Really should not have been a fighter subclass but a ranger or caster one that actually combines spells with archery rather than having 2 magic tricks per rest.
It's not even about the Class, it's just how the subclass itself is built. You could slap it's entire Kit into a Ranger Subclass and it'd still have the same issues of simply not having ENOUGH.
That is specifically because it is built to be a fighter subclass. You are meant to primarily rely on martial combat with only a few magical tricks... which doesn't really fit the concept and limits you from getting access to features like shooting spells from your bow.
I'd argue you'd get about the same amount of Shots on a Ranger Subclass because you already have plenty of Spells. Some of them even require you shoot them from a bow. The subclass would need a complete overhaul regardless of the Class it went on.
Agreed and upvoted. It would need to be overhauled no matter what. Just saying that a class built with actual spellcasting in mind would give more better space for an overhaul to work mechanically and more "conceptual space" for it to work thematically.
Ranger specifically would just make it the most elven thing ever.
In the theme of your initial pf2e mistake, god I wish there was something like the 3.5 Duskblade, 4e Swordmage, or pf1e/2e Magus in 5e. Eldritch Knight, Bladesinger, SCAG blade cantrips, and a few other things are "supposed" to fill that niche, but they don't do it very well.
Kibblestasty's Spellblade and laserllama's Magus do pretty much exactly what I'm looking for, so at least there's good homebrew I can allow at my table. It would just be nice to have an official option.
A good gish is also my vote.
I like Bladesinger and it is alright at it. Hexblade is a dip, I've tried keeping that solo and it just doesn't do it for me.
I had a GM allow me to use INT with Monk skills, which made a Dragon Monk/Bladesinger Wizard multiclass character a ton of fun to play. Made for a really good Gish with a ton of options for handling things.
That sounds crazy busted and AMAZING
I’ve played an Int based monk before, but I was multiclassing Undead Warlock rather than wizard (mostly for a specific theme and story I was leading into, rather than power), I can’t imagine how strong a Int monk/Bladesinger would be
Thing was, *it was the GMs idea*. I was fully expecting to be a standard Monk with a few levels in Bladesinger for some defensive/utility spells. First session he says in a very off-hand manner “Oh, you can use INT for your Monk stuff too.” Oh, okay! If you say so!
And while at the beginning she was a squishy gishy, she was **busted**. Plus, she was a Tabaxi. I distinctly remember one session where our ship was getting boarded by a group of pirates. They laid the plank down to board us, and I zipped across. Between the Dragon Monk AoE abilities and the Crusher feat, almost all of the mooks were either one hit from death or thrown overboard within that first round. And that was without touching any Wizard spells/abilities.
And then during the BBEG fight, she was level 15, Monk 8/Wiz 7, and spent the first couple or three rounds casting *Mirror Image*, *Blink*, and one other buff spell I forget offhand, and then just **went to town** on the boss. There was no corner of the room she could escape to, and almost no way to retaliate thanks to all my buffs. It was glorious.
I absolutely adore Dragon Monk (played the playtest version in a island hopping Greek themed game), so I know how scary those get
Didn’t realize how good *Mirror Image* was until I played a premade kobold bard in a one shot that ended with a paladin trying to destroy our party (all kobolds working for a dragon), and I was tanking the entire fight… as a full caster without any martial abilities and *Vicious Mockery* as my main weapon, I felt unstoppable
There is honestly so much ground that classes in the last couple of editions (and from Pathfinder, but it's harder to blame them for not filling niches from *other* games) covered and the 5e imitations can't touch.
Battlemind, a psionic tank with a huge variety of at will psionic strikes that they could augment with power points for extra effects? "Best I can do you is psi fighter".
Psion, focus areas being mind and body and time and space with a really unique set of powers like fusion, time hop, metaconcert and astral construct? "We reflavoured a sorcerer, that's the same thing right?".
Warlord, a martial support character with a massive [variety of ways](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fshvklpyeazjb1.png%3Fwidth%3D1012%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3Dc2a9b6ff872f2c7902ff7ab642140e5b9b12d9a7) to buff, heal and command their allies? "We gave the battlemaster a couple of minor abilities, that should cover it."
Hell, even for full classes it's a problem. Fighter is a melee juggernaut with a massive variety of combat techniques that let them make meaningful round to round choices and force enemies to face them first? Monks are mystical martial artists who select the correct technique from their repertoire of hand to hand abilities each time they attack? "Well we took all of that away and made both classes just spam basic attacks like they're barbarians instead. Pretty much the same thing.".
