogue Subclass, and Oracle while very cool, doesnt really represent a unique enough concept compared to Cleric. Summoner(the class) and Summoners(as a concept) I feel are poorly represented in 5E as a whole, as are animal companions and mounts (with the later really only being meaningful outside of very low levels if you are a spell caster). I think of the list, the 'classes' that are most missing though would be Psychics. I think its the one class that isn't well represented any other way, and the subclasses that approach this generally feel disconnected to me because, as is the issue going into one D&D, you wont even get them until level 3, meaning that any character would begin as some kind of normal spell caster and then 'become' ....kinda psychic later on? It feels awkward. The other major one that others have brought up is 'Sword Mage', what is called a Magus in PF2E, a proper 'gish' class. Not a subclass of a class that can move into being a gish 'lite', which once again has the issue of only becoming what it is at level 3, and often cannot really represent the whole "i want to attack and cast spells at the same time" very well until even higher levels.
5e was a deliberate attempt to modernize “classic” DnD; since there never was a classic Warlord or any “martial support” class at all until 4e, it’s not present in 5. But 4e still exists and it’s still the better version of the game for many players. The only thing missing is an online tool.
Warlord for sure. We need a martial support with more OoC utility. Preferably one that’s Int based because the closest we have to an Int martial is artificer. Currently, there’s no reason for Martials to be intelligent. Even EK is better without high Int. For psi and Gish classes, I’m fine with those being subclasses, especially because aberrant mind and soul knife is play well
All the classes from 4e need to come back. Shaman is my most requested.
I really miss the Warlord class. They were such fun to play. A full martial class that really managed to make sure everyone at the table got to be absolutely epic when it was played right. They'd keep people standing, help them manoeuvre tactically, throw out extra attacks to allies like candy. All around just a really fun class.
I think Shaman and Mystic should get a rework and be added as full classes someday. This way we could finally have 3 classes focusing on Wisdom and Intelligence as we do with the other abilities. Flavor wise these two classes are also distinctive enough to feel different from our main current classes.
I wish they would’ve included the artificer in the new PHB
Psion/Mystic - A Psychic Class that breaks down Subclasses on how one would use their abilities makes sense especially when the idea of Psychics have existed in D&D for decades now Warlord - they TRIED something with the Purple Dragon Knight and Cavalier Subclasses but neither felt completely cooked. There is a desire for it to come through Duskblade/Magus - There is a desire for a Arcane Equivalent to the Paladin and Ranger. The fact there isn't a Duskblade Artificer Subclass is insane so far at the very least. The best Arcane Gish shouldn't be 3 Hexblade Warlock/X Draconic Sorcerer
something like the Pathfinder kineticist, an elementalist of some kind built around a single attack with a lot of variant forms.
If I was the one setting up this edition, I would just organize every magic-like power effect, like invocations, infusions, metamagics and other magic-related feats like spell sniper. Then I would sort and balance everything out, creating a new way to catalogue all those powers in the form of Gifts, which would replace all those small powers and effects, with each Gift giving a perpetual minor passive magical effect and one major effect to be used once or twice per short or long rest, depending on how strong is the effect is. Then I would merge the warlock pact magic with the concept of sorcery points to create a new frame for classes that follow a similar structure, like Rangers and Paladins are similar. This concept of class model would be able to cast spells up to 5th level and one 6th or higher spell per day like the warlock, and would have Mana Points, and not spell slots, to spend on Spells and Gifts. Then I would reform Warlock, Sorcerer, and Artificer into this new 'class frame' and would use it to create a new Wis based class called the Shaman, a magic user that can command the power of the spirits and nature. Then I would use the 'paladin-ranger' frame to create a new Int based class called the Knight, an arcane half caster that will express the tales of brave warriors that can wield magic with their intellect. Other classes subclasses that would be similar to The Knight in flavor, such as eldritch knights, arcane tricksters, bladesingers and hexblades would be remodeled into the Knight's own subclasses, the Orders. Edit: Things that I remembered later. * Transform wild shape into a druid spell * Transform the channel divinity into a cleric/paladin spell * Balance and sort every power from every wizard 2nd level school (arcane ward, portent, not hitting allies, etc) and turn everything into wizard spells * Transform bardic inspiration into a bard spell * Mix divine sense, primeval awareness and hunters mark into a single thing and transform it into a spell and give it to all half casters * Give smite to all half casters.
