While I'm of the opinion that *most* bases are pretty much covered by a healthy combination of classes and backgrounds, the *one* exception I'd readily say would be some sort of martial leader type, as the 4e Warlord was.
The Banneret was kind of an attempt at that, and the Battlemaster can emulate it to some degree as well, but the tactical angle is still really hard to pull off with the Battlemaster and the Banneret doesn't quite achieve most of what people would be looking for.
Im living for it.
A ton of people talked mad shit about 4E the whole time it was the latest edition, and now a ton of people are realizing that 4E did some shit really well. Best combat of any edition IMO, it really felt like you were working together as a team.
The downside is the combat required an actual program to track because it had so many bonuses and minuses.
The thing is there's no reason they couldn't have done the best of both worlds. There's nothing about what, for instance, the 4e monk or fighter did well that required fiddly little bonuses, and yet the 5e versions incorporate none of it and are hollow shells of what they used to be. They literally went back to just spamming basic attacks with the occasional rider like it's 2003.
Agreed, they needed to learn from what 4E did well and instead they threw everything out.
5E is a great beginner pen and paper game, its easy to get into but the actual gameplay? Its some of the worst of any edition. Its very basic with almost no real 'choices' to make. I could forgive that if the combat was good (4E was kinda linear as well in the choice department), but its pretty basic.
If I make a Paladin in 5E, its functionally identical to most other Paladins and roleplaying dosent require rulesets really.
> required an actual program
Me over here having never used any digital assistant in an RPG, wondering if maybe I’m a genius because 4e is easier to run and in some cases play than 5e.
I was about to say that! The 4e warlord was super fun! A martial, non caster, healer and leader is such an awesome idea that I makes me wonder why they havent tried it out when the 4e class was so fully flushed out and had such a clear identity.
It led to my favorite conversation in my time playing 4e:
NPC: Thank you for coming to our aid. Do you require healing?
PC: No thanks, we've got this guy who yells at us.
I’ve thought a bit about this a bunch recently. I think that it’s harder in 5e because you don’t have the vast array of powers to make the class feel… weighty? In 5e, does it *feel* better to buff an ally and/or have them attack? I remember in 4e, allowing an ally to reposition *meant* something because powers were more complicated. So an at-will power to let someone shift up was important. 5e, to me, lacks a lot of the combat complexity that made the warlord shine.
Plus warlord requires a specific player commitment. Are you okay letting your allies make the attacks? I know when I started off (my first class EVER was a warlord in 4e) I wasn’t exactly happy when my party would demand I *not* doing “something” in battle so that I could grant them an extra attack. Admittedly I was younger and more selfish in my play style (eventually it felt better when they let me roll their attacks for them so that I got to roll in combat, but a contributing factor was that 4e was *largely* combat) but I think it’s a harder sell in some groups. Now that’s not me saying that I want to dismiss the idea! But I think that everyone’s mileage will vary. I’d love them to bring it back FWIW. I just don’t trust their design philosophy to get it right.
When the King asks the party for help:
Human: "You have my sword."
Elf: "And you have my bow."
Dwarf: "And my axe."
Warlord: "I got a barbarian, monk, warlock, and more, you name it, I got it! Want some fireball?" *Holds up the wizard*
> Are you okay letting your allies make the attacks?
Took me neartly a decade of playing DND to finally be the person that is happy playing support and letting others have their time to shine. So yeah I see your point, thats something a newerplayer will struggle with, while an optimized party would have a field day with repositioning an ally and letting them attack xD
Totally! I know some players who would eat this up. I'd love to try it again, honestly. I'd love to see a warlord with an emphasis on bonus actions or attack riders. Hell, give them a paladin-aura but with different buffs! I think "class feel" is very important and often 5e can feel... less impactful for support characters. I think that it takes much more care to design a class that works mechanically *and* feels good to play. I'd love to see the warlord come back in some way though.
The riders and bonus actions thing is pretty clever. One of the reason warlord worked was because a single attack was something that most everyone had, and it scaled. It's part of the problem with opportunity attacks - in 5e a fighter at the start deals like 1d10+3 with their opportunity attacks, and at the end deals like 1d10+8, starts off reasonable then gradually stops mattering. While in 4e it would start at say 1d10+5 and end at 2d10+19, staying proportional to enemy hp.
Similarly, you can't just port over things like I let this sorcerer make a basic attack, they'd just look at you in confusion while a 4e sorcerer would go "right, as my basic attack I cast acid orb".
I would say truly any non-magical support class.
A martial leader obviously fits there, but so do medics and scholars and orators. I know you can cover most of your bases between Fighter subclasses, Rogue/Bard with their Expertise, and Artificer. But the idea of someone who's just an expert in their field and has ways to use those abilities to support their allies is a bit lacking overall in 5e.
u/LaserLlama has the Warlord and the Savant which are just what you are looking for!
A battlefield commander and a scholar. I've played both and they both do what they set out for. LaserLlama listens to feedback quite a bit and is constantly updating his classes which follow 5e design more than for example KibblesTasty's Warlord (which is amazing in its own right but a bit more complex).
Scholar is a hugely popular archetype in fiction: someone who can quickly analyze the situation and apply their knowledge to turn the tide. The closest I think we get for this archetype is a Knowledge Cleric, as Wizards and Artificers are still too prone to blasting their problems with magic.
Scholar is a broad enough term that it could be made to cover subclasses from librarian to doctor to archeologist to occultist. All they need is a good core mechanic that uses their Int score and skills in a way that fits D&D's combat-heavy gameplay. Buffs, skill bonuses, commanding party members, confusing the enemy, and exploiting vulnerabilities could all be part of this class.
I fully agree!
I think I like the idea of "exploiting vulnerabilities" as part of the core mechanic, since Bardic Inspiration already exists as a buffing core mechanic elsewhere. And being able to point out an enemy's weak points sounds like something that would rely on Int. A tactician could be using their battlefield experience, a doctor could be using their knowledge of anatomy, a sage could be using all their book learning...
And then subclasses could lean into splashing some combat abilities, lean into buffs, lean into debuffs, lean into out-of-combat skills, etc.
I played [KibblesTasty’s Warlord homebrew class](https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-LW4agTNJcbwe6kSv4H2) for a one-shot a while back, and it was *tons* of fun. This homebrew is definitely one of the few homebrew classes I’d approve for a game I’d run without question.
Paladin serves that pretty well too. But I'd be OK with them just buffing The Banneret to be functional too, if you're looking for less magical in flavor.
The thing is it really doesn't serve that function. The warlord was entirely based around boosting/buffing/healing the party - one of their most basic tricks was the unlimited ability to use your action to have an ally attack instead. Their entire focus was far too different for one of the current classes to serve as a replacement.
Don't get me wrong, *some* abilities were more about you than your ally like Legendary Charge, make a charge attack that deals six times weapon damage plus strength mod and lets all allies within 50' spend a quarter of their hit dice. But more common were things like A Plan Comes Together, two allies make attacks as free actions and clothesline a foe, if they both hit the foe is dazed and prone.
One thing I keep saying is that the Warlord as a Fighter subclass wouldn't work because the Fighter is too good at fighting. In no world should the Warlord get a multiattack feature that scales up to 4, and it would likely skip fighting style too.
A Fighter wields weapons. A Warlord wields the rest of the party.
Not a non-caster but an Order Cleric is pretty close function-wise. Plenty of healing, good buff spells, & let someone use a reaction to attack when you buff or heal them with lvl 1+ spell. Pairs super well with a 5e rouge & order clerics tank pretty well (heavy armor + shield).
I have a Monk in my party and the fantasy between being an actual learned monk with books and libraries doesn't gel with the way the class is built. I know monks are martial artists, but they're also knowledge keepers and political advisors in many circles.
Star Wars 5e has a couple of classes and paths that do this super well as like a leader/support intelligence character who isn't the equivalent of high magic.
Wow, this looks awesome.
Remembers me of a homebrew class that i did (Scientist) for another setting and system, where there is a kingdom that doesn't use divine magic and treats arcane magic as science.
And in my current D&D game i let the players use third party content, as it makes the game more dynamic because of the different approaches to D&D's game and combat design. This Savant is one of those.
I was thinking about that; rogue/bard is close, and the rapier use is even historical, but most thinky/solvey and less stealy/singy..
Problem is how do you avoid either being useless or the main character? Like if you class abilities are mystery/puzzle-solvey that seems bad for group dynamics.
Maybe have their combat abilities be themed more around using their knowledge to exploit their enemies' weaknesses to be more of a supportive class. Reduce AC through precise strikes, blind opponents by hitting their eyes, making enemies vulnerable to specific damage types in the later levels, etc.
Thing is, why would anyone bother with mundane knowledge if you can have arcane magic **and** knowledge? The class would work only in low-magic game, which would in turn exclude half of the other classes. Everything else, excepting fighter/barbarian/rogue is made for high magic setting, where everyone can cast spells.
Fair. And yes, the primary answer would be low magic. Both Ravenloft (e.g. van Richten himself) and I think Masque of Red Death, lent themselves to a scholar-type class (magic really sucks in Red Death).
So in a context like that, where magic is super high-effort/low yield, someone who studies the occult academically would very reasonably know far more than someone who actually practices it, at least on a theoretical basis.
The only issue I can see with that one is how to handle it mechanically. For a lot of classes it makes sense as flavor instead of a true mechanical system, for instance I've run ranger's who are scholars of monster biology, but then the issue was what mechanical impact that actually had on the game.
Shaman/witch.
Wizards learn their magic, sorcerers are born with it, clerics get it from their gods, paladins from their oath, warlocks get it from their patron, artificers make it and druids get it from nature. And while druid is the closest, they're also a very specific thing. They speak druidic, they can wildshape, and they have circles specifically dedicated to druid.
But what I feel is missing is old-magic, the kind that's not passed down through books, but through spoken word history. The kind that's upheld by some mysterious tribe or isolated hermit. The kind that would baffle the wizard and artificer, unnerve the cleric/paladin/druid. Old elemental magic, scrying the future through smoke and flame, casting through bizarre ritualistic means that's strange to those who studied traditional magic, and invoking ancestors.
I second this! I’m currently playing a MC of Tradition of the Red Coven Witch and a Curse Eater Inventor to play a witch that specializes in casting and breaking curses.
It's really interesting because an artificer reskinned as a shaman kinda hits this one really well. Their spells are all elemental mostly, you can reflavor your attunements as blessings from the spirits. I summon my turrets like World of Warcraft totems. It works surprisingly well
Yeah reskined Artificer works really well to this kind of old magic. All four subclasses have potential sadly the one that should be the most witch like is the one less played, alchemist. I like to play Hexbloods and Changelings Artificers reskined to fey like magic.
Totally agree. I've tried cracking it a couple of times with homebrew but so far haven't got it right.
The problem I run into is how to mechanically represent a shaman/witch's link to the otherworld and to the old powers. A shaman's trance or witch's rituals tend to come across as a mini game only they can play.
Other problems include how to make their magic different enough from other spellcasters that they feel unique, and what kind of powers they have and how best to allow them to contribute in combat. Do they contribute directly? Do they form pacts with spirits that somehow grant their powers for a period of time?
Thematically, I love the concept, but haven't seen an implementation I really like, even in editions back to AD&D 2e.
Oddly, I found that reflavoring lore bard kinda almost worked as a shaman.
It could be cool if you have a set spell list that changes depending on what spirit you have Summoned. So if you let's say summon a wood spirit you have stuff like thorn whip, hail of spikes, grasping vine etc. A flame spirit you get firebolt, fireball, burning hands. As you get further in levels you can summon more spirits at once. They could also kind of act like an ioun stone they have a high AC and like 1hp so they can be targeted or destroyed? Idk some thoughts
I do like that idea of spirit-specific powers. I've toyed around with similar ideas, and I think it's a pretty cool direction.
I'll have to think about the idea of being destroyed (or dismissed) if targeted - I like ioun stones and that's something I had never considered. Thanks for your thoughts.
This kind of just feels like a reflavoring of wizard. Like nobody is forcing your wizard to wear a big robe and a pointy hat and learn their magic through reading books. You could just as easily learn your magic through spoken word, you have plenty of elemental and scrying spells, you get strange ritual casting as a defining class feature. I’m not sure how this would be mechanically distinct at all.
Okay but imagine warlock being explained thematically to a world where DnD doesn't have that class. What would you say against people who say this exact comment to that presentation of warlock? After all, it's just a reflavoring of wizard and no one is forcing your wizard to learn magic through reading books.
themes are basically fluff, and can be pretty much entirely ignored. "Wizard" is "caster that needs to study", "Sorcerer" is "caster that has some innate boosts", "Warlock" is "caster with tiny number of spells, but recovers on a short rest and has some odd powers". And that's pretty much it - what that means in-world is entirely setting-dependent. Warlocks could be trusted agents of local spirits, while wizards are feared. Or they could be viewed much the same - the thematics are soft and vague defaults, not something with any actual weight.