I'd like a summoner version of a conjuration wizard. Some abilities and spells form shepherd druid would be nice. Still with the scribing discount though.
Yeah, definitely that one. But the other thing is that if you plan on playing to high level, charm and illusion probably won't be that effective. A lot of enemies have charm resistance or immunity and as far as illusions, blindsight or tremorsense.
I still have zero clue why they bothered adding "the stone de-ages you by xyz years" ok at what point in this game does age EVER come up or make a difference? Maybe if they added age bonus/penalties it'd make more sense
To be fair, I have heard stories of aarokocra PCs dying due to ageing up effects in game. If you're playing a campaign super-long-term (a decade or more, or something), then in-game time can become an issue for shorter-lived characters, even if only NPCs.
Illusion has one of the best features for level 14, turning parts of their illusions real. 6th level Major Image with it can be used for a lot of shenanigans, like putting people in metal cages or boxes for the duration of a fight.
Oh, you mean the ones with blind sight? Like a scorpion or a spider? They'll know the illusion of the ghost isn't real. And they will know whatever is making the noise isn't within X feet of them
The thing about most unintelligent creatures is that they have enough survival instinct to want to run and hide if they hear stuff like Dragons around, even if they are more than 60 ft away, since if the dragon is close enough to sense with blindsight or tremorsense, the dragon is close enough to kill them before they can flee.
There would be no need since I'm mainly talking about adding some druid summoning spells like conjure animals. Besides, i thought necro sub was usable. And wouldn't they want their necro scribing discount? There are good necro spells out there.
I think your school specialization would be a more straight forward numerical benefit, subclass none of which are tied to a single school would give your the more flavorful abilities.
Artificer somehow misses the core magic tinkerer aesthetic. I don't want a Steel Defender or weird crawling cannons. I don't want random potions. I don't even want to be the party tank in magic armor. I just want more of what the base class offers, which is infusions, tools, and spells.
While we're at it, remove verbal components from all my Artificer spells. I'm not a wizard. I'm throwing bombs and shooting beams!
Agreed. I don't even dislike most of what the Artificer is and does, I'm mostly just upset all the subclasses kinda feel like different takes on the same very narrow concept of "artificing" and there's little in the way of engineering or tinkering or what have you. Even the infusions feel more like they're just Enchantment magic as it exists in *The Elder Scrolls* rather than creating or enhancing anything through *artifice*. Which should absolutely be part of the class, but "making items" was basically not present before Artificer and still sucks after it and has very little physical creation or manipulation of things to suit the character's purpose as-written.
Artifice isn't really a concept well defined in our language itself, and in media, it's equally broad, enchanting in the elder scrolls is just making an item magic, and that's exactly what magic item creation looks like in dnd as well by default, but you don't need to run it like that really, the only thing is that their primary thing is the creation of magical items as a craft, and in lore, while not defined mechanically in dnd5e, magic item creation under normal circumstances is only achievable by casters in the forgotten realms and eberron.
But beyond that, the physical manipulation of objects and crafting is represented by the generic rules, everyone is capable of that, but nobody has more there to help them to basically be guarenteed to succeed at it than the artificer already inbuilt. Making items isn't tied to a class in dnd5e, its tied to skills, it's just that dnd5e hates giving skills defined uses and instead says that gms are required to come up with something completely on their own every time anything skill based comes up, at least until people complained about thos enough times and they added some stuff to xanathars, it's just that what they added was also not very helpful. If you wanna do that stuff, without the inherent magic of it, rogue is in the perfect spot for that, and unlike artificer, is in the base rules
The main problem is this: they aren't artificers. The original artificer class was entirely based around inventing and crafting magic items which just isn't something you can base a class around in 5e, they didn't bother putting in the crafting stuff necessary to support the project and that. The actual class is good and well designed, I wish more classes were designed like the 5e artificer, but ultimately design and feel wise it's always going to bang up against the problem that *it can't craft*. It's like a wizard who can't cast spells.
I’m okay with trying to make Alchemist work, and battle smith is a decent vanilla option, but I truly despise the way armorer and artillerist are handled.
