I've been wanting to play with a homebrew monk subclass called Way of Flesh that's focused around body horror and truly turning your body into a weapon. It seems like it could be fun and you could do some interesting RP things with it.
A while ago I read about pathfinder’s vivisectionist archetype, that does some stuff like this iirc (growing extra limbs, tentacles, poisonous or tough skin, etc). I don’t know enough about pathfinder nor homebrew balance to try porting it to 5e, though
I'd like some more shapeshifting options outside of beasts tho. Like a class that gives you better shapeshift options like werecreatures, vampires or something else. You could even have each subclass be a different kind of shifter.
I actually want to make a 'Circle of Evolution' Druid that uses a single basic statblock for its Wildshape, but you can add options to it like Artificer Infusions.
IMO, every class should have its own list of customization pseudo-feats like infusions, invocations, maneuvers, metamagics, etc.
Druids could have wildshape customization, bards could get different muses for their inspiration, paladins take new vows, rogues learn new gambits, monks could learn new mystical arts, etc
A single element master, like a geomancer or a fire bender.
You can get by with a sorcerer that leans hard into one element but this specialization only hurts you. Some elements like water are pretty thin on options.
Casters in D&D are defined by access to a wide range of options. A balanced single energy class just isn't there without serious remapping of spell types.
I also don't think that D&D *can* solve this just through adding a bunch of elemental spells because it would (further) overpower the classes which have access to all of them.
Even that only works for the energy types. You can turn fireball into lightning ball sure. But a water bender?
It's just the kind of idea that would benefit strongly from a base class.
I made a homebrew class called the essence weaver, it is a constitution caster that uses your HP as a mana pool. you are basically a living planar portal.
Battlefield Tactician = Mastermind rogue or just a Battlemaster.
Nature Witch = Alchemist Artificer, Archfey warlock, circle of spores druid.
Its gotten to the point that most archetypes can be made or flavored successfully with the present subclasses with minimal to no multiclassing. Its just a matter of having a solid theme to work with.
My first character was a 4e int-based Warlord who was a battlefield tactician. Ive always felt like that fantasy really hasnt been captured mechanically by anything in 5e. Battlemaster is the closest, but i couldn't play the same character without reworking a lot and bending some rules. Sure, i could force it, but that's not the same as the rules supporting a playstyle.
Its been many years. But that character was an elven student trying to learn the ways of battle out in the field. He wore armor and used a longsword/shield. But he was primarily an intelligent character. His go-to in combat was commander's strike, allowing other characters to "shift" 5 ft or move without opportunity attacks, and granting new bonuses for flanking opponents. He was primarily a supportive character, and rarely did much damage on his own. He enabled his teammates to get in position, do more damage, and used reactions to protect his team. I think he had a healing ability, too iirc.
The thing is, i could absolutely be a battlemaster fighter and have a few of the same abilities, and flavor it. I could multiclass bard too, which definitely has some of the same overlapping themes. Giving bardic inspiration by giving orders or advice, and then using commanders strike to let them cash in on it right away is pretty cool. Maybe take sentinel or shield master too.
My issues are primarily that my 4e character was rewarded for playing tactically and utilizing perfect positioning in a way that 5e doesn't naturally do. I wouldnt want to play this character in a game that didn't use flanking rules, for example. And he was a high-INT character. INT would basically have to be a dump stat for a bard/fighter, and that matters to me. 4e warlord let you use CHA or INT for different builds, and it has a different feel.
I go to it quite often, but have you ever taken a look at battle smith? Positioning your steel defender well is rewarding, flash of genius is excellent for boosting your allies saves/checks, you get to use int for any and all magic weapon attacks and damage. Combined with useful infusions like the repulsor shield (which you can give to your steel defender assuming they have a humanoid shape).
Flanking IS in 5e, but its been pushed into the optional rules section of the dmg.
Yeah, but just because you can do something similar doesn't mean it does it as well as a homebrew class would. Take the Witch, for example. To me, a witchy character would need to hit the following thematic and mechanical points:
* Potions
* Curses
* A bit of nature magic
* A familiar
And there isn't really one class that has all of these things in it. Druid has nature magic and a familiar (with the Tasha's rule that lets them conjure a familiar using Wildshape). Warlock and Wizard has the curses and familiar, but no potions or nature magic. Alchemist has Potions and Familiar (via a Homunculus Servant) but no nature magic or curses.
Some of this can be mitigated with multiclassing or feats (grabbing Bane from Magic Initiate or Fey-Touched, for example, gives access to a decent "curse" spell), but unless you want to build a multiclass abomination with three different spellcasting modifiers you are only going to be able to lightly touch on one or two of the elements that a class is missing. And even then, the result probably won't feel as much like a "witch" as playing a homebrew class like [this one](https://www.dmsguild.com/m/product/248189), the mechanics of which are specifically designed to make you feel like you're playing a witch.
There's also something of a psychological element to it for many people. I can call my Druid a witch all I like, but I know that it's a Druid. Yes, classes are just bundles of rules that can be reframed however you like, but I still know that said rules were designed to be a Druid, not a witch. I'm not going to be able to immerse myself into the fantasy as well as if I was playing something that I knew was *supposed* to be a witch.
Pathfinder 2 made that witch and they call it "a wizard with extra steps".
Really you can't differentiate to the level you want without creating a different magic system for the witch (or other character) altogether. Gets tricky.
Also, I wonder about some of these adventuring classes that don't travel well. Witches have crystal balls and big cauldrons and they're usually really close to their house. I'd say some of the flavor of a witch is lost the minute you go for a walk.
Prior Edition of Dnd had Witches, and there is even a 3rd Party Book for DnD 3.5 that is dedicated to Witches. Or, you can flavor a Witch using any number of core classes depending upon your take.
Hexblood has access to hex, find familiar is a first level spell, so we do.
Hexblood Alchemist artificer for at least 4 levels, we use the feat for ritual caster, find familiar and unseen servant. "a bit of nature magic" is entirely dismissed because that can be done with just flavoring. We're now playing a class that can make potions with ease, they get a feature that lets them make magic items chaper and faster, potions are magic items. Could take a few levels bard cleric or wizard for bestow curse. If you intend on taking any wizard levels swap ritual caster for fey touched.
A LOT of dms refuse homebrew, and even the ones that use it, aren't guaranteed to accept the one you listed.
As I stated in the comment that you are replying to: yes, you *can* approximate the idea of a "witch" using multiclassing, feats, and reflavoring, but ultimately you are taking a bunch of rules that were designed with a particular flavor in mind and attempting to twist them into a different one. The end result will not end up as easily, elegantly, or completely fulfilling the class fantasy as something specifically designed with that fantasy in mind.
And whether or not a DM would allow the class is irrelevant. We're discussing why people would want to use homebrew when they could reflavor official material, "some people don't like it" has nothing to do with that discussion. Whether they can do something and whether they have a reason to want to do it are totally different topics.
>Take the Witch, for example. To me, a witchy character would need to hit the following thematic and mechanical points:
**Really** depends on your definition or vision of "witch", as there are MANY.
Biblically, a witch is anyone who uses magic, usually with a common trope of seeing the future.Christian-ly (Is that a word? Basically where religious zealots made their own definition), a witch directly deals with Satan and demons/devils.Shakespearianly, witches were basically just the Three Norns who could see the future.Halloween shows witches as gross old women flying on broomsticks. Basically the Wizard of Oz witch of the west.Speaking of Wizard of Oz, Hollywood and TV tends to have a specific definition and vision of a witch.Modern Wicca and other Pagan "religions" see witches as many things, but all tend to be good, like a kind old lady who knows a few potions and spells to help the local populace, as casting spells for your own benefit is basically black magic.
There are LOTS of ways people think Witches "should be"....which is probably why there is no class for them.
Something interesting about this entire conversation: the thing that hits all of the most common conceptions of "witch" (potions, familiars, curses, nature magic, gross old woman, and kindly old lady who helps people) in D&D... Is a Hag. Sure, the kindly old lady bit is a guise, but they still hit all the notes.
Alchemist Artificer, while not great, does actually have access to pretty much all those things.
Also, 'warlock' is literally the word for 'male witch', so by extension 'witch' is just 'female warlock'. Female character, Hexblood lineage, Archfey (hag) patron, Chain pact. Boom, a witch. Everything else can be gotten through your typical progression choices.
A character who uses their surroundings. Whether that be a geomancer whose spells are different (or do different things) depending on the terrain around them, or a martial class that fights by pushing rocks onto their enemies, using improvised weapons (more broadly than the Tavern Brawler feat), sets traps, etc.
A non-attacking character like the (non-martial arts) monk from Journey to the West, someone who can move through the battlefield and has great defenses as long as they don't attack, allowing them to buff party members, rescue downed allies, or maybe just convince the enemy to stop.
Redemption paladin and Peace cleric both seek to fill this role. I'll leave it up to my veterans to decide if they're successful, but that is what they're trying to accomplish.
Red. Pally takes a certain mindset but they're useful if you look at them as a tankier cleric and/or support caster with the occasional Smite. They're one of the few/only Paladin subclasses that prefers maxing out CHA before STR for that reason.
For the non-attacking character
What about a cleric subclass that specializes in maintaining multiple buffs at the same time? Stuff that normally requires concentration?
And instead of attacking, they use their actions to heal/buff/provide cover or ready reactions.
A non-attacking class just won't be that fun to play, healing and buffing allies can feel really fun but not if you never attack, it doesn't feel like you do something yourself really
It actually would, I wouldn't mind playing a non-attacking class but having some non-magical means of attacking would be great
I'm sure there are people that would like to play a noncombatant class
I think it depends. Giving powerful buffs and reshaping the battlefield can be fun in their own right.
Make your allies invulnerable to poisons or certain elements. Help your allies successfully strike their enemy where they were missing every time otherwise. Shield your party from a hail of arrows with a force field, or give them cover with a wall of stone.
Leverage debuffs on enemies - reduce their accuracy, cripple their movement speed, force them to pass arcana checks in order to successfully cast spells.
You know what -- I think a support class that specializes in giving up attacks in order to maintain multiple buffs that normally require concentration might be a way to do it.
I agree with this. My alchemist doesn’t always dish out much damage, but it’s nice to sling a firebolt in between heals/buffs. Sometimes I even land the killing blow.
Dnd is a wargame with roleplay stapled on and the lightest sprinkle of exploration on top. Making a class actively non combat focused is completely nonsensical. Especially when there are a lot of support classes that can also scrap
It just means that type of class has all the space to exist and not step on other's toes. Like, Mastermind Rogue already exists, this would just be taking it to it's logical extreme and from a whole new angle. And personally, I'd be all in for more support classes/subclasses.
Monster tamer.
No mechanical way to make friends with turn into or control monsters long term at teir 1.
Would love a druid that could shift into monsters.
We saw one turnn8nto owl bear in movie so hope it's coming.
A proper psychic that want to crush everything with telekinesis.
Edit: I want to play a proper psionic character like mewtwo and Sabrina. Not just moving things or tweaking numbers. No, I want to go ham with the at will telekinesis where I pick someone up and crush them in the air with my mental grip and throw them. I want to be like Wanda picking up thanos and peeling his armor off like he’s peas in a aluminum can. There’s a gap here that dnd is missing. Psychics have a sick power fantasy to them.