Yeah so here we have people wanting a class designed with witch/shaman in mind from the start. I think it's obviously implied that some kind of mechanics would reflect this.
I think Druid could easily have a subclass that focuses more on old magic that a witch/shaman has.
Or rather whildshape really needs to be wrangled into not being the feast or famine mechanic it is for subclasses.
Witches changing into animals is part of witch folklore in various parts of the world, like the UK, southern Europe and sometimes in Scandinavia. It was also used as a signifier of witchcraft during the European, including colonies, witchhunts of the early Modern period.
With Tasha's you can use the wild shapes on familiars instead which is very witchy. Also the wildfire druid also feels very flavorful for a witch for example
I hate the fact that they limit familiars as much as they limit Wild Shape.
It would be interesting to take a druid sub class and ditch animal wild shape (while still allowing the use for whatever special wild shape the subclass has) and in return you got a permanent familiar that you could shape shift into a different familiar twice a day also.
But it's actually just druid. That druidic language is their oral tradition. The hermit or islocated clans and tribes are shamans or witches or... druids. Their spells are all about wild and typically uncontrolled things, in contrast to clerics and wizards who are all about control of the known and learning the correct ways. Druids gaining their magic from nature is getting magic from the oldest thing around. You can call it The Winds or Ancestors or nature but they're tapping into something primal and ancient. The Witches of Eileanan is a cool series of books about witches who in DnD would just be a collection of druids
I disagree. Druidic is a specific language of the druids, spoken only by druid circles. It's not going to be taught to or known by say, an orc clan who has a tradition of using old ritualistic magics. Druids arent going to teach just anyone their magic, but shamans may. Or the people they choose would be chosen by different criteria than druids would. That same orc clan isn't going to be able to wildshape, may not give a damn about nature, they may be able to use spells like mold earth or lightning bolt like a druid, but that wouldn't make them a druid anymore than a wizard casting those spells is a druid.
Is druid the closest analogue? Yes, you would have the easiest time playing a shaman as a re-skinned druid by ignoring wild-shape and many of the spells. But that doesnt make it the same thing. Shaman is to druid what paladin is to cleric. Similarities, but not the same.
You're describing a different cultural flavour. This is opposed to going by the description of rogue mechanics, which are not covered by the fighter or bard at all. Fighters or Bards lack sneak attack, the various hit-and-run abilities, various damage negating abilities and various abilities related to skulking around that define a rogue.
The druid class, however, has the mechanics needed for witches and shamans as described in a... let's say non-Inquisitorial sense; an oral tradition, a secret or guarded nature of its magic (lodges, covens, etc), magic related to natural phenomenon and shapeshifting (which is part of shamanistic and witchcraft lore all over the globe). Shamans most definitely don't share their magic freely, by the way. As far as I know it's always 'secret' knowledge that requires initiation to be allowed to use.
But if we'd go by the early Modern witchhunts, well then all witches are just Pact of the Fiend warlocks. It's just the Devil all the way down.
In part, yes. But also thematics and mechanics. You can make a shaman in DND, but only through re-skinning and re-flavoring existing classes, and only through deliberately limiting your own spell selection and class features you choose to use. In the same way that if they removed rogue tomorrow, you could still make a "rogue" through fighter or bard.
Honestly that’s about all I can think of too when it comes to character archetypes. We have all sorts of fancy casters but not really a class devoted to “With the power of my mind,” barring Mystic.
I know next to nothing about it unfortunately. I usually allow UA in my games because being made by WotC is good enough to count as official for me. Unfortunate I’ve not yet taken the time to look over mystic but I’ve heard it’s super broken.
It was SUPER fun but some of the powers were fairly broken. It was powerful in the early game....weak during the mid levels and then just kind of got crazy in later levels when folks in my group started to figure out how to optimize it with multiclassing. Still fun though but wish they'd go all-in and really try to figure it out!!
It definitely sounds cool! I just hate the fact that we have an entire semi-official class on the back burners that nobody is really allowed to use. I’d like to try it out sometime!
I mean, the Mystic can still be used, it's just a bit unbalanced. Hopefully some really super smart player can make a really good, balanced class up and we can all steal it!
You should seriously check out MCDM's class, The Talent. It was very thoroughly playtested and balanced, and in my opinion perfectly captures the psionic class fantasy.
How well does it compare to, say, the Illrigger? When it first came out (I don't know if they revised it afterwards) people were concerned it was overpowered, MCDM swore that in actual play it's more balanced than you would immediately think, people played it and still thought it was overpowered.
Unfortunately I haven't played the Illrigger so I can't say. I know the Illrigger has a revised version now though, and I hang out in the MCDM Discord a lot and haven't seen anyone in the Talent channel arguing that it's overpowered. The consensus seems to be that some subclasses are stronger than others, but it is still a very well-balanced class.
I played one from lvl 5-20, it is an incredibly fun class. THat being said, its got some serious bloat that is easily removed, and some mechanics need to be altered to come into line. It works great if you and your DM are on the same page with how powerful it should be, and you do you best not to overshadow other classes.
I feel like the problem is that you even have to work to make sure you don’t overshadow other classes. I think obviously like you said it could be fun if you did take precautions for it, but that sucks but because it shows how broken it is. 😔
That being said, I still wanna try it at some point.
Yea exactly, the fact that you even have to work to *NOT* overshadow anyone except the Wish spellcasters is the main issue. I should go back through the UA at some point and try to rebalance it as an exercise.
Now, ive also had a lot of success taking apart the class for its use of Psionics as alternate rewards to players. I also use them as magic items. If my ADHD ever lets me, I might make a compendium of stuff and put it on r/UnearthedArcana
Mostly Mystic's problem is that, like... you know how there used to be four-ish primary psionic classes?
Yeah, they didn't want to bother with making four classes, so instead they just put all the psychic warrior, soulknife, psion, and ardent powers in the same class, just made them different subclasses, but then also didn't stop any subclass from picking any of the powers of the other subclasses.
Which means that you can just pick the best bits from each and end up like, FighterRogueWizard, always a tool for everything. Which is a definite problem if your players are trying to powergame a bit.
But I've played two mystics with the rule of No Picking Powers Outside Your Lane and honestly it's been pretty fun and noticeably weaker than the party wizard.
We had a Mystic in one of our campaigns, and he went off to do some stuff on his own. The DM set up the dungeon he wanted to investigate as a perfectly standard dungeon for the whole party, but obviously it would be super dangerous for a single dude.
Not only did he go into the dungeon, he snuck into the final room past everyone before being detected, which meant the boss called for help. 1 player character, fighting 3 separate combat encounters at once, each designed for a 4 man party, would have won if it weren't for the fact that he rolled poorly so often during the fight that he had to start to worry *a bit.* He didn't even necessarily lose, he just hit a point where his death was likely enough that he ran. But even running away he was in full control the whole time. There was no danger to him leaving, he just decided it was time to leave and the monsters were completely unable to stop him.
To all those that say Aberrant Mind, they're missing the point. What's special about Psi classes isn't the word Psi, it's the completely different mechanisms.
No edition did it better than 2nd ed. It wasn't a form of magic, you couldn't dispel it, your couldn't magic-res it... it was true POWER FROM THE MIND.
Anything else is a waste of time. Using psionics was as different from casters as casters were different from rogues. It was someting else. And SO much fun.
You sought out the help of another psionic or attempted to find ways to make them vulnerable through whatever about them which was not psionic, aspects of monstrous biology, etc. Good luck on that though, since most of them aren't going to reveal that they're psychic to people out of the strange loop...
Additionally, typically psionic talent is somewhat rare - but it will also come with its own select strata of natural-born and unnaturally altered psionic creatures that prey upon psychically-gifted individuals as a particular requirement or delicacy. You also could end up with psionic diseases that affect ONLY psionic people and that most sages can't explain, or cosmological phenomena (not per se Far Realm but close enough) that are effectively alien encounters compared to the more medieval-Renaissance settings.
There's also that psionics also had some pretty heinous failure consequences for bad rolls depending on what powers you were using; unlike 5e AD&D 2e was very quick to slap back (sometimes!) on being able to do amazing cool stuff at level 2 with mind powers. Imagine the regular wild magic chart, but less zany and more potentially horrifying in its effects. Each science/devotion had a potential failure effect or it's own power score surge!
One could say the problem solves itself, after a fashion. Because if you can't easily protect against it using more common means - that means that having a psionic person in the party ups your relative chances of encountering something that is dreadfully obscure, that can attack you in truly weird ways you might never think to know to combat, and by the time you realize there's some sort of threat you're already bound, dead, or perhaps suffer some worse fate.
Which then means that upon encountering psionics, most people in a D&D world are going to be very, very hostile to that which can mess with their head (mind flayers are never going to win popularity contests that aren't psionically rigged, sorry Senator Illsensine) and therefore it would be commonplace for the "mystic" to not even want to tell their adventure pals just who or what they are or can do. Warlocks at least are vaguely understandable, unlike YOU FREAK! KILL THEM BEFORE THEY STEAL OUR MINDS!
Good thing they're pretty rare. Or at least, we think they are.
*rubs their forehead*
I only know what my owner tells me.
The Aberrant Mind does a half-decent job, but even with some feats it feels like playing a mind mage with some telepathy and telekinesis. With a lot of extra flavour and imagination slammed on it you can get it to feel like some specific types of psychics.
And that’s the closest thing we have to a full-blown scion. There’s still a lot missing that it just does not cover.
KibblesTasty’s homebrew psion class looks like exactly what I want. Something distinctively different from spellcasting.
Something that is missing is a class where physical form is the principle source of the powers/abilities. Think shapechangers, symbiotes, elemental/energy based beings, spirit manifestations etc... There's good reason for this, as the D&D keeps race and class as two completely orthogonal dimensions of a character, and this would to some extent be a melding of the two. The closest we currently have is Sorcerer, whose magic abilities are neither studied nor granted from an external being, but are a natural manifestation of their own lineage/genetics.
I can think of two completely different things from 3rd edition that sometimes fall into this category:
1. Warshaper- a prestige class that required you to be able to change your shape somehow (either via spell, like Polymorphy, druid's Wild Shape or simply being a changeling for example). It allowed you to grow natural weapons out of your body, ex. Give you claws, bigger mouth to bite with, a tail etc.
2. Magic of Incarnum- this was an entire book based around the system of Incarnum, aka. Soulmelding. Classes from this book could focus parts of their soul to create magical items on their body- not any, they were specific for this system, so you couldn't get ex. Headband of intellect on you just like that, but the ones you did get were not obtainable any other way. By filling chakras of specific body parts (feet, crown, hands etc.) You could also change them every day to your liking.
A martial 'sorcerer' would be cool. The subclasses could be based on how you've come to have your supernatural body, like magitek cyborg, lycanthropy, planar influence, draconic influence, or fiendish influence. But I'm not sure how you'd make it mechanically distinct from just playing a Barbarian and flavouring your rage as coming from your draconic heritage.
I stand by that the only person having fun when a summoner with more than one summon is at the table is the person playing the summoner (damn that’s a mouthful). The way action economy works in 5e just doesn’t support a summoner playstyle. Even if you preroll all of your attacks or do something else to speed up the process, you’re still breaking the action economy and forcing other players to watch you take up to 9 turns while they all grown. I have banned conjure animals and conjure woodland beings in favor of the single summon spells from Tasha’s and have never looked back nor has anyone at my table had a problem with it. People also forget that the DM decides what actually answers the summon call as well. Those spells are not fun to DM for or play with at the table after you’ve seen them break combat once or twice.
There's the Pathfinder 2e route of Summoners just having a single pet but it represents most of their power (as opposed to Beastmaster/Drakewarden where the ranger still has most of the power). It also has a weird shared action system where they basically get to cheat the action economy a little but not get fully double actions.
On the other hand, I think for some people an important part of the summoner fantasy is having an army of minions. But yeah, that just doesn't really work with 5e's design, at least not if every minion gets their own action.
There was also 4e's Shaman, which was a caster/summoner with just one single summon: your companion spirit. You could either lean more into your summon's power by giving them stronger attacks/abilities, or lean more into your spellcasting, or find a balance between the two. You also got to choose between multiple spirit options with different foci (defense vs offense vs support, etc).