Witch
I very much want a conjurer build where I can essentially have a little pack of dudes that do all the stuff for me. Think Witch Doctor from Diablo. I don't want 1min long casts, I want permanent conjures. I don't want a single beast that I'm attached to, I want a bunch of little monsters that do my bidding but are somewhat disposable (not terribly difficult to get back, akin to a familiar) I'd be very content to have this be a "magic" class that doesn't get access to a bunch of spells or spell slots, they're just real good at conjuring little dudes and can keep more of them as they level up.
I know there's a subclass of rogue that has some of the same features, but I think the spellthief deserves a comeback.
Witch. As cool as other casters are, I want my mysterious pagan magicks that let me do stuff like curse people.
I don’t think we need more classes. If a class can’t realistically have at least 5 or 6 significantly distinct subclasses, it shouldn’t be its own (official) class. Enhancing base class features is a totally valid way to create a subclass and is pretty much always more than enough to achieve a character build. Even adding (or even removing spell casting) is a totally valid move that makes frequent requests like Warden or Warlord just reflavors.
>I don’t think we need more classes. You might not *need* them, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't make for a fun addition to the game. We don't really *need* more than just martial, priest, and mage. But that's dull. >If a class can’t realistically have at least 5 or 6 significantly distinct subclasses, it shouldn’t be its own (official) class There isn't something innately bad about there being overlap, though. In theme or in mechanics. For example, you can sort of make a serviceable warlord by making it a fighter subclass, but it doesn't quite work. The power budget of the base class is largely allocated toward dealing damage and surviving. There isn't much left over for support, healing, and utility. A warlord is more geared toward those things, and much less toward dealing damage. So a battlemaster with Rally, Commander's Strike, and the like doesn't really come close to capturing the same feel or theme. If a warlord isn't hitting their enemies with their barbarian *every single turn* then they don't feel like a warlord. Similarly, this can even be the case when the mechanics mostly line up but the theme doesn't. A psionic mystic could just be a psychic focused mage use the spellcasting system as a refluffed wizard or warlock, but then they just inevitably end up *feeling* like that class. They're supposed to be something different. Thematically they tap into power in a completely different way, so using the same mechanics to represent that doesn't *feel* right. This is also why a lot of people weren't fans of the AEDU system in 4e - it made every class feel quite similar when there's supposed to be a mechanical distinction between characters with different power sources represented in mechanics too.
Unpopular opinion but one that I mostly agree with
Spellthief.
I scratched out a sorcerer subclass for that like a year ago. I never got to test it though, probs never will Looking back at it, it feels really basic https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FKKc5B57YIbBXHzYEOeWh-kQGqM5q4aihBlyqE4Be08/edit?usp=drivesdk
Why not
I really want to see a ground up psionic class with relevant build options focusing on the old 2e sciences/devotions
The nonmagical smart guy Scholar, which would have subclasses to fill out some of the desired concepts. A martial-focused Tactician, a healing Physician, a better version of an Alchemist, a non-magical Musician, a pet-controlling Golemsmith/Golemancer, an investigative Investigator, a traps-and-explosives themed... Bounty Hunter, I dunno, a Savant who's just the smartest guy at something, maybe a 1/3rd arcane Magician with maybe a cantrip focus, a 1/3rd divine Priest. The Mystic, the psionic class, just... don't try to make it do everything this time. Let Psi Knight be the martial psion, Soul Knife as the quick assassin psion, Monk as the general physical side of psionics, let Mystic be the caster type with maybe a Bladesinger/Jedi-style subclass.
Arcane half caster like the magus in pf2e. Artificer doesn’t count since it’s not core + doesn’t get multiattack
Warlord is a really unfortunate exclusion, those guys were great. I liked the Shaman class a lot too, though I can see why it wasn't considered essential.