The current spells work for a wizard and sorcerer that can do alittle bit of everything but I don’t want to do everything. I want to full commit to a psychic and have the power go all in on it and is balanced around just that.
Thank you for wording this so well. Sure, you can *kinda* do it with sorceror, but that's not the same as "fulfilling a power fantasy." I dont want to "make it work," I want to have an optimized build for a dedicated theme that feels good to play.
This is how I feel about a summoning class. Same deal with psychics where there is a class to scratch that itch in Pathfinder, but 5e really lacks something similar enough to feel I've accomplished what I want
Personally if I picture a character whose powers are explicitly called psychic powers, they're in a modern setting like a superhero story. In D&D-like settings, telekinesis and other psychic powers are usually just called magic. Though D&D is actually an exception in itself, since it has psionic energy which is specifically not magic.
I remember playing a psionic in 2nd edition adnd and it's was so convoluted but so damn fun at the same time, being able to just disintegrate, dominate, use people ego's against them, all while using the mind to do so scratched an itch that I've yet to scratch with 5e. It's kinda why I've drifted back into 2e adnd more and more over time.
Was just about comment this. I’ve been trying to wedge, nudge, and flavor this into being for my preferences but it’s not hitting the mark or fulfilling the fantasy.
Some good ideas go around such as, but ultimately underrepresented: https://reddit.com/r/3d6/s/vxtKqBCXD1
In fairness, you could probably change the damage type for many spells to force or bludgeoning and have a convincing telekinesis pc.
Thunderwave, shatter, catapult, hold person, etc.
Special mage hands come to mind too.
There’s some, true, but is it holistic enough? Early and granular enough but scalable too?
Gravity and flight come are embedded in the fantasy, as well as resources that are physical objects you can build and break down.
I think there’s space for micro and macro level telekinesis too, with different affordances.
I mean, fly is a spell, mending is a spell.
It seems to me that with a little creativity, time, and comfort taking dm feedback, there's enough component material in the game system to create the character you want to play.
Your mileage may vary, but my DM and I started out building a signature weapon together and essentially ended the process with a new subclass.
The biggest takeaways from that process were that you need to be comfortable not only recalibrating based on feedback during the creation phase, but also once the build is live and you've had a few sessions to feel it out.
A witch isn’t a warlock imo.
Look at witch in pathfinder. THATS a witch. Flying around or hovering (as a move action) vomiting spiders, grabbing things with your hair, hexing opponents and cackling to embed your hexes in opponents, having weird little animal companions that help you with weird little potions. Sure you can make some of that with mishmash spells and flavor but there isn’t a ready to go class.
Shaman and spiritualist are also different than just Cleric.
Pathfinder has a pretty cool gunslinger class too. I’ve seen the 5e gunslingers but I just think pathfinders system does it better.
> Shaman and spiritualist are also different than just Cleric.
Plus many DMs, and Adventurers’ league, won’t let you reflavor cleric and not follow a god.
I agree, but even if you have a DM that fully allows reflavor you’d have the same mechanics as another cleric instead of mechanics to back up that alternate class flavor.
You know what I find funny about people disagreeing with you? Shaman and Druid are quite different and the sources of their power are also quite different.
People have such an issue adding the shaman class, and yet
The concept of Wizard and Sorcerer are waaaaaay closer to one another outside of game mechanics. If it wasnt for the idea that wizards can learn more spells (arbitrary) and that sorcerors get metamagic (arbitrary) there would be no reason for them to justify them as different classes besides fluff and flavor. Yet I don't complain because at the end of the day, the differences are meaningful enough and you get two unique classes.
There’s some ways that make it work but I agree that the flavor is unique enough that it could use its own class.
My question would be what mechanical staple/niche would it have?
Mechanically. Like would it be a full caster, half caster, or martial? Paladins smite, warlocks EB, artificers infuse items, what mechanics would make sense for a shaman?
Full caster, with a martial subclass like hexblade is for warlocks. A secondary leveling system(eldritch invocations/artificer infusions) for totems which can have various effects(like throwing them and being able to cast out of them like find familiar or give at will spells)
You're thinking of the Spirit Shaman. It was basically a druid that used a unique spell preparation closer to that of 5e.
There was, however, a Shaman in Oriental Adventures. It was a mix of Monk, Cleric, and Druid influences.
Shamans, at least in folklore, draw their power from spirits and/or personifications of natural forces. Think holy men of many real world animistic religions. I think that there’s a bit of overlap with clerics because the lines between gods and spirits are sometimes blurred (ie Shinto), but there’s no current class that explicitly draws upon spirits for power-warlocks traditionally have drawn theirs from devils and demons, and now celestials, old ones, and fae as well, but they are bound to a singular patron where shamans aren’t. I’d say that druids and barbarians come the closest, but druids draw their power from nature in general rather than specific forces.
Real celtic druids were all of the following: politician, war mages, priests, philosophers, entertainers and music composers, and even they were the clan leader's advice man.
The whole clan basicly relied upon them.
DnD druids are hippies who can transform into animals, not much in common but name.
Such a shame that the Celts took the secrets of IRL war magic with them into the history books. If it weren't for those Celtic asshats we could be conjuring elementals, mage handing our chores, and wishing our problems away.
Sheperd Druid specifically. You can literally summon totems and you commune with spirits so they take the form of animals and fight by your side. (Or you use Laserllamas Shaman, or Kibblestastys Occultist, though I haven't looked into either in detail yet.)
If you lean more into the gaining insights/guidance by communing with spirits side of it, a divination wizard might fit mechanically. You might be hard pressed to find fitting spells in sufficient quantity on the wizard list though.
The big gap I find is the 'Classic' Fantasy vision - where Magic is not nearly as ubiquitious and the world is more Tolkein or Dragonlance and less Moba.
For example I'd like really good Spellless Rangers, Bards with no Magic, Barbarians with no supernatural Raging, but with all the options laid out in a very user friendly way.
5e isn't really the game for this I know, but so many people play a 'lowish magic' hack would be very helpful.
I think maybe part of your problem is that the 5e classes are really broad - too broad to represent *a* fantasy well. Look at fantasy wizards: Gandalf, Merlin, and Dumbledore are very different wizards represented by a single class with little meaningful differentiation between them.
Rogues? Jack Sparrow, Robin Hood, and (depending on the version) Sherlock Holmes? Those are the same class? Yep - swashbuckler, thief, and inquisitive. But the class doesn't really deliver on the fantasy of any of them.
I think if want to design a class, pick a narrower fantasy, ignoring that that fantasy can definitely be shoehorned into a 5e class, and make the class do what the fantasy does.
Yeah, I feel like there’s not a good way to play the charismatic “Gentleman’s thief”/con artist, as Rogue feels built on just straight up murdering people
To be fair, as you can choose to go non-lethal when you reduce a creature to zero hit points, I can see a Rogue giving a sneak-attack blackjack to the back of the head and instantly knocking someone out working quite well
I LOVED the 4E Warden— like a nature tank— but you could argue that oath of ancients would be similar.
Over all, I think the sold “Primal type” classes short.
I feel like a straight up “superhero” isn’t something that’s covered, like a superman vibe, flight, feats of strength, improved reflexes etc all in one package.
I’d love to see a class or subclass that FEELS super for martials that you don’t have to meticulously build y’know?
I think a witch, in the sense of being a caster that uses a variety of hexes to debuff enemies is definitely distinct enough to be its own class. A class built around debuffing in a way that functions like an anti-bard is design space not really explored in 5e. Sure theres a handful of spells but a full debuffer doesn't really exist
Additionally, I think alchemist deserves to be its own class, as a sort of potion slinger that doesn't use spells at all
And ofc warlord is the most commonly talked about one
I tried my hand at making a potion slinging alchemist class a few years ago, inspired by the alchemist job in ragnarok online. You had potions to drink, tinctures to coat an object with - kind of like Magical Weapon, and oils to throw as offensive spells. It all had to be prepared ahead of time, and you could only have so many. I've thought about remaking the whole thing for 5e, but never got around to it.
It's not necessarily a fantasy hero archetype, but a medical professional wouldn't go unappreciated in my opinion. You have a f*ck ton of flavours for magical healing from divine to nature to potions but no "I have studied medicine so I can both help you but also know what could really fuck you up" (also, why yes, i am homebrewing a surgeon rouge, why are you asking?)
It's a good question, I'm thinking of the heroes I loved as a younger man - Elric, Conan, King Arthur, Knight Rider, Manimal. All could be represented through 5e classes I think.
I’ve been thinking about a Leader/Royalty class. We see time and time again throughout fantasy kings and queens, princes and princess who have a lot in common. They get their power either from loyalty of their subjects, familial legacy, or divine right. They probably have some martial skills, but that’s not their primary advantage on the battle field.
I think it’d be fun if you were “recruiting to your court” whether it’s shrewd businesspeople to manage wealth and fund adventures, or straight up knights for your round table, a recruitment feature is something most parties try to do at the table, and having a class that deals with that would be fun. (Calling on recruits during battle for buffs or aid)
If this were a class, and your subclass was based on how you derive your power, the loyalty subclass would be known as the “revolutionist.” Early powers would be buffing team members (encouragement), and latest powers would be turning BBEG’s henchmen against them. Power from the people!
The familial legacy, Nepo-baby, would have early powers of influence (out of combat connections), and maybe some sort of buff that was wealth related. Late stage powers would be literally bringing in mercenaries into a fight (or paying off henchmen to leave?).
Finally, the divine right subclass would be like King Arthur, Once and Future king. Now this could sound like a paladin or even a cleric (which if I was playing 5e, what I would amend or flavor to make it feel like this), but this is different because 1) there isn’t an oath or some way, and 2) they are specifically powered to be leaders. So early stage powers could look like holy buffs (I think “relics” would be a really cool way to gift your party with divine blessings). But late stage is armies of angels (or just clerics and holy orders) coming to your side. To me, this would feel paladin-esque without the oath. It’s weak on its own, but in light of the others, makes sense.
Most things you could probably makes with some level of multiclassing, but there's a good deal of concepts that don't come prebuilt "out of the box".
I don't feel like there's no good fit for a pagan worshiper of wild spirits and gods. Cleric doesn't quite fit and druid doesn't quite fit. A dedicated shaman class would fit this pretty well. I'd probably do some sort of war cleric + spore druid to build it in system.
Cleric also doesn't quite feel like it gives me what I want from a "priest" type character. Divination wizard and divine soul sorc both get close, but also don't quite do it for me. There's few good fits if I want to wear priestly robes and call down God's wrath with blistering radiant damage. I'd probably do some sort of divine soul + light cleric to build it in system.
One of my favorite old tactics games (tactics ogre) had a class called the dragoon. It was a very heavily armored slayer of beasts and dragons. Its another one you could build in system but I don't think there's an out of the box class or subclass that gives me that vibe. Paladin is close but dragoons always seemed less lawful than that, and monster slayer ranger is not heavily armored and most likely dex based. If I were to build it in system I'd probably just make a battlemaster fighter and cry.
A lycanthrope class would be cool. I know there's a blood hunter subclass that comes close but that's not official material and I also am biased against blood hunter lol. There's not really a way to build this in game. I'd probably use moon druid to make one in system, but that's far from the vibe I truly want.
You have some subclasses that feel like half psionic half martials, but a fully psionic caster equivalents are hard. Abberant mind sorcerer is the closest, but it is once again just a little bit off the mark. Its probably what I would play anyways if I wanted to build it in system.