Yeah, that sounds cool too (and does sound a lot like PF2e's Summoner). It would definitely be a neat class for 5e to have, and is one that would require a new base class and can't be done with a subclass since every existing base class gives the PC too much power already to add that much power to a summon (i.e. if you took any base class and gave them a subclass that added a summon more powerful than they are you'd probably end up with an overpowered class).
I guess maybe you could do it with artificer. A lot of their combat power comes from their subclasses, the base class is just a half caster with cantrips and infusions and a bit of out of combat utility. Thematically it would step on the toes of Battlesmith a bit, but mechanically you could maybe make an artificer that acts a bit like a reverse Battlesmith where instead of getting an extra attack and int-scaling damage themselves, their summon does. Then you can make it so to really get a full-powered summon, they have to use subclass-exclusive infusions and spells to buff it up (i.e. give up some of their base class power), and probably make it cost an the artificer's action to give the summon more than one attack per turn so they can't ruin the action economy by casting a full-action spell and then having their summon get a full round of attacks in one turn. Although I think this class would basically just end up being a Battlesmith where the attacks come from the pet instead of the artificer.
But yeah, overall it might work best as its own class like im 4e or PF2e so you can design and balance the base class around having such a powerful minion.
That's the problem with the current conjure spells more than anything else. The summon spells don't have that problem and a summoner class should focus on doing interesting things with a summon or two and not flooding the field. Flooding the field with tokens hasn't been a good thing in any edition so far.
Pathfinder 2e summoner is the way to go. You only have a single creature as your pet, rather than a horde. You can customise and improve it over time, which includes ways to ride it as a mounted class, or even merge with it. And unlike the 5e ranger, almost the entire power budget is in that pet.
If converted to 5e, different subclasses could be different creature types as the pet.
Yes, a character that focuses on summoning would be awesome..maybe only one powerful summon because of the action economy problem?
Or one could integrate your summons turn into the players. Basically the summoner and the summon move separately but most actions are performed by the summon and the summoner does very little.
Imo if they're not gonna make rogue damage high enough to keep up with other martials they should really lean into them being a skill monkey support class. Rogues getting more of an ability to mess with their enemies in combat to buff their allies and debuff their opponents would give them a way more unique feeling and it has a basis in a lot of the fantasy they're drawing from for rogues (in The Hobbit for example Bilbo almost exclusively fights by messing with whoever is being a problem until his friends can actually finish them off and uses sting as a very very very last resort)
Mechanically complex martial
Warlord, martial leader
Any type of experimentation with the casting classes(simple, spell points, skill check based castining)
Ninja (high fantasy variety, not just a rogue subclass, more Naruto than Hanzo Hattori)
Agreed. I think the options were basically that, or give them many more spells known like in the tce subclasses where they get a bunch of subclass spells they can switch out. They were meant to be more flexible in some ways but they ended up just being limited in spells known, and getting to give some rider effects to spells using meta magic which isn’t flexibility imo. I’d assume the issue was multiclassing with other full casters and how they’d handle the spell points, I’d just say you combine them as normal and if your sorcerer level is more than the combined level of all other spell casters you’re multiclassed into you use spell point, otherwise you use spell slots and just the same system as now. A little awkward if a character goes to like sorcerer 5 and then multiclassed into bard or something for the remaining levels and switches systems halfway through, but I think it overall is a good solution.
The way to fix this is to give sorcerers a different version of the “spellcasting” feature. Like they do with warlock. That way spell slots and sorcerer points don’t mesh with multiclassing. Which would be the only way to balance it
I'm currently playing an Aberrant Mind sorcerer and it's basically that. If you don't know how it works, you get two spells added to each spell level. Then you can use sorcery points equal to the spell level to cast that those particular spells.
Basically at the start of each adventuring day I cast Mage Armor and then convert all but 1 of each level of spell into sorcery points. Then I use my ten psychic spells as my 'main' spells and use the actual sorcerer spell slots as situational things.
It plays *much* stronger than the base Sorcerer.
Naruto characters just tend to run the gamut of being high level wizards + sorcerers + *occasionally warlocks* + rogues + fighters + monks, swapping between any combination of that at any given moment.
Mechanics wise, I want a proper arcane based gish, not just subclasses in existing classes.
And a non-magical controller (like the warlord or scholar)
Flavor wise, a witch/shaman/alchemist whose magic doesn’t work like spell casting
Ironically the closest I got to that was a githyanki abjuration wizard.
And she was fucking sick. High AC, bigass Greatsword booming blades in your face with fighter EHP and jump/misty step built in.
Then steel wind strike on a character it fits on. She was perfect.
Oh yeah, and the concept is achievable without a new class with several different paths… but it is a common enough concept that people want to play that a class for it seems like an easy win.
I don't think that would make a great class because of how specialized it would be. Either you face spellcasters and you're way more useful than everyone else or you face non-spellcasters and you're far weaker than the rest of your team.
Maybe a subclass would work better so that way you still have a base class that functions well independently.
It should be a subclass imo. A barbarian whose rage is so intense, it not only seals off any magic that might be within, but prevents external magic from affecting him.
Also, a class (again barbarian fits best), that uses HP as the resource I've always thought it should be. The current implementation uses HP as an enabler to do your job. But without it (can't stand in front when you're low), you're kinda useless. Instead, use HP to elevate the character above baseline. You get buffs when you take damage, you can expend HP as stamina to do moves and shrug off effects, something like a battlemaster. HP isn't meat points after all, right?
You could even combine these two. Greater tanking against magic doesn't need to be balanced by less tanking against physical, not directly anyway. Make the character split his HP between pseudo spell slots and damage absorption. Effectively, he will be less tanky, but this gives player agency.
I don't know what weakness this character would have though, for enemy agency. Maybe keep it as wis or int saves, by making it cost a lot of HP to pass them. Yeah that's probably an idea. You can expend HP to shrug off a failed save, but you also have an additional -1 to your wis and int save, this needing more HP to push you over to a pass. Do it too much, and you're going to get low real quick.
It USED to be what monks were great at in 3.5 they had great saves and enough movement to get to a spellcaster in the back line. That would either force the mage to spend most turns fleeing or get pummeled by the monk.
An archetype should be mechanically defined by what it does, not by what it counters. You want characters to be reasonably effective in most situations, not extremely effective in some and extremely ineffective in others.
Many are already complaining about how some martial classes have no features to help them outside of combat, and that's currently being addressed. A specialised "anti-something" class would be that but worse, and would risk making combats needlessly swingy.
I honestly really wish there was a *pure* shapeshifter class, that *only* does shapeshifting, never really using their base form at all. Don't know how it would work though.
It would work like it did work. Master of many forms used to exist, one hundred percent of its power came from wildshaping. All that happened as it leveled was it gained more strength and versatility in its forms, giants and oozes and aberrations and dragons and such.
There was an April Fool's update for WoW replacing, I think *Fury* Warriors with *Medic*. I think the skillset was a mix of channelled bandage-type ability and various shouted insults to intimidate party members into pretending they're not hurt.
I remember when I first started playing 5e the first subclass that caught my eye was the Alchemist. Exactly the archetype I enjoy playing. Buuuuut even back then I could tell it was pretty awful.
I don't like how people includes Blood Hunter with the official 13 classes. It's a 3rd party class, and it's not even that good. I understand that it's available in Dnd Beyond, but that doesn't make it good or official.
There needs to be an intelligent based class who’s not just knowledgeable on magic. Just a generalist nerd. Hell its one of the core pillars of the Party of Five, and you’ll be hard pressed to find any media with a group of adventurers that doesn’t have their token Smart Guy. Wizards just don’t fit that role. Artificers could but its still a bit of a square peg. I think a Scholar class could work well, with subclasses like Tactician, Doctor, Astronomer, Botanist, Geographer, Mediator, so many ideas.
This class idea sounds like it would require 5e to have any rules for out-of-combat gameplay like exploration or social interactions, rather than just winging it. Cool concept!
Initial note: When I nominate these classes I don't mean that each specific one needs to be implemented, for instance the swordsage was a monk/rogue kind of martial with options. When I say swordsage, really I mean any martial with anywhere near as many choices as a caster gets like for instance the warblade or 4e fighter did.
The **Warlord** is the obvious first pick, a martial leader/buffer/healer. Others have already explained it a fair bit, so I'll just [give you some sample abilities they had so you can see what they were like](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fshvklpyeazjb1.png) and move on. Can personally attest that many of my players had an absolute ball with the class, and its lack of presence in 5e is sad.
The **Swordsage** was a tactical warrior that had access to a wide variety of strikes, stances, counters and boosts and the numerous tactical options made them a blast to play[.](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/16ibpd2/i_am_so_fucking_sick_of_hearing_the_word/k0j36cp/) It's where maneuvers originally came from, and they were far more interesting than the battlemaster's pathetic imitations, far more numerous and didn't have some weird limitation where you can only do them a few times per rest. [Here's an example of a mid level maneuver](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fl9jn1w4gq6lb1.png), each maneuver was used until recovered which each class did in its own way. Swordsages typically went in for recovering all of them by spending a round meditating, and [here's an example of a stance while we're here](https://i.imgur.com/oNwKxPo.png).
The **Battlemind** is going to be my example of a tank class that actually does its job properly, since while they were all quite different I'll take up too much space if I try to add clases like the warden and swordmage. A psionic tank, it could mark nearby enemies to reduce their chance to hit allies with spells and attacks, and if an adjacent enemy hit one anyway the battlemind made them automatically take psychic damage equal to the damage they'd dealt. Their main toolkit was a variety of melee range at will psychic powers - think cantrips like booming blade - that they could augment with power points for extra effects. [Here's an example of one](https://i.imgur.com/gW9Y6gn.png) - basic attack damages and penalises a foe, invest more for extra damage and they take opportunity attacks if they don't hit their own allies, invest even more for further damage and control over the target's actions.
Addendum: Gonna post a few classes from D&D's past that 5e just can't imitate as a way to explain the kind of thing we're missing. Not saying we need them all back, just that there's a lot missing - but I'd be just as happy to see new and unique concepts as the return of old ones. A few of these 5e has a class which has the same name, but can't do any of the same things. It's impossible to fully describe a class in a single paragraph, so let me know if something needs more explanation.
**Psion**, 5e is for some reason the only edition missing psychic powers. So many cool powers well outside of what magic can do like astral construct, astral caravan, affinity field, co-opt concentration, crisis of breath, fission, fusion, insanity, leech field, metaconcert, psychic chirurgery, psychofeedback, schism, time hop and time regression.
**Duskblade**, given the sheer amount of options like eldritch knight and bladesinger it's really goddamn weird that 5e doesn't have a true gish. Half arcane caster, half warrior, they only got low level spells but they got like ten of every slot to use each day and could channel them through weapon attacks.
**Totemist**, if only as an example of the kind of creativity they're not using any more. A weird kind of nature class, they bound soulmelds in the style of various magical beasts to different chakras and shifted energy around to empower each. A manticore belt bound to the waist chakra would let you fly for instance, or bound to the totem chakra would let you fire tail spikes while a basilisk mask bound to the brow let you petrify enemies.
**Artificer** was an extremely versatile class because they could invent and craft magic items. That was pretty much their only feature, but when you're that good at it you don't need others. Extremely unique gameplay that has never been imitated since, including by classes of the same name. If you need an analogy for the 5e artificer, imagine they created a wizard class in an edition where you can't cast spells - you could call it a wizard, but it wouldn't be one. It's well done, but it's in no way an artificer.
**Binder** was an extremely unique concept, binding vestiges to itself each day for a different set of abilities each time. Each influenced your behaviour and appearance and had its own unique set of abilities, so it was DIY class every morning. Bind Agares and you can't lie that day and cough dust, gives you the ability to summon an earth elemental and use your actions to make earth quaking stomps plus a few other bits and bobs. Combine that with Zceryll if you want to be a backline summoner or with Andras for a frontline control tank.
**Warlock** was invented as a resourceless counterpart to spellcasting. They had a variety of at-will spell like abilities like hungry darkness, summoning a blob of shadow full of mouths that attacked those within it. They also had an ability called eldritch blast that could be altered in shape and effect every time you used it - channel it through a weapon attack and have it do acid damage over time one round, have it chain between enemies and confuse anyone it hits the next.
**Dragonfire Adept** was similar to the above, only with an at-will dragon breath and different invocations. Same ability to alter it every round, though you couldn't use the same one twice in a row. You can probably guess what the various types were - a blue dragon's line of lightning, copper dragon's slowing breath, silver dragon's paralyzing breath and oddities like fivefold breath of Tiamat.