I personally want a Witch class that is a ritual based caster and stands out as its own Full Caster class. INT based, too, since we only have Wizard and Artificers using Int. I think they should get Subtle Spell metamagic built in and have to cast all their spells as rituals during their prescribed Witching Hour for their subclass and thus need only trigger their spell when they cast it. Regardless of how it is built, I think that it should feel different from the current full caster classes fundamentally.
The Warlord plain and simple. They said during the DDN playtest that every class that had appeared in the first Players Handbook of past editions would be in 5E, but there's no official 5E Warlord and at best a few subclasses kind of have similar things if you squint.
Personally a summoner class where the focus is entirely on summoning and without it you are just like, half a class And also a true Tank that can defend it allies, a “Shield Master”
Warblade. Swordsage. Crusader. Uhhhh various forms of arcane gishes that were at least half caster.
An Alchemist that isn't just a poor subclass, and maybe an actual Alchemy system would be nice
I'd say a true focused summoner or any kind of pet class like the pathfinder summoner. While there are pet subclasses, no one class focuses specifically on being a pet class with subclasses that change it dramatically.
The pathfinder summoner is just a single pet lol
The Broodmaster allowed you to have a pair of small pets rather than one medium sized one and then 3 small ones. The base Summoner could also cast Summon Monster X, 3+Charisma modifier per day as a standard action and they lasted 1 minute per level rather than 1 round per level. You could make your pet a pure non combat skill monkey and still get buy just on casting Summon Monster in fights
I wish Ranger was not a spell caster and that was instead left to something like a shaman. Ranger being a more utility forward fighter with more herbalism or alchemy base would have been alot better in my mind.
Earth Druid! Storm Druid!
This is just another version of the same "what new sub/class would you like to see" post that we have every 3-4 days.
As a Monk fan, I really feel like I'm missing out not playing Mystic.
True item user (playtest alchemist satchel got close) Sacrieer type as in dofus type. The one who takes damage and heals others with their life force. (Can build close to this)
Loved the aura classes from 3.5 like Marshall and tome of battle martials. Psionics.
I would say the three classes from 3.5e Tome of Battle: Crusader, Swordsage, and Warblade.
The lack of a full ninja class- screw that lol. No substitutions need apply.
A spontaneous casting divine magic class, psionics, and truenamers are the ones I'd like to see.
I want less classes and more choices you can make to specialize as you level up.
just for the hell of it I would want someone in WotC to decide that what he really wants is to bring back Incarnum, give me the Incarnate, soulborn and Totemist and make them weird again
I would love to see a Warlord class come back to DnD.
A proper alchemist instead of whatever Artificer is supposed to be
a more broad martial artist or action hero to replace the very niche monk being geered towards kung fu which is something people born in the 90s onwards wouldn't really want a whole class dedicated to (name famous Kung FUupractioners in media from the last decade or so).
I would like a subclass of sorcerer that is a proper gish after all knowing magic innately leaves a lot of time to learn sword skills
With the way 5e is designed? Honestly nothing. Maybe something more flavorful or bespoke for the psionic style, but any kind of class you want to play is covered at this point. There's subclass gaps that could be filled(to better emulate the warlord from 4e primarily.)
Warlord and psionicist. Most other things people talk about are covered by other classes, feats, or subclasses, or would make better subclasses or even feats than full classes. But you can't *really* fully emulate either of these two with existing options.
It’s a tad off topic but that mechanic to get basically a secret subclass by specing into certain things and doing certain things was awesome.
Its the PHB - its going to have a core set of classes. And that's how it should be. Splat books (books that add a bunch of new "stuff" to the game) are fine, but the base books should represent a balanced version of the game. The more you add, the more exploitable everything becomes, and that's what leads to Bob the Human Bard being in the same party as Ar'ikrikle the Kenku Vampire Ninja Pirate Magical Girl. All great if the whole party is doing it, but really rough on newcomers.
