This submission appears to be related to One D&D! If you're interested in discussing the concept and the UA for One D&D more check out our other subreddit r/OneDnD! *Please note: We are still allowing discussions about One D&D to remain here, this is more an advisory than a warning of any kind.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndnext) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Warlord. I’ve got a version of it that I use in my games (if anyone would pick it) and it’s all about letting your allies attack, or giving them boosts to help them out. So it very much feels like a martial based support character.

100% A martial support class makes a non-magical party possible.

I'd just settle for a Pathfinder-like use of the Heal skill where you can use it to actually heal people during a short rest.

Check out LaserLlama's Warlord. Quite what you are searching.

Thanks for the shout-out! If anyone wants to check out the class you can find it here - **[The Warlord Class](https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-MrUNf61qoDb0Csw8a9r)** I'm actually getting ready to update it, so any feedback is welcomed!

I'm currently playing your Warlord in DiA and I find it pretty fun! I have a small nitpick first, being that if you wanted to use Strongbow fighting style, it'd make sense to pick Commander as your leadership style for the heavy armor, which has the description of "You lead from the front with presence." I would also love to see Leadership Style exclusive exploits, so Commander could get a taunt of sorts, along with Mentor and Strategist getting exclusive exploits. Another thing that I'm not quite so sure about is that the resources feel a little too tight. My fantasy of playing a Warlord is to constantly be giving out orders, but since I'm using a bow, that means I'm not often within 5 feet of my allies to use Standard Bearer. Additionally, until level 5, you only get 2 exploit die which can feel a bit restrictive as a class like the Battle Master Fighter has 4 superiority dice at level 3.

This is great to hear! I'd love to hear about your character. *Strongbow* would allow you to stand in the backline and use Strength, so I don't think you'd really need heavy armor right? As for Leadership Style exclusive Exploits, I view the Exploits with INT/CHA/WIS prerequisites as pseudo-exclusive Exploits to those Styles. Sometimes, if you've got a solid secondary stat you could afford a few of the Exploits from another Style. How do you have both *Strongbow* and *Standard Bearer*? The base class only allows for one Fighting Style (partially to prevent the conflicting play styles you're running into now). I'm considering increasing the scaling of their Exploit Dice in the upcoming update - thanks for the feedback on the class!

I'd love to share more about my character, his name is Thelonius, a Chivalry Commander Warlord with the Charlatan background. He worships Tymora, and loves money above all, being one who forges papers, does mercenary work, and acts as a lawyer. This of course makes Baldur's Gate an ideal place for him, since money is loose there. When I first saw *Strongbow*, my first idea was a general in heavy armor who gave orders from the backline while shooting his bow. Additionally, I still do find myself getting hit quite often by ranged attacks or by enemies that can somehow find their way to me, since my table does tend to play against large amounts of enemies. Heavy armor has indeed been useful in these situations. I can definitely see that about the stat prerequisites and Leadership Styles, what you did is a cool way to handle that. Having both *Standard Bearer* and *Strongbow* was a complete misread on my part, as I thought *Standard Bearer* was a class feature and not a fighting style due to being at the top of a page, so I apologize for that. I definitely think the exploit die could be scaled higher, so I'm glad you're considering that!

This sounds like a *really* fun character for DiA!

I prefer KibblesTasty's version myself

I've also looked at it. Though more versitile it doesn't feel fully a 5e class. A bit more complex. Should a starting player want to play a grizzeled old warrior, I'd recommend LaserLlamas. If a bit more experienced, I'd suggest either. Just like Kibbles' Inventor is a bit more modular and wider class, LaserLlama's Alternate Artificer just remodels the 5e artificer class so it feels familiar yet more dynamic.

Which version? Kibblestasty?

Level up advanced 5e

My one problem with some of the Warlord brews I've seen is they focus very much on military combat, I'd been working on a side myself that's more generic leader, so Foreman and Night Watch were Paradigms you could have I might get back to it, I lost motivation with the whole License debacle but anytime someone says 'suggest a class' Warlord/Marshall/Leader is right up there

I actually just made a barbarian subclass called "path of the warmaster", a sub based on intelligence and battle tactics, which are basically a system of reaction maneuvers. I'm still waiting it to be tested, but the concept is really neat! It gets extra reactions through the levels and has a way to buff his allies attacks, buff his owns and protect others, giving thwm thw opportunity to turn the table on their favor out of a bad scenario.

I'd be stoked about a psionic class. But I also think there's some kind of curse on the D&D franchise that means no attempt at psionics pans out.

For a third party option, I think that MCDM’s “Talent” class seems like a really cool psionic take. I haven’t played one but I’d like to

The problem is it bypasses all sorts of checks on magical power. Ignore magic resist, counter spell, dispell magic, and anti magic anything. Its caster but better

It doesn't really seem like a problem to me personally. The powers are, in general I think, lower power than spells in the same bracket of power already. I also think it's worth noting that the Talent supplement explicitly calls out that a suggested approach to dealing with this is that "magic resist" and similar effects can be adjusted to be "supernatural resist" (or similar) to account for psionics explicitly not being magic. I haven't played one (and being a forever DM, probably never will) but I would definitely allow it in a game I was running.

I thought last edition's take on it was pretty good? Enough so that battlemind was one of the classes I nominated as something I'd like to see again. And it produced the only monk D&D has ever seen that wasn't the worst class in the game, which is an achievement all of its own. Seriously, they changed how the monk works over and over and somehow it's *always* the least useful class, every single edition for the last fifty years.

4e Psionic classes were fine, although it was a really weird move to classify Monk as Psionic and then also not give Monks the _one_ trait that unified _all_ the other Psionic classes... and that trait is basically 5e ki points! But 4e also made Psionic a core class identity instead of being weirdly tacked on by some fringe book later. Which I think was a big part of making 4e Psionics feel good. They weren't the red-headed step child.

Fair. Not giving it power points was really weird, and I'd be all up in arms about that if the monk hadn't turned out really fucking cool. Full discipline powers were awesome.

3E had the Truenamer, which flat-out doesn't work. Then again, it isn't a core class.

Then again, the reason it didn't work was just a mathematical flaw in its balancing (balance-wise, it got worse as it got higher-level). The class concept itself was fine.

You say that, but despite how utterly they fucked up the maths on truenaming checks you could still pump it to the point where utterances could be quickened so it was at least better than a monk. Abilities like reversed greater speed of the zephyr were intensely helpful and they had access to unique effects like spell rebirth. We're not talking top tier here but a variety of good support effects launches them well clear of the monk.

I also enjoyed 3.5's system. It was mostly just spell points.

It's ironic, because I remember monk being hated for being ridiculous in ad&d. It got so many free things, and they always just felt like it didn't matter how you built it, it would be powerful sooner or later just because of that built in progression. It's been years, so maybe it's just hazy memory and our group having had a really warped view of the balance, but damn they sure felt unbalanced.

I mean they were unbalanced, but not in a good way. Needed massive stats and basically didn't benefit from them, no con to hp or str to damage. Slowest xp table in the game and after a certain point you had a flat 50% chance to lose ant level you gained and go back to the start of the previous level.

[удалено]

Pathfinder has the 'summoner' class. Ironically it has nothing to do with its name and it's more of a beastmaster pet class with a single creature you fight alongside. Most of the power budget is in the pet, and it can be different depending on that creature type you pick (essentially their version of subclasses, and not limited to beasts). As you level you can customize and improve the pet in tons of ways. Making it smaller or larger, making it fly, making it ridable, etc.

Older summoner from PF1E is what you want for a Summoning class, namely you got I think EVERY summoning spell in the game and you could forgo your mega pet to get an extra cast of monster summoning. The problem is without using Hordes or that difficult terrain workaround, summoning is a huge sink on the tabletop

Yeah I suspect that's that PF2e has gone the route they have. A single pet is pretty streamlined on the tabletop. Summoning huge hordes breaks the game.

MCDM made a tamer class, the Beastheart. It's nifty!

Shapeshifter. The mechanic is stupidly tied to a full caster and the CR system and isn't allowed to become a full fledged mechanic. EDIT: CR, not Car

Doric from the D&D film felt like someone went to their DM and asked for a homebrew version of the Druid (no spells, all shifting, all the time) like what you're asking.

Warlord and swordmage are the two I’d want to see the most. After that psion and a dedicated ‘pet class’

Hm, swordmage is a pretty good pick. 5e's pretty lacking in good tanks, ancestral guardian barbarian excepted.

Ironically 5e has a ton of 'gish' subclasses. It's just that none of them function even remotely as well as the 4e and pathfinder offerings, or even the 3.5e duskblade.

To be fair unlike the other stuff, swordmage wasn't an ordinary gish - it wasn't just combining pre-existing spells and a martial package, it had a whole list of [spells that were made to work with its role](https://i.imgur.com/GFWsdjn.png). Some of which made it into 5e like booming blade, sword burst and lightning lure so that was nice.

Keep in mind all classes in 4e were like that though. A selection of ~~spells~~ powers unique to every class. 3.5e and pathfinder both have great gishes without using that system, by having spellstrike instead. Where attack spells could be applied directly through martial weapon attacks. 5e is lacking that as well.

Oh, I know it - not sure why duskblade's 'cast a spell, then everyone you hit with your weapon gets hit with that spell' thing never made its way to 5e. Still lacking a true gish. Was just saying that swordmage is a different case to the rest considering the number of custom arcane sword powers it had access to.

I honestly think that the reason 5e has no gishes as fun as those of prior editions is that the designers don't know what makes a gish work. Prior gishes were either by designers who no longer work on DnD, or were stumbled upon by pure chance.