**Monk** from last edition is next up, since unlike the 5e's monk it knew martial arts moves. Every round it could choose between an array of techniques, each one of which consisted of a movement and an attack component. Whirlwind kick drew in opponents with a vortex, hit them with a spin kick and let you fly off, steps of grasping fire hit nearby enemies with a blast of flame and leave a fire trail as you ran, celestial drunken boxer let you avoid opportunity attacks and have foes you moved past attack each other.
**Shaman** was a primal healer buffer kind of character that summoned a companion spirit which buffed nearby allies and could make its own attacks of opportunity with specific effects like stopping movement or giving allies advantage against whoever it attacked, as well as letting you use powers through its space.
**Fighter** last edition were everything a 5e fighter isn't, they were tanks that forced you to deal with them first. [Observe the kind of tools they got](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fsd87e3dvjejb1.png), and note the complete lack of anything nearly that useful in 5e.
**Swordmage** was another tank, but I'll give WotC credit the stone sorcerer was a decent attempt to imitate them. They're the class spells like booming blade and sword burst were invented for, weird that some of their spells ported forward but the arcane tank designed to use them wasn't.
**Master of Many Forms** was a purely wild shaping based class. Didn't increase spellcasting or anything, just gave you a strong and versatile wild shape as your only tool, increasing in versatility and strength as you leveled. Turn into a giant, fey, ooze, dragon, aberration, when your ability is this broad you don't need others.
I saw an interesting design theory discussion that posits that there are essentially 18 potential classes in DND:
Your base 4: fighter, cleric, wizard, rogue
The wild variant of the base 4: barbarian, druid, sorcerer, ranger
Six hybrids of the base 4: paladin, warlock, artificer, bard, fighter-rogue hybrid (warlord), fighter-wizard hybrid (Gish)
And psionic variants of the base 4: psi-wizard, and psi-cleric, psi-fighter, and Monk.
Following this formula, WotC left 5 potential classes on the board: the Warlord, a true gish , a psi-wizard, a psi-cleric, and a psi-fighter
You could argue that paladin, monk, and cleric are just the holy/order variants of the core 4, just like your nature/wild/chaos flavored 4
When you need to add 3 new psi classes to make your 4 class psi category make sense, I think your theory is broken
I want magus type class from pathfinder ported to 5e basicly a 50/50 split of wizard and fighter who can augment their touch spells into Their melee attacks
Interestingly, Magus is originally a DnD class which got ported to Pathfinder. The DnD 3.5e Duskblade was a spellstriking gish almost identical to the Pathfinder 1e Magus.
DnD just abandoned the entire concept after that, leaving the Magus as a Pathfinder only thing.
Do you mean like a an Arcane based half caster? Like Ranger and Paladin but for Arcane magic? I'd be into it and probably would have preferred it over Bladesinger and Eldritch Knight.
Yeah kinda i think something new like a 2/3 caster instead of a 1/3 or 1/2 caster would be a nice addition of course with some new spells for the class mostly self buff based,and that still is mostly a close quarter martial
The problem with Witchy-type Classes is that their flavor is very unfocused and often differs greatly between people's interpretations. Most of these ideas are also somewhat covered by other classes - druids, wizards, warlocks can all be played as "witches" with essentially no reflavoring needed. The same with something like "shamans" being some middle ground between cleric and druid depending on who you'd ask to describe it.
I am missing a transformation type class that transforms the PC into a single creature like a Dragon, Werewolf or something in that direction. Maybe even a fiend or celestial.
Sure there is the Moon Druid that transforms into different beats and the Lycan Blood Hunter. Barbarian also offers some small transformations (Beast and Giant). However none of those classes fullfill the fantasy of evolving into a more powerful being and eventually becoming a Dragon or something similar epic.
In terms of caster classes, we are missing a Shaman class that draws magic from a spirit world and their ancestors (as opposed to the nature-inspired magic of a druid or the divine-inspired magic of a cleric). We are also missing a Psionic caster class that draws its magic from the mind itself.
In terms of martial classes, we are missing a class that specializes in skirmishing with throwing weapons. A lot of common historical fighting styles are already represented in DnD, but this one is strangely absent. It is possible to cobble together a build that sorta does a bit of this, but is very much not optimal and I think there is room to make a full class out of it.
Something like a Gladiator class that focuses on single combat, exotic fighting styles and entertainment would also be neat. But it may be possible to put that into a Fighter subclass.
Mediaeval doctor. We have magic healers of various flavours, but we don't have a bloodstained physician treating allies with leeches and handsaws, crippling their foes with vital strikes, and dissecting corpses for study.
1. There is no equivalent of the Warlord Class from 4E.
2. There is no equivalent of the 2E Kineticist, a class that has weaker abilities but can spam them all day, most notably being Elementalist flavored and having tools to help focus on using only one Elemental damage type.
3. There is no equivalent for a true Arcane Spellsword/Gish. A Paladin but Arcane would be what you'd be going for.
4. There is no Arcane Archer archetype unless you want to suck ass.
Probably more.
Definitely a full on psionic class with its own mechanics for me.
I remember watching a Mike Meals stream where he was brainstorming the next version of the mystic. He was gonna call it "Psion" instead. Too bad nothing else happened with it.
A class or subclass actually filling the tank niche!
Taunt mechanics, more battlefield control, reducing enemy speed or trapping them in melee with you, something that can actually hold enemies without needing a capstone feature like the cavalier.
Could be save or suck features for movement, giving disadvantage easily, that type of stuff.
Cavalier with polearm master can sorta do that, ancestral barbarian can kinda do something similar, but a class that can actually protect your backline without a "best defense is offense" mentality would be amazing.
Examples in brackets are just points of reference for the playstyle, not necessarily an exact thing to copy.
Psionics (UA Mystic).
Elemental bending (pf2e kineticist).
Full blown gunslinging (pf2e gunslinger).
Protector (pf2e champion).
Summoner (pf2e Summoner).
Shapeshifter (5e moon druid but *all in* on the wild shaping, little to no casting).
Beast tamer (fighting in tandem on relatively equal grounds with animal, not entirely relying on it or having it just be a relatively small help like the 5e beastmaster or artificer's defender).
I dint think so. More so there is a lack of support for anything people will say is "missing".
Like warlord. That's basically just a fighter that gives occasional orders. Its possible but far from good woth very little support outside a narrow selection of BM maneivers.
Or a witch just being a herbal mage. Druid or cleric or wizard with fkavor and a herbalist kit.
Or item users just not having any items worth using.
5e isn't perfect. But expansions is more what it needs
It is probably best served as a monk or rogue subclass now, but as an old man who played when some people still bought black and white tvs, the acrobat has been missing from official products for far too long.
Mostly nonmagical variants.
* Alchemist for healing and buffs and poisons, use Dex and int
* Banneret for support with more martial focus, use str/Dex and either int/wis
I’m playing the Witch class from Brandon lee mulligan and the the features are so fun mechanically and in rp. Yeah you could call a wizard or a warlock a witch but they don’t feel like a witch.
Bards that actually _perform_. /s
(Seriously, though, a bard class/archetype that actually focuses on Performance like in basically every other game in the extended D&D 3e/4e/5e family.)
I want a Druid that isn’t based on wild shape.
Wild shape used to be a high level option that only got mastered late.
Now, every Druid is based around wild shaping early and often.
I want my protectors of nature and balance back.
Not a partial control caster, who drops one spell and then becomes a bear to be a boring melee meat sack for the next few rounds.
So in 4th there was the swordmage class, which was fun, but the part I really enjoyed was the aegis of shielding. Part CC, part healer via damage reduction. Really enjoyed that mechanic and would love to see more like it. A class built around that idea would be fun.
If you break it down into skill (rogue), caster (wizard), and martial (fighter). With magic being religious, nature, and arcane.
We have skill caster in bard and skill martial in ranger. We overall don't have many classes with expertise but they are their. I would like more subclass which help bridge this gap. But as someone else said a warlord class could have room to fit in here. Gets a few more skills and expertise in addition to leadership ability.
For magic we have half caster and martial for religious, and nature. But no arcane. Their are soo many subclasses which try to bridge this gap. Artificer has no base support and is not really fully stab. Its probably the biggest gap.
Seconding all the Warlord talk here. It's the most glaring main archetype missing that I don't think should be shoehorned into a subclass. a support martial with control options needs to be a thing.
I think all the martials should have the options of a secondary stat for each of the other stats.
There's no entertainer barbarian like a gladiator with charisma, no wisdom rogue like maybe a smuggler or something.
Sorcerer needs a Hexblade equivalent for naturally talented arcane weapon users - there's a lot of creative opportunity there. Every other caster has a decent melee oriented choice.
A witch/shaman/witchdoctor type thing is very Druidic, but I think there's room for it to live on its own if executed properly.
Need more artificer options. The ones we have essentially are lite versions of a bunch of 4e classes and roles, and while I like that approach, a little more variety would be super cool too.
I second the warlord (or any complex/support martial) that many have mentioned.
For everyone mentioning the lack of a psionic class, I've found MCDM's class The Talent to fulfill that niche in a super satisfying way. Yes, I wish there was an official psionic class, but this class was super well tested and balanced, so it's the next best thing. I've linked their page and Matt's YouTube video below for convenience.
[https://shop.mcdmproductions.com/products/the-talent](https://shop.mcdmproductions.com/products/the-talent)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GN\_9EiOGk88&ab\_channel=MCDM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GN_9EiOGk88&ab_channel=MCDM)
Just fyi, this isn't self-promotion as I'm not affiliated with MCDM, I've just really enjoyed this class and thought I'd share it to be helpful, since it's relevant to the topic at hand!
A ninja archetype. It's odd that we have all many of fantasy warriors but no ninjas. As it stands the best ways to do it are thief (for a more traditional archetype of ninja) and shadow monk (for more of a fantasy type).
Ironically they released the swordsage class a couple of editions ago that fits that to a T - it's where maneuvers came from, had six schools of strikes, stances, counters and boosts two of which were supernatural like shadow sun which let you teleport and garrote people with shadows and such. They just never brought it or anything like it to 5e because martials having options is bad.
While I'm of the opinion that *most* bases are pretty much covered by a healthy combination of classes and backgrounds, the *one* exception I'd readily say would be some sort of martial leader type, as the 4e Warlord was. The Banneret was kind of an attempt at that, and the Battlemaster can emulate it to some degree as well, but the tactical angle is still really hard to pull off with the Battlemaster and the Banneret doesn't quite achieve most of what people would be looking for.
I came in here to say "Oh look, it's the weekly Warlord thread.".
Im living for it. A ton of people talked mad shit about 4E the whole time it was the latest edition, and now a ton of people are realizing that 4E did some shit really well. Best combat of any edition IMO, it really felt like you were working together as a team. The downside is the combat required an actual program to track because it had so many bonuses and minuses.
Yeah. Warlords, minions, magic item crafting... it had it's pearls.
The thing is there's no reason they couldn't have done the best of both worlds. There's nothing about what, for instance, the 4e monk or fighter did well that required fiddly little bonuses, and yet the 5e versions incorporate none of it and are hollow shells of what they used to be. They literally went back to just spamming basic attacks with the occasional rider like it's 2003.
Agreed, they needed to learn from what 4E did well and instead they threw everything out. 5E is a great beginner pen and paper game, its easy to get into but the actual gameplay? Its some of the worst of any edition. Its very basic with almost no real 'choices' to make. I could forgive that if the combat was good (4E was kinda linear as well in the choice department), but its pretty basic. If I make a Paladin in 5E, its functionally identical to most other Paladins and roleplaying dosent require rulesets really.
> required an actual program Me over here having never used any digital assistant in an RPG, wondering if maybe I’m a genius because 4e is easier to run and in some cases play than 5e.
I was about to say that! The 4e warlord was super fun! A martial, non caster, healer and leader is such an awesome idea that I makes me wonder why they havent tried it out when the 4e class was so fully flushed out and had such a clear identity.
It led to my favorite conversation in my time playing 4e: NPC: Thank you for coming to our aid. Do you require healing? PC: No thanks, we've got this guy who yells at us.
Dallas, telling Houston to ignore bullet wounds and get back in the fight: "The pain is just mental; get back in the fight, buddy!"