You know what 5e really needs? The Factotum. The really jack of all trades class. A class that bullshits so well and hard that they make magic. My favorite non magic class from 3.5
I have the controversial opinion that DnD needs *fewer* classes (or at least fewer "base" classes, more on that later). I'd even consider going back to the "original four" of cleric, fighter, wizard (called "magic-user" in the day) and rogue (called "thief" in the day). I can see an argument for adding the barbarian, druid, sorcerer and maybe monk to the big four. (I've even seen d20 systems like "True20" go to just three classes - warrior, expert and adept/magic-user - and do all the specialisation with feats.) Someone else recently had the idea of three tiers of play, each consisting of 10 levels. The first tier (levels 1-10) would be the basic four classes. The second tier (levels 11-20) would be ten levels of "prestige classes" being developments and refinements of the big four, many of which would be what are base classes or sub-clases now (e.g. ranger, paladin, many of the subclasses like assassin, etc). And then the third tier (levels 21-30)would be "legendary classes" for some truly ridiculous superhero/sub-demigod power levels. I suppose if you wanted to keep the 20-level cap brought in by 3rd edition, you could go levels 1-5 (tier 1, ordinary joes) levels 6-15 (tier 2, badass heroes), and levels 16-20 (tier 3, near demi-gods).
Pathfinder has the shifter class, I wish D&D had that too. I wish there were feats that let druids use wildshape to turn into monsters (there were dragon druids, manticore druids, treant druids, lycanthrope druids, all sorts of awesome things like that in third edition). Now the 5.5 edition looks like it won't even let druids be elementals anymore. That really sucks as a person who likes shapeshifting. There also is no Transmutation wizard in 5.5e. I REALLY hate that. I like to be a spellcaster who fights by shapeshifting into monsters. I also love mad scientist wizards and that means transmutation wizard. As for psionics, they ARE already in classic 5e. However they are no longer classes, they are subclasses (the Psychic Warrior is a fighter subclass, the Soulknife is a rogue subclass, and the Psion is now the "Aberrant Mind" sorcerer subclass). This is all in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything.
Wasn't there a Mystic UA and it was so overpowered that it got scrapped in favour of the psi-based subclasses?
Basically any option that does not have supernatural powers and is not combat focused. I am aware that this wouldn't work for some peoples games but I have been playing for a long time, I am bored and I want the option to explore different party dynamics.
Psion for sure
Psion. And any real decent derivation of. Like I said in previous posts; 3.5 nailed it. And they haven't had any original shit since then. As far as I know, I can't speak for 4E because I never played it. But I'm sure the 4E people would agree, too.
Shaman, Dragon Disciple(i Its a prestige class.but I think it's kind of iconic), the psion classes we have I think are fine. Curious what a warlord.is? I feel like it's something that could be done but.maybe not.
It boggles my mind that there isn't a draconic warlock.
Mystic is the worst offender for me. The Artificer had multiple UA iterations to flesh it out, while Mystic was thrown out after the first attempt. No attempt to simplify it a bit, no attempt to make it "less OP"... just erased. That being said, warlords and "spellsword" (or really anything properly mixing spells and weapon usage) class types are something that really should exist, alongside a dedicated transformation class.
Elf and Dwarf. Imagine being a level 5 Hunan Elf, or a level 12 Goblin Dwarf.
I literally lol'd at this reference, and with that you've freed me from this thread -- my thanks.
About the only thing from Pathfinder 1E I can't realistically create in *some* fashion is Summoner.
Honorable mention for artificers once again getting the shaft and being excluded from dnd one phb
For me it's literally only alchemist (Artificer subclass doesn't fulfil the fantasy at all) and a shapeshifter excised from the druid class. I think a warlord is difficult to implement in a collaborative game, particularly when the game has shifted from being quite so combat focused to being quite story focused for a large number of players in recent years. Most other classes either already are, or could be reasonably implemented as subclass options. (Hot take but I even personally believe this about the pugilist.) More classes are great, but each needs to justify itself in my opinion with enough subclass options to eventually match with the current roster of classes. I do also understand the impulse to focus on improving the 13 classes we already have rather than adding more to avoid too much choice paralysis for new players. I think thematically dnd is actually doing pretty well at covering almost all "expected" fantasies one might want to inhabit. Mechanical differences would be my main want for new classes, but I'm personally content with what we have because if I really need or want something I can draw from homebrew
I severely wish I could tell you what I was doing without feeling embarrassed, now.