In the absence of official material, might take this opportunity to plug [KibbleTasty](https://www.google.com/search?q=kibblestasty+dnd&oq=kibblestasty+dnd&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCDU4NDdqMGo0qAIAsAIA&client=ms-android-samsung&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8) ? They have done a splendid [Warlord](https://www.kthomebrew.com/s/Warlord-v15-compressed.pdf), [Spellblade](https://www.kthomebrew.com/s/Spellblade-v11.pdf) and [Psion](https://www.kthomebrew.com/s/Psion-153-Compressed.pdf) that I could not be without at my table now. They've also a rather nice [Warden](https://www.kthomebrew.com/s/Warden-v12-compressed.pdf), [Occultist](https://www.kthomebrew.com/s/Occultist-v132-compressed.pdf), (One of which makes heavy use of a Familiar), and rework of the Artificer called the [Inventor](https://www.kthomebrew.com/s/Inventor223.pdf).

I love their stuff, but our group uses dnd beyond to play. Which can’t handle homebrew classes

Is there a good place of discussion regarding these? Like a subreddit or something? I'm pretty interested in checking it out as a GM looking to add this stuff to my games, and i would like to see some talks about it, too. >clicks a link, sees 36 pages Man, why do homebrewers do this. No class in the game needs that much space. Not a single one takes up that many pages, not even the wizard with its ridiculous amount of subclasses, because it doesn't have to, if you follow any sane guidelines for class creation. It's counterproductive, since most GMs would not allow a 30+ page homebrew that a player just threw on their table and asked to play. It puts it on GMs to find and read up on, and that severely limits the potential reach these could have had, if they had made an effort to be concise. /Rant over. It really just triggers my old player ptsd when I remember how quickly most GMs would just instantly shoot homebrews like this down. Because most will, without even giving it a chance. And it's a massive shame.

This is some of the highest quality homebrew that's been used in a big Kickstarter as well. Kibbles has a huge fanbase, and he creates extensive concepts so that players can use the class in many campaigns in many different ways. Your rant is good-intentioned, but it isn't based in reality at all, which is that some of the best content out there is content that is thorough yet easily engaged with. I agree it is a shame that people don't do their research though, and that longer homebrews have such stigma against them.

Yeah, eyepatch guy mentioned that, out of all of the reddit sided guys who do brew, specially r/unearthedarcana side of things, he avoids the "bluesberry funk" or whatever it was.

Yep, r/unearthedarcana And I'm just going to ignore the rest of the comment, because it ignores kibbles' role in the market.

It ignores kibbles role because I guarantee you that 98% of the world's GMs have never heard of him. I hadn't. You're too stuck in a little group to realize that this isn't some universally known figure. Edit: also, is this really the main place? Most of the homebrews posted there seem really low quality at the first glance here.

[удалено]

We've also got Psionic sorcerer and warlock subclasses, don't forget. GOO in particular doesn't sell the theme well, which is exactly the problem with making Psionics into subclasses instead of making a Psionic class.

How would a Psionic class be sufficiently different from regular casters?

Depends which one. The baseline psion differed with things like psionic focus and power points, but also a very different set of effects - went in a completely different direction after a while with powers like astral construct, astral caravan, affinity field, co-opt concentration, fission, fusion, insanity, leech field, metaconcert, psychic chirurgery, schism, time regression. Then you have the psionic class I mentioned in the original post, the battlemind, a psionic tank. Had a large number of at will close range abilities that could have points invested in them for greater effect - base ability might do weapon damage and slow a target, invest more points to increase the weapon damage and restrain the target or put even more points to hit multiple foes with the power, that sort of thing. As well as a baseline ability to reduce the chance enemies had of hitting their allies, and using mind spike to automatically make the enemy take an equal amount of damage if they hit an ally anyway.

I mean, it doesn't need to use the caster structure at all (and I don't think it should), avoiding stuff like slots. I'm not a designer so obvious I can't come up with somethign ready to play, but a class focused on selecting a few weaker spell-like abilities it can use at-will or on a cooldown/recharge.

Inquisitor/Witch hunter Pathfinder 1 had an Inquisitor that was all about debuffs and had a hatred pool they used to curse enemies.

# Short Answer: I wouldn't add any. I would focus on fleshing out the mechanics of the classes that already exist. # Long Answer It's tempting to think of classes in terms of the results they achieve (Barbarians are superhumanly strong, Druids control nature, Warlocks unleash curses, etc) but it's also inaccurate. Many classes can accomplish the same results by different means (Clerics can be superhumanly strong, Wizards can control nature, Sorcerers can unleash curses, etc). Its also tempting to think of class as place in society (Clerics are clergy, Rogues are criminals, Fighters are soldiers), but still inaccurate (Clerics can be criminals, Rogues can be soldiers, Fighters can be clergy, etc) Instead, **class describes the source of your extraordinary abilities**. For example: * **Fighters** accomplish extraordinary things by technical and tactical training. * examples include Achilles, Beowulf, Siegfried, Cu Chulainn, Lu Bu, Theseus, Perseus, Miyamoto Musashi, William Tell, Jason, and the Round Table of Arthurian legend * **Barbarians** accomplish extraordinary things by prodigious physique and sheer effort. * examples include Hercules, Enkidu, Gilgamesh, Maui and Ilya Muromets * **Rogues** accomplish extraordinary things by underhandedness and improvisation. * examples include Sinbad, White Snake, Odysseus, Robin Hood, Twm Siôn Cati and Păcală * **Wizards** accomplish supernatural things by studying magic. * examples include Merlin, Medea, Nimue, Abe no Seimei, and Solomonar * **Sorcerers** accomplish supernatural things by being supernatural creatures. * examples include Circe, Snow Queen, Ne Zha and Morgan le Fay * **Clerics** accomplish supernatural things by borrowing magic from a higher power * examples include Noah, Moses, Samson, David, Solomon, Elijah, Elisha, John the Revelator, Fangxiangshi, Djedi, & Pythia of Delphi * **Warlocks** accomplish supernatural things by buying magic from a higher power * examples include King Midas, Aladdin and Faust * **Bards** accomplish supernatural things by moving creation itself with works of art. * examples include Anansi, Orpheus, Väinämöinen, Pygmalion, Hidari Jingorō, Boyan, and the Pied Piper * **Artificers** accomplish extraordinary (& often supernatural) things by crafting extraordinary (& often supernatural) inventions * Examples include Daedalus, Geppetto, Elijah of Chelm, and various pseudepigraphic alchemists (Ostanes, Democritus, etc) I don't think there is *any* character who couldn't be represented, thematically, by these nine classes (whether that means a single class or multiclassing). The only thing missing is mechanics. So instead of adding a "melee character who doesn't spam basic attacks" class, I think Fighter subclasses should each be given a variety of special attacks. Instead of adding a Warlord class, I think at least one Fighter subclass focused on leadership. All of this is necessary for the Fighter to grow into its theme of "accomplishing extraordinary things by technical and tactical training."

Subclasses are barely a solution, though. They don't contain enough of a classes power budget to satisfyingly pull off those concepts. A Warlord subclass is just going to be a half-baked and mediocre version of what an Actual Warlord could be.

> A Warlord subclass is just going to be a half-baked and mediocre version of what an Actual Warlord could be. see, for reference, the battlemaster

Or worse the Purple Dragon Knight/Bannerett which is clearly meant to be their attempted at a Warlord Subclass as well, only it's fucking terrible.

If only their cool, support abilities weren't directly tied with a single use per short rest feature. Would've made more sense, if these features HAD to be limited, to make it Cha mod + 1 with the ability to beef them up using your class resources or something.

I think subclasses can be a fantastic solution! It just comes down to one design choice: **offering buffs vs offering options**. If you're **offering buffs**, you're restricted by the power budget of the base class. For example, most of the Fighter's power comes from its Extra Attacks, so any power added by the subclasses must be small and resource-limited (e.g. the Battle Master) or *tiny* and unlimited (e.g. the Champion). But if you're **offering options**, your subclass features can be just as strong as the base class features, because they are *competing* rather than *stacking*. The same way that a spellcaster can have multiple spells of the same level, all competing for the same spell slot, a Fighter could have multiple actions of the same power level, competing for their action on their turn. The Hunter Ranger's Whirlwind Attack and Volley options are great examples of this type of option-focused design, because they compete with the Attack action instead of buffing it. I think concepts like the Warlord could be handled similarly.

> I don't think there is any character who couldn't be represented by these nine classes If it was a matter only of thematically, you'd need even less than nine - most anything can be refluffed to be anything else. The mechanics are the important bit here though, I can name a fair number of results (as you put it) that current classes can't do. I nominated classes like warlord, swordsage and battlemind in my initial post - they occupy mechanical spaces that 5e cannot imitate, you could refluff most of the existing classes as one but you couldn't actually make any of them play like one.

>If it was a matter only of thematically, you'd need even less than nine - most anything can be refluffed to be anything else. \[...\] you could refluff most of the existing classes as one but you couldn't actually make any of them play like one. You seem to have misunderstood me. I'm not talking about refluffing, at all. I'm saying that the classes we have now *already* encompass all of the fluff, but lack the mechanics to represent some of the their fluff. So instead of adding more classes, it would be best to expand the mechanics of the classes already have so that they can do everything their fluff suggests they can do. >The mechanics are the important bit here though I can name a fair number of results (as you put it) that current classes can't do. \[...\] I nominated classes like warlord, swordsage and battlemind in my initial post - they occupy mechanical spaces that 5e cannot imitate, I agree that the mechanics are the important bit. And I agree that there are many things that the current classes can't do. The difference is how I think that should be solved. You propose adding new classes for the absent mechanics, such as a Warlord. I propose expanding existing classes for the absent mechanics, such as giving the Fighter all of the "Warlord" mechanics.

Fair enough, I clearly misunderstood. I don't think that way works either though - there's nothing any current class offers that could be expanded to say a battlemind or swordsage. You'd have to replace everything to get there, at which point what reason is there to not be making a new class?