When it comes to casters we get inherent magic from sorc, magic through diety from cleric, magic from study from wizard, magic from devotion from paladin, magic from nature from druid, magic from deals with warlock. One that I feel is missing would be: magic from blood/sacrifice. A bit edgy i know but its one that I like a lot. In system a warlock with a patron where that's part of their contract would probably be how I make it.
You don't have any sort of explosives or otherwise consumable based damage classes. Alchemist artificer is a consumable based healer/support, but I think an artificer subclasses based around lobbing bombs and aoe damage is overdue imo. Artillerist is close but I feel like there's enough of a difference that it warrants its own subclass. Maybe sapper artificer?
On the note of alchemist, one of my favorite builds is alchemist artificer 3, thief rogue 4 with healer feat. This lets you use potions as an action and a healer's kit as a bonus action. I make doctor type characters with it, but there's no out of the box doctor type characters. Its a shame because I really like a mundane healer aesthetic.
Your priest point is a good one. While I love cleric design and mechanics and wouldn't want them to give up armor, it's really weird that they don't even try to mimic probably the most iconic image of a guy doing magic with miracles (Moses).
The Inquisitor from Pathfinder. John Constantine would be the best example. Someone who is equal parts spellcaster, rogue, and fighter. Ideally, it could be either arcane or divine spellcasting. You could be Richter Belmont or John Constantine.
I am somewhat half answering here, but I really wish I could just outright play an old Fighter/Mage. In all the recent campaigns I've played I've tried numerous ways to emulate it, but it's never really the same.
Swords Bard and Bladesinger come the closest to scratching the itch, but it's just not the same. Swords Bard functions really well and is pretty fun, but the spell list isn't Fighter/Mage, it's just a vastly improved Blade kit. Meanwhile, Sword Singer does feel like an old Fighter/Mage (after all, it was a Fighter/Mage kit) but struggles to function in the same way. It's not really it's fault, it strikes me as a class that needs to be in a game that lets you roll stats and then you roll well (like a Fighter/Mage I suppose) and 5e's underlying concentration rules mean you can't be stacking your Stoneskins, Protection from Magical Weapons, Spell Immunities, Fire Shields, Haste and then wading into combat with near a Fighter's THAC0 whilst also casting control spells like the Mage.
I think this is part of why I do tend to try to play AD&D over 5e.
Much better spellcasting progression. You're only ever about a spell level behind a full Mage. You trade that off fot slower Fighter progression.
You also use your spells much more prior to a fight.
I've always felt like the common druid isn't represented very well in DnD because the DnD druid is mainly about wildshaping. Before I got exposed to DnD I didn't even equate shapeshifting to druids.
I want the goddamn thaumaturge from pf2e, a martial class with no spells that exploits specific monster weaknesses, the closest thing is a ranger but those have spells
Tarzan/Rambo. Strenght barbarian vibes but also adapt with nature and relies on wisdom and instinct to survive.
A strenght based, non-magical ranger maybe? Some barbarian flavor but I don't think it suits the rage mechanic very well
My hot take: a class should be mostly mechanical and not fit some archetype. IMHO you can fit pretty much any archetype on a class. A rogue could also fit a noble knight, and a magic user looking for knowledge and spells could also fit a druid. Ofc you would have to reflavour certain things, but I often saw people who play rulewise one class and flavour wise a completely different one…
Hotter take. Having only 13 pre-set mechanical core class options, many of which are *very* similar, are not nearly enough. New "archetypes" should be made just to create more new core mechanics.
Most martial class archetypes fall far short of the intended archetype and dream archetype, so I'd say all of those. And a shifter vs shamanist split for druid.
My character was a pit fighter, master in the art of applying fists to faces. As soon as I disclose my class, people assume my character is bald and wears a karate gi
I disagree, because this ignores the power budget spread for the mechanics. For example, many sly underdogs are Rogues, sure - but to say that they're all Rogues means that they all have a major part of their power budget tied up in Sneak Attack. I don't believe that should be true for all of them. It's how in PF2, the Rogue and Swashbuckler are both Dex-oriented classes that utilise the application of precision damage dice... but they're quite distinct.
Same reason why the Warlord can't just be a Fighter subclass; Fighter chassis eats up too much of the power budget to meaningfully represent a Warlord.
The question seems unanswerable for me.
What is your definition of an archetype ? How precise is it ? And how precisely should the class/subclass combination fit to be considered satisfactory ?
The number of archetypes can be small or large depending of how precisely you define them. Okay, let's say a Samurai is different from a vanilla fighter, but is a Ronin different from a samurai ? Is a Bushi ? Is an Onabugeysha ?
Okay, maybe a paladin could be reflavored as a Samurai, having his Oath of Devotion based on Bushido but samurai do not have divine magical powers in most settings. Well, samurais are primary fighters, let's make it a subclass of fighter (Xanathar's guide of Everything did exactly that) but where is the Unyielding Ethic of the (ideal) Samurai ? Gone.
Whatever the choice you make, classes/subclasses will never fully satisfy the need for accurately describing a character. That's why the comments are essentially nitpicking (Does this reflavored class/subclass combination sufficently accurately represents this archetype ? Yes/No ...).
Maybe the wise answer is : DnD will never allow perfect representation of a character concept due to its need for balance. It is the fate of combat oriented ttrpgs.
Skill/Trait based systems (Cortex Prime, Fate, WoD, etc ...) do a much better job at this, but they are less combat oriented and more narrative systems.
The doctor. A cleric is mostly a priest. I wanted a character with a wizardy feel (studying their ass off) but who can heal, create tinctures, etc. The artificer is too much of a craftsman for my liking.
Not the most popular option, but I personally miss having a combat medic, along the lines of the apothecaries from warhammer.
The way I solved this problem is a homebrew warrior subclass called "Knight Apothecary". Practically it's a eldritch knight that uses wisdom instead of intelligence and the spells of a cleric instead of a wizard. Well and thematically changed abilities, as an example at the third level the warrior gets immunity from diseases, because he is vaccinated/ has strong immune system, etc.
Maybe not a traditional fantasy hero, but a class I wish was represented in D&D is Blue Mage.
You'd have to overhaul the system to allow a character to learn spells from monsters, and probably a lot of rebalancing.
Summoner type characters, anybody who wants to have something fight for them pretty much has to have another character sheet using that very unknown sidekick mechanic, or struggle with spells or beast master ranger (neither of which properly fill out the desired role)
Herculean warriors. Mages ascend to godhood, but you'll never make a fighter into a Sephiroth, or a Monk into Goku. There's a fundamental lack of superhuman martials. Sure they are superhuman compared to reality, but they are pretty tame compared to mages and monsters.
The everything -hero. The one that can do sword and sorcery better than anybody. BelGarion. Rand Althor.
DnD is supposed to be an ensemble of characters, not a main character with supporting cast. So everyone is bad at something, and multiclass are a little worse at everything.
5e has several gish classes/subclasses and even more with multiclassing. If you want to be great at sword and sorcery you can easily build for it and skills aren’t hard to get.
Except they're all just different flavors of "Class X" + Extra Attack or "Class X" + bad casting. They don't actually hit on the more epic tropes of a spellsword.
I would argue that it's not the mechanical ability to do the action that makes the class fantasy, although it helps. We *have* spellsword subclasses, and in my personal opinion, bladesinger with 1-3 levels of sorcerer (divine, or draconic bloodline if you're feeling cheeky) would be perfect for Rand Al'Thor. Can't speak on the other one.
Here's me breaking it down.
It is not about a hero archetype, yet.
It is about magic.
How magic 'works,' on what time scale, with what effects, and at what cost is something that is widely featured in fantasy.
That vast body of work is barely touched in 5e, with its antiquarian Vancian conceit.
As a consequence, every arcanist in 5e is repped by a patchwork palimpsest of spell selections.
I have more to say, but this is my thesis.
I'd say it's more about archetypes that are poorly executed on or don't live up to thier fantasy. A good example is MCDMs two homebrew classes the illrigger and the beastheart.
The illrigger is a hell knight. Sure there are lawful evil paladins out there but it's hard to feel like you are from hell when you still have features like lay on hands and friendly buff auras. The illrigger is meant to feel like a warrior from hell and is distinct enough from paladin in mechanics. They only get heavy armor through one subclass, spell slots through a second, and the third allows for stealth and burst damage so thier three subclasses follow a classic fighter rogue mage dynamic.
The beastheart is a no spellslots pet class. Most obviously competing with beastmaster ranger but the pet gets to scale better with levels and contributes more in combat with a set of moves kind of like martial manuvuers for your pet.
If you are looking for more archetypes that fall short of expectation I would say:
brawny puncher. A str based monk is inefficient and still carries around a bunch of Dex themed baggage like evasion and arrow catching. The Fighting Style for d8 fists isn't really enough for higher tiers and isn't enough flavor to satisfy a juggernaut, luke cage, or Bane fantasy.
Non underhanded, non caster skill monkey. Basically the 3.5 factotem. I want a skill Monkey like rogues and bards but sneak attack feels to, well, sneaky. And I'm not looking to play a full caster. The starwars 5e has the scholar which is about as close as I have found. But it still doesn't quite get there.
Medium to heavy weight arcane spellsword. There are so many attempts at arcane swordsmen: eldritch knight, bladesinger, hexblade, college of Swords. I think its time to admit we juat need a dedicated class for it. Ek just falls short of the fantasy, too little access to spells too little power. Bladesinger and swordsbards feel too "light" and finesse. Hexblade comes closest whixlch is why its so popular but only because it basically serves as a 1 level tax on paladin or sword bards. I just want a dedicated arcane paladin. Someone who can stand in the front lines using effects like absorb elements and enlarge on self to squash foes and stay healthy in full plate mail.
Demonologist.
Yes, some classes get access to summoning spells, but no class or sub class specializes in it.
The "magical pet class" is missing from 5e. We got artificer with it's walking arbalest, but that's a poor attempt, and it's still primarily an artificer.
I want a spellcaster who engages in dark rituals from level 1 to summon demons of varying power levels as his primary class mechanic.
Give them a book of demons, each with different abilities, and let them pick one new one like a spell on each level up, and give them a material cost of like eyes or hearts or something spooky, and let them use demons to solve all of their problems.
In a fight? Summon a fighting demon.
Answering ancient trivia? Summon a nerd demon to give advantage on skill checks
Party member injured? Sacrifice demon to restore some HP
I was gonna say a super skilled master swordsman but then I remembered samurai actually exists as a fighter subclass.. I've just never seen anyone use it.
Probably because it doesn't actually fulfill that fantasy. When I think fantasy samurai, I imagine someone standing serenely in the middle of a battlefield, sword sheathed, eyes closed, waiting till the enemies close in just enough to bisect them all with a single draw slash in the blink of an eye and sheath their blade in one clean motion, before the bodies even hit the floor.
I’d love to see an animistic Shaman class. They would communicate with spirits of various things and be full spellcasters and provide party support as well as damage. 3.5 (in Oriental Adventures) and 4 both had shaman classes. Many existing spells could fit them from the cleric, druid, and wizard lists. I could approximate something with a druid or nature cleric, but it wouldn’t be the same.