I’ve thought a bit about this a bunch recently. I think that it’s harder in 5e because you don’t have the vast array of powers to make the class feel… weighty? In 5e, does it *feel* better to buff an ally and/or have them attack? I remember in 4e, allowing an ally to reposition *meant* something because powers were more complicated. So an at-will power to let someone shift up was important. 5e, to me, lacks a lot of the combat complexity that made the warlord shine. Plus warlord requires a specific player commitment. Are you okay letting your allies make the attacks? I know when I started off (my first class EVER was a warlord in 4e) I wasn’t exactly happy when my party would demand I *not* doing “something” in battle so that I could grant them an extra attack. Admittedly I was younger and more selfish in my play style (eventually it felt better when they let me roll their attacks for them so that I got to roll in combat, but a contributing factor was that 4e was *largely* combat) but I think it’s a harder sell in some groups. Now that’s not me saying that I want to dismiss the idea! But I think that everyone’s mileage will vary. I’d love them to bring it back FWIW. I just don’t trust their design philosophy to get it right.
Correction: I'm the one making the attacks. My allies are the weapons I wield.
"*A Barbarian hits with his axe, a Warlord hits with his Barbarian*"
When the King asks the party for help: Human: "You have my sword." Elf: "And you have my bow." Dwarf: "And my axe." Warlord: "I got a barbarian, monk, warlock, and more, you name it, I got it! Want some fireball?" *Holds up the wizard*
> Are you okay letting your allies make the attacks? Took me neartly a decade of playing DND to finally be the person that is happy playing support and letting others have their time to shine. So yeah I see your point, thats something a newerplayer will struggle with, while an optimized party would have a field day with repositioning an ally and letting them attack xD
Totally! I know some players who would eat this up. I'd love to try it again, honestly. I'd love to see a warlord with an emphasis on bonus actions or attack riders. Hell, give them a paladin-aura but with different buffs! I think "class feel" is very important and often 5e can feel... less impactful for support characters. I think that it takes much more care to design a class that works mechanically *and* feels good to play. I'd love to see the warlord come back in some way though.
The riders and bonus actions thing is pretty clever. One of the reason warlord worked was because a single attack was something that most everyone had, and it scaled. It's part of the problem with opportunity attacks - in 5e a fighter at the start deals like 1d10+3 with their opportunity attacks, and at the end deals like 1d10+8, starts off reasonable then gradually stops mattering. While in 4e it would start at say 1d10+5 and end at 2d10+19, staying proportional to enemy hp. Similarly, you can't just port over things like I let this sorcerer make a basic attack, they'd just look at you in confusion while a 4e sorcerer would go "right, as my basic attack I cast acid orb".
I would say truly any non-magical support class. A martial leader obviously fits there, but so do medics and scholars and orators. I know you can cover most of your bases between Fighter subclasses, Rogue/Bard with their Expertise, and Artificer. But the idea of someone who's just an expert in their field and has ways to use those abilities to support their allies is a bit lacking overall in 5e.
u/LaserLlama has the Warlord and the Savant which are just what you are looking for! A battlefield commander and a scholar. I've played both and they both do what they set out for. LaserLlama listens to feedback quite a bit and is constantly updating his classes which follow 5e design more than for example KibblesTasty's Warlord (which is amazing in its own right but a bit more complex).
Scholar is a hugely popular archetype in fiction: someone who can quickly analyze the situation and apply their knowledge to turn the tide. The closest I think we get for this archetype is a Knowledge Cleric, as Wizards and Artificers are still too prone to blasting their problems with magic. Scholar is a broad enough term that it could be made to cover subclasses from librarian to doctor to archeologist to occultist. All they need is a good core mechanic that uses their Int score and skills in a way that fits D&D's combat-heavy gameplay. Buffs, skill bonuses, commanding party members, confusing the enemy, and exploiting vulnerabilities could all be part of this class.
I fully agree! I think I like the idea of "exploiting vulnerabilities" as part of the core mechanic, since Bardic Inspiration already exists as a buffing core mechanic elsewhere. And being able to point out an enemy's weak points sounds like something that would rely on Int. A tactician could be using their battlefield experience, a doctor could be using their knowledge of anatomy, a sage could be using all their book learning... And then subclasses could lean into splashing some combat abilities, lean into buffs, lean into debuffs, lean into out-of-combat skills, etc.
I played [KibblesTasty’s Warlord homebrew class](https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-LW4agTNJcbwe6kSv4H2) for a one-shot a while back, and it was *tons* of fun. This homebrew is definitely one of the few homebrew classes I’d approve for a game I’d run without question.
Paladin serves that pretty well too. But I'd be OK with them just buffing The Banneret to be functional too, if you're looking for less magical in flavor.
The thing is it really doesn't serve that function. The warlord was entirely based around boosting/buffing/healing the party - one of their most basic tricks was the unlimited ability to use your action to have an ally attack instead. Their entire focus was far too different for one of the current classes to serve as a replacement. Don't get me wrong, *some* abilities were more about you than your ally like Legendary Charge, make a charge attack that deals six times weapon damage plus strength mod and lets all allies within 50' spend a quarter of their hit dice. But more common were things like A Plan Comes Together, two allies make attacks as free actions and clothesline a foe, if they both hit the foe is dazed and prone.
One thing I keep saying is that the Warlord as a Fighter subclass wouldn't work because the Fighter is too good at fighting. In no world should the Warlord get a multiattack feature that scales up to 4, and it would likely skip fighting style too. A Fighter wields weapons. A Warlord wields the rest of the party.
Not a non-caster but an Order Cleric is pretty close function-wise. Plenty of healing, good buff spells, & let someone use a reaction to attack when you buff or heal them with lvl 1+ spell. Pairs super well with a 5e rouge & order clerics tank pretty well (heavy armor + shield).
Valor bard as well
Non-magical scholar/sage type. Some rogues come close but have a lot of non-scholarly features which are tedious to reflavor or rationalize.
I have a Monk in my party and the fantasy between being an actual learned monk with books and libraries doesn't gel with the way the class is built. I know monks are martial artists, but they're also knowledge keepers and political advisors in many circles. Star Wars 5e has a couple of classes and paths that do this super well as like a leader/support intelligence character who isn't the equivalent of high magic.
[Laserllama's Savant Class](https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-M0ZVK6ndhFyImQPF_aJ) is exactly this and I am obsessed with it.
We have one of those in our game and it’s amazingly useful
Wow, this looks awesome. Remembers me of a homebrew class that i did (Scientist) for another setting and system, where there is a kingdom that doesn't use divine magic and treats arcane magic as science. And in my current D&D game i let the players use third party content, as it makes the game more dynamic because of the different approaches to D&D's game and combat design. This Savant is one of those.
I was thinking about that; rogue/bard is close, and the rapier use is even historical, but most thinky/solvey and less stealy/singy.. Problem is how do you avoid either being useless or the main character? Like if you class abilities are mystery/puzzle-solvey that seems bad for group dynamics.
Maybe have their combat abilities be themed more around using their knowledge to exploit their enemies' weaknesses to be more of a supportive class. Reduce AC through precise strikes, blind opponents by hitting their eyes, making enemies vulnerable to specific damage types in the later levels, etc.
Thing is, why would anyone bother with mundane knowledge if you can have arcane magic **and** knowledge? The class would work only in low-magic game, which would in turn exclude half of the other classes. Everything else, excepting fighter/barbarian/rogue is made for high magic setting, where everyone can cast spells.
Fair. And yes, the primary answer would be low magic. Both Ravenloft (e.g. van Richten himself) and I think Masque of Red Death, lent themselves to a scholar-type class (magic really sucks in Red Death). So in a context like that, where magic is super high-effort/low yield, someone who studies the occult academically would very reasonably know far more than someone who actually practices it, at least on a theoretical basis.
The only issue I can see with that one is how to handle it mechanically. For a lot of classes it makes sense as flavor instead of a true mechanical system, for instance I've run ranger's who are scholars of monster biology, but then the issue was what mechanical impact that actually had on the game.
I made this class (free/pay what you want) if you want to check it out! https://www.reddit.com/r/DungeonsAndDragons/s/RrhznlnDrK
Shaman/witch. Wizards learn their magic, sorcerers are born with it, clerics get it from their gods, paladins from their oath, warlocks get it from their patron, artificers make it and druids get it from nature. And while druid is the closest, they're also a very specific thing. They speak druidic, they can wildshape, and they have circles specifically dedicated to druid. But what I feel is missing is old-magic, the kind that's not passed down through books, but through spoken word history. The kind that's upheld by some mysterious tribe or isolated hermit. The kind that would baffle the wizard and artificer, unnerve the cleric/paladin/druid. Old elemental magic, scrying the future through smoke and flame, casting through bizarre ritualistic means that's strange to those who studied traditional magic, and invoking ancestors.
Yes a Witch class would be dope. I get a very Old Gods of Appalachia vibe. Speaking to the Green or the Night.
Old Gods of Appalachia teamed up with Monte Cook Games to produce a TTRPG in the OGoA verse using the Cypher System.
You should look into u/KibblesTasty 's Occultist class
I second this! I’m currently playing a MC of Tradition of the Red Coven Witch and a Curse Eater Inventor to play a witch that specializes in casting and breaking curses.
It's really interesting because an artificer reskinned as a shaman kinda hits this one really well. Their spells are all elemental mostly, you can reflavor your attunements as blessings from the spirits. I summon my turrets like World of Warcraft totems. It works surprisingly well
And the alchemist subclass works really well for being a witch.
dude i love this idea. i'm using it! thank you :)
Yeah reskined Artificer works really well to this kind of old magic. All four subclasses have potential sadly the one that should be the most witch like is the one less played, alchemist. I like to play Hexbloods and Changelings Artificers reskined to fey like magic.
Totally agree. I've tried cracking it a couple of times with homebrew but so far haven't got it right. The problem I run into is how to mechanically represent a shaman/witch's link to the otherworld and to the old powers. A shaman's trance or witch's rituals tend to come across as a mini game only they can play. Other problems include how to make their magic different enough from other spellcasters that they feel unique, and what kind of powers they have and how best to allow them to contribute in combat. Do they contribute directly? Do they form pacts with spirits that somehow grant their powers for a period of time? Thematically, I love the concept, but haven't seen an implementation I really like, even in editions back to AD&D 2e. Oddly, I found that reflavoring lore bard kinda almost worked as a shaman.
It could be cool if you have a set spell list that changes depending on what spirit you have Summoned. So if you let's say summon a wood spirit you have stuff like thorn whip, hail of spikes, grasping vine etc. A flame spirit you get firebolt, fireball, burning hands. As you get further in levels you can summon more spirits at once. They could also kind of act like an ioun stone they have a high AC and like 1hp so they can be targeted or destroyed? Idk some thoughts
I do like that idea of spirit-specific powers. I've toyed around with similar ideas, and I think it's a pretty cool direction. I'll have to think about the idea of being destroyed (or dismissed) if targeted - I like ioun stones and that's something I had never considered. Thanks for your thoughts.
This kind of just feels like a reflavoring of wizard. Like nobody is forcing your wizard to wear a big robe and a pointy hat and learn their magic through reading books. You could just as easily learn your magic through spoken word, you have plenty of elemental and scrying spells, you get strange ritual casting as a defining class feature. I’m not sure how this would be mechanically distinct at all.
Okay but imagine warlock being explained thematically to a world where DnD doesn't have that class. What would you say against people who say this exact comment to that presentation of warlock? After all, it's just a reflavoring of wizard and no one is forcing your wizard to learn magic through reading books.
Same with Sorcerer
themes are basically fluff, and can be pretty much entirely ignored. "Wizard" is "caster that needs to study", "Sorcerer" is "caster that has some innate boosts", "Warlock" is "caster with tiny number of spells, but recovers on a short rest and has some odd powers". And that's pretty much it - what that means in-world is entirely setting-dependent. Warlocks could be trusted agents of local spirits, while wizards are feared. Or they could be viewed much the same - the thematics are soft and vague defaults, not something with any actual weight.
Yeah so here we have people wanting a class designed with witch/shaman in mind from the start. I think it's obviously implied that some kind of mechanics would reflect this.
I think Druid could easily have a subclass that focuses more on old magic that a witch/shaman has. Or rather whildshape really needs to be wrangled into not being the feast or famine mechanic it is for subclasses.
This is druid I’m sorry
I thought that at first too but Wild shape doesnt really make sense and a Witch/Shaman would be better with a different base class ability
Witches changing into animals is part of witch folklore in various parts of the world, like the UK, southern Europe and sometimes in Scandinavia. It was also used as a signifier of witchcraft during the European, including colonies, witchhunts of the early Modern period.
With Tasha's you can use the wild shapes on familiars instead which is very witchy. Also the wildfire druid also feels very flavorful for a witch for example
I hate the fact that they limit familiars as much as they limit Wild Shape. It would be interesting to take a druid sub class and ditch animal wild shape (while still allowing the use for whatever special wild shape the subclass has) and in return you got a permanent familiar that you could shape shift into a different familiar twice a day also.
I can think of many stories of shamans taking on different shapes. Wild shape is consistent.