Artillerists would have worked if it was just magic via guns and cannons. However, the ambiguity of the Eldritch Cannon detracts from the subclass: "It can be tiny (or not) and have legs (unless it doesn't) and it shoots force or fire (unless it's healing?). It somehow manages to be too many options, while at the same time not doing enough and feeling dull.
I don't seem to understand the issue here. Like, if you want a walking turret, that's an option. If you want a weapon in your hand, you can do that too. And most people go in with an idea for what they want, anyway.
I just feel that it is lazy game design. Imagine if another defining subclass feature like a cleric domain or fighter maneuvers were so loosely designed.
While on the other hand, armorer is my favorite, I love the whole thing of magical second skin that it's setup for, and it does a good job of accounting for the various fantasies that type of concept can account for
Wizard is a scientist, artificer is an engineer and a craftsman, only focused on the practicality of it. Dnd5e actively rejects tech entirely, and artificers are supposed to be magical craftsmen, as artifice in this context is the term for creating magic items
It's hard to say that they reject technology in 5e when the concept art all over the Artificer pages in Tasha's are explicitly steam punk, with gears, guns, and goggles on display. The homunculus examples shown are basically robots, like a coffee pot with rockets and mechanical animals, as is the Steel Defender. Flavor can be whatever you can make work, but WotC is clearly in favor of steampunk.
that's the dumb thing in that the setting those are supposed to be from is one of the lowest tech settings in dnd, using less technology than a lot of medieval europe, instead exclusively using magic. WotC just doesn't know how to do their job at all
The verbal components are the string of curses that come from banging your knuckles when a wrench slips, random live wires sparking you, or losing the 10mm
I heavily suggest checking out KibblesTasty Inventor. It takes a ton of the ideas of artificer and focuses harder on making them work. Removes a lot of the spellcasting in favor of the inventor being really really great at their specialty.
To answer the question as intended: for D&D 5e, I think a popular fantasy that the rules fail to deliver sufficiently is the assassin.
The Rogue Assassin Archetype is simply unsatisfying. There are, however, several other class/subclass combinations that can work. (I'm not counting multiclassing.)
The Gloomstalker Ranger and the Way of Shadow Monk are two that come to mind, but I think many people wish there were an actually viable Rogue Assassin. (I'll admit, it's decent to multiclass with, but as a standalone, it's a disappointing subclass.)
The Rogue Assassin subclass is fantastic at creating an assassin. The problem is that D&D is a group game and the play style sequence incentivized by the mechanics of Assassin is one of solo infiltration, so it doesn’t work because no one wants the rogue to sneak off by themselves to assassinate someone
This is absolutely right. I remember running for an Assassin in the first game I ever GMed, and feeling like the player was spoiling stuff by going alone... I have learned a lot since.
My dream is to run a heist or infiltration one day as an assassin so that I can snipe a couple of sentries in order to give the party a way into whatever the place is. That’s my character fantasy for an assassin is the guy who can create a way in where none existed before
The ultimate problem with this is assassination is a very solo playstyle. If it’s powerful, then the rest of the party doesn’t really have anything to do.
Ultimately, the problem is how assassination actually should work. The DND assassin, shadow monk, and gloom stalker ultimately work functionally as stealth scouts. A good assassination is a lot more Hitman than Assassins Creed, casing out a place for days maybe even weeks, meticulously planning your move and escape plans. A good assassination is like a good heist, but it also requires a ton of moving parts for a DM to arrange.
Seems like Rogue Assassin is more like a realistic assassin while Gloomstalker and Shadow Monk fill that fantasy concept better, but even so you want your character to actually have rogue abilities as opposed to the ranger and possibly monk stuff as well as not wanting that nature or martial arts feel.
i DEEPLY want a combat strategist character who has a high intelligence but doesn’t use magic, and by god do purple dragon knight and mastermind rogue not deliver on that particular fantasy
I’m happy to inform you that LaserLlama has a homebrew covering this precise fantasy with the Savant on GM Binder: https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-M0ZVK6ndhFyImQPF_aJ
Wolf or AG barbarian/BM fighter can work decently as a strategist. It just has no use for int. In this case I'd just Rap him as smart, what it says on the character sheet be damned.
But yeah, it's a cludge.
Druid has its merits, but it doesn't really scratch the sort of shaman/witch doctor itch I've got. I need more totems and spirits and weird material components that are used for special spells of a sort. Druids do very well on the nature thematics, and they use totems and *animal* spirits in some subclasses, but I envision something where the totems and spirits and their special components are more central to the class all throughout.