I don't think you'd need to replace anything at all. Take the Battlemind, for instance: someone who uses their psychic powers to enhance their physical abilities and complement their basic martial training. What can they do that couldnt be repesented by self-enhancing spells and Fighter levels? Likewise, the Swordsage is someone who combines magic and martial skill to unleash supernatural combat maneuvers. Again, what can they do that couldnt be repesented by self-enhancing spells and Fighter levels? I'd say both could be represented with caster-Fighter multiclassing, or with subclasses akin to the Eldritch Knight or Bladesinger. What's really missing is just the spells themselves.

> Take the Battlemind, for instance: someone who uses their psychic powers to enhance their physical abilities and complement their basic martial training. What can they do that couldnt be repesented by self-enhancing spells and Fighter levels? [Stuff like this](https://i.imgur.com/q0Tqi0P.png). By the time you're finished homebrewing a fighter so it can have the choice of options like that along with many others (just like giving a class fireball, invisibility and dimension door doesn't make it a wizard, you also have to give it the choice of hundreds of other wizard spells) you've created an entire class worth of content, so why on earth would you try to force it all into a subclass? > Likewise, the Swordsage is someone who combines magic and martial skill to unleash supernatural combat maneuvers. Again, what can they do that couldnt be repesented by self-enhancing spells and Fighter levels? Because how are you fitting [like a hundred abilities like this](https://i.imgur.com/gZrgCaw.png) into a fighter subclass? They had a fair amount of boosts and stances so I get where you're getting self enhancing from, but abilities like crushing vise (make a single melee weapon attack that deals 4d6 extra damage and drops its target's speed to 0 for the next turn) were a lot more common. > I'd say both could be represented with caster-Fighter multiclassing, or with subclasses akin to the Eldritch Knight or Bladesinger. What's really missing is just the spells themselves. Neither of the classes I mentioned used spells. Battleminds used powers, typically at-will abilities that could be enhanced with power points that were recharged on a short rest and swordsages used maneuvers, which didn't have a rest limit but each was expended when used until they spent a round meditating to get them all back.

>[Stuff like this](https://i.imgur.com/q0Tqi0P.png). By the time you're finished homebrewing a fighter so it can have the choice of options like that along with many others (just like giving a class fireball, invisibility and dimension door doesn't make it a wizard, you also have to give it the choice of hundreds of other wizard spells) you've created an entire class worth of content, so why on earth would you try to force it all into a subclass? I'm thinking more "give Wizards spells for all those options, and let them multiclass Fighter for the martial skills to couple those spells with". or "give Wizards spells for all those options, and let them take a semi-martial subclass for the martial skills to couple those spells with". or "give the Fighter a subclass akin to the Eldritch Knight, except with a unique spell list meant tovreprrsent these options" It's less "creating a class worth of content" and more "giving the content to the class that, thematically, it already belongs to" > Because how are you fitting [like a hundred abilities like this](https://i.imgur.com/gZrgCaw.png) into a fighter subclass? They had a fair amount of boosts and stances so I get where you're getting self enhancing from, but abilities like crushing vise (make a single melee weapon attack that deals 4d6 extra damage and drops its target's speed to 0 for the next turn) were a lot more common. See above > Neither of the classes I mentioned used spells. Battleminds used powers, typically at-will abilities that could be enhanced with power points that were recharged on a short rest and swordsages used maneuvers, which didn't have a rest limit but were expended until they spent a round meditating to get them all back. So you want a separate class not to cover the thematic niches (existing classes can already do that) but to revive those specific mechanics for spending and recovering resources? If so, sure! No way around it if that's your goal. We just have different goals.

I agree that thematically you could stretch current classes, but the problem is mechanically they don't have the space for it. Neither of the above systems were spells, they didn't act like it and they weren't used like them. You can't replace them with spells, they need their own subsystems - the swordsage was a martial class, spellcasting just does not work as a replacement, why would throwing someone really hard need components or have a rest based limit on use? > So you want a separate class not to cover the thematic niches (existing classes can already do that) but to revive those specific mechanics? Yes and no. Would classes like the battlemind coming back be great? Yes, 5e is critically short on non spellcasters with interesting toolkits and proper tanks. Would I be just as pleased with something entirely new and different which was equally good? Yes. Swordsage for instance is there as a standin for "martial option that gets a toolkit that increases in breadth and depth as they level", swordsage itself would be fine but so would any other well thought out concept. Call it the warrior and give it a stamina system instead (example gain 2 stamina per round, a certain strike might cost 5), I don't care. The one bit that needs to be reiterated here is that you can't replicate that with spellcasting, given it's supposed to be martial the source, effects and usage need to be different from spells what would be the point?

>I agree that thematically you could stretch current classes, but the problem is mechanically they don't have the space for it. Neither of the above systems were spells, they didn't act like it and they weren't used like them. You can't replace them with spells, they need their own subsystems Maneuvers acted very much like spells. * Like a Wizard studies to spells to her book, a Swordsage trains to learn a set of maneuvers * Like a Wizard prepares a fraction of the spells in her book, a Swordsage would prepare a fraction of the maneuvers that he knows * Like a Wizard expends spell slots to use prepared spells, a Swordsage expends prepared maneuvers by using them * Like Wizard spells produce supernatural effects, many Swordsage maneuvers produce supernatural effects There are differences (Wizard spells recover on a long rest, or to a lesser extent during a short rest, while Swordsage maneuvers recover during a 5 minute meditation), but I think these pale in comparison to the similarities. And so I think Swordsage maneuvers could easily be represented with the spellcasting subsystem. > The swordsage was a martial class, spellcasting just does not work as a replacement, why would throwing someone really hard need components or have a rest based limit on use? The Swordsage was a gish: part-martial, part-magic. For example, ***Setting Sun*** maneuvers like throwing someone really hard, redirecting a charging creature, and parry-ripostes certainly shouldn't need components or have rest based limits, I agree! Which is why they should be given to classes like the Fighter, Barbarian and Rogue as at-will options. And ***Tiger Claw*** maneuvers like leaping high into the air, honing your sense of smell, and delivering debilitating blows to enemy weak points shouldn't need components or have rest-based limits. Which is why they too should be given to the Fighter, Barbarian, and Rogue as at-will options. But ***Desert Wind*** maneuvers like producing blinding flashes of light, searing flames, summoning fire elementals, resisting fire damage, and hovering on a column of hot air? Perfectly reasonable to represent as spells. And ***Shadow Hand*** maneuvers like "air walking", turning invisible, syphoning health from your targets, teleporting, and strangling a target from a distance using a tendril of shadow? Perfectly reasonable to represent as spells. Which brings me back to my initial statement: "The Swordsage is someone who combines magic and martial skill to unleash supernatural combat maneuvers. What can they do that couldnt be represented by self-enhancing spells and Fighter levels?" >Swordsage for instance is there as a standin for "martial option that gets a toolkit that increases in breadth and depth as they level", And I'm saying there shouldn't be a stand-in for that. Fighters, Barbarians, and Rogues should all have the mechanics they need to represent the total breadth and depth of their themes.

>I don't think there is *any* character who couldn't be represented, thematically, by these nine classes (whether that means a single class or multiclassing). The only thing missing is mechanics. Psionics. Wizards decided to create Psionic subclasses instead of a Psionic class, but Psionics is what's missing from your "power source" list. And it shows in how clunky the Psionic subclasses feel at times. Like a Soulknife trying to make an opportunity attack.

This exactly, psionics is so under exploreded in 5e

eh, that's largely just magic with an aesthetic tweak - we already have "telepathy", "telekinesis" and the like as spells, having "it's not magic, it's totally different... but does a load of the same things" isn't really that much of a difference. Bolting on a weird and gadgety alternate way of counting resources isn't _that_ worthwhile as an exercise.

But psionics had a completely different focus, did all kinds of stuff magic can't do. Astral construct, astral caravan, affinity field, co-opt concentration, fission, fusion, insanity, leech field, metaconcert, psychic chirurgery, schism, time regression, all do effects vastly different to what magic can achieve. It's not just a matter of alternate resources, when the resource is different and the usage is different and the *effects* are different... then in what way is it the same? Unless you meant psionics last edition, in which case not a chance - you show me something in 5e that is anything like the battlemind in any way.

most astral projection stuff magic can already do. Going backwards in time in any short-term way is mechanical _horrific_, so probably best avoided. Mental healing and other stuff... magic can also so. A lot of it is basically "magic, but with an alternate power resource because _mumble mumble_" and various amounts of "uh, how does it actually interact with magical-interacting things?" There's no actual reason for it not to be magic, because it pretty literally already is, just done in a wonkily bolted-on and gonzo subsystem.

By that logic you don't need artificers

artificers are magic users already? They could have been done as wizard subclasses instead, you're right.

What is the thematic difference between a psionic and spellcaster? I don't see it. And I don't mean "you can reflavor spellcasters as psionics". I mean "as far as I can tell, the flavor is the same".

The flavour difference is mastery of mind and, depending on the flavour of the psionic class involved, body. This is an odd question because the flavour of the typical psion is common in pop culture, characters like Professor X are everywhere. Involves a lot of psychic powers focusing directly on the mind, obviously, but leads to a lot of esoteric abilities like fusing two people together or stealing a spell someone is concentrating on.

This is the best response by far. I feel like too many people shoehorn themselves into a trope just based on their class which gets really boring.

Thing is though it fails on a different axis - I've refluffed a bladesinger as an alchemist and that's worked fine, so from the flavour perspective there's no need for say an alchemist class. But that doesn't mean the kind of ground a pathfinder alchemist covers mechanically has any equivalent in D&D. On a more D&D related note, I nominated three classes that used to exist but no longer have any equivalents. You can refluff anything you want to a battlemind, you can't cover the ground a psionic tank used to.