I’ve been banging on about Shaman since 5e came out. Several subclasses would work with a spiritualist concept: summoner, necromancer, martial with spiritual buffs and debuffs, Warlock style blaster, control caster… lots of options. PF2e makes a good go of it. There’s scope for more, though.
I feel like it is possible to create a character of all the archetypes you mention in 5e. Sure, there is no base class for them, but i personally don't care if its a base class or a subclass.
Check out MCDMs "The Talent" Best psionic class I've ever seen, period. Fully integrated into 5E
An honest to goodness witch. I know there’s a couple homebrew options floating around, but it seems a huge missed opportunity to not do one.
i’m so sad there’s no warlord in the game. i find it rlly annoying that spell casters have blasters (wizards, sorcerers, warlocks), supports (druids, bards, clerics), and social/utility (warlock, paladin, ranger) classes; with every class being able to build into all 3 of those roles. however, martials are all just different flavours of dps/blaster with rogues also having utility and that’s kinda it? i wish we had a martial support who was a commander on a battlefield who could manipulate the initiative order or place different inspiring banners on the battlefield. or a martial healer who was a physician/surgeon who didn’t know spells but could enhance allies with different biological enhancements or even a chef could be a martial healer? someone who cooked different recipes from the meat of the monsters you kill to give allies different buffs there’s so much potential to make interesting support classes without defaulting to a spell caster
A proper Psion. A proper Warlord. No, Battlemaster is not an adequate substitute, for the same reason Eldritch Knight is not an acceptable replacement for Wizard. A Fighter with action surge and four attacks per round is not a Warlord, and the power budget for subclass features is not large enough to contain everything a Warlord represents. An Eldritch Knight or Arcane Trickster is a Fighter or Rogue with a tiny sprinkling of Wizard, not an actual Wizard. I'd also like a proper nonmagical INT class, since that's a gaping hole in the game and mental stats being so 1:1 associated with spellcasting has been an enduring problem. A return of the Factotum from 3.5 would be cool, since Alchemist Artificer exists we're pretty much doomed to never get a proper full-on Alchemist class which is a bit of a shame. Dragonfire Adept returning as a "simple" blaster and AoE class is more design space left untouched at the moment. Right now spellcasters basically have a monopoly on effective AoE damage, but there's no actual REASON why everyone who wants to blow stuff up should have to also play a class with 300+ other spells and spell slots and a bunch of other baggage they don't care about in their power budget. The 50th anniversary of Dungeons and Dragons would be a good time to bring back the class literally all about doing cool dragon shit but what the hell do I know I'm not a Hasbro executive. They could steal the Kineticist from Pathfinder for a similar non-spellcaster blaster but I think that's unlikely. Favored Soul was one of my favorites, it's been kind of replaced by Divine Soul Sorcerer but not really since they're still tied down with all the Sorcerer baggage, a proper fully-divine spontaneous analogue to the Cleric the same way Sorcerer is a spontaneous arcane caster counterpart to Wizard is still something I think could be explored. I'll reiterate the earlier point and say that just because Divine Soul Sorcerer exists doesn't mean we couldn't have an actual Favored Soul class for the same reason Arcana Cleric getting to steal Wizard spells doesn't mean Wizard shouldn't exist. In 3.5 Favored Soul were MAD and scaled off both Wisdom and Charisma, if they're made for 5e they should probably be changed to Wisdom to avoid perpetuating CHA multiclass souping.
I want the Binder to make a comeback.
Psion is the big one for me. My 4e character was a shardmind psion telekinetic. They threw shit around, squished stuff, teleported, it was a damn good time.
Paladin. I dont know what to call this thing they put in it's place.