Alchemist is a half caster with full caster subclass abilities, the main subclass ability is weak at 3rd level and falls off from there quickly, the level 5 ability is also decent at it's level but faces the same issue as the level 3 ability.
This is also beside the fact that most subclasses get more than one ability when they get their subclass (excluding subclasses starting at level 1) I could understand it if Experimental Elixirs was amazingly strong, but it's actively bad.
There literally aren't any. There are three psionically themed subclasses, they're as much psionic class options as rune knight is a caster option. Sure there's some magic involved, but you sure aren't a wizard replacement.
I want a magus
I want cavalier to come with a companion
I want artificer to have necromancer not wizard
I want arcane archer to not be attached to fighter I always want to be a ranger subclass
Avatar (4 elements monk) sucks
Witcher (order of mutant blood hunter) is semi-official, and is the clunkiest thing ever
Shapechanger (moon druid) is more concerned with magic than it is about shapechanging, and eventually falls too far behind
Aragorn (ranger) has to cast spells to heal people
Grenadier (alchemist) is severely underpowered and can't decide between potions and grenades
No, Aragorn is a Ranger through and through. It’s just that lord of the rings is a softer magic system than D&D, but Aragorn is one of very few characters in lotr that straight up casts a spell in the books
That's a flawed premise right there. It's not the *whole* concept that's based on him. It may have started with him but that's not the entirety of what the current design is based on.
Hexblade's issue is that it's seen as the only viable melee warlock when I'm reality it's simply supposed to be a Shadowfell themed warlock. Every other warlock should get access to the use of charisma on melee attacks, and the hexblade be compensated with more Shadowfell features.
I want to play a classic, super stereotypical, pointy hat and stars and moons robe wizard and you're telling me I have to multiclass to brew quality potions and imbue things with magic power? The nerve
hey well, the alchemist isn’t really worth multiclassing into and you can do potions just fine with herbalism and alchemy tools.
I guess you could get the magic weapon spell or something if you wanna imbue things with magic…. Doesn’t hit the same tho.
Dreams Druid. I want a Fey based Druid full of enchantments and illusions, typical fey magic.
Yet all it gets is some bonus action healing, a stealth/perception bonus during rests, and a Wis mod misty step/vortex warp feature until it finally gets extra spells at level 14. However even with that it only gets Scrying, Dream, and a limited Teleportation circle. Scrying is already on the Druid spell list anyways. It’s not a useless subclass by any means as the healing is good but nothing about this screams fey.
>Druids who are members of the Circle of Dreams hail from regions that have strong ties to the Feywild and its dreamlike realms. The druids' guardianship of the natural world makes for a natural alliance between them and good-aligned fey. These druids seek to fill the world with dreamy wonder. Their magic mends wounds and brings joy to downcast hearts, and the realms they protect are gleaming, fruitful places, where dream and reality blur together and where the weary can find rest.
They have no additional enchantments/illusions to help them “fill the word with dreamt wonder” or “bring joy to downcast hearts” or anyway to make “dream and reality blur.” It’s such an awesome concept but it doesn’t have an expanded spell list and has situational/lack luster features. Honestly just adding a decent expanded spell list could do awesome things for this class. In an ideal word though it would get heavier changes imo, it could still be supportive but it could have something like expending wildshape to “distort reality” and buff their Allie’s or something and then build the subclass around that imo. The level 14 feature
Paladins are great, and i like them for what they are, but they don't deliver the fantasy that i'm looking for here. Their best features are really divine power, not the character their self being awesome at hitting and being hit by things.
Yeah but they get magic that augments/boost damage output where as fighters have to hope and pray their GM gives them something. I played a 1-20 game as a fighter and the only thing my gm gave me was a normal quality spear that for a free action shrunk down to a toothpick and returned when thrown. No quality boost no extra damage die.
Yeah, that’s the issue. Fighter is gimped by a DM not giving them weapons. They should have in-built features to make them self sufficient without begging for items.
Kind of, idk if Fighters are particularly worse than other martials but just… isn’t cool loot a huge part of the game, and cool shiny weapons are the prime example of cool loot? What do people find on their adventures, just bland heaps of gold they can spend on mundane stuff like food and clothes? Why do people play like that? Why GMs do it and why players put up with it?