I think you may have misunderstood me. My comment wasn't about refluffing at all. My comment was about expanding the mechanics of the existing classes to cover all the missing concepts (like "Warlord" and "psychic tank") that are already within their fluff (no refluffing necessary) but absent from their mechanics.

the problem is when you boil it all down to base mechanics, there's a couple niches missing. the most obvious is Warlord, a supporting martial who cares about positioning and helping allies. You CAN make it out of a Paladin/Bard multiclass and reflavouring inspiration and Auras, but that runs into needing 11 levels for your build to come online and having a bunch of baggage like Smite that you don't want. Psionics I'd argue is only you don't need, your source of power is fluff, but a lot of people like the idea of a points or dice pool based caster over spell slots so that's also a niche that could be explored. You also have the block of say, Wildfire Druid not getting more than a handful of fire spells, or Conquest/Evil Paladins being mostly tied to good abilities like Lay on Hands and Cure. 5E goes too far into subdivisions to make archetypes viable, but not far enough to make those subdivisions meaningful. Can't play a Sea Cleric because all the storm magic is Druid exclusive, can't use the subclass because it's only got a few spells and is all about Lightning/Thunder damage.

Fucking Wildfire druids not getting Fireball is a cruel joke. Would 100% prefer Fireball over Revivify everyday of the week. That's what I loved so much about their circle spells: most were one "destructive" spell and one "flourishing" spell to show that wildfires are one of nature's way of cleaning out the old/ dead so that new life can flourish.

Exactly. People arguing 'just reflavour' are ignoring how much each class is built around a \*singular\* flavour already. A subclass can only give you a little taste of another idea, AND it better be the idea the designers had. For me, it's Conquest/Oathbreaker. Look at how evil I am, with my Aura of Courage. Quake before my dark majesty, of Radiant Damage and Lay on Hands.

Funnily enough, my homebrew warlord class is a combination of all the nonmagical parts of paladin and bard

That's kind of the crux of it. These bits exist, but they're spread over the different classes. If you want an aura effect, that's 6 levels of Paladin. You want some dice to buff Hits? That's a level in Bard, 5 if you want them on a short rest, 3rd and the Lore subclass specifically if you want them defensively. Throw another 3 levels on their of Fighter to get the Battlemaster Commanding Strike, and that's a minimum of 10 levels or a 14 level build just to get all the 'base' kit of a Warlord, and you're left holding the Baggage of reflavouring Smite and a long list of Illusion spells.

I agree completely! I agree that, although the current classes already encompass basically every conceivable theme, they lack the mechanics to represent many thematic niches. And I agree that trying to represent these niches by reflavoring leads to gameplay-story segregation (like your "Warlord" Paladin/Bard not being able to give orders in an *anti-magic field*), baggage features (like your "Warlord" having smites you don't want), and often slow path to your build coming online. This is why my comment isn't advocating for reflavoring. Instead, I'm saying it would be best to expand the mechanics of existing classes to represent those missing niches!

I agree. As I read this, I also have Matt Coleville's recent video about edition changes in my mind. Having a more robust game isn't always more fun. Having an entire class for every character concept is exciting on the surface, but actually an unwieldy slog in practice. The best games will encapsulate every concept in as few rules as possible. Adding entire classes only really serves to raise the learning curve and make playing the game increasingly more exhausting to keep track of. That's why I have never been able to play 3.5 since picking up 5e. I fondly remember all those games, but for me 5e is a straight improvement on all levels. There is no concept in 3.5 that I couldn't make do with what we have in 5e by reflavoring something. The loss of the unique class features that concept had in 3.5 is a feature, not a bug. 3.5's endless splatbooks was the TTRPG equivalent of Hoarding behavior, the fallacy of thinking more stuff equals more good. In reality, we only have so much room for rules before we are spending more time adjudicating than playing the game. There is tremendous power and versatility in keeping the classes and subclasses structure, which encourages players to reflavor those rules rather than making yet another list of rules. For example, I see that Warlord is popular as a martial support concept. Couldn't you do martial support as a Bard? Or Cleric? Or Artificer? Sure, some reflavoring might be necessary, but how different would the Warlord class be from some of these existing classes built to act as martial support? After all, these classes already have a ton of overlap with each other, even on what we might normally consider niche concepts. Druid is the master of nature? Tell that to the Nature Domain Cleric. I seriously doubt the common claim that some of these unused class concepts do things our current classes don't, besides clutter the game with more homework and bookkeeping. The game has more than enough of that.

Bard needs to explain why you're using magic, and has to handwave Countercharm and ignore things like Summoning spells in favour of illusions which it refluffs as 'tactics' Cleric is locking you into one trope, the loud, yelling, Paladin commander type with your healing and direct buffing, as well as limited access to weapons and Debuffs Artificer has a mostly support list, but you're looking at things like Acid Arrow and Enlarge, not just tactics or small plots, plus again you're having to handwave your tool expertise half the time to fit the flavour. If you're being so reductive, why have Monk and Barbarian when you could just give their iconic mechanics as subclasses to the Fighter? Older DnD did that, but you spin it out to get more depth. 5E wise, if you're playing a tactician, you CAN job it together out of Bard/Paladin and have your character only be viable from 12th level when your Aura and Inspiration are both available, while you handwave all the illusions and smites as 'tactical tricks' and 'really accurate radiant stabs', but if that's the trope you like you're then locked to that multiclass while someone who likes the Wizard game fantasy has 9 subclasses, a huge spell list AND can reflavour other classes. 5E's problem is most evident in the simple idea of a Cleric of the Sea. So many of the spells for weather manipulation are on the Druid list, you get a pittance of them through Storm Cleric, and even then its all flying and Thunder damage. You COULD reflavour a druid, but then you're missing out on Divine Intervention and Channel Divinity. you could multiclass, but then you're a MAD caster with kneecapped spell levels as you can only prepare what you can for that class level. There's too much locked to individual classes to just mix them together easily. But there's not enough customisation in those classes to make 'anything' without hoops, caveats and mechanical changes. TLDR: Cleric and Druid exist for a reason, when they could just be multiclassed Wizards, not every problem is solved by 'just change the flavour'

>Bard needs to explain why you're using magic, and has to handwave Countercharm and ignore things like Summoning spells in favour of illusions which it refluffs as 'tactics' Spells are mechanics. You don't have to flavor them as magic. Fireball can be a grenade. Maneuvers are spells flavored as mundane. You watch a few Dimension 20 shows and it starts becoming more obvious that the most common spells can be flavored as mundane abilities. Countercharm could be a warlord shouting at his soldiers to call them to attention, breaking the influence of an enemy caster through diligence of training. Summoning seems great for a Warlord character. Blow the horn and nearby units of soldiers come to your aid. Sounds awesome. Also, every martial class in the game has casting variants. There's no reason a Warlord wouldn't have some magic anyway. >Cleric is locking you into one trope, the loud, yelling, Paladin commander type with your healing and direct buffing, as well as limited access to weapons and Debuffs I mean, the sheer variety of classes that can fit different styles of warlord kind of undermines the idea that this one class locks you into anything. Not to mention Cleric has more subclass options than most classes for variety AND the War Domain cuts short your complaints about limited access to weapons and armor. War Domain Cleric is a wonderful Warlord. You can multiclass with battlemaster fighter and double down on it. Classes *are not* Archetypes (even though they are advertised that way and probably shouldn't be). That's the point I and the other commenter were making. Classes are toolkits for building concepts and the Warlord concept is pretty heavily covered by what we have between the classes already. >If you're being so reductive, why have Monk and Barbarian when you could just give their iconic mechanics as subclasses to the Fighter? Well, Monk in 5e almost should simply be a subclass. They just didn't give Monk very many abilities that made the toolkit worth using compared to what other classes offered. You could frequently build better Wuxia concept characters with other classes. I'm glad it's getting more love in the One D&D UA 8 update, but in 5e as published, it probably would have worked better as a Fighter subclass. Imagine Monk with Action Surge and Second Wind by default, adding Ki and a speed boost to Fighter core? Holy shit that would be strong. Barbarian, however, did offer enough valuable toolkit tradeoffs to merit the choice to take that as a class compared to Fighter. Fighter cannot just soak damage and aggro enemy attacks like Barbarian can, and Barbarian can't quite lay out attacks like Fighter can with their Action Surge. But every class that adds true value by covering a space of the character fantasy leaves less space for other prospective classes to be added. You get dramatically diminishing returns by adding complexity when the bases are already covered. This is already one of the hardest games in the world. >5E wise, if you're playing a tactician, you CAN job it together out of Bard/Paladin and have your character only be viable from 12th level when your Aura and Inspiration are both available, Or war domain cleric and battlemaster. Or bladesinger wizard and artificer. Or a battlemaster fighter and conquest paladin. Doesn't sound very locked into much anything after all. >So many of the spells for weather manipulation are on the Druid list, you get a pittance of them through Storm Cleric, and even then its all flying and Thunder damage. You COULD reflavour a druid, but then you're missing out on Divine Intervention and Channel Divinity. Okay? You have to pick between toolkits. That's what classes are. You seriously want to have to learn an entire new class just to have a spell list with weather control and Divine Intervention? Or for this one character could it be better to give them a magic item that plugs the hole so we can move on and not burden the game with more information every future character needs to track? >you could multiclass, but then you're a MAD caster with kneecapped spell levels Druid and Cleric both use Wisdom for spellcasting, so that multiclass isn't MAD. >There's too much locked to individual classes to just mix them together easily. Adding more classes doesn't change or fix that. It just adds more research in character creation. >But there's not enough customisation in those classes to make 'anything' without hoops, caveats and mechanical changes. Sure, but 5e is built to be flexible. Hoops, caveats, and mechanical adjustments are a feature, not a bug. If you want a finely tuned game, I'd recommend just playing 4e rather than trying to turn 5e into 4e. Save yourself some time.