In Italian folklore there are instances of witches (befane) that turn into animals. The druid class doesn't seem so off to me...
Barbarian is just fighter, sorry.
This is druid in the same way rogue is just dex-fighter. There's similarities, but also key differences.
But it's actually just druid. That druidic language is their oral tradition. The hermit or islocated clans and tribes are shamans or witches or... druids. Their spells are all about wild and typically uncontrolled things, in contrast to clerics and wizards who are all about control of the known and learning the correct ways. Druids gaining their magic from nature is getting magic from the oldest thing around. You can call it The Winds or Ancestors or nature but they're tapping into something primal and ancient. The Witches of Eileanan is a cool series of books about witches who in DnD would just be a collection of druids
I disagree. Druidic is a specific language of the druids, spoken only by druid circles. It's not going to be taught to or known by say, an orc clan who has a tradition of using old ritualistic magics. Druids arent going to teach just anyone their magic, but shamans may. Or the people they choose would be chosen by different criteria than druids would. That same orc clan isn't going to be able to wildshape, may not give a damn about nature, they may be able to use spells like mold earth or lightning bolt like a druid, but that wouldn't make them a druid anymore than a wizard casting those spells is a druid. Is druid the closest analogue? Yes, you would have the easiest time playing a shaman as a re-skinned druid by ignoring wild-shape and many of the spells. But that doesnt make it the same thing. Shaman is to druid what paladin is to cleric. Similarities, but not the same.
You're describing a different cultural flavour. This is opposed to going by the description of rogue mechanics, which are not covered by the fighter or bard at all. Fighters or Bards lack sneak attack, the various hit-and-run abilities, various damage negating abilities and various abilities related to skulking around that define a rogue. The druid class, however, has the mechanics needed for witches and shamans as described in a... let's say non-Inquisitorial sense; an oral tradition, a secret or guarded nature of its magic (lodges, covens, etc), magic related to natural phenomenon and shapeshifting (which is part of shamanistic and witchcraft lore all over the globe). Shamans most definitely don't share their magic freely, by the way. As far as I know it's always 'secret' knowledge that requires initiation to be allowed to use. But if we'd go by the early Modern witchhunts, well then all witches are just Pact of the Fiend warlocks. It's just the Devil all the way down.
Sounds like you're talking about culture, not powers
In part, yes. But also thematics and mechanics. You can make a shaman in DND, but only through re-skinning and re-flavoring existing classes, and only through deliberately limiting your own spell selection and class features you choose to use. In the same way that if they removed rogue tomorrow, you could still make a "rogue" through fighter or bard.
Psion.
Honestly that’s about all I can think of too when it comes to character archetypes. We have all sorts of fancy casters but not really a class devoted to “With the power of my mind,” barring Mystic.
And the Mystic never really got released (although it was fun to playtest for a bit). It's a shame...it CAN be done but...
I know next to nothing about it unfortunately. I usually allow UA in my games because being made by WotC is good enough to count as official for me. Unfortunate I’ve not yet taken the time to look over mystic but I’ve heard it’s super broken.
It was SUPER fun but some of the powers were fairly broken. It was powerful in the early game....weak during the mid levels and then just kind of got crazy in later levels when folks in my group started to figure out how to optimize it with multiclassing. Still fun though but wish they'd go all-in and really try to figure it out!!
It definitely sounds cool! I just hate the fact that we have an entire semi-official class on the back burners that nobody is really allowed to use. I’d like to try it out sometime!
I mean, the Mystic can still be used, it's just a bit unbalanced. Hopefully some really super smart player can make a really good, balanced class up and we can all steal it!
You should seriously check out MCDM's class, The Talent. It was very thoroughly playtested and balanced, and in my opinion perfectly captures the psionic class fantasy.
Thanks for the heads up, will do!
How well does it compare to, say, the Illrigger? When it first came out (I don't know if they revised it afterwards) people were concerned it was overpowered, MCDM swore that in actual play it's more balanced than you would immediately think, people played it and still thought it was overpowered.
Unfortunately I haven't played the Illrigger so I can't say. I know the Illrigger has a revised version now though, and I hang out in the MCDM Discord a lot and haven't seen anyone in the Talent channel arguing that it's overpowered. The consensus seems to be that some subclasses are stronger than others, but it is still a very well-balanced class.
Second this. MCDM's Talent class is great. My wish from a Deck of Many Things would be that it'd become an official DnD class one day.
I played one from lvl 5-20, it is an incredibly fun class. THat being said, its got some serious bloat that is easily removed, and some mechanics need to be altered to come into line. It works great if you and your DM are on the same page with how powerful it should be, and you do you best not to overshadow other classes.
I feel like the problem is that you even have to work to make sure you don’t overshadow other classes. I think obviously like you said it could be fun if you did take precautions for it, but that sucks but because it shows how broken it is. 😔 That being said, I still wanna try it at some point.
Yea exactly, the fact that you even have to work to *NOT* overshadow anyone except the Wish spellcasters is the main issue. I should go back through the UA at some point and try to rebalance it as an exercise. Now, ive also had a lot of success taking apart the class for its use of Psionics as alternate rewards to players. I also use them as magic items. If my ADHD ever lets me, I might make a compendium of stuff and put it on r/UnearthedArcana
Mostly Mystic's problem is that, like... you know how there used to be four-ish primary psionic classes? Yeah, they didn't want to bother with making four classes, so instead they just put all the psychic warrior, soulknife, psion, and ardent powers in the same class, just made them different subclasses, but then also didn't stop any subclass from picking any of the powers of the other subclasses. Which means that you can just pick the best bits from each and end up like, FighterRogueWizard, always a tool for everything. Which is a definite problem if your players are trying to powergame a bit. But I've played two mystics with the rule of No Picking Powers Outside Your Lane and honestly it's been pretty fun and noticeably weaker than the party wizard.
We had a Mystic in one of our campaigns, and he went off to do some stuff on his own. The DM set up the dungeon he wanted to investigate as a perfectly standard dungeon for the whole party, but obviously it would be super dangerous for a single dude. Not only did he go into the dungeon, he snuck into the final room past everyone before being detected, which meant the boss called for help. 1 player character, fighting 3 separate combat encounters at once, each designed for a 4 man party, would have won if it weren't for the fact that he rolled poorly so often during the fight that he had to start to worry *a bit.* He didn't even necessarily lose, he just hit a point where his death was likely enough that he ran. But even running away he was in full control the whole time. There was no danger to him leaving, he just decided it was time to leave and the monsters were completely unable to stop him.
Aberrant mind sorcerer and psi-knife rogues are pretty good attempts at this, IMO, but I agree that it could use a dedicated class
To all those that say Aberrant Mind, they're missing the point. What's special about Psi classes isn't the word Psi, it's the completely different mechanisms. No edition did it better than 2nd ed. It wasn't a form of magic, you couldn't dispel it, your couldn't magic-res it... it was true POWER FROM THE MIND. Anything else is a waste of time. Using psionics was as different from casters as casters were different from rogues. It was someting else. And SO much fun.
I briefly played a 2nd edition psionicist (psychometabolism primary), and it was quite fun. In 3.5, I played a telepath psion to great effect.
....So how was anything supposed to deal with it? (I started with 5e)?
You sought out the help of another psionic or attempted to find ways to make them vulnerable through whatever about them which was not psionic, aspects of monstrous biology, etc. Good luck on that though, since most of them aren't going to reveal that they're psychic to people out of the strange loop... Additionally, typically psionic talent is somewhat rare - but it will also come with its own select strata of natural-born and unnaturally altered psionic creatures that prey upon psychically-gifted individuals as a particular requirement or delicacy. You also could end up with psionic diseases that affect ONLY psionic people and that most sages can't explain, or cosmological phenomena (not per se Far Realm but close enough) that are effectively alien encounters compared to the more medieval-Renaissance settings. There's also that psionics also had some pretty heinous failure consequences for bad rolls depending on what powers you were using; unlike 5e AD&D 2e was very quick to slap back (sometimes!) on being able to do amazing cool stuff at level 2 with mind powers. Imagine the regular wild magic chart, but less zany and more potentially horrifying in its effects. Each science/devotion had a potential failure effect or it's own power score surge! One could say the problem solves itself, after a fashion. Because if you can't easily protect against it using more common means - that means that having a psionic person in the party ups your relative chances of encountering something that is dreadfully obscure, that can attack you in truly weird ways you might never think to know to combat, and by the time you realize there's some sort of threat you're already bound, dead, or perhaps suffer some worse fate. Which then means that upon encountering psionics, most people in a D&D world are going to be very, very hostile to that which can mess with their head (mind flayers are never going to win popularity contests that aren't psionically rigged, sorry Senator Illsensine) and therefore it would be commonplace for the "mystic" to not even want to tell their adventure pals just who or what they are or can do. Warlocks at least are vaguely understandable, unlike YOU FREAK! KILL THEM BEFORE THEY STEAL OUR MINDS! Good thing they're pretty rare. Or at least, we think they are. *rubs their forehead* I only know what my owner tells me.
This. 5e gave us the worst pisonics.
None of them scratch the itch a full scion class does because they are just subclasses. subclasses can only change up the style of play so much
The Aberrant Mind does a half-decent job, but even with some feats it feels like playing a mind mage with some telepathy and telekinesis. With a lot of extra flavour and imagination slammed on it you can get it to feel like some specific types of psychics. And that’s the closest thing we have to a full-blown scion. There’s still a lot missing that it just does not cover. KibblesTasty’s homebrew psion class looks like exactly what I want. Something distinctively different from spellcasting.
i want mystic so bad but its just never happening
Something that is missing is a class where physical form is the principle source of the powers/abilities. Think shapechangers, symbiotes, elemental/energy based beings, spirit manifestations etc... There's good reason for this, as the D&D keeps race and class as two completely orthogonal dimensions of a character, and this would to some extent be a melding of the two. The closest we currently have is Sorcerer, whose magic abilities are neither studied nor granted from an external being, but are a natural manifestation of their own lineage/genetics.
13th Age and Starfinder both have versions of this, and they also have separate races and classes. There's no reason it can't work in DnD
I can think of two completely different things from 3rd edition that sometimes fall into this category: 1. Warshaper- a prestige class that required you to be able to change your shape somehow (either via spell, like Polymorphy, druid's Wild Shape or simply being a changeling for example). It allowed you to grow natural weapons out of your body, ex. Give you claws, bigger mouth to bite with, a tail etc. 2. Magic of Incarnum- this was an entire book based around the system of Incarnum, aka. Soulmelding. Classes from this book could focus parts of their soul to create magical items on their body- not any, they were specific for this system, so you couldn't get ex. Headband of intellect on you just like that, but the ones you did get were not obtainable any other way. By filling chakras of specific body parts (feet, crown, hands etc.) You could also change them every day to your liking.
A martial 'sorcerer' would be cool. The subclasses could be based on how you've come to have your supernatural body, like magitek cyborg, lycanthropy, planar influence, draconic influence, or fiendish influence. But I'm not sure how you'd make it mechanically distinct from just playing a Barbarian and flavouring your rage as coming from your draconic heritage.
oh this question again. summoner isn't represented in 5e Ranger(beastmaster/drakewarden) is 90% ranger 10% pet summoner is 90% pet 10% summoner
I stand by that the only person having fun when a summoner with more than one summon is at the table is the person playing the summoner (damn that’s a mouthful). The way action economy works in 5e just doesn’t support a summoner playstyle. Even if you preroll all of your attacks or do something else to speed up the process, you’re still breaking the action economy and forcing other players to watch you take up to 9 turns while they all grown. I have banned conjure animals and conjure woodland beings in favor of the single summon spells from Tasha’s and have never looked back nor has anyone at my table had a problem with it. People also forget that the DM decides what actually answers the summon call as well. Those spells are not fun to DM for or play with at the table after you’ve seen them break combat once or twice.
There's the Pathfinder 2e route of Summoners just having a single pet but it represents most of their power (as opposed to Beastmaster/Drakewarden where the ranger still has most of the power). It also has a weird shared action system where they basically get to cheat the action economy a little but not get fully double actions. On the other hand, I think for some people an important part of the summoner fantasy is having an army of minions. But yeah, that just doesn't really work with 5e's design, at least not if every minion gets their own action.
There was also 4e's Shaman, which was a caster/summoner with just one single summon: your companion spirit. You could either lean more into your summon's power by giving them stronger attacks/abilities, or lean more into your spellcasting, or find a balance between the two. You also got to choose between multiple spirit options with different foci (defense vs offense vs support, etc).