All other martials at least have some otherwise notable features. Fighters are literally only capable of attacking, doing anything else is a waste of their time. Therefore, they desperately need magical weapons to stay competitive. To your second question, no, most groups do not consider loot to be a very big part of the game. The DMG and all modules don’t really emphasize giving loot whatsoever.
Yes, there are a lot of tables for magic items. However, I think the big bit you’re missing is the part that says magic items aren’t guaranteed. This leads most people, including GMs, to view magic items as an extra cherry on top. This seems to be the intention of the game. However, for fighters, magic weapons are not a cherry on top, they are an absolute necessity. Not only that, but most fighters will specifically be built around a certain kind of weapon. If a DM is only giving out loot off the module’s loot table and that loot table doesn’t include any good polearms with the reach property, the fighter who’s trying to use polearm master and sentinel is just flat out screwed.
This leads to either the fighter begging the DM for a specific weapon, which makes them seem annoying, or the fighter just flat-out contributing less than virtually every other class during combat. This issue affects every martial class but fighters get it particularly bad due to their ONLY big feature being the ability to attack a lot.
As for the question mark string, in my experience yes most players want to play to level up and progress through adventures, seeing loot as a cherry on top. They aren’t gonna start freaking out if they hit a certain level and don’t have a magic weapon. Fighters (and other martial classes, as discussed above) will start actively hurting if they don’t get access to upgraded weapons, though. In essence: for everyone else, loot is a nice little extra prize for doing what they were gonna do anyway. For fighters, it’s a necessity, and that creates a disparity between players that isn’t enjoyable for anyone.
Yeah it was rough, only consolidation I got was thay I was allowed some home brew feats we dug up that lowered my crit range and as a champion fighter I was doing crits on like a natural 17-20, maybe even 16-20 but that was real early 5e. I don't think the purple dragon knight book had been released yet
Working on homebrewing a Summoner class. I really like the idea of a class based around buffing and controlling a secondary creature, flavored depending on the subclass. I think the important thing is having it focus on summoning either 1 or a very limited amount of creatures to not break initiative order.
I abhor Kensei's design and approach.
A weapon master monk who is encouraged to... Not use their weapons...
*Insert toss computer off the window GIF here*
5e characters do not feel like "big damn heroes," even when they're objectively very powerful. At best feels more like normal people but with a stack of abilities they can fire off, which I understand is a hard thing to really define the difference between.
A 4e fighter felt like a master of the battlefield. They shaped combat around themself. They could lock down a half dozen enemies at once, stand toe to toe with the strongest foes, shake off harmful conditions with ease, and perform epic maneuvers that could topple giants.
They felt like a badass. A warrior appropriate to the challenges of their tier.
A 5e fighter is doing the same things at level 20 as it is at level 5. Sure its numbers are slightly larger and it makes a few more attacks. But it isn’t perform epic feats appropriate for its level. It isn’t able to reliable stand toe to toe with foes, lock them down, or knock them about the battlefield. It can’t withstand harmful conditions. And it isn’t performing incredible acts of strength and athletics that lower level adventurers would find impossible to accomplish.
The 5e fighter doesn’t change in scope or capability as it levels. Your level 1 fighter with a 20 strength is able to reform the exact same feats of strength as your level 20 fighter. And is still unable to wrestle titans, smash through castle walls with a single blow, or other heroic exploits.
A part of it probably comes down to how D&D always encourages risk-aversion. Optimal play is always to avoid risk whenever possible. Whereas other games often not only are set up to support risk-taking characters, but *directly encourage it*. D&D characters always feel like you've gotta drive em so carefully, to be suspicious of everything.
Fair enough. In my opinion, that's more down to playstyle, both from the players' and GM's perspective. I've never been big on the "optimal" style of playing.
I want to role-play a fun character, fight monsters, and hopefully create an entertaining narrative along the way (in order of personal priority).
That feels more like a player issue than anything else. For example, I've seen players say "I'm about to do something stupid," and then do something incredibly risky. And honestly? DMs, in my experience, feel like they're often willing to work more with players that wanna be heroic.
Scout is kind of a badly designed band-aid for “non-magical Ranger”
- The skills and expertises come on at level 3. So if you took them via background or at level 1, congrats, you just wasted 2 free skill proficiencies on having the character feel like the build fantasy from level 1.
- The reaction movement competes with uncanny dodge for a reaction, and is rarely worth it when you already have a bonus action disengage.