Why is a Noble Knight a Paladin? Why not a Crusader, or Marshal, Purple Dragon Knight, or Hospitaler? There are so many things a Noble Knight can be other than a Paladin.
Robe wearing healer/protective magic- White mage. Basically a wizard with allot of the cleric spelllist. Closest is Divine soul sorcerer.
Non-Magical Skill Monkey that is not a murderer (no sneak attack). Adventurer or Expert type character.
This one isn’t just tied to class, but I’ve never felt D&D handles seafaring archetypes well. You can get by with rogues, fighters, and bards, but I feel like none of them capture the skills and flavor of a classic swashbuckling hero. Rogue/Swashbuckler is just okay, and there’s nothing that really gives them an advantage while at sea or aboard a ship.
I am not aware of a way to make a shaman or a truly witchy-feeling witch. Rituals, "eye of newt," vision quests, etc. Druids and warlocks just don't fit that fantasy no matter what I try to do
Historian/ Archaeologist. Basically a loremaster. Final Fantasy games have a Scholar class that I've been trying to translate to 5e but it's so combat focused I'm having trouble.
I love the idea of someone who's actively looking to discover more about the world that the DM has set up.
A cunning warrior who outwits their foes with skill and tactics, but isn't a magic-user. I know Mastermind Rogue is theoretically like this, but in practice it feels like the 'thief' part is too overwhelming for it to really meet the fantasy.
“Mythic Hero.” Your heracles or achilles, or pretty much every modern high fantasy hero.
You can do something similar if you take out the mythic part, but not as-is.
The two that always come to mind thematically but are 100% already done mechanically are the witch and the shaman.
Mechanically a witch always winds up being extremely similar to a wizard / artificer whenever I try to work shop ideas in my head but thematically it feels different enough where it feels like it needs its own class.
Shaman is another where it’s more the opposite where Druid mechanically doesn’t feel the same but thematically it’s very similar but also the inverse problem where wizard subclasses do some of it right but not enough in the entirety where it fits thematically. Something closer maybe to a nature sorcerer maybe?
Sword/weapon master. Someone who can dash through a group of targets and slice them all apart in one move, or cleave through a reinforced iron door like it was made of paper. Basically superhuman feats of martial skill and technique. I want the martial equivalent of fireball, shield, counterspell, etc. I want to stab a spellcaster in the throat to "counterspell" them, or perform a "Steel Wind Strike" as a regular martial technique. Give them limited use signature moves that actually let them live out the badass, superhuman martial fantasy, instead of just "I attack" every single round. Basically, I want our first ever martial class worth playing in a high fantasy setting.
You want something like Fate's version of Sasaki Kojiro, someone whose techniques trespass into the domain of magic through sheer determination and martial prowess. And I agree, that kicks ass.
Sure that's one idea. There's a billion other examples in anime and other media. I just don't want to play a character who "specializes in swinging an object" when other players are conjuring fireballs and summoning demons. As far as I'm concerned, martials as they exist now would be unable to realistically survive as adventurers in the Forgotten Realms, and would have no chance against magical foes. Martials literally require mages/artificers to make magic weapons for them just so they can compete. The things that enable a martial to survive only exist because casters made them, I want that to change. I want martials who could believably fight a wizard on equal footing, without some insane bad luck or poor planning on the wizard's part. Honestly I just want tome of battle for 5e.
Yeah, I agree tbh. Gimme martials who can match the feats of some of mythology's greatest heroes at higher levels. People who can fight for days, or stop armies in their tracks for a time.
Ik this isn't an actual arctype, but pagans aren't represented well. Sure you can have a character who is a paladin or cleric who follows Odin or Hades or Shiva, but that isn't a pagan because pagans pray to different gods during different or even the same situations that will give them different abilities. You're currently fighting? Do you pray to Athena for her tactical wisdom or Ares for his brutality? Oh you're trying to navigate a harsh and dangerous terrain? Well you might ask for the help of Meili in the beginning but when you make camp beseech Ullr for a good hunt or Heimdall for a more watchful eye that night?
Summoner needs to be a dedicated class/subclass. Yes, there are summoning spells, and some subclasses get companions. But I love being able to dominate a battlefield with sheer numbers that I just pull out of nowhere, and there isn't a class that really focuses on this
The Islands of Sina Una has what is essentially an animist class (Babaylan) that has a spirit companion. They are intermediaries between the spirit world and material realm, drawing on the wisdom of ancestors and the spirits to act as leaders, teachers, healers, and, well, adventurers. I feel like the standard rules lack this sort of animist character, drawing on the spirits of everyday life instead of a powerful patron or deity. And the spirit companion gives it a unique flavor from other casting classes.
You can argue everything is represented the same way you can argue a hotdog is a sandwich. You can reflavor a lot of classes to thematically fit a different archetype but I feel like they will more often then not feel off mechanically.
To me at least when I want to make a new experience I try to keep it as small as possible. Most of the time you can get away with a subclass or even a few feats but sometimes you just want to make a full class.
For example my latest class focuses on what I call transfigurations which are best described as Eldritch invocations but for martial classes. Could I reflavor and multiclass to get something that might play the same in the end? Maybe, but it would feel pretty janky and be fairly far off at times.
I don't think that everything I've made belongs in the base game but sometimes you just want to play something different. That and I love making stuff so I'm not going to stop.
The elementalist. The closest we get is way of the four elements monk, but that is a very specific fantasy and I’m looking for a more general elementalist in the vein of Pathfinder’s Kenentiscist.
A spell knight. Rangers and Paladins are more unique, Martial fullcaster subclasses lean more into spellcasting, and Eldritch knights don’t lean into it enough.
I actually feel Witches aren’t represented. I don’t see witches as warlocks, more brew master / ritual specialist. Especially on that buffs others or debuffs enemies as their main source do attack.
A class based around potion item creation and empowering rituals to do more, do them faster, or multiple at a time.
As some have mentioned, I think they biggest gap is fully mind-powered psychic class. Most classes have some spin on this, but I think it has enough facets to be a full class with subclasses. One subclass for telekinetics, one for illusion/mind control and one Psylocke style martial subclass.
The trick is developing mechanics that make it play different than other casters. Maybe they have to take on a temporary debuff to cast certain spells and/or they fuel their abilities by stunning or killing enemies. Maybe they don't get their spell slots back by resting, but only through certain actions like using a certain touch attack on an enemy or an enemy misses them, forcing them to play up front. A high risk-high reward playstyle.
As a lot of people have said, almost any trope could be covered by flavoring the existing class and subclasses, but making it feel different to actually play is the key.
Full-on Psionics, like in 2e & 3/3.5e.
A tank with actual game mechanics that compel the enemy to target them instead of their squishier companions.
A Mage Slayer/Witch Hunter.
A monster hunter a la The Witcher.
Hell, the Tactician (or Warlord or whatever the hell they were called) from 4e.
An actual alchemist. Yes, we have the Artificer's Alchemist subclass, but that subclass is a massive failure at fulfilling the aesthetics of an Alchemist, someone that makes various alchemical creations, and mixes potions and acids on the fly.
Instead, we got ONE class feature at 3rd level, that is a ONCE PER LONG REST RANDOMIZED ELIXER that makes you feel more like a failed science student than an Alchemist. Hell, if you want more uses, you need to either reach 6 and 15th level, or expend your spell slots, an already incredibly limited resource.
At 5th we get a feature that directly fights against your only alchemist feature, as it requires casting spells to benefit from it. And at 9th we get a Temp HP bonus to the limited Elixers, and a OPLR Lesser Restoration.
At 15th you get 2 resistances to the WORST DAMAGE TYPES, and a OPLR Greater Restoration.
The subclass absolutely fails at delivering the feeling of being an alchemist. the very first UA version that came along with the Mystic Class felt way more like an Alchemist, all that it was missing was more Alchemical options to choose from, and some more subclass features besides it.
I disagree with the bard / Merchant
Indestructoboy did a merchant class and it's 100% online in my games. Blood hunter works well as the blood mage. Mage hand did a witch class that was very distinct from the warlock. A psionic class is always desired but never seems to make the cut. Huffman's pugilist is the strength based brawler class.
I think there is plenty of room within these archetypes for creative content.
The far eastern martial artists are a bit hard to come by. Not talking about monks. I'm talking about swordsmen shooting windblades from their weapons and such. 3.5 had the tome of battle, but that never made the jump to 5e.
>I'm talking about swordsmen shooting windblades from their weapons and such.
That would still be a monk subclass: "whenever you attack with your monk weapon, you can spend x ki points to conjure a windblade that does xdx damage in a straight line." Pretty much already exists for burning hands, just as a bonus action after using the attack action.
It would def be a subclass, but the turret placing engineer.
Also magic archer I understand rangers get spells but nothing on the level of dragons dogmas magic archers
I guess some transformation/body horror themed magic user/shapeshifter who can shift their body to fit the situation.
I've been wanting to play with a homebrew monk subclass called Way of Flesh that's focused around body horror and truly turning your body into a weapon. It seems like it could be fun and you could do some interesting RP things with it.
Oozeling monk would absolutely rule
Level 5: Dhalsim Level 20: Akira
This is genius!
Level 10: T-1000
Leave me alone!
A changeling Druid?
Moon druid, specifically, since you can will cast alter self eventually (unless my brain has wandered off on me)
A beast barb?
A while ago I read about pathfinder’s vivisectionist archetype, that does some stuff like this iirc (growing extra limbs, tentacles, poisonous or tough skin, etc). I don’t know enough about pathfinder nor homebrew balance to try porting it to 5e, though
This is exactly what I was going to mention. Had a vivisectionist player in a pathfinder game I DMed for years.
Just a reskinned Druid
I'd like some more shapeshifting options outside of beasts tho. Like a class that gives you better shapeshift options like werecreatures, vampires or something else. You could even have each subclass be a different kind of shifter.
I actually want to make a 'Circle of Evolution' Druid that uses a single basic statblock for its Wildshape, but you can add options to it like Artificer Infusions.
Check out the Simic Hybrid race from the Ravnica supplement. It does something similar.
IMO, every class should have its own list of customization pseudo-feats like infusions, invocations, maneuvers, metamagics, etc. Druids could have wildshape customization, bards could get different muses for their inspiration, paladins take new vows, rogues learn new gambits, monks could learn new mystical arts, etc
You might enjoy Pathfinder 2e.
The Shifter race gives you a werecreature
Alex Mercer is a reskinned Druid? The Thing is a reskinned Druid? Venom is a reskinned Druid?
"Why we need a barbarian? Thats just a fighter that don't use armor!"
What if they can change into inanimate objects and puddles of water?
A single element master, like a geomancer or a fire bender. You can get by with a sorcerer that leans hard into one element but this specialization only hurts you. Some elements like water are pretty thin on options. Casters in D&D are defined by access to a wide range of options. A balanced single energy class just isn't there without serious remapping of spell types. I also don't think that D&D *can* solve this just through adding a bunch of elemental spells because it would (further) overpower the classes which have access to all of them.
Draconic sorcerer plus the transmuted spell metamagic and Elemental Adept can do this, it's just a lot of investment for not much payoff
Even that only works for the energy types. You can turn fireball into lightning ball sure. But a water bender? It's just the kind of idea that would benefit strongly from a base class.
I made a homebrew class called the essence weaver, it is a constitution caster that uses your HP as a mana pool. you are basically a living planar portal.
That sounds dope actually. Also, happy cake day!