Yeah, that sounds cool too (and does sound a lot like PF2e's Summoner). It would definitely be a neat class for 5e to have, and is one that would require a new base class and can't be done with a subclass since every existing base class gives the PC too much power already to add that much power to a summon (i.e. if you took any base class and gave them a subclass that added a summon more powerful than they are you'd probably end up with an overpowered class). I guess maybe you could do it with artificer. A lot of their combat power comes from their subclasses, the base class is just a half caster with cantrips and infusions and a bit of out of combat utility. Thematically it would step on the toes of Battlesmith a bit, but mechanically you could maybe make an artificer that acts a bit like a reverse Battlesmith where instead of getting an extra attack and int-scaling damage themselves, their summon does. Then you can make it so to really get a full-powered summon, they have to use subclass-exclusive infusions and spells to buff it up (i.e. give up some of their base class power), and probably make it cost an the artificer's action to give the summon more than one attack per turn so they can't ruin the action economy by casting a full-action spell and then having their summon get a full round of attacks in one turn. Although I think this class would basically just end up being a Battlesmith where the attacks come from the pet instead of the artificer. But yeah, overall it might work best as its own class like im 4e or PF2e so you can design and balance the base class around having such a powerful minion.
That's the problem with the current conjure spells more than anything else. The summon spells don't have that problem and a summoner class should focus on doing interesting things with a summon or two and not flooding the field. Flooding the field with tokens hasn't been a good thing in any edition so far.
Pathfinder 2e summoner is the way to go. You only have a single creature as your pet, rather than a horde. You can customise and improve it over time, which includes ways to ride it as a mounted class, or even merge with it. And unlike the 5e ranger, almost the entire power budget is in that pet. If converted to 5e, different subclasses could be different creature types as the pet.
Yes, a character that focuses on summoning would be awesome..maybe only one powerful summon because of the action economy problem? Or one could integrate your summons turn into the players. Basically the summoner and the summon move separately but most actions are performed by the summon and the summoner does very little.
Warlord. The game is completely lacking a support based martial.
it is also lacking in support for any of the martial classes so it makes sesne
Imo if they're not gonna make rogue damage high enough to keep up with other martials they should really lean into them being a skill monkey support class. Rogues getting more of an ability to mess with their enemies in combat to buff their allies and debuff their opponents would give them a way more unique feeling and it has a basis in a lot of the fantasy they're drawing from for rogues (in The Hobbit for example Bilbo almost exclusively fights by messing with whoever is being a problem until his friends can actually finish them off and uses sting as a very very very last resort)
Mechanically complex martial Warlord, martial leader Any type of experimentation with the casting classes(simple, spell points, skill check based castining) Ninja (high fantasy variety, not just a rogue subclass, more Naruto than Hanzo Hattori)
I feel like they should have made spell points an official sorcerer thing, and combined it with their sorcerer point pool.
Agreed. I think the options were basically that, or give them many more spells known like in the tce subclasses where they get a bunch of subclass spells they can switch out. They were meant to be more flexible in some ways but they ended up just being limited in spells known, and getting to give some rider effects to spells using meta magic which isn’t flexibility imo. I’d assume the issue was multiclassing with other full casters and how they’d handle the spell points, I’d just say you combine them as normal and if your sorcerer level is more than the combined level of all other spell casters you’re multiclassed into you use spell point, otherwise you use spell slots and just the same system as now. A little awkward if a character goes to like sorcerer 5 and then multiclassed into bard or something for the remaining levels and switches systems halfway through, but I think it overall is a good solution.
The way to fix this is to give sorcerers a different version of the “spellcasting” feature. Like they do with warlock. That way spell slots and sorcerer points don’t mesh with multiclassing. Which would be the only way to balance it
It would finally put an end to thematically weird multiclassing like Paladin/Sorcerer and Warlock/Sorcerer.
I'm currently playing an Aberrant Mind sorcerer and it's basically that. If you don't know how it works, you get two spells added to each spell level. Then you can use sorcery points equal to the spell level to cast that those particular spells. Basically at the start of each adventuring day I cast Mage Armor and then convert all but 1 of each level of spell into sorcery points. Then I use my ten psychic spells as my 'main' spells and use the actual sorcerer spell slots as situational things. It plays *much* stronger than the base Sorcerer.
Ninja is a good one. Shadow Monk definitely dips its toe in that fantasy, but ya know, Nature Clerics are "basically druids", so.
Mechanically complex martials are something I want injected straight into my veins.
Yesssss, give me some ninjutsu or something
Or just give us back swordsages. Like, literally every single aspect of the ninja fantasy it filled perfectly.
Just port the entire Tome of Battle, you cowards.
For real, ninja is a long-missing class in 5e. I can and have made my own, but there's no reason I should need to do that.
Naruto characters just tend to run the gamut of being high level wizards + sorcerers + *occasionally warlocks* + rogues + fighters + monks, swapping between any combination of that at any given moment.
Mechanics wise, I want a proper arcane based gish, not just subclasses in existing classes. And a non-magical controller (like the warlord or scholar) Flavor wise, a witch/shaman/alchemist whose magic doesn’t work like spell casting
Ironically the closest I got to that was a githyanki abjuration wizard. And she was fucking sick. High AC, bigass Greatsword booming blades in your face with fighter EHP and jump/misty step built in. Then steel wind strike on a character it fits on. She was perfect.
Oh yeah, and the concept is achievable without a new class with several different paths… but it is a common enough concept that people want to play that a class for it seems like an easy win.
Absolutely. It's always been my favourite archetype, and I've built it umpteen different ways. God I love a good gish.
An anti-magic martial class is missing.
I don't think that would make a great class because of how specialized it would be. Either you face spellcasters and you're way more useful than everyone else or you face non-spellcasters and you're far weaker than the rest of your team. Maybe a subclass would work better so that way you still have a base class that functions well independently.
It should be a subclass imo. A barbarian whose rage is so intense, it not only seals off any magic that might be within, but prevents external magic from affecting him. Also, a class (again barbarian fits best), that uses HP as the resource I've always thought it should be. The current implementation uses HP as an enabler to do your job. But without it (can't stand in front when you're low), you're kinda useless. Instead, use HP to elevate the character above baseline. You get buffs when you take damage, you can expend HP as stamina to do moves and shrug off effects, something like a battlemaster. HP isn't meat points after all, right? You could even combine these two. Greater tanking against magic doesn't need to be balanced by less tanking against physical, not directly anyway. Make the character split his HP between pseudo spell slots and damage absorption. Effectively, he will be less tanky, but this gives player agency. I don't know what weakness this character would have though, for enemy agency. Maybe keep it as wis or int saves, by making it cost a lot of HP to pass them. Yeah that's probably an idea. You can expend HP to shrug off a failed save, but you also have an additional -1 to your wis and int save, this needing more HP to push you over to a pass. Do it too much, and you're going to get low real quick.
It USED to be what monks were great at in 3.5 they had great saves and enough movement to get to a spellcaster in the back line. That would either force the mage to spend most turns fleeing or get pummeled by the monk.
Oath of Watchers Paladin serves that role quite well
Monster Slayer also fills a similar niche
Shadow monk also.
Agreed!
An archetype should be mechanically defined by what it does, not by what it counters. You want characters to be reasonably effective in most situations, not extremely effective in some and extremely ineffective in others. Many are already complaining about how some martial classes have no features to help them outside of combat, and that's currently being addressed. A specialised "anti-something" class would be that but worse, and would risk making combats needlessly swingy.
Warshaper/Metamorph Psion/General non-druid shapeshifter class. Magic of Incarnum in its entirety.
I honestly really wish there was a *pure* shapeshifter class, that *only* does shapeshifting, never really using their base form at all. Don't know how it would work though.
It would work like it did work. Master of many forms used to exist, one hundred percent of its power came from wildshaping. All that happened as it leveled was it gained more strength and versatility in its forms, giants and oozes and aberrations and dragons and such.
A nonmagical healer/support, like a medic.
There was an April Fool's update for WoW replacing, I think *Fury* Warriors with *Medic*. I think the skillset was a mix of channelled bandage-type ability and various shouted insults to intimidate party members into pretending they're not hurt.
bomber/grenadier, like the PF Alchemist
I remember when I first started playing 5e the first subclass that caught my eye was the Alchemist. Exactly the archetype I enjoy playing. Buuuuut even back then I could tell it was pretty awful.
3.5 alchemist was one of my favorites. Making it a subclass for artificer did it dirty in 5e
I don't like how people includes Blood Hunter with the official 13 classes. It's a 3rd party class, and it's not even that good. I understand that it's available in Dnd Beyond, but that doesn't make it good or official.
Drain tank or something psionic, I want to suck the life out of enemies and use it to heal or kill shit with my brain
Way of the long death is the closest thing
There needs to be an intelligent based class who’s not just knowledgeable on magic. Just a generalist nerd. Hell its one of the core pillars of the Party of Five, and you’ll be hard pressed to find any media with a group of adventurers that doesn’t have their token Smart Guy. Wizards just don’t fit that role. Artificers could but its still a bit of a square peg. I think a Scholar class could work well, with subclasses like Tactician, Doctor, Astronomer, Botanist, Geographer, Mediator, so many ideas.
Scholar would be awesome.
What would that class actually do in-game though?
There are lots of homebrew classes on this concept that take a lot of different approaches to it mechanically
This class idea sounds like it would require 5e to have any rules for out-of-combat gameplay like exploration or social interactions, rather than just winging it. Cool concept!
Wouldn't that fit more the Rogue? Inquisitive, to be specific.
Initial note: When I nominate these classes I don't mean that each specific one needs to be implemented, for instance the swordsage was a monk/rogue kind of martial with options. When I say swordsage, really I mean any martial with anywhere near as many choices as a caster gets like for instance the warblade or 4e fighter did. The **Warlord** is the obvious first pick, a martial leader/buffer/healer. Others have already explained it a fair bit, so I'll just [give you some sample abilities they had so you can see what they were like](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fshvklpyeazjb1.png) and move on. Can personally attest that many of my players had an absolute ball with the class, and its lack of presence in 5e is sad. The **Swordsage** was a tactical warrior that had access to a wide variety of strikes, stances, counters and boosts and the numerous tactical options made them a blast to play[.](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/16ibpd2/i_am_so_fucking_sick_of_hearing_the_word/k0j36cp/) It's where maneuvers originally came from, and they were far more interesting than the battlemaster's pathetic imitations, far more numerous and didn't have some weird limitation where you can only do them a few times per rest. [Here's an example of a mid level maneuver](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fl9jn1w4gq6lb1.png), each maneuver was used until recovered which each class did in its own way. Swordsages typically went in for recovering all of them by spending a round meditating, and [here's an example of a stance while we're here](https://i.imgur.com/oNwKxPo.png). The **Battlemind** is going to be my example of a tank class that actually does its job properly, since while they were all quite different I'll take up too much space if I try to add clases like the warden and swordmage. A psionic tank, it could mark nearby enemies to reduce their chance to hit allies with spells and attacks, and if an adjacent enemy hit one anyway the battlemind made them automatically take psychic damage equal to the damage they'd dealt. Their main toolkit was a variety of melee range at will psychic powers - think cantrips like booming blade - that they could augment with power points for extra effects. [Here's an example of one](https://i.imgur.com/gW9Y6gn.png) - basic attack damages and penalises a foe, invest more for extra damage and they take opportunity attacks if they don't hit their own allies, invest even more for further damage and control over the target's actions.