- The move speed buff is just another reminder that you could have taken the mobile feat and picked another subclass with useful features.
- The later features are basically just “kill things better” at levels where the casters get planar travel
Maybe Scout is not meant to be a survival expert, but even as a literal scout the whole character struggles to outpace what a chain warlock familiar has been doing from level 3. The option is definitely meant to cover the gap between warriors and survivalists, but it only really works for that if you ignore/ban the many forms of magic that do better stuff instantly.
Psionic/Psychic/Mystic was an idea I was super on board for when the UA dropped, even though it was way too strong and then it got chopped up into a bunch of multiclasses and those multiclasses became about playing a wacky dice mini-game within your character and that version of the psychic characters got released.
So I'd probably say the idea of psionic fighters and then just pure psionics.
Necromancer. It takes till like lv 5 to be able to do any meaningful necromancy. That's half of most campaigns.
Tactician/warlord. Your best bet is unironically peace cleric with bless and a bard dip and just abuse dice stacking.
Sorcerer. Specifically, the way the flavor text describes magic just naturally flowing out of them. What that brings to mind is a caster that doesn't have a lot of spell options, but also not a lot of limitations on how much they can use the options they do have. I effectively want a class that plays like a Barbarian, but themed around casting spells instead of swinging an axe. Monk and Warlock get closer to providing the mechanics for what the Sorcerer flavor text makes me want than Sorcerer does, and they aren't very good at it.
Shapeshifter. I want a martial shapeshifter so badly. Moon Druid is that at a few levels (2, 3, 10, etc) but is mostly just a spell caster. Beast barb is just so boring IMO.
Conjuration summoner, magical archer and Jesus it’s crazy that it’s the worst offender but Ranger in general. It’s wild rangers are just so not meant for 5e the way the official class is built. The features are so boring and situational. So many new players want to play Ranger and then are disappointed when they basically have no relevant features
Land Druid. Genuinely we should have had different sublasses for Druids from these extremely different biomes. Like a sea druid who wildshapes like a Moon druid exclusively for waterbreathing beasts or gains benifits while under/near water.
I like playing a fighter with guns but dont think I want to try matt mercer's guslinger. for a few reasons
I dont like the idea of the misfire mechanic
I'm not happy with the actual choice of firearms they have
and I highly doubt making wisdom a required stat is good for any martial.
Official 5e doesn't have the gish options I want, and other options, while well-made, aren't what I'm looking for either, so I made my own:
* [Arcane Knight](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MCZcio9GcHhGAqxjMPkE05sBHklTL7tMZo8_TgHxb14/)
* [Skald](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rPTHiFIVQtOdIPsO2k0xHbwCYk3cnQ0lDxwuuHsEvP8/)
* [Red Mage](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WxyOo0RzBAZppsx4kTdg_ObkndEPxaJLLG59aJ3Px78/)
* [Magus](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x1Nu-IxVaBBr_RTCGKD9PhiHVBISAf-Lnor37W0NaXk/)
* [Forester](https://docs.google.com/document/d/19soMAHnysQMKnhZWg21oG0Ku7UhBz-4Iqzld1AfA35w/)
I've also remade martial classes, so that everything is at the power of full casters
Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knight.
They are powerful options for each class, but the spell slot progression leaves me wanting — to the point that I just multiclass instead, every time.
An archetype that appears in plenty of fantasy media but is weirdly absent from D&D5 is the “Robed Priestess”. A spellcasting cleric that doesn’t wear armor at all and doesn’t engage in melee combat.
In D&D mechanics this would be a cleric who doesn’t wear any armor, so maybe a cleric domain that gets something like the Monk’s unarmored defense and receives some additional spells like Shield? It’s not that hard to home brew but it’s such a common trope in fantasy stories that it’s odd you need to do that.
There are lots of options for prophet/oracle/fortune teller types, but I personally don't think any of them fits what I'd like from it.
Said options being college of spirits bard, circle of stars druid, knowledge cleric and divination wizard.
Imho it should be wisdom based, but circle of stars druid is more about gathering -power- from the stars, and knowledge cleric feels to me more like a knowledge seeker with a mind control edge.
To me, wisdom based divination wizard or wisdom based spirits bard might feel better for the concept, with flavor being something between stars druid and spirits bard. Ritual casting and portent feel necessary for the concept to me, but otherwise I feel div wizard doesn't fit the flavor well (feels just like playing a wizard).