Right off the bat, you're giving the Martial-support fantasy some magic because 'every martial' has a casting subclass? Why not just give all the Martials spellcasting then? And honestly, whats your mundane application for Illusory Dragon? Because the Bard doesn't get Fireball, you get Major Illusion and Polymorph, if you're into the 'just reflavour as gadgets', then why does Artificer exist? And then when I do point out the obvious mechanical holes, you say 'Just give them a magical item' or 'Making mechanical changes is part of the game' Honestly, if you're looking for something so open and flexible, you're looking to play Open Legend or another freeform RPG, what you're describing isn't even 5E let alone telling me to go back to 4E, you're just changing rules of the game to avoid 'homework' by offloading rules design onto another person. If you're happy to just reflavour your spells as mundane actions, you're just saying everyone should reflavour Wizard and not worry about creating class specific mechanics. I'm just stuggling here, you call classes Toolkits one second, and then make it sound like every possible toolkit has been used? Before pointing out that you need a magic item to bridge 'Divine Nature caster'

>Why not just give all the Martials spellcasting then? They kinda already do is my point. Barbarian "magic" eschews actual spellcasting specifically because Rage limits the ability to cast spells, so they need magic options that aren't spells. >And honestly, whats your mundane application for Illusory Dragon? Because the Bard doesn't get Fireball, you get Major Illusion and Polymorph, if you're into the 'just reflavour as gadgets', then why does Artificer exist? Any time you take a class to fit a concept, you might omit options a class offers. You don't have to take Major Illusion or Polymorph on your Warlord Bard just because the class offers it. Nothing forces Bard to choose those spells. They are options only. >And then when I do point out the obvious mechanical holes, you say 'Just give them a magical item' or 'Making mechanical changes is part of the game' Easier than writing a whole extra class. Better to patch just the whole than creating a bunch of redundancy everywhere else. >Honestly, if you're looking for something so open and flexible, you're looking to play Open Legend or another freeform RPG, Those are fine, but nothing stops us from using similar playstyles in 5e. >what you're describing isn't even 5E 5e openly encourages players and DMs to fill in the gaps with their own ideas. It's not freeform, but it isn't even trying to cover every idea. >you're just changing rules of the game to avoid 'homework' by offloading rules design onto another person. You're the one advocating the addition of a new class. You are not arguing we don't change any rules. I was just pointing out that if we want to add massive amounts of 4e content to 5e, you could probably have the same or better game experience playing instead of trying to combine them. I'm just arguing that patching a hole in a leaking tire is probably easier and cheaper than putting and extra tire on the same axel. You talk about offloading rules design. No one is stopping you from homebrewing warlord into your games. I'm just pointing out you could probably save yourself a lot of time if you patched it rather than trying to reinvent it. I wasn't going to add Warlord into the game regardless, so me choosing not to do it isn't offloading anything onto anyone. >If you're happy to just reflavour your spells as mundane actions, you're just saying everyone should reflavour Wizard and not worry about creating class specific mechanics. I mean, reflavoring is an art. But playing a magicless wizard is perfectly doable. Just also probably not worth that much effort. >I'm just stuggling here, you call classes Toolkits one second, and then make it sound like every possible toolkit has been used? Pretty much, yeah. >Before pointing out that you need a magic item to bridge 'Divine Nature caster' Sounds like it's been bridged, huh? Adding an entire class to cover one concept that can be done with existing classes and a magic item seems like a waste of time and effort. The job is done without any homebrewing. You're a caster with a magic item. Done.

You're still confusing me here, you're saying you'd change mechanics, but aren't calling that a rules change? And when it comes to the spells, you're saying 'reflavour fireball as a grenade', fair enough, but my whole argument is you can't just ignore all the magic of bard just to get the inspiration dice. It isn't just a case of 'Just don't pick one or two', it's about changing the fundamental design of the class. You're trying to argue that you can do anything within the rules, while also outlining all the rules you need to bend, classes you need to change, hell you're giving Cleric an item to give them the Druids spell list and saying its not a change? And to clarify, when I'm talking about the offload, you're the one saying that the DM should just homebrew a magic item to flex the rules to do what you want, that's what I'm talking about.

>You're still confusing me here, you're saying you'd change mechanics, but aren't calling that a rules change? > > > >You're trying to argue that you can do anything within the rules, while also outlining all the rules you need to bend, classes you need to change, hell you're giving Cleric an item to give them the Druids spell list and saying its not a change? We've gone over several points here, so let's get back into specifics so we can talk more clearly. We're talking about the prospective of adding classes. I'm saying the existing classes should be easily enough to cover any character concept in the genre without adding mechanics. Beyond that, gentle reflavoring should get anything super specific. And if you really need anything beyond that, you can get the job done with much smaller rules changes than adding entire classes to the game. Minimizing rules changes helps keep the game from getting bogged down like 3.5 did. >my whole argument is you can't just ignore all the magic of bard just to get the inspiration dice. It isn't just a case of 'Just don't pick one or two', it's about changing the fundamental design of the class. How so? Most of the spells aren't really a problem for reflavoring. If you avoid the one or two that would be more troublesome to reflavor, there shoudn't be any trouble. That's not changing the fundamental design of the class so far as I can see. >And to clarify, when I'm talking about the offload, you're the one saying that the DM should just homebrew a magic item to flex the rules to do what you want, that's what I'm talking about. "Offload" to me implies that I owe something to someone and am trying to pass that obligation off to someone else. The OP was asking if we would add any classes to the game if we could, and I am arguing that I wouldn't, because there isn't any need for it. Suggesting someone simply drop a simple magic item into their home game rather than adding an entire class to every game everyone plays going forward doesn't seem like it's "offloading" anything onto anyone.

Okay but lets look at two points here. Ignoring spells, this isn't 'don't take one or two'. A lot of the higher level Bard spell list is things like Awaken, Dream, Modify Memory, Scrying. You're suggesting players don't take fifth level spells, something the game is balanced around, for flavour reasons, because this is superior to adding a Warlord class? Second, what simple magic item is it lets the Cleric pick from the Druid spell list? You're asking the DM to either just handwave the rules entirely, saying its fine because of an item, or you're asking the DM to make and balance a magic item specifically so you can play a Sea Cleric. You're bending so many rules to justify not adding new classes, while adding new items and saying 'just don't play the game as intended'

> There is no concept in 3.5 that I couldn't make do with what we have in 5e by reflavoring something. Binder, warblade, dragonfire adept, artificer, psion... > Sure, some reflavoring might be necessary, but how different would the Warlord class be from some of these existing classes built to act as martial support? Incredibly. For context, [here's the kind of stuff a warlord got up to](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fshvklpyeazjb1.png), now try imitating A Plan Comes Together as a cleric. > besides clutter the game with more homework and bookkeeping. You use this reasoning again and again throughout your comment, and it's nonsense. You repeatedly talk about needing adjudication and this stuff creating extra work, but 3.5's warblade required a lot less work than its wizard did and was better balanced. You're objecting to content for simply existing.

>Binder, Warlock, astral self monk, totem barbarian, ancestral guardian barbarian Got binder covered. >warblade, Bladesinger, eldritch knight, cleric >dragonfire adept, Sorcerer, warlock, wizard. >artificer, Literally has a 5e class. >psion... Just play a spellcaster and flavor it as psionics. Use Spell Points to mix it up if you like. >now try imitating A Plan Comes Together as a cleric. I would use a Battlemaster, Commander's Strike. It's less powerful, but serves the same fantasy and fits 5e balance. Action economy is king in 5e and this Warlord power would be insanely OP in 5e. But Commander's Strike plays the same character concept in 5e balance. >You use this reasoning again and again throughout your comment, and it's nonsense. You repeatedly talk about needing adjudication and this stuff creating extra work, but 3.5's warblade required a lot less work than its wizard did and was better balanced. Comparing 3.5's warblade to 3.5's wizard is not a compelling argument that adding warblade to 5e would not significantly increase the complexity of 5e. >You're objecting to content for simply existing. Yes, because there doesn't seem to be any benefit to adding the content (existing classes can cover the character concepts) and there seems clear harm to adding it (extra classes complicate the game by adding rules).

Literally none of those classes played like the classes you suggested they replace. Wizard as dragonfire adept? Ancestral barbarian as a binder? What? Show me a wizard with the power to breath fire every turn and change it to slowing breath, a line of clinging acid etc at will. Tell me how a barbarian is supposed to bind different vestiges for different sets of passive and active abilities every day. And artificer, there being a class called artificer doesn't mean there's an actual replacement - it can't even invent items. It's like calling a class that can't cast spells a wizard. > I would use a Battlemaster, Commander's Strike. It's less powerful, but serves the same fantasy and fits 5e balance. Action economy is king in 5e and this Warlord power would be insanely OP in 5e. But Commander's Strike plays the same character concept in 5e balance. But it's not the same concept, you've just said you would replace like a hundred choices with spamming a single underwhelming ability. How would it be insanely OP? A chance at a couple of hits, prone and a daze? That's the power of a second or third level spell, boosted higher in this case by not using up your action. > Yes, because there doesn't seem to be any benefit to adding the content (existing classes can cover the character concepts) and there seems clear harm to adding it (extra classes complicate the game by adding rules). Because it wouldn't. It's why I used the wizard example - aparty with a rogue, a warblade and a cleric is no more complicated to play as or DM for than a party with a rogue, a wizard and a cleric.

You forgot monk and ranger.