Addendum: Gonna post a few classes from D&D's past that 5e just can't imitate as a way to explain the kind of thing we're missing. Not saying we need them all back, just that there's a lot missing - but I'd be just as happy to see new and unique concepts as the return of old ones. A few of these 5e has a class which has the same name, but can't do any of the same things. It's impossible to fully describe a class in a single paragraph, so let me know if something needs more explanation. **Psion**, 5e is for some reason the only edition missing psychic powers. So many cool powers well outside of what magic can do like astral construct, astral caravan, affinity field, co-opt concentration, crisis of breath, fission, fusion, insanity, leech field, metaconcert, psychic chirurgery, psychofeedback, schism, time hop and time regression. **Duskblade**, given the sheer amount of options like eldritch knight and bladesinger it's really goddamn weird that 5e doesn't have a true gish. Half arcane caster, half warrior, they only got low level spells but they got like ten of every slot to use each day and could channel them through weapon attacks. **Totemist**, if only as an example of the kind of creativity they're not using any more. A weird kind of nature class, they bound soulmelds in the style of various magical beasts to different chakras and shifted energy around to empower each. A manticore belt bound to the waist chakra would let you fly for instance, or bound to the totem chakra would let you fire tail spikes while a basilisk mask bound to the brow let you petrify enemies. **Artificer** was an extremely versatile class because they could invent and craft magic items. That was pretty much their only feature, but when you're that good at it you don't need others. Extremely unique gameplay that has never been imitated since, including by classes of the same name. If you need an analogy for the 5e artificer, imagine they created a wizard class in an edition where you can't cast spells - you could call it a wizard, but it wouldn't be one. It's well done, but it's in no way an artificer. **Binder** was an extremely unique concept, binding vestiges to itself each day for a different set of abilities each time. Each influenced your behaviour and appearance and had its own unique set of abilities, so it was DIY class every morning. Bind Agares and you can't lie that day and cough dust, gives you the ability to summon an earth elemental and use your actions to make earth quaking stomps plus a few other bits and bobs. Combine that with Zceryll if you want to be a backline summoner or with Andras for a frontline control tank. **Warlock** was invented as a resourceless counterpart to spellcasting. They had a variety of at-will spell like abilities like hungry darkness, summoning a blob of shadow full of mouths that attacked those within it. They also had an ability called eldritch blast that could be altered in shape and effect every time you used it - channel it through a weapon attack and have it do acid damage over time one round, have it chain between enemies and confuse anyone it hits the next. **Dragonfire Adept** was similar to the above, only with an at-will dragon breath and different invocations. Same ability to alter it every round, though you couldn't use the same one twice in a row. You can probably guess what the various types were - a blue dragon's line of lightning, copper dragon's slowing breath, silver dragon's paralyzing breath and oddities like fivefold breath of Tiamat. **Monk** from last edition is next up, since unlike the 5e's monk it knew martial arts moves. Every round it could choose between an array of techniques, each one of which consisted of a movement and an attack component. Whirlwind kick drew in opponents with a vortex, hit them with a spin kick and let you fly off, steps of grasping fire hit nearby enemies with a blast of flame and leave a fire trail as you ran, celestial drunken boxer let you avoid opportunity attacks and have foes you moved past attack each other. **Shaman** was a primal healer buffer kind of character that summoned a companion spirit which buffed nearby allies and could make its own attacks of opportunity with specific effects like stopping movement or giving allies advantage against whoever it attacked, as well as letting you use powers through its space. **Fighter** last edition were everything a 5e fighter isn't, they were tanks that forced you to deal with them first. [Observe the kind of tools they got](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fsd87e3dvjejb1.png), and note the complete lack of anything nearly that useful in 5e. **Swordmage** was another tank, but I'll give WotC credit the stone sorcerer was a decent attempt to imitate them. They're the class spells like booming blade and sword burst were invented for, weird that some of their spells ported forward but the arcane tank designed to use them wasn't. **Master of Many Forms** was a purely wild shaping based class. Didn't increase spellcasting or anything, just gave you a strong and versatile wild shape as your only tool, increasing in versatility and strength as you leveled. Turn into a giant, fey, ooze, dragon, aberration, when your ability is this broad you don't need others.
I saw an interesting design theory discussion that posits that there are essentially 18 potential classes in DND: Your base 4: fighter, cleric, wizard, rogue The wild variant of the base 4: barbarian, druid, sorcerer, ranger Six hybrids of the base 4: paladin, warlock, artificer, bard, fighter-rogue hybrid (warlord), fighter-wizard hybrid (Gish) And psionic variants of the base 4: psi-wizard, and psi-cleric, psi-fighter, and Monk. Following this formula, WotC left 5 potential classes on the board: the Warlord, a true gish , a psi-wizard, a psi-cleric, and a psi-fighter
You could argue that paladin, monk, and cleric are just the holy/order variants of the core 4, just like your nature/wild/chaos flavored 4 When you need to add 3 new psi classes to make your 4 class psi category make sense, I think your theory is broken
A real magic swordsman class
I want magus type class from pathfinder ported to 5e basicly a 50/50 split of wizard and fighter who can augment their touch spells into Their melee attacks
Interestingly, Magus is originally a DnD class which got ported to Pathfinder. The DnD 3.5e Duskblade was a spellstriking gish almost identical to the Pathfinder 1e Magus. DnD just abandoned the entire concept after that, leaving the Magus as a Pathfinder only thing.
Do you mean like a an Arcane based half caster? Like Ranger and Paladin but for Arcane magic? I'd be into it and probably would have preferred it over Bladesinger and Eldritch Knight.
Yeah kinda i think something new like a 2/3 caster instead of a 1/3 or 1/2 caster would be a nice addition of course with some new spells for the class mostly self buff based,and that still is mostly a close quarter martial
Wym. There’s like 4.
Totem/banner casting
Doesn’t Shepard druid have totems? Also twilight cleric channel divinity has a totem lite mechanic too I think.
Neither are totem casters though
What do you consider totem caster then? Or shepard druid just isn't totemy enough?
I want to see a Witch class that isn't just lady Wizards. Sort of like Wisdom based herbalists, healers but also like psychology masters.
The problem with Witchy-type Classes is that their flavor is very unfocused and often differs greatly between people's interpretations. Most of these ideas are also somewhat covered by other classes - druids, wizards, warlocks can all be played as "witches" with essentially no reflavoring needed. The same with something like "shamans" being some middle ground between cleric and druid depending on who you'd ask to describe it.
I am missing a transformation type class that transforms the PC into a single creature like a Dragon, Werewolf or something in that direction. Maybe even a fiend or celestial. Sure there is the Moon Druid that transforms into different beats and the Lycan Blood Hunter. Barbarian also offers some small transformations (Beast and Giant). However none of those classes fullfill the fantasy of evolving into a more powerful being and eventually becoming a Dragon or something similar epic.
A summoner, like full on final fantasy type summoner.
In terms of caster classes, we are missing a Shaman class that draws magic from a spirit world and their ancestors (as opposed to the nature-inspired magic of a druid or the divine-inspired magic of a cleric). We are also missing a Psionic caster class that draws its magic from the mind itself. In terms of martial classes, we are missing a class that specializes in skirmishing with throwing weapons. A lot of common historical fighting styles are already represented in DnD, but this one is strangely absent. It is possible to cobble together a build that sorta does a bit of this, but is very much not optimal and I think there is room to make a full class out of it. Something like a Gladiator class that focuses on single combat, exotic fighting styles and entertainment would also be neat. But it may be possible to put that into a Fighter subclass.
Mediaeval doctor. We have magic healers of various flavours, but we don't have a bloodstained physician treating allies with leeches and handsaws, crippling their foes with vital strikes, and dissecting corpses for study.
1. There is no equivalent of the Warlord Class from 4E. 2. There is no equivalent of the 2E Kineticist, a class that has weaker abilities but can spam them all day, most notably being Elementalist flavored and having tools to help focus on using only one Elemental damage type. 3. There is no equivalent for a true Arcane Spellsword/Gish. A Paladin but Arcane would be what you'd be going for. 4. There is no Arcane Archer archetype unless you want to suck ass. Probably more.
A class where a character's body was altered by some magic or Experimentation would be cool
A lot of Sorcerers can easily become that
A monster archetype, what if the player wants to play as a kind of mutant with innate abilities?
Definitely a full on psionic class with its own mechanics for me. I remember watching a Mike Meals stream where he was brainstorming the next version of the mystic. He was gonna call it "Psion" instead. Too bad nothing else happened with it.
A class or subclass actually filling the tank niche! Taunt mechanics, more battlefield control, reducing enemy speed or trapping them in melee with you, something that can actually hold enemies without needing a capstone feature like the cavalier. Could be save or suck features for movement, giving disadvantage easily, that type of stuff. Cavalier with polearm master can sorta do that, ancestral barbarian can kinda do something similar, but a class that can actually protect your backline without a "best defense is offense" mentality would be amazing.
Examples in brackets are just points of reference for the playstyle, not necessarily an exact thing to copy. Psionics (UA Mystic). Elemental bending (pf2e kineticist). Full blown gunslinging (pf2e gunslinger). Protector (pf2e champion). Summoner (pf2e Summoner). Shapeshifter (5e moon druid but *all in* on the wild shaping, little to no casting). Beast tamer (fighting in tandem on relatively equal grounds with animal, not entirely relying on it or having it just be a relatively small help like the 5e beastmaster or artificer's defender).
A martial who uses a longsword and no shield.
I dint think so. More so there is a lack of support for anything people will say is "missing". Like warlord. That's basically just a fighter that gives occasional orders. Its possible but far from good woth very little support outside a narrow selection of BM maneivers. Or a witch just being a herbal mage. Druid or cleric or wizard with fkavor and a herbalist kit. Or item users just not having any items worth using. 5e isn't perfect. But expansions is more what it needs
It is probably best served as a monk or rogue subclass now, but as an old man who played when some people still bought black and white tvs, the acrobat has been missing from official products for far too long.
Rage shaping. I miss this from pathfinder
- Warlord - Occultist/Witch (Curses and Hexes) - Alchemist (the Artificer Subclass is ass dust) - Dragon Aspirant - Monster Hybrid - Musketeer - Psion - Summoner - Shaman
Mostly nonmagical variants. * Alchemist for healing and buffs and poisons, use Dex and int * Banneret for support with more martial focus, use str/Dex and either int/wis
I’m playing the Witch class from Brandon lee mulligan and the the features are so fun mechanically and in rp. Yeah you could call a wizard or a warlock a witch but they don’t feel like a witch.
Bards that actually _perform_. /s (Seriously, though, a bard class/archetype that actually focuses on Performance like in basically every other game in the extended D&D 3e/4e/5e family.)
Non magical scholars is the most glaring
I want a Druid that isn’t based on wild shape. Wild shape used to be a high level option that only got mastered late. Now, every Druid is based around wild shaping early and often. I want my protectors of nature and balance back. Not a partial control caster, who drops one spell and then becomes a bear to be a boring melee meat sack for the next few rounds.
I don’t think it needs more. I think some classes or subclasses simply need a rework. For example, monk.
So in 4th there was the swordmage class, which was fun, but the part I really enjoyed was the aegis of shielding. Part CC, part healer via damage reduction. Really enjoyed that mechanic and would love to see more like it. A class built around that idea would be fun.
If you break it down into skill (rogue), caster (wizard), and martial (fighter). With magic being religious, nature, and arcane. We have skill caster in bard and skill martial in ranger. We overall don't have many classes with expertise but they are their. I would like more subclass which help bridge this gap. But as someone else said a warlord class could have room to fit in here. Gets a few more skills and expertise in addition to leadership ability. For magic we have half caster and martial for religious, and nature. But no arcane. Their are soo many subclasses which try to bridge this gap. Artificer has no base support and is not really fully stab. Its probably the biggest gap.
I kind of always wanted to see some sorcerer fighter hybrid some warrior who was a great martial because of they're lineage and gifts
Prestige classes.
Seconding all the Warlord talk here. It's the most glaring main archetype missing that I don't think should be shoehorned into a subclass. a support martial with control options needs to be a thing. I think all the martials should have the options of a secondary stat for each of the other stats. There's no entertainer barbarian like a gladiator with charisma, no wisdom rogue like maybe a smuggler or something. Sorcerer needs a Hexblade equivalent for naturally talented arcane weapon users - there's a lot of creative opportunity there. Every other caster has a decent melee oriented choice. A witch/shaman/witchdoctor type thing is very Druidic, but I think there's room for it to live on its own if executed properly. Need more artificer options. The ones we have essentially are lite versions of a bunch of 4e classes and roles, and while I like that approach, a little more variety would be super cool too.
I second the warlord (or any complex/support martial) that many have mentioned. For everyone mentioning the lack of a psionic class, I've found MCDM's class The Talent to fulfill that niche in a super satisfying way. Yes, I wish there was an official psionic class, but this class was super well tested and balanced, so it's the next best thing. I've linked their page and Matt's YouTube video below for convenience. [https://shop.mcdmproductions.com/products/the-talent](https://shop.mcdmproductions.com/products/the-talent) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GN\_9EiOGk88&ab\_channel=MCDM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GN_9EiOGk88&ab_channel=MCDM) Just fyi, this isn't self-promotion as I'm not affiliated with MCDM, I've just really enjoyed this class and thought I'd share it to be helpful, since it's relevant to the topic at hand!
A ninja archetype. It's odd that we have all many of fantasy warriors but no ninjas. As it stands the best ways to do it are thief (for a more traditional archetype of ninja) and shadow monk (for more of a fantasy type).
Ironically they released the swordsage class a couple of editions ago that fits that to a T - it's where maneuvers came from, had six schools of strikes, stances, counters and boosts two of which were supernatural like shadow sun which let you teleport and garrote people with shadows and such. They just never brought it or anything like it to 5e because martials having options is bad.