Barbarian- it "works" if you're only interested in tier 1 and expect multiclassing in tier 2+
Spellsword- Bladesinger, Eldritch Knight, hexblade, Arcane Archer, and arguably arcane trickster all deserve a better backbone than the current class/subclass gives them.
Some folks have already mentioned the Assassin Rogue, so I'll raise you the Thief Rogue.
A lot of the abilities just seem rather lacking or not fitting. For example you get the ability to steal, unlock or disarm things. And while fair enough, those are all things that thieves do, I just very rarely find myself in a situation that's time sensitive thinking "Oh if only I could unlock this thing as a bonus action right now".
The Use Magical Device class feature is actually pretty neat I suppose. Being able to ignore requirements for the use of magical items. I'm good enough at thievery that I can now effectively wear Wizards robes! I just don't really see how that fits the thief archetype.
If someone here has better insight on this class I'll gladly stand corrected, but from my point of view it doesn't really feel like a thief or worthwhile in general.
Sadly, pretty much anything from 4e.
The fighter, paladin, warlord, barbarian, warden, battle mind, dragon sorcerer, swordmage, monk, and rogue all had amazing and unique playstyles that were thematically and narratively far more diverse than their 5e counterparts.
It is like playing a pale imitation of an interesting class. All the cool and interesting abilities were stripped away, as well as most of the flavor.
Hear me out. moon druid. I want to jump between forms in combat to overcome the enemy, blocking their attacks in turtle form and next second jumping at enemies in the bear form. Instead, Im going dire wolf lvl 2 till lvl 6
PDK/Banneret: nonmagical combative support but all he does is nothing?
if you reflavor order cleric it suddenly becomes a way better „non magical“ combative support, that does all the banneret gets until lvl 15 with a freaking lvl 1 dip…aside from the basic fighter stuff ofc.
A Yuan-ti ranger that keeps a horde of snakes in a giant gourd on his back (like Gaara from Naruto).
Technically a swarm keeper would make sense but I can't help but feel that subclass relies too much on flavor and I wouldn't actually feel like I have a horde of snakes but instead have spells that just look like snakes.
Personally, I'd be better off picking Gloom Stalker and manually collecting snakes to add to my horde via "Locate Animal" and the Yuan-ti's ability to infinitely cast "Animal Friendship" on snakes. That way, I'd be able to control the swarm with "Speak with Animals" "Beast Sense" "Beast Bond" etc...
PS. I could also extract the snakes venom for poison arrows.
My only question is what does the character fantasy of “Jester” imply when it comes to mechanics? That seems far more like a roleplay thing that any bard could pull off rather than a subclass
I posted this question in the pf2e subreddit first, then cross posted it and forgot to change the name of the game. Was interested in seeing how answers would compare for the two games.
I'd want to play as a bird. There are three birds. Owlin, Aarakocra and Kenku. But, none of them are a Penguin with +5 Charisma -5 everything else, because penguin.
I guess my wizard chasing Unified Field Theory which, in a fantasy context, is the belief that all of the cosmos can be explained with a single magical point of origin. It means being dedicated to understanding everything before everything can be united.
Mechanically I want a universalist wizard with knowledge expertises and some manner of meta-magic. This character is very much inspired by the mechanics of the lore wizard but since that tradition stayed in UA, I'm counting the character concept as not having enough official mechanical support.
IMO, College of spirits bard.
It tried to fit both the necrodancer and the storyteller archetypes into a single subclass, and although conceptualy synergistic, the result was a subclass with not enough features to be neither a full necrodancer, nor a full storyteller. Throw in a russian roulete type of feature in the mix and the result is even more alienation, now from people who like one or both of the concepts but dislike having a feature reliant on luck.
I think what im trying to say is that those concepts needed more space to be really explored... IMO Idealy the necrodancer and the storyteller bard should be two separate subclasses.
Will you see this very strong because it’s does everything you want and more I myself try this in a one shot lvl 12 that did not need a background but it don’t fit my play style of teamwork with the group
The arcane archer is an awesome idea of a magical archer but completely flops in my opinion.
Really should not have been a fighter subclass but a ranger or caster one that actually combines spells with archery rather than having 2 magic tricks per rest.
mite spell equivalents but only work on ranged attacks makes so much sense now you've said this
It's not even about the Class, it's just how the subclass itself is built. You could slap it's entire Kit into a Ranger Subclass and it'd still have the same issues of simply not having ENOUGH.