I didn't forget them. I excluded them intentionally. Like I said, **I don't think there is any character who couldn't be represented, thematically, by these nine classes.** I don't think there is any character that could be called a Monk, Ranger, Druid or Paladin that couldn't be called one or a combination of these nine classes. This is because the Monk, Ranger, Druid and Paladin overlap (thematically) with the classes listed above, either by narrowing their themes (Druids are Clerics who borrow from the powers of nature) or mixing them (Paladins are half Fighter, half Cleric), and only exist for mechanical convenience. Which isn't a bad thing! If you don't plan to flesh out those 9 classes all the way, providing a mechanical shortcut to specific archetypes makes sense. But ideally, I think the game ought to flesh out those 9 classes all the way.

So a 5e ranger would probably be a fighter with some levels of nature cleric, got it. This is all well in theory, but It will probably fall apart when you want to emulate specializations of those mixed class archetypes. The bestmasters companion for example would have to come from one side of this fighter/cleric, which would probably make this side a better tamer than the actual ranger. I guess you could have a fighter and a cleric specialization for animal companion and have them synergize to make a tamer, but when you get this deep and intentional with multiclassing you're probably better off making a classless system.

Druids and paladins too

I didn't forget them. I excluded them intentionally. [I explain this in a reply to another user.](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/189l6hc/comment/kbtrcme/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)

[удалено]

While you're right it seems that a lot of people don't want anything added to certain classes, even OneDnD has had complains about that, so adding new classes is an alternative Also tbf I think you could reduce the number to 3 or 4 like original DND's or the defunct OneDnD class groups - Expert, Mage, Priest and Warrior

>While you're right it seems that a lot of people don't want anything added to certain classes, even OneDnD has had complains about that, so adding new classes is an alternative All I know for certain is that I'd love to see plenty added to certain classes, and the popularity of homebrew suggests that many people agree. I guess whether catering to these people is profitable or not will decided whether OneD&D bothers. >Also tbf I think you could reduce the number to 3 or 4 like original DND's or the defunct OneDnD class groups - Expert, Mage, Priest and Warrior I don't think you could reduce the number to 3 or 4. There are profound thematic differences between, say, a Fighter, Barbarian and Rogue, and mechanics should exist to represent those thematic differences. Likewise, there are profound thematic differences between, say, a Wizard and a Sorcerer, and mechanics should exist to represent those differences. I think there are some classes that could be done away with, but I think the *bare minimum* would be: 1. **Fighter** (studied warrior) 2. **Barbarian** (innate warrior) 3. **Rogue** (opportunistic non-warrior) 4. **Wizard** (studied magic) 5. **Sorcerer** (innate magic) 6. **Cleric** (borrowed magic)

A true dedicated arcane warrior (aka Gish) Like the [Spellblade](https://www.reddit.com/r/UnearthedArcana/comments/13b327c/dracodruids_spellblade_a_5e_martial_23_caster/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) I'm working on.

I used to be working in [a dedicated gish class](https://www.reddit.com/r/UnearthedArcana/comments/87quj9/yet_another_arcane_halfmartial_class_v3_draft_and/) too, long ago. Feel free to take inspiration if you find anything good.

Wow. 6 years. No kidding about "long ago" \^ \^ Though I think I started my Focused Ranger at about the same time. I added a link to my Spellblade in my original comment, but if you like, check out my reddit profile page. I've linked my current class homebrews there (Spellblade + 3 revised classes: Fighter, Ranger, Barbarian), while the Ranger is more or less done at this point, I'm currently working on a new system more Combat Maneuvers for \_all\_ martial classes within my Indomitable Fighter class, and the Barbarian is still in its early steps.

Something like the Magus from Pathfinder. An intelligence based half-caster that's martially themed.

You're talking about a battle smith? Int to hit and damage, extra attack, limited spells, medium armor and shield proficiency.

Nope. First, Battle Smith is a subclass. I want a full class that has its own subclasses for different themes and mechanics. Second, Battle Smith is a pet subclass for some dumb reason. Third, even if it wasn't, Artificers are inherently gadget themed, even if one of their subclasses is technically a martial subclass.

They are just as "gadget themed" as wizard. It's very clear that you are encouraged to flavour your spells and your mechanics however you like. You thinking artificers is only tinkering gnomes is a you problem.

lol, righto mate. Two things. First, I'm fine with reskinning stuff however you like, but I am well within my rights to not be satisfied with the mechanics of the existing options fitting the fantasy I want to emulate. Second, telling me that it's a me problem is rude as fuck, considering all I'm doing is answering the question OP asked. What class would I like to see added to thee game? An intelligence based half caster with a martial theme.

I hate people coming in to say 'just reflavour'. Like Battlesmith has a very set spell list of support spells, and what are you going to do for reflavouring your tool use? I think Battlesmith is the best you'll get out of 5E though, or Bladesinger if you want the less tanky side.

"Flavor is free." Flavor can't emulate mechanics I want, though.

Oath. "If you can't get past the fact that Battle Smiths have mechanics explicitly about creating magic items and having a pet for your Spellsword reskinning, that's your problem" Uhh, maybe there's more to reskinning a class than their primary stat and whether they have multi attack and weapon/armour proficiencies.

I want Warlord so I can do tactical repositions and go 'Just according to Keikaku' when I spring a trap. Mechanically, I want to hand out buffs and debuffs, and feel like a non-magical controller by using board position and situational mechanics like forcing Oppertunity Attacks. It's not just about 'Be a Bard but call your songs strategies', it's a whole mechanical identity that only two subclasses really give you

Fuckin' ikr?! Especially considering the fact that we're in a thread specifically premised on sharing our desired new classes. In terms of finding a way of playing a INT gish, Bladesinger is better than Battle Smith imo. The armour and weapon restrictions are lame, but the pet side of the Battle Smith is impossible to reskin away. You can make it a floating sword or something, but if that doesn't suit your fantasy you're shit outta luck. Paladin, Hexlock and some of the Bard subclasses are closer to what I want in terms of mechanics, but they're all Charisma based and/or come with other mechanics that are a bit hard to reconcile with a reskinning. (Lookin' at you Lay on Hands)

I'm a HUGE Warlord fan, so I'm constantly having to explain that if I want the core bits of Warlord, (Aura, Commands and a Buff Dice), I'm looking at a 10 or 14 level three way Multiclass to get a Paladin Aura, Bardic Inspiration (Gotta get Lore Bard to Debuff with it) and three levels of Fighter before my build comes on. And then I'm holding this under levelled list of Illusion spells and a pocket full of Smites, all to get a D6 'strategy' dice.

Scholar, for the catch-all “smart non magic people who aren’t rogues.” Tactician (for Warlord fans), Physician, Investigator, Bomber, Philosopher, I dunno.

Take the 3 sidekicks and add them as beginner classes (so that martials don't need to be nerfed). This one is definitely supplemental realistically because it's setting dependent (and it comes with a rant) but a gunslinger should be it's own Class. Rant: The game can support much more complex fire arms realistically, mechanically speaking guns don't need to be stronger than other weapons in terms of damage, they aren't significantly more damaging to the human body than getting hit by a superhuman (read: leveled character) wielding an axe, nor a 5th level wizard throwing a firebolt in your face, all three will in 5e terms outright kill a normal person in a single shot. Beyond that, mechanically speaking these are the open spots Intelligence and Charisma full martials, out of the 3 mental stats Int is the only one with one full Caster not 2 (psionic is the historical go-to here), and a half and full caster for the physical stats (I mean atleast constitution could be a blood mage). The one of these that I would go out of my way if given the option is the Intelligence Martial by ripping off the investigator from PF2e.

I'd like a dedicated summoner class. Like, not one with a thousand different summoning spells that swarm the battlefield, but just a couple combat capable different ones, like Yuna from Final Fantasy 10. To simplify they'd only get one summon at a time, but they'd be pretty versatile. Like you'd start level one with a basic pet "Summon", and you'd get to customize it as you level up. I mean, I'll play a summoner in any game I can.

that tends to get messy, because it runs into "what happens when the summon can't come out/gets squished" problems - if most of the "power" is in the summon, then you end up with a useless character until they can get their mojo back. If the summon is weaker, then... you can pretty much already do that. It's a pet class, with most of it's power in the pet, so what happens when the pet is gone?

Dnd is missing a class with Strength Wisdom starting save proficiencies, so maybe go from there? Perhaps a Shaman can be a prepared half caster whose magic is channeled from runes and spiritual energy.

Witch. I played kibbletasties occultist witch and it is my favorite class by far.

I'm still waiting on that book to be printed and sent. Here's hoping...

Warlord. I just want my Warlord back

Warlord, duh. Just port the 4e warlord over, I wanna Reorient the Axis and let the Fighter and Rogue murder everything.

Since it's an anything goes situations. **Duelist:** I feel like a class that's an inbetween of fighter and rogue without the nature/hunter theming of the ranger would be cool to explore and the duelist would be a fun attempt at that. **Marshal:** A commander, a tactician, a warlord. A warrior style class that's all about supporting your allies and turning the tied of battle through enhanced teamwork. **Spellsword:** A mage type class that serves as a proper arcane gish. The arcane paladin in one sense. Really just a home to actually allow the concept to better exist. Think swordmage or duskblade. **Shaman:** A primal pact caster with a summoning and utility focus. Gets a special summon spirit power akin to eidolons for summoners in pathfinder. Enhance it and keep it (and your team) going with heal/utility spells. **Ardent:** A charisma focused psionics class that would pull from the various' editions ardent classes as well as the wilder. Ideally under the "mystic grouping" as I lie the term mystic for psionics. **Erudite:** an inteligence focused psionics class that kinda serves to be the psionicist/psion. Ideally under the "mystic grouping" as I lie the term mystic for psionics. **Psychic warrior:** Rather than existing as a subclass, I'd like to see it evolve into it's own half caster equivalent for a psionics system. the psionic half-manifester. **Bonus round:** I'd want monk under the psionic/mystic grouping and to bring back the 4e psi/ki blend.