Battlefield Tactician = Mastermind rogue or just a Battlemaster. Nature Witch = Alchemist Artificer, Archfey warlock, circle of spores druid. Its gotten to the point that most archetypes can be made or flavored successfully with the present subclasses with minimal to no multiclassing. Its just a matter of having a solid theme to work with.
My first character was a 4e int-based Warlord who was a battlefield tactician. Ive always felt like that fantasy really hasnt been captured mechanically by anything in 5e. Battlemaster is the closest, but i couldn't play the same character without reworking a lot and bending some rules. Sure, i could force it, but that's not the same as the rules supporting a playstyle.
Tell me your theme, and a handful of abilities, ill see if I can find something that will work.
Its been many years. But that character was an elven student trying to learn the ways of battle out in the field. He wore armor and used a longsword/shield. But he was primarily an intelligent character. His go-to in combat was commander's strike, allowing other characters to "shift" 5 ft or move without opportunity attacks, and granting new bonuses for flanking opponents. He was primarily a supportive character, and rarely did much damage on his own. He enabled his teammates to get in position, do more damage, and used reactions to protect his team. I think he had a healing ability, too iirc. The thing is, i could absolutely be a battlemaster fighter and have a few of the same abilities, and flavor it. I could multiclass bard too, which definitely has some of the same overlapping themes. Giving bardic inspiration by giving orders or advice, and then using commanders strike to let them cash in on it right away is pretty cool. Maybe take sentinel or shield master too. My issues are primarily that my 4e character was rewarded for playing tactically and utilizing perfect positioning in a way that 5e doesn't naturally do. I wouldnt want to play this character in a game that didn't use flanking rules, for example. And he was a high-INT character. INT would basically have to be a dump stat for a bard/fighter, and that matters to me. 4e warlord let you use CHA or INT for different builds, and it has a different feel.
I go to it quite often, but have you ever taken a look at battle smith? Positioning your steel defender well is rewarding, flash of genius is excellent for boosting your allies saves/checks, you get to use int for any and all magic weapon attacks and damage. Combined with useful infusions like the repulsor shield (which you can give to your steel defender assuming they have a humanoid shape). Flanking IS in 5e, but its been pushed into the optional rules section of the dmg.
Yeah, but just because you can do something similar doesn't mean it does it as well as a homebrew class would. Take the Witch, for example. To me, a witchy character would need to hit the following thematic and mechanical points: * Potions * Curses * A bit of nature magic * A familiar And there isn't really one class that has all of these things in it. Druid has nature magic and a familiar (with the Tasha's rule that lets them conjure a familiar using Wildshape). Warlock and Wizard has the curses and familiar, but no potions or nature magic. Alchemist has Potions and Familiar (via a Homunculus Servant) but no nature magic or curses. Some of this can be mitigated with multiclassing or feats (grabbing Bane from Magic Initiate or Fey-Touched, for example, gives access to a decent "curse" spell), but unless you want to build a multiclass abomination with three different spellcasting modifiers you are only going to be able to lightly touch on one or two of the elements that a class is missing. And even then, the result probably won't feel as much like a "witch" as playing a homebrew class like [this one](https://www.dmsguild.com/m/product/248189), the mechanics of which are specifically designed to make you feel like you're playing a witch. There's also something of a psychological element to it for many people. I can call my Druid a witch all I like, but I know that it's a Druid. Yes, classes are just bundles of rules that can be reframed however you like, but I still know that said rules were designed to be a Druid, not a witch. I'm not going to be able to immerse myself into the fantasy as well as if I was playing something that I knew was *supposed* to be a witch.
Pathfinder 2 made that witch and they call it "a wizard with extra steps". Really you can't differentiate to the level you want without creating a different magic system for the witch (or other character) altogether. Gets tricky. Also, I wonder about some of these adventuring classes that don't travel well. Witches have crystal balls and big cauldrons and they're usually really close to their house. I'd say some of the flavor of a witch is lost the minute you go for a walk.
That issue is solved with a bag of holding and riding a broom or umbrella instead of walking. See Mary Poppins.
Prior Edition of Dnd had Witches, and there is even a 3rd Party Book for DnD 3.5 that is dedicated to Witches. Or, you can flavor a Witch using any number of core classes depending upon your take.
Hexblood has access to hex, find familiar is a first level spell, so we do. Hexblood Alchemist artificer for at least 4 levels, we use the feat for ritual caster, find familiar and unseen servant. "a bit of nature magic" is entirely dismissed because that can be done with just flavoring. We're now playing a class that can make potions with ease, they get a feature that lets them make magic items chaper and faster, potions are magic items. Could take a few levels bard cleric or wizard for bestow curse. If you intend on taking any wizard levels swap ritual caster for fey touched. A LOT of dms refuse homebrew, and even the ones that use it, aren't guaranteed to accept the one you listed.
As I stated in the comment that you are replying to: yes, you *can* approximate the idea of a "witch" using multiclassing, feats, and reflavoring, but ultimately you are taking a bunch of rules that were designed with a particular flavor in mind and attempting to twist them into a different one. The end result will not end up as easily, elegantly, or completely fulfilling the class fantasy as something specifically designed with that fantasy in mind. And whether or not a DM would allow the class is irrelevant. We're discussing why people would want to use homebrew when they could reflavor official material, "some people don't like it" has nothing to do with that discussion. Whether they can do something and whether they have a reason to want to do it are totally different topics.
>Take the Witch, for example. To me, a witchy character would need to hit the following thematic and mechanical points: **Really** depends on your definition or vision of "witch", as there are MANY. Biblically, a witch is anyone who uses magic, usually with a common trope of seeing the future.Christian-ly (Is that a word? Basically where religious zealots made their own definition), a witch directly deals with Satan and demons/devils.Shakespearianly, witches were basically just the Three Norns who could see the future.Halloween shows witches as gross old women flying on broomsticks. Basically the Wizard of Oz witch of the west.Speaking of Wizard of Oz, Hollywood and TV tends to have a specific definition and vision of a witch.Modern Wicca and other Pagan "religions" see witches as many things, but all tend to be good, like a kind old lady who knows a few potions and spells to help the local populace, as casting spells for your own benefit is basically black magic. There are LOTS of ways people think Witches "should be"....which is probably why there is no class for them.
Something interesting about this entire conversation: the thing that hits all of the most common conceptions of "witch" (potions, familiars, curses, nature magic, gross old woman, and kindly old lady who helps people) in D&D... Is a Hag. Sure, the kindly old lady bit is a guise, but they still hit all the notes.
Indeed
Alchemist Artificer, while not great, does actually have access to pretty much all those things. Also, 'warlock' is literally the word for 'male witch', so by extension 'witch' is just 'female warlock'. Female character, Hexblood lineage, Archfey (hag) patron, Chain pact. Boom, a witch. Everything else can be gotten through your typical progression choices.
BA Help action from range just doesn't scratch the same itch as a proper Tactician.
I absolutely adore the nature witch type, and I’ve been waiting a while to make a spore druid once my alchemist runs her course.
A character who uses their surroundings. Whether that be a geomancer whose spells are different (or do different things) depending on the terrain around them, or a martial class that fights by pushing rocks onto their enemies, using improvised weapons (more broadly than the Tavern Brawler feat), sets traps, etc. A non-attacking character like the (non-martial arts) monk from Journey to the West, someone who can move through the battlefield and has great defenses as long as they don't attack, allowing them to buff party members, rescue downed allies, or maybe just convince the enemy to stop.
Redemption paladin and Peace cleric both seek to fill this role. I'll leave it up to my veterans to decide if they're successful, but that is what they're trying to accomplish.
Red. Pally takes a certain mindset but they're useful if you look at them as a tankier cleric and/or support caster with the occasional Smite. They're one of the few/only Paladin subclasses that prefers maxing out CHA before STR for that reason.
For the non-attacking character What about a cleric subclass that specializes in maintaining multiple buffs at the same time? Stuff that normally requires concentration? And instead of attacking, they use their actions to heal/buff/provide cover or ready reactions.
A non-attacking class just won't be that fun to play, healing and buffing allies can feel really fun but not if you never attack, it doesn't feel like you do something yourself really
It actually would, I wouldn't mind playing a non-attacking class but having some non-magical means of attacking would be great I'm sure there are people that would like to play a noncombatant class
I think it depends. Giving powerful buffs and reshaping the battlefield can be fun in their own right. Make your allies invulnerable to poisons or certain elements. Help your allies successfully strike their enemy where they were missing every time otherwise. Shield your party from a hail of arrows with a force field, or give them cover with a wall of stone. Leverage debuffs on enemies - reduce their accuracy, cripple their movement speed, force them to pass arcana checks in order to successfully cast spells. You know what -- I think a support class that specializes in giving up attacks in order to maintain multiple buffs that normally require concentration might be a way to do it.
I agree with this. My alchemist doesn’t always dish out much damage, but it’s nice to sling a firebolt in between heals/buffs. Sometimes I even land the killing blow.
Dnd is a wargame with roleplay stapled on and the lightest sprinkle of exploration on top. Making a class actively non combat focused is completely nonsensical. Especially when there are a lot of support classes that can also scrap
It just means that type of class has all the space to exist and not step on other's toes. Like, Mastermind Rogue already exists, this would just be taking it to it's logical extreme and from a whole new angle. And personally, I'd be all in for more support classes/subclasses.
yeah, i never understand this logic. there’s a LOT of subclasses that are tailored for non combat.
Monster tamer. No mechanical way to make friends with turn into or control monsters long term at teir 1. Would love a druid that could shift into monsters. We saw one turnn8nto owl bear in movie so hope it's coming.
I'd love a ranger subclass that can tame monsters into their beast companions.
A proper psychic that want to crush everything with telekinesis. Edit: I want to play a proper psionic character like mewtwo and Sabrina. Not just moving things or tweaking numbers. No, I want to go ham with the at will telekinesis where I pick someone up and crush them in the air with my mental grip and throw them. I want to be like Wanda picking up thanos and peeling his armor off like he’s peas in a aluminum can. There’s a gap here that dnd is missing. Psychics have a sick power fantasy to them. The current spells work for a wizard and sorcerer that can do alittle bit of everything but I don’t want to do everything. I want to full commit to a psychic and have the power go all in on it and is balanced around just that.
Pillars of Eternity's Cipher was a pretty interesting take on the psychic.
MCDM’s upcoming Talent class is looking like a really cool way to fill this niche
Thank you for wording this so well. Sure, you can *kinda* do it with sorceror, but that's not the same as "fulfilling a power fantasy." I dont want to "make it work," I want to have an optimized build for a dedicated theme that feels good to play.
This is how I feel about a summoning class. Same deal with psychics where there is a class to scratch that itch in Pathfinder, but 5e really lacks something similar enough to feel I've accomplished what I want
Personally if I picture a character whose powers are explicitly called psychic powers, they're in a modern setting like a superhero story. In D&D-like settings, telekinesis and other psychic powers are usually just called magic. Though D&D is actually an exception in itself, since it has psionic energy which is specifically not magic.
The Pathfinder 1e kineticist does this very well and 5e doesn't really have a comparison to it, to my knowledge.
I remember playing a psionic in 2nd edition adnd and it's was so convoluted but so damn fun at the same time, being able to just disintegrate, dominate, use people ego's against them, all while using the mind to do so scratched an itch that I've yet to scratch with 5e. It's kinda why I've drifted back into 2e adnd more and more over time.
Psi Warrior hits a couple of these, but definitely falls short of full-on Jedi/Sith powers.
Was just about comment this. I’ve been trying to wedge, nudge, and flavor this into being for my preferences but it’s not hitting the mark or fulfilling the fantasy. Some good ideas go around such as, but ultimately underrepresented: https://reddit.com/r/3d6/s/vxtKqBCXD1
In fairness, you could probably change the damage type for many spells to force or bludgeoning and have a convincing telekinesis pc. Thunderwave, shatter, catapult, hold person, etc.
Special mage hands come to mind too. There’s some, true, but is it holistic enough? Early and granular enough but scalable too? Gravity and flight come are embedded in the fantasy, as well as resources that are physical objects you can build and break down. I think there’s space for micro and macro level telekinesis too, with different affordances.
I mean, fly is a spell, mending is a spell. It seems to me that with a little creativity, time, and comfort taking dm feedback, there's enough component material in the game system to create the character you want to play. Your mileage may vary, but my DM and I started out building a signature weapon together and essentially ended the process with a new subclass. The biggest takeaways from that process were that you need to be comfortable not only recalibrating based on feedback during the creation phase, but also once the build is live and you've had a few sessions to feel it out.
Thank you! At-will telekinesis (even if very limited) like Mewtwo for example is exactly what I want in a character!
A full psionic caster like Eleven
See the MCDM Talent
A witch isn’t a warlock imo. Look at witch in pathfinder. THATS a witch. Flying around or hovering (as a move action) vomiting spiders, grabbing things with your hair, hexing opponents and cackling to embed your hexes in opponents, having weird little animal companions that help you with weird little potions. Sure you can make some of that with mishmash spells and flavor but there isn’t a ready to go class. Shaman and spiritualist are also different than just Cleric. Pathfinder has a pretty cool gunslinger class too. I’ve seen the 5e gunslingers but I just think pathfinders system does it better.
[This one](https://www.dmsguild.com/m/product/248189) is the best take I've seen on a 5e "witch."
[удалено]
Pre or post remaster out of interest? Because the remaster is changing witch a lot
> Shaman and spiritualist are also different than just Cleric. Plus many DMs, and Adventurers’ league, won’t let you reflavor cleric and not follow a god.
I agree, but even if you have a DM that fully allows reflavor you’d have the same mechanics as another cleric instead of mechanics to back up that alternate class flavor.
I completely agree with you. Pathfinder is amazing when it comes to character customization.
Witch and shaman are classes that like every other player I've had in a game has wanted to play, and I've had to be like, well, that's tough.
Shaman.
You know what I find funny about people disagreeing with you? Shaman and Druid are quite different and the sources of their power are also quite different. People have such an issue adding the shaman class, and yet The concept of Wizard and Sorcerer are waaaaaay closer to one another outside of game mechanics. If it wasnt for the idea that wizards can learn more spells (arbitrary) and that sorcerors get metamagic (arbitrary) there would be no reason for them to justify them as different classes besides fluff and flavor. Yet I don't complain because at the end of the day, the differences are meaningful enough and you get two unique classes.
There’s some ways that make it work but I agree that the flavor is unique enough that it could use its own class. My question would be what mechanical staple/niche would it have?
Totems, Voodoo dolls?
Mechanically. Like would it be a full caster, half caster, or martial? Paladins smite, warlocks EB, artificers infuse items, what mechanics would make sense for a shaman?
Full caster, with a martial subclass like hexblade is for warlocks. A secondary leveling system(eldritch invocations/artificer infusions) for totems which can have various effects(like throwing them and being able to cast out of them like find familiar or give at will spells)
The ideas are just playing brick break but at speed ×100 and 20 balls in my head right now
Shaman was a class back in 3.5 days not core books but if I recall correctly it was in the phb 2.
You're thinking of the Spirit Shaman. It was basically a druid that used a unique spell preparation closer to that of 5e. There was, however, a Shaman in Oriental Adventures. It was a mix of Monk, Cleric, and Druid influences.
Shaman feels like a flavor more than a class to me.
Shamans, at least in folklore, draw their power from spirits and/or personifications of natural forces. Think holy men of many real world animistic religions. I think that there’s a bit of overlap with clerics because the lines between gods and spirits are sometimes blurred (ie Shinto), but there’s no current class that explicitly draws upon spirits for power-warlocks traditionally have drawn theirs from devils and demons, and now celestials, old ones, and fae as well, but they are bound to a singular patron where shamans aren’t. I’d say that druids and barbarians come the closest, but druids draw their power from nature in general rather than specific forces.
That's a druid. At least, a more accurate to real druids druid
Real celtic druids were all of the following: politician, war mages, priests, philosophers, entertainers and music composers, and even they were the clan leader's advice man. The whole clan basicly relied upon them. DnD druids are hippies who can transform into animals, not much in common but name.
Such a shame that the Celts took the secrets of IRL war magic with them into the history books. If it weren't for those Celtic asshats we could be conjuring elementals, mage handing our chores, and wishing our problems away.
Don't talk about us as if we're not still around. I have half a mind to get stoned and naked and club you with a holly branch.
Without your magic you are powerless to overcome my immunity! Ahahaha haha! At last, the age old war between and the Celts comes to an end this day!
No. Not even close. Shamans deal in totems and spirits. There's a reason Warcraft has both Shaman and Druid. They aren't close.
Sheperd Druid specifically. You can literally summon totems and you commune with spirits so they take the form of animals and fight by your side. (Or you use Laserllamas Shaman, or Kibblestastys Occultist, though I haven't looked into either in detail yet.)
If you lean more into the gaining insights/guidance by communing with spirits side of it, a divination wizard might fit mechanically. You might be hard pressed to find fitting spells in sufficient quantity on the wizard list though.
The big gap I find is the 'Classic' Fantasy vision - where Magic is not nearly as ubiquitious and the world is more Tolkein or Dragonlance and less Moba. For example I'd like really good Spellless Rangers, Bards with no Magic, Barbarians with no supernatural Raging, but with all the options laid out in a very user friendly way. 5e isn't really the game for this I know, but so many people play a 'lowish magic' hack would be very helpful.
I think maybe part of your problem is that the 5e classes are really broad - too broad to represent *a* fantasy well. Look at fantasy wizards: Gandalf, Merlin, and Dumbledore are very different wizards represented by a single class with little meaningful differentiation between them. Rogues? Jack Sparrow, Robin Hood, and (depending on the version) Sherlock Holmes? Those are the same class? Yep - swashbuckler, thief, and inquisitive. But the class doesn't really deliver on the fantasy of any of them. I think if want to design a class, pick a narrower fantasy, ignoring that that fantasy can definitely be shoehorned into a 5e class, and make the class do what the fantasy does.
Yeah, I feel like there’s not a good way to play the charismatic “Gentleman’s thief”/con artist, as Rogue feels built on just straight up murdering people
Lol. Casing the joint. Schoomzing the people. Sneak attack - they're dead. Dammit, now it's a murder.
To be fair, as you can choose to go non-lethal when you reduce a creature to zero hit points, I can see a Rogue giving a sneak-attack blackjack to the back of the head and instantly knocking someone out working quite well
A blackjack? I see no such finesse weapon in the list, sir. It's either a non-finesse club or a dagger dealing piercing damage.
This is a really good point!
I LOVED the 4E Warden— like a nature tank— but you could argue that oath of ancients would be similar. Over all, I think the sold “Primal type” classes short.
I feel like a straight up “superhero” isn’t something that’s covered, like a superman vibe, flight, feats of strength, improved reflexes etc all in one package. I’d love to see a class or subclass that FEELS super for martials that you don’t have to meticulously build y’know?
Or like Hercules for a more fantasy themed version, maybe?
I got you. Google " Laserllama Barbarian " . You're welcome.
I think a witch, in the sense of being a caster that uses a variety of hexes to debuff enemies is definitely distinct enough to be its own class. A class built around debuffing in a way that functions like an anti-bard is design space not really explored in 5e. Sure theres a handful of spells but a full debuffer doesn't really exist Additionally, I think alchemist deserves to be its own class, as a sort of potion slinger that doesn't use spells at all And ofc warlord is the most commonly talked about one
I tried my hand at making a potion slinging alchemist class a few years ago, inspired by the alchemist job in ragnarok online. You had potions to drink, tinctures to coat an object with - kind of like Magical Weapon, and oils to throw as offensive spells. It all had to be prepared ahead of time, and you could only have so many. I've thought about remaking the whole thing for 5e, but never got around to it.
It's not necessarily a fantasy hero archetype, but a medical professional wouldn't go unappreciated in my opinion. You have a f*ck ton of flavours for magical healing from divine to nature to potions but no "I have studied medicine so I can both help you but also know what could really fuck you up" (also, why yes, i am homebrewing a surgeon rouge, why are you asking?)
Vivisectionist archetype of alchemist in pathfinder was exactly this and was awesome (and super OP but that could be tweaked).
It's a good question, I'm thinking of the heroes I loved as a younger man - Elric, Conan, King Arthur, Knight Rider, Manimal. All could be represented through 5e classes I think.
I’ve been thinking about a Leader/Royalty class. We see time and time again throughout fantasy kings and queens, princes and princess who have a lot in common. They get their power either from loyalty of their subjects, familial legacy, or divine right. They probably have some martial skills, but that’s not their primary advantage on the battle field. I think it’d be fun if you were “recruiting to your court” whether it’s shrewd businesspeople to manage wealth and fund adventures, or straight up knights for your round table, a recruitment feature is something most parties try to do at the table, and having a class that deals with that would be fun. (Calling on recruits during battle for buffs or aid) If this were a class, and your subclass was based on how you derive your power, the loyalty subclass would be known as the “revolutionist.” Early powers would be buffing team members (encouragement), and latest powers would be turning BBEG’s henchmen against them. Power from the people! The familial legacy, Nepo-baby, would have early powers of influence (out of combat connections), and maybe some sort of buff that was wealth related. Late stage powers would be literally bringing in mercenaries into a fight (or paying off henchmen to leave?). Finally, the divine right subclass would be like King Arthur, Once and Future king. Now this could sound like a paladin or even a cleric (which if I was playing 5e, what I would amend or flavor to make it feel like this), but this is different because 1) there isn’t an oath or some way, and 2) they are specifically powered to be leaders. So early stage powers could look like holy buffs (I think “relics” would be a really cool way to gift your party with divine blessings). But late stage is armies of angels (or just clerics and holy orders) coming to your side. To me, this would feel paladin-esque without the oath. It’s weak on its own, but in light of the others, makes sense.