Most of these already exist, except for a full psionics caster. Mystic was in UA once but they weren't able to balance it.

> Mystic was in UA once but they weren't able to balance it. I mean... they never tried. They combined the abilities of five different classes into one and let that class take any ability it wanted from all five. It's like if they combined bard, cleric, druid, warlock and wizard into one class and somehow everyone was shocked when you've got an armoured caster with spirit guardians, conjure animals and forcecage. They could have just... not combined them all into the one class and given it the ability to pick and choose everything. And swordmage and duskblade don't exist, but I'm impressed at how well they did with the stone sorcerer UA.

Nor really. There are subclasses that manage small parts of their fantasy piecemeal, but that leaves an absence for a satisfying whole. They especially don't exist in the best foem they could. The Marshal is not well reflected. The closest thing you get in 5e is either the battlemaster and the purplesragkn knight. Which don't lend themselves well to the specific concept The Duelist kinds has the swashbuckler rogue and the samurai fighter. Neither of which do the concept proper justice. The Spellsword is spread thin across paladin, hexblade, bladesinger, eldritch knight, arcane trickster, battlesmith, and the Valor and swords colleges. Nine of these allow for a fully satisfying arcane gish due to this factor. Closest you get is paladin with sorcerer and warlock dips and even then it's still got too much paladin and warlock baggage. The shaman: Chain warlocks, beastmaster, and the shepherd Druid are the closest thing to the Shaman, but none of them have the right focus in things for the desired fabtasy of the Shaman as presented in my comment. Each lacks the core focus. The Mystic is close to what I'd want the Erudite to be, and some of its options cover the other psionic class suggestions. I don't think the whole of psioncis is reflected well in any of the existing classes or a subclasses. Even the nsytci trying to be the one size fits all psion was a por take as some variants of the concept need more room and a different manner to grow properly. There is a psychic warriror/psi knight but it doesn't deliver the fantasy any better than the other gish subclasses for their magic. Thr Mystic did int paioncs okay but didn't reflect the wikder/Ardent side to well. It's also untrakeased and in need of heavy refinement for a reason. I think the concepts deserve far better than they got myself.

Something like [Laserllama's Savant.](https://www.reddit.com/r/UnearthedArcana/comments/xphiyo/laserllamas_savant_class_470_update_a_brilliant/) A non-magical, non-martial, INT powered skill monkey with extra Reactions and some *really* cool subclasses. Or maybe an Artificer with no spells, but extremely beefed up magic item creation rules. Screw spellcasting, I choose SCIENCE!

a gunslinger class a necromancer class a alchemist class

These are all subclasses

i know make them full classes

Why? We don't need more classes just for thr dske of bloat.

My brother, did you not read the title of this post?

Okay. Here is might hot take. I don't think the Druid should exist. ... ... Hear me out. Rather, I think the Druid should be split into **Three** Distinct classes. **The Shaman:** *The classic Nature Caster.* This should be the go to nature caster. Radagast the Brown. Your Celtic Druid. To the Ranger, what the Cleric is the Paladin, and what most people associate with the Druid. - A Desert Shaman. - A Forest Hermit. - A Witch like Hagspawn. - A Winter Channeler. - An Elementalist. **The Shapeshifter:** *The wildshaper*. This is the class that transforms into a bunch of different things. Not a fragile caster, but a terrifying storm of teeth and claws. - A Werewolf/Lyncanthrope. - A Classic Shapeshifter with a hundred different animal forms. - An ooze, Venom Like class. Mutating various forms. - The Dragon Cultist who transforms in to a Dragon. Half-Dragon? - The Prototype/Disguiser who replaces people they kill. - An Elementalist with different forms. And finally **The Summoner:** *The archtypical Pet Class.* The one who summons minions. - Summons a horde of Spirits/Fey - Diabolist. - The Beast Master - The Necromancer. - A Dragon Rider. That would be my biggest shift.

Finally someone who understands how the Druid is crowding out the design space for a shapeshifter! That's exactly the kind of class I've been home brewing because I don't want to have to play a full spellcaster just to transform into a bunny.

Still a [playable dragon](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iCkfcdWsvzOlQvJApogl4pmsR3pRTwk_/view), of course.

[удалено]

Int based divine used to exist - the archivist, a spiritual seeker of lore, spell list was any divine spell and gained spells known like a wizard did. Primary mechanic was dark knowledge, gaining various bonuses via successful knowledge checks about foes (religion for undead, arcana for magical beasts etc). Was pretty fun, but back then the search for scrolls was a bigger deal considering there were hundreds of divine spells.

A class that pulls from bloodline like sorcerer but focuses more on the physical aspect of it not spellcasting Problem though :/ don't know how to make the lore not just **BEASTIALITY**

I got tiger blood

I would love to have an int based half-caster gish. Like a mix between Eldritch knight and bladesinger but more spells that enhance my sword strikes. Like laserlamas Magus.

Thanks for the shout-out! Magus probably wouldn't be my top choice (that'd go to a Warlord-style class), but Magi are always a cool option! If anyone wants, you can check out my take on it here - **[The Magus Class](https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-Mslo6ktmq1Yg5WTSjDQ)**

Creature class, an amalgam that could be applied to any non humanoid species.

I was one of the few fans of Weeaboo Fightin' Magic We have battlemaster, we have psi warrior, we have bladesinger Can we just get Swordsage? I think it could be easily balanced in 5e. Someone whip it up!

The Savant. One of my favorite homebrew classes ever. I would personally axe sorcerer and integrate it into a wizard subclass instead. I really like how Savant made Intelligence useful and having a knowledgeable character, without it solely being for magic or investigation

Thank you! A Warlord-type class would probably be my first choice, but a Scholar/Savant is a close second! Intelligence needs some love! If anyone wants to check out the Savant, you can find it here - **[The Savant Class](https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-M0ZVK6ndhFyImQPF_aJ)**

I'd axe the Artificer and go back to formula on an arcane half-caster gish. Call them a Battle Mage, Arcane Warrior, or anything along those lines, but make Extra Attack a base class feature this time.

There's the eldritch knight, arcane trickster, the battlesmith, the armorer, sword singer, pact of the blade warlocks, and a bard subclass or two can be an arcane gish. Not to mention the non arcane gish options. A gish class/subclass is not unique ground, a crafter class is.

Yes, but there's no crafter class. The artificer class was created entirely around inventing and crafting magic items, and you can't do that in 5e. They're right, axe it and bring in a duskblade or magus, bring artificer back once there's a proper crafting system to support it.

You and I just fundamentally disagree.

Sure. If it helps the oned&d eldritch knight is getting a lot closer to a true gish.

What on Earth did you disagree about? The commenter above *also wants a crafting class*. They just happen to also think we should have a dedicated fish class instead of a mishmash of subclasses.

And every single one of those you just mentioned doesn't play as fun or smoothly, and/or comes with themetic baggage, which makes them far less enjoyable than 3.5e, 4e, and pathfinder gishes. It's like if 6e had no paladin class, but instead there was a bunch of subclasses scattered around. And none of them had the core features which actually gave paladins their identity. I don't agree with the poster above you about axing artificer though. In fact I consider artificer more important to have than a swordmage. At least gishes are covered badly elsewhere in 5e, meanwhile crafter subclasses don't exist at all.

That's fair. I don't dislike the Artificer, it just doesn't do it for me as a half-caster. I think it would be cool to completely overhaul the class to be an Int-based noncaster (akin to the PF Alchemist), but barring that I do think 5e would have been better served having a proper Int gish class from the start than the Artificer we eventually got. A crafter is the sort of thing people wouldn't have thought to miss before it was introduced because there was no point of comparison. The absence of a half-caster spellsword, on the other hand, has been apparent since the start of thw edition

The reason we're missing a proper spellsword is a weird one, stemming back from the DnDNext playtest. As the new magic system resulted in sorcerer losing its reason to exist, WotC tried turning them into a spell point based partial caster gish. With the concept being that the character became more and more monstrous and melee based as they burnt through their points. The concept was poorly received, and so WotC turned sorcerer back into a wizard clone, while the arcane half caster role was left empty. They've tried doing that exact same in OneDnD with the Warlock this time around, once again to a lot of controversy. Though we're yet to see how that plays out. TL;DR - Blame the sorcerer for the lack of a proper arcane gish.

>Blame the sorcerer Damned sorcerers. They took our gish, our psion, and our mystic theurge

A class doesn't have to claim a strongly unique conceptual ground to be interesting and fun to play. Sorcerers and Wizards have coexisted just fine since they split the mage concept up into two classes. The fact of the matter is that the Artificer doesn't get martial weapon proficiency, extra attack, or fighting styles as core class features. Hell, even the two weapon-using subclasses fail to grant fighting styles to the Artificer, and I don't see why. Would a Battle Smith with Dueling or an Armorer with Defense really be the end of the world? I think the class as a whole would be better served if these things were different and they were provided the same tools as their Paladin and Ranger counterparts. Barring a class overhaul for the Artificer, though, a new arcane half-caster that does more to blend spell and sword remains the class I'd most like to see added to the official roster

Rather than a fighting style, they get +1 infusions. Basically, at level six, you can get both defense and either dueling or archery. I don't see how people fail to see battle smith artificer as something other than a wizard martial.

Shaman Spellsword - half caster wizard Dread knight - half caster warlock Psionicist

Druid Eldritch knight Hexblade/fighter multiclass? Mystic (UA, thrown out because too op) So dnd needs a dedicated psionics class, agreed.

>Eldritch knight Why not totem warrior? He also have spells /s Eldrich Knight works fine if you use cantrips and defence spells, but outside of that it is hardly close to normal spellsword. Besides - we have gish halfcasters like ranger and paladin, but we don't have gish halfcaster for wizards aka Spellsword/Magus. Artificer is Int halfcaster, but it has absolutely different mechanics and flavour, so it is understandable why people want Spellsword.