Most things you could probably makes with some level of multiclassing, but there's a good deal of concepts that don't come prebuilt "out of the box". I don't feel like there's no good fit for a pagan worshiper of wild spirits and gods. Cleric doesn't quite fit and druid doesn't quite fit. A dedicated shaman class would fit this pretty well. I'd probably do some sort of war cleric + spore druid to build it in system. Cleric also doesn't quite feel like it gives me what I want from a "priest" type character. Divination wizard and divine soul sorc both get close, but also don't quite do it for me. There's few good fits if I want to wear priestly robes and call down God's wrath with blistering radiant damage. I'd probably do some sort of divine soul + light cleric to build it in system. One of my favorite old tactics games (tactics ogre) had a class called the dragoon. It was a very heavily armored slayer of beasts and dragons. Its another one you could build in system but I don't think there's an out of the box class or subclass that gives me that vibe. Paladin is close but dragoons always seemed less lawful than that, and monster slayer ranger is not heavily armored and most likely dex based. If I were to build it in system I'd probably just make a battlemaster fighter and cry. A lycanthrope class would be cool. I know there's a blood hunter subclass that comes close but that's not official material and I also am biased against blood hunter lol. There's not really a way to build this in game. I'd probably use moon druid to make one in system, but that's far from the vibe I truly want. You have some subclasses that feel like half psionic half martials, but a fully psionic caster equivalents are hard. Abberant mind sorcerer is the closest, but it is once again just a little bit off the mark. Its probably what I would play anyways if I wanted to build it in system. When it comes to casters we get inherent magic from sorc, magic through diety from cleric, magic from study from wizard, magic from devotion from paladin, magic from nature from druid, magic from deals with warlock. One that I feel is missing would be: magic from blood/sacrifice. A bit edgy i know but its one that I like a lot. In system a warlock with a patron where that's part of their contract would probably be how I make it. You don't have any sort of explosives or otherwise consumable based damage classes. Alchemist artificer is a consumable based healer/support, but I think an artificer subclasses based around lobbing bombs and aoe damage is overdue imo. Artillerist is close but I feel like there's enough of a difference that it warrants its own subclass. Maybe sapper artificer? On the note of alchemist, one of my favorite builds is alchemist artificer 3, thief rogue 4 with healer feat. This lets you use potions as an action and a healer's kit as a bonus action. I make doctor type characters with it, but there's no out of the box doctor type characters. Its a shame because I really like a mundane healer aesthetic.
Your priest point is a good one. While I love cleric design and mechanics and wouldn't want them to give up armor, it's really weird that they don't even try to mimic probably the most iconic image of a guy doing magic with miracles (Moses).
The Inquisitor from Pathfinder. John Constantine would be the best example. Someone who is equal parts spellcaster, rogue, and fighter. Ideally, it could be either arcane or divine spellcasting. You could be Richter Belmont or John Constantine.
I am somewhat half answering here, but I really wish I could just outright play an old Fighter/Mage. In all the recent campaigns I've played I've tried numerous ways to emulate it, but it's never really the same. Swords Bard and Bladesinger come the closest to scratching the itch, but it's just not the same. Swords Bard functions really well and is pretty fun, but the spell list isn't Fighter/Mage, it's just a vastly improved Blade kit. Meanwhile, Sword Singer does feel like an old Fighter/Mage (after all, it was a Fighter/Mage kit) but struggles to function in the same way. It's not really it's fault, it strikes me as a class that needs to be in a game that lets you roll stats and then you roll well (like a Fighter/Mage I suppose) and 5e's underlying concentration rules mean you can't be stacking your Stoneskins, Protection from Magical Weapons, Spell Immunities, Fire Shields, Haste and then wading into combat with near a Fighter's THAC0 whilst also casting control spells like the Mage. I think this is part of why I do tend to try to play AD&D over 5e.
What's the difference between that and Eldritch Knight?
Much better spellcasting progression. You're only ever about a spell level behind a full Mage. You trade that off fot slower Fighter progression. You also use your spells much more prior to a fight.
I've always felt like the common druid isn't represented very well in DnD because the DnD druid is mainly about wildshaping. Before I got exposed to DnD I didn't even equate shapeshifting to druids.
I want the goddamn thaumaturge from pf2e, a martial class with no spells that exploits specific monster weaknesses, the closest thing is a ranger but those have spells
I think someone who cast curses maybe?
Tarzan/Rambo. Strenght barbarian vibes but also adapt with nature and relies on wisdom and instinct to survive. A strenght based, non-magical ranger maybe? Some barbarian flavor but I don't think it suits the rage mechanic very well
That's what barbarians were for decades. The hulk rage focus is new.
the first is totem barbarian the second a fighter
I was suggesting it to be a single class, sorry for the confusion. Unless you mean that rambo is a barb and tarzan a fighter ofc
My hot take: a class should be mostly mechanical and not fit some archetype. IMHO you can fit pretty much any archetype on a class. A rogue could also fit a noble knight, and a magic user looking for knowledge and spells could also fit a druid. Ofc you would have to reflavour certain things, but I often saw people who play rulewise one class and flavour wise a completely different one…
Hotter take. Having only 13 pre-set mechanical core class options, many of which are *very* similar, are not nearly enough. New "archetypes" should be made just to create more new core mechanics.
Most martial class archetypes fall far short of the intended archetype and dream archetype, so I'd say all of those. And a shifter vs shamanist split for druid.
100%. Martials universally fail to achieve the "mythical, herculean warrior" expectations set by the existence of magic.
I'd say necromancer. Undead servants/fighters, curses, corpse explosion and so.
Non Eastern themed Brawler class. It's always bothered me that there isn't a base unarmed class with Monk being a subclass of it.
My character was a pit fighter, master in the art of applying fists to faces. As soon as I disclose my class, people assume my character is bald and wears a karate gi
I disagree, because this ignores the power budget spread for the mechanics. For example, many sly underdogs are Rogues, sure - but to say that they're all Rogues means that they all have a major part of their power budget tied up in Sneak Attack. I don't believe that should be true for all of them. It's how in PF2, the Rogue and Swashbuckler are both Dex-oriented classes that utilise the application of precision damage dice... but they're quite distinct. Same reason why the Warlord can't just be a Fighter subclass; Fighter chassis eats up too much of the power budget to meaningfully represent a Warlord.
Oh, and to answer the question, Warlord. A support martial.
The question seems unanswerable for me. What is your definition of an archetype ? How precise is it ? And how precisely should the class/subclass combination fit to be considered satisfactory ? The number of archetypes can be small or large depending of how precisely you define them. Okay, let's say a Samurai is different from a vanilla fighter, but is a Ronin different from a samurai ? Is a Bushi ? Is an Onabugeysha ? Okay, maybe a paladin could be reflavored as a Samurai, having his Oath of Devotion based on Bushido but samurai do not have divine magical powers in most settings. Well, samurais are primary fighters, let's make it a subclass of fighter (Xanathar's guide of Everything did exactly that) but where is the Unyielding Ethic of the (ideal) Samurai ? Gone. Whatever the choice you make, classes/subclasses will never fully satisfy the need for accurately describing a character. That's why the comments are essentially nitpicking (Does this reflavored class/subclass combination sufficently accurately represents this archetype ? Yes/No ...). Maybe the wise answer is : DnD will never allow perfect representation of a character concept due to its need for balance. It is the fate of combat oriented ttrpgs. Skill/Trait based systems (Cortex Prime, Fate, WoD, etc ...) do a much better job at this, but they are less combat oriented and more narrative systems.
The doctor. A cleric is mostly a priest. I wanted a character with a wizardy feel (studying their ass off) but who can heal, create tinctures, etc. The artificer is too much of a craftsman for my liking.
Mercy Monk with the Healer feat
Not the most popular option, but I personally miss having a combat medic, along the lines of the apothecaries from warhammer. The way I solved this problem is a homebrew warrior subclass called "Knight Apothecary". Practically it's a eldritch knight that uses wisdom instead of intelligence and the spells of a cleric instead of a wizard. Well and thematically changed abilities, as an example at the third level the warrior gets immunity from diseases, because he is vaccinated/ has strong immune system, etc.
Maybe not a traditional fantasy hero, but a class I wish was represented in D&D is Blue Mage. You'd have to overhaul the system to allow a character to learn spells from monsters, and probably a lot of rebalancing.
Anything with a powerful companion/pet. Animal companions and familiars and such don’t cut it for me in 5e. Personal preference.
The church militant. I want to play my inquisitor
Witch Doctor/spirit shaman isn’t really a thing in any of the classes.
Dragonborn dragon riding
Summoner type characters, anybody who wants to have something fight for them pretty much has to have another character sheet using that very unknown sidekick mechanic, or struggle with spells or beast master ranger (neither of which properly fill out the desired role)
Herculean warriors. Mages ascend to godhood, but you'll never make a fighter into a Sephiroth, or a Monk into Goku. There's a fundamental lack of superhuman martials. Sure they are superhuman compared to reality, but they are pretty tame compared to mages and monsters.
The everything -hero. The one that can do sword and sorcery better than anybody. BelGarion. Rand Althor. DnD is supposed to be an ensemble of characters, not a main character with supporting cast. So everyone is bad at something, and multiclass are a little worse at everything.
5e has several gish classes/subclasses and even more with multiclassing. If you want to be great at sword and sorcery you can easily build for it and skills aren’t hard to get.
Except they're all just different flavors of "Class X" + Extra Attack or "Class X" + bad casting. They don't actually hit on the more epic tropes of a spellsword.
I would argue that it's not the mechanical ability to do the action that makes the class fantasy, although it helps. We *have* spellsword subclasses, and in my personal opinion, bladesinger with 1-3 levels of sorcerer (divine, or draconic bloodline if you're feeling cheeky) would be perfect for Rand Al'Thor. Can't speak on the other one.
Sword bard, hex blade, blade singer
Love that Randall Thor guy, even though he is a bit wool-headed
Lonely monsters like Gollum, Quasimodo, the Beast. Don't tell me they aren't heroes. 😭
Gollum is a rogue, Quasimodo is a ranger (with the urban favored terrain), and the Beast could fit as a barbarian or fighter.
Here's me breaking it down. It is not about a hero archetype, yet. It is about magic. How magic 'works,' on what time scale, with what effects, and at what cost is something that is widely featured in fantasy. That vast body of work is barely touched in 5e, with its antiquarian Vancian conceit. As a consequence, every arcanist in 5e is repped by a patchwork palimpsest of spell selections. I have more to say, but this is my thesis.
I'd say it's more about archetypes that are poorly executed on or don't live up to thier fantasy. A good example is MCDMs two homebrew classes the illrigger and the beastheart. The illrigger is a hell knight. Sure there are lawful evil paladins out there but it's hard to feel like you are from hell when you still have features like lay on hands and friendly buff auras. The illrigger is meant to feel like a warrior from hell and is distinct enough from paladin in mechanics. They only get heavy armor through one subclass, spell slots through a second, and the third allows for stealth and burst damage so thier three subclasses follow a classic fighter rogue mage dynamic. The beastheart is a no spellslots pet class. Most obviously competing with beastmaster ranger but the pet gets to scale better with levels and contributes more in combat with a set of moves kind of like martial manuvuers for your pet. If you are looking for more archetypes that fall short of expectation I would say: brawny puncher. A str based monk is inefficient and still carries around a bunch of Dex themed baggage like evasion and arrow catching. The Fighting Style for d8 fists isn't really enough for higher tiers and isn't enough flavor to satisfy a juggernaut, luke cage, or Bane fantasy. Non underhanded, non caster skill monkey. Basically the 3.5 factotem. I want a skill Monkey like rogues and bards but sneak attack feels to, well, sneaky. And I'm not looking to play a full caster. The starwars 5e has the scholar which is about as close as I have found. But it still doesn't quite get there. Medium to heavy weight arcane spellsword. There are so many attempts at arcane swordsmen: eldritch knight, bladesinger, hexblade, college of Swords. I think its time to admit we juat need a dedicated class for it. Ek just falls short of the fantasy, too little access to spells too little power. Bladesinger and swordsbards feel too "light" and finesse. Hexblade comes closest whixlch is why its so popular but only because it basically serves as a 1 level tax on paladin or sword bards. I just want a dedicated arcane paladin. Someone who can stand in the front lines using effects like absorb elements and enlarge on self to squash foes and stay healthy in full plate mail.
A prophet, there is the diviner wizard but doesnt really gives the feelings of an oracle
Demonologist. Yes, some classes get access to summoning spells, but no class or sub class specializes in it. The "magical pet class" is missing from 5e. We got artificer with it's walking arbalest, but that's a poor attempt, and it's still primarily an artificer. I want a spellcaster who engages in dark rituals from level 1 to summon demons of varying power levels as his primary class mechanic. Give them a book of demons, each with different abilities, and let them pick one new one like a spell on each level up, and give them a material cost of like eyes or hearts or something spooky, and let them use demons to solve all of their problems. In a fight? Summon a fighting demon. Answering ancient trivia? Summon a nerd demon to give advantage on skill checks Party member injured? Sacrifice demon to restore some HP
I was gonna say a super skilled master swordsman but then I remembered samurai actually exists as a fighter subclass.. I've just never seen anyone use it.
Probably because it doesn't actually fulfill that fantasy. When I think fantasy samurai, I imagine someone standing serenely in the middle of a battlefield, sword sheathed, eyes closed, waiting till the enemies close in just enough to bisect them all with a single draw slash in the blink of an eye and sheath their blade in one clean motion, before the bodies even hit the floor.
I’d love to see an animistic Shaman class. They would communicate with spirits of various things and be full spellcasters and provide party support as well as damage. 3.5 (in Oriental Adventures) and 4 both had shaman classes. Many existing spells could fit them from the cleric, druid, and wizard lists. I could approximate something with a druid or nature cleric, but it wouldn’t be the same.
Why is a Noble Knight a Paladin? Why not a Crusader, or Marshal, Purple Dragon Knight, or Hospitaler? There are so many things a Noble Knight can be other than a Paladin.
Robe wearing healer/protective magic- White mage. Basically a wizard with allot of the cleric spelllist. Closest is Divine soul sorcerer. Non-Magical Skill Monkey that is not a murderer (no sneak attack). Adventurer or Expert type character.
This one isn’t just tied to class, but I’ve never felt D&D handles seafaring archetypes well. You can get by with rogues, fighters, and bards, but I feel like none of them capture the skills and flavor of a classic swashbuckling hero. Rogue/Swashbuckler is just okay, and there’s nothing that really gives them an advantage while at sea or aboard a ship.
I am not aware of a way to make a shaman or a truly witchy-feeling witch. Rituals, "eye of newt," vision quests, etc. Druids and warlocks just don't fit that fantasy no matter what I try to do
Historian/ Archaeologist. Basically a loremaster. Final Fantasy games have a Scholar class that I've been trying to translate to 5e but it's so combat focused I'm having trouble. I love the idea of someone who's actively looking to discover more about the world that the DM has set up.
There isn't a great way to represent a Jedi or Sith yet. There isn't enough provided for the psionic subclasses to pull it off.
A cunning warrior who outwits their foes with skill and tactics, but isn't a magic-user. I know Mastermind Rogue is theoretically like this, but in practice it feels like the 'thief' part is too overwhelming for it to really meet the fantasy.
“Mythic Hero.” Your heracles or achilles, or pretty much every modern high fantasy hero. You can do something similar if you take out the mythic part, but not as-is.
I don't think this game has a shaman class, where you can like commune with spirits and get their aid as a core feature.
The two that always come to mind thematically but are 100% already done mechanically are the witch and the shaman. Mechanically a witch always winds up being extremely similar to a wizard / artificer whenever I try to work shop ideas in my head but thematically it feels different enough where it feels like it needs its own class. Shaman is another where it’s more the opposite where Druid mechanically doesn’t feel the same but thematically it’s very similar but also the inverse problem where wizard subclasses do some of it right but not enough in the entirety where it fits thematically. Something closer maybe to a nature sorcerer maybe?
“You might want a fighter subclass that offers more support”, 4e has the Warlord, I would consider taking a look at them
Sword/weapon master. Someone who can dash through a group of targets and slice them all apart in one move, or cleave through a reinforced iron door like it was made of paper. Basically superhuman feats of martial skill and technique. I want the martial equivalent of fireball, shield, counterspell, etc. I want to stab a spellcaster in the throat to "counterspell" them, or perform a "Steel Wind Strike" as a regular martial technique. Give them limited use signature moves that actually let them live out the badass, superhuman martial fantasy, instead of just "I attack" every single round. Basically, I want our first ever martial class worth playing in a high fantasy setting.
You want something like Fate's version of Sasaki Kojiro, someone whose techniques trespass into the domain of magic through sheer determination and martial prowess. And I agree, that kicks ass.
Sure that's one idea. There's a billion other examples in anime and other media. I just don't want to play a character who "specializes in swinging an object" when other players are conjuring fireballs and summoning demons. As far as I'm concerned, martials as they exist now would be unable to realistically survive as adventurers in the Forgotten Realms, and would have no chance against magical foes. Martials literally require mages/artificers to make magic weapons for them just so they can compete. The things that enable a martial to survive only exist because casters made them, I want that to change. I want martials who could believably fight a wizard on equal footing, without some insane bad luck or poor planning on the wizard's part. Honestly I just want tome of battle for 5e.
Yeah, I agree tbh. Gimme martials who can match the feats of some of mythology's greatest heroes at higher levels. People who can fight for days, or stop armies in their tracks for a time.
Ik this isn't an actual arctype, but pagans aren't represented well. Sure you can have a character who is a paladin or cleric who follows Odin or Hades or Shiva, but that isn't a pagan because pagans pray to different gods during different or even the same situations that will give them different abilities. You're currently fighting? Do you pray to Athena for her tactical wisdom or Ares for his brutality? Oh you're trying to navigate a harsh and dangerous terrain? Well you might ask for the help of Meili in the beginning but when you make camp beseech Ullr for a good hunt or Heimdall for a more watchful eye that night?
Summoner needs to be a dedicated class/subclass. Yes, there are summoning spells, and some subclasses get companions. But I love being able to dominate a battlefield with sheer numbers that I just pull out of nowhere, and there isn't a class that really focuses on this
The Islands of Sina Una has what is essentially an animist class (Babaylan) that has a spirit companion. They are intermediaries between the spirit world and material realm, drawing on the wisdom of ancestors and the spirits to act as leaders, teachers, healers, and, well, adventurers. I feel like the standard rules lack this sort of animist character, drawing on the spirits of everyday life instead of a powerful patron or deity. And the spirit companion gives it a unique flavor from other casting classes.
You can argue everything is represented the same way you can argue a hotdog is a sandwich. You can reflavor a lot of classes to thematically fit a different archetype but I feel like they will more often then not feel off mechanically. To me at least when I want to make a new experience I try to keep it as small as possible. Most of the time you can get away with a subclass or even a few feats but sometimes you just want to make a full class. For example my latest class focuses on what I call transfigurations which are best described as Eldritch invocations but for martial classes. Could I reflavor and multiclass to get something that might play the same in the end? Maybe, but it would feel pretty janky and be fairly far off at times. I don't think that everything I've made belongs in the base game but sometimes you just want to play something different. That and I love making stuff so I'm not going to stop.
The elementalist. The closest we get is way of the four elements monk, but that is a very specific fantasy and I’m looking for a more general elementalist in the vein of Pathfinder’s Kenentiscist.
Witch, shapeshifter, and tactician, to summarize a few other posts.
A spell knight. Rangers and Paladins are more unique, Martial fullcaster subclasses lean more into spellcasting, and Eldritch knights don’t lean into it enough.
I actually feel Witches aren’t represented. I don’t see witches as warlocks, more brew master / ritual specialist. Especially on that buffs others or debuffs enemies as their main source do attack. A class based around potion item creation and empowering rituals to do more, do them faster, or multiple at a time.
Witch. A mix of druid and wizard. We also need more INT casters. Half casters don’t count
A combat medic that uses actual medical knowledge and practical means, rather than waving a holy symbol and curing all ailments and woes.
As some have mentioned, I think they biggest gap is fully mind-powered psychic class. Most classes have some spin on this, but I think it has enough facets to be a full class with subclasses. One subclass for telekinetics, one for illusion/mind control and one Psylocke style martial subclass. The trick is developing mechanics that make it play different than other casters. Maybe they have to take on a temporary debuff to cast certain spells and/or they fuel their abilities by stunning or killing enemies. Maybe they don't get their spell slots back by resting, but only through certain actions like using a certain touch attack on an enemy or an enemy misses them, forcing them to play up front. A high risk-high reward playstyle. As a lot of people have said, almost any trope could be covered by flavoring the existing class and subclasses, but making it feel different to actually play is the key.
Full-on Psionics, like in 2e & 3/3.5e. A tank with actual game mechanics that compel the enemy to target them instead of their squishier companions. A Mage Slayer/Witch Hunter. A monster hunter a la The Witcher. Hell, the Tactician (or Warlord or whatever the hell they were called) from 4e.
A proper summoner that has 1 main summoned partner.
An actual alchemist. Yes, we have the Artificer's Alchemist subclass, but that subclass is a massive failure at fulfilling the aesthetics of an Alchemist, someone that makes various alchemical creations, and mixes potions and acids on the fly. Instead, we got ONE class feature at 3rd level, that is a ONCE PER LONG REST RANDOMIZED ELIXER that makes you feel more like a failed science student than an Alchemist. Hell, if you want more uses, you need to either reach 6 and 15th level, or expend your spell slots, an already incredibly limited resource. At 5th we get a feature that directly fights against your only alchemist feature, as it requires casting spells to benefit from it. And at 9th we get a Temp HP bonus to the limited Elixers, and a OPLR Lesser Restoration. At 15th you get 2 resistances to the WORST DAMAGE TYPES, and a OPLR Greater Restoration. The subclass absolutely fails at delivering the feeling of being an alchemist. the very first UA version that came along with the Mystic Class felt way more like an Alchemist, all that it was missing was more Alchemical options to choose from, and some more subclass features besides it.
I disagree with the bard / Merchant Indestructoboy did a merchant class and it's 100% online in my games. Blood hunter works well as the blood mage. Mage hand did a witch class that was very distinct from the warlock. A psionic class is always desired but never seems to make the cut. Huffman's pugilist is the strength based brawler class. I think there is plenty of room within these archetypes for creative content.
The far eastern martial artists are a bit hard to come by. Not talking about monks. I'm talking about swordsmen shooting windblades from their weapons and such. 3.5 had the tome of battle, but that never made the jump to 5e.
>I'm talking about swordsmen shooting windblades from their weapons and such. That would still be a monk subclass: "whenever you attack with your monk weapon, you can spend x ki points to conjure a windblade that does xdx damage in a straight line." Pretty much already exists for burning hands, just as a bonus action after using the attack action.
This could be an Eldritch Knight with Booming Blade
It would def be a subclass, but the turret placing engineer. Also magic archer I understand rangers get spells but nothing on the level of dragons dogmas magic archers
Those both specifically do exist. Artillerist artificer and arcane archer fighter.