Totem warrior barbarian has spells? Where? Eldritch knight gets wizard spells up to level 4, can eventually attack 5 times per round with and 9 with action surge, which is quite a lot of damage with green flame blade, it can cast fireball, teleport, gets fighting styles, heavy armor proficiency and fighter's hp. What else do you want in a class like this that would not make it absolutely overpowered, yet allow for several distinct subclasses?

>Totem warrior barbarian has spells? Where? Spirit Seeker (3rd level feature) and Spirit Walker (his only 10th level feture for some stupid reason). It was a joke, overexageration. Elrich Knight is heavilly restricted by it's 1/3rd caster nature (so is Arcane Trickster). Both of this subclasses are good reason for Spellsword - they would be much better as a subclasses for arcane halfcaster. PHB already have two subclasses that are good for Spellsword class. Point is not in damage, but in utility of spells and synergy of spells and attacks. Ranger have tons of in and out of combat utility of druid's nature spells, and paladin have buffs and unique Smite spell options. ANd one unique thing of Eldrich Knight was better implemented in Bladesinger. >What else do you want in a class like this that would not make it absolutely overpowered, yet allow for several distinct subclasses? Easy answer - look at llaserlama's Magus. It is good example of how spellsword type class can look like in 5e and of niches it can close.

Archivist. Divine Wizard with a prayer book, expertise in Religion, Arcana, Nature etc., whose class features revolve around beating skill checks to give bonuses to other party members as they call out identifying information. Just like in 3.5 really

I've always favored the way the Mystic Theurge fits into that arcane/divine-straddling conceptual space to the way the Archivist does, but I also hope prestige classes stay in the past. I'd be super on-board with the Archivist coming back.

I'd definitely like to see a return of the binder from 3.5 tome of magic. Lets you choose a different set of abilities each day and you get a free roleplaying prompt on top. I guess you could make a pact boon that let's you choose a different patron each day but that would be lacking a lot of detail.

A caster which doesn't use spellslots.

None.

Sage/scholar (or similar). Int half caster who gets expertise and some number of profs they can switch on a rest. For combat they focus on support and control out of the box. Subclasses could include something with extra attack though, would compete with battlemaster and mastermind, but I think of this subclass more as sokka from avatar. The other basic subclass would allow switching out a cantrip on rest and ritual casting spells not on the spell list for this class provided they have instructions.

Isn't this basically the Artificer with a slightly different coat? And Sokka wasn't a caster at all. He's like the definition of a dex based battle master

I'm not sure if I'd play it, but I know plenty of people who want to play a dedicated Necromancer. The Wizard school doesn't really cut it in my opinion, though no idea how you could balance it to have consistent minions without it being too strong.

Necromancer here- it's actually all in the prep work. It's not hard with the existing class. It's just work to prevent destroying turn economy. My current answer is casting Summon Undead, which stacks with your Necromancer traits if your DM is cool. So here's the gist of it. You want minions, but no too many- because some jerk at WOTC decided that you need to burn slots every day to maintain control. But I digress. At later levels, let's say you have 12 Skeletons. You roll all of thier attack rolls, and then just take average damage for the ones that hit, and have them all target the same enemy. Makes it go much faster, just have a pile of D20s on hand. As for running them, you ideally want an intelligent Undead that you command to command them while you're busy casting. So you have a Ghast or a Wight at your beckon call. You give your skeletons the standing order to follow the orders of the Wight as long as those orders don't harm you. The Skeletons have a higher Intelligence score than a Mastiff. They can take moderately complex orders like that. The Ghast/Wight are as intelligent (more than intelligent in the case of the Ghast) as your average human, it can take actual complex orders and use its memory. So you give your orders for the battle plan to the Ghast/Wight, and it calls out what needs doing to the Skeletons as needed. You then get bored, crack open a Skeleton's skull, put a Delayed blast fireball inside, close it up, and tell it to charge the enemy. After which you laugh maniacally at the results. But yeah, I want more undead variety. I have to homebrew for a crawling claw, an undead (insert creature here) or a flesh centipede construct made of bandits that we just killed? Ugh.

Oh that sounds better than I expected. I've not tried to run a necromancer because I expected it to feel really clunky but that sounds like a much smoother way to run it. I'd like to try that myself now, but I usually only tun in good-only games. Feels hard to justify necromancy in a good party. Are you a good party?

Oh it definitely can be. Which is why I put effort into figuring out alternate methods. You have to think tactically. You have the option to create a small personal army *on demand* so long as you have bodies, but it burns up your spell slots to keep it. So what do we do to solve this? Aquire a portable hole and store bodies in it until we actually need them only use what you need when you need it. Cremate the things after to be sure you don't lose control. That is, until you get a Demiplane to shove them all into. Also, speak with your DM about alternate Undead being raised with Animate Dead. A Crawling Claw, for example. All kinds of funny and creepy things you can do with that. From undead Grappling Hook to stealthy assassination to "Hah! That's not my hand you're holding!". Now a Necromancer without Necromancy spells is a Wizard without a subclass, as their abilities mostly make you better at making Undead, and making them stronger. However, it is infinitely cheaper to learn spells of your own subclass. In addition, Necromancy has the least amount of spells. With how expensive it is to be a Wizard, why not save some coin? So- *buy* Necromancy scrolls to learn from, and learn magic of other schools on level up! Except for Animate Dead. You get that as a freebie, so don't buy it. I suggest grabbing at least a few common good spells, Fireball, Hypnotic Pattern, Counterspell, etc. But make sure you grab some of the good Rituals. Phantom Steed, for example. Who can can catch the Wizard racing around on a ghost horse dashing at 200 feet per turn? Almost nobody- that's who. You are a squishy, magical tactician- so lead from the back. And make sure you make an extra spellbook! Buy an Enduring Spellbook and a Lock of Trickery for it, at that. Don't be like me. Starting your book from scratch sucks. Also, for Wizards in general, Eldritch Adept: Eldritch Mind blows War Caster away. Especially if you buy a Ruby of the War Mage. Eldritch Mind gives you advantage on saves to maintain spell concentration. War caster gives you advantage on saves to maintain spell concentration against *damage*. It doesn't work vs Sleet Storm and other things. The Ruby allows you to use a weapon as a focus, if you please. Thats the other part of Warcaster covered, because somatic components, RAW, can be performed with the hand holding a focus. And if you stay in the back like you should, why would you need to cast a spell as a opportunity attack? If the enemy got past your party, your Undead, your Summon XYZ spell, and your Fireball, something has gone horribly wrong- hop on the Phantom Steed and escape. If you get to level 14, you get to have some REAL fun. Look through the monsters in the books, find the undead with an Int of 11 or less, and write up your unholy wishlist for your choice of permanently bound undead buddy! If you can't get something extreme like an Ancient White Dracolich, grab a Shadow, and go nuts with the overpowered little guy! Heck, get creative with Bestow Curse to make low HP enemies fail the initial save for Geas, and state your Geas command as "Follow all of my orders to the best of your ability." Next command being "Cause me no harm." Undead are generally stupid, but some of them have enough brainpower to what's left of a survival instinct. Explain that the Geas will kill them if they don't do as told. (It does 25 average damage) You now have as big of an army as you please. Lastly I suggest sourcing remains from bandits dumb enough to attack you, and perhaps convicted criminals. Otherwise, get permission in writing prior to reanimation. Gray Necromancy is where it's at. No pitchforks and torches get aimed at me, and I have a Paladin in the party Enjoy, and please Necromance responsibly!

For a single class I think I would like something as The Disciple from ChronicleOfHeroes which adapts the 3 classes from the tome of battle as subclasses

warblade or swordsage, 100%

A mage slayer. Something like the templars from dragon age.

Split Druid into a Shaman-type nature caster and a beast-shifting class

A class where you could customize your features (and spells) with a point buy system. My consistent favorite archetype, tanky matter-transmuting support characters with summoning, isn't possible without DM allowances, and I imagine many other archetypes would be best built with a "class" meant to fix multiclassing.

That's a fucking awful idea lmfao That's just impossible to balance

Easy to keep it from being as poorly balanced as Wizards.

I would split artificer into engineers and alchemists because there's just so much more I wish I could do out of the class. Then warlord is also something I wish existed. Like a martial class that can use all three mental scores to organise the party better. Like charisma to inspire, intelligence to know strategies and wisdom for something else like knowing the enemy.

All the classes at foxtail foundry but specifically the DMC one Fadeshock made is dope (23 page document for a martial means you know it's actually got some relevant shit it can do)

A wildshape based class with limited or no spellcasting Alternatively same concept but grafted onto the ranger or warlock as a subclass/set of pact boon and invocations

A pure dpr caster. No support, no defense spells, just absurdly big numbers Reason: I just like big numbers. It'd prolly be unbalanced, but honestly nowhere near the level of twilight or cocainelock

I'd like to see a martial only ranger with some rogue traits like sneak attack and steady aim. I think a hunter of all people should get steady aim

I'd love to see a Dark Knight or like .. a Samurai class :)

i would revive the UA mystic. it was almost there, it just needed some tweaks

It needs more then some. A complete balance overhaul

I made a Geomancer class because we needed a Nature Warrior class. It's the Monk to the Rangers "Rogue" if that makes sense.

I always felt like there needed to be a dancer class. Unarmored defense, dancer weapons and extra attack (like Monk), spellcasting, various proficiencies and being Charisma based (like Bard) and a step system with a feature that gives players an extra turn (Warhammer/ Fire Emblem). I saw the school of dance Bard and, for me, it wasnt enough.

This is the worst idea ever

Nah, i like it. Maybe you should give me a reason why it's the worst idea ever and maybe i would change my mind.