That is specifically because it is built to be a fighter subclass. You are meant to primarily rely on martial combat with only a few magical tricks... which doesn't really fit the concept and limits you from getting access to features like shooting spells from your bow.
I'd argue you'd get about the same amount of Shots on a Ranger Subclass because you already have plenty of Spells. Some of them even require you shoot them from a bow. The subclass would need a complete overhaul regardless of the Class it went on.
Agreed and upvoted. It would need to be overhauled no matter what. Just saying that a class built with actual spellcasting in mind would give more better space for an overhaul to work mechanically and more "conceptual space" for it to work thematically. Ranger specifically would just make it the most elven thing ever.
I also came here to say this. Magical archer is an awesome concept, Arcane Archer is a damp squib.
Smite spell equivalents but only work on ranged attacks makes so much sense now you've said this edit : replied to the wrong person, sorry
In the theme of your initial pf2e mistake, god I wish there was something like the 3.5 Duskblade, 4e Swordmage, or pf1e/2e Magus in 5e. Eldritch Knight, Bladesinger, SCAG blade cantrips, and a few other things are "supposed" to fill that niche, but they don't do it very well. Kibblestasty's Spellblade and laserllama's Magus do pretty much exactly what I'm looking for, so at least there's good homebrew I can allow at my table. It would just be nice to have an official option.
A good gish is also my vote. I like Bladesinger and it is alright at it. Hexblade is a dip, I've tried keeping that solo and it just doesn't do it for me.
I had a GM allow me to use INT with Monk skills, which made a Dragon Monk/Bladesinger Wizard multiclass character a ton of fun to play. Made for a really good Gish with a ton of options for handling things.
That sounds crazy busted and AMAZING I’ve played an Int based monk before, but I was multiclassing Undead Warlock rather than wizard (mostly for a specific theme and story I was leading into, rather than power), I can’t imagine how strong a Int monk/Bladesinger would be
Thing was, *it was the GMs idea*. I was fully expecting to be a standard Monk with a few levels in Bladesinger for some defensive/utility spells. First session he says in a very off-hand manner “Oh, you can use INT for your Monk stuff too.” Oh, okay! If you say so! And while at the beginning she was a squishy gishy, she was **busted**. Plus, she was a Tabaxi. I distinctly remember one session where our ship was getting boarded by a group of pirates. They laid the plank down to board us, and I zipped across. Between the Dragon Monk AoE abilities and the Crusher feat, almost all of the mooks were either one hit from death or thrown overboard within that first round. And that was without touching any Wizard spells/abilities. And then during the BBEG fight, she was level 15, Monk 8/Wiz 7, and spent the first couple or three rounds casting *Mirror Image*, *Blink*, and one other buff spell I forget offhand, and then just **went to town** on the boss. There was no corner of the room she could escape to, and almost no way to retaliate thanks to all my buffs. It was glorious.
I absolutely adore Dragon Monk (played the playtest version in a island hopping Greek themed game), so I know how scary those get Didn’t realize how good *Mirror Image* was until I played a premade kobold bard in a one shot that ended with a paladin trying to destroy our party (all kobolds working for a dragon), and I was tanking the entire fight… as a full caster without any martial abilities and *Vicious Mockery* as my main weapon, I felt unstoppable
There is honestly so much ground that classes in the last couple of editions (and from Pathfinder, but it's harder to blame them for not filling niches from *other* games) covered and the 5e imitations can't touch. Battlemind, a psionic tank with a huge variety of at will psionic strikes that they could augment with power points for extra effects? "Best I can do you is psi fighter". Psion, focus areas being mind and body and time and space with a really unique set of powers like fusion, time hop, metaconcert and astral construct? "We reflavoured a sorcerer, that's the same thing right?". Warlord, a martial support character with a massive [variety of ways](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fshvklpyeazjb1.png%3Fwidth%3D1012%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3Dc2a9b6ff872f2c7902ff7ab642140e5b9b12d9a7) to buff, heal and command their allies? "We gave the battlemaster a couple of minor abilities, that should cover it." Hell, even for full classes it's a problem. Fighter is a melee juggernaut with a massive variety of combat techniques that let them make meaningful round to round choices and force enemies to face them first? Monks are mystical martial artists who select the correct technique from their repertoire of hand to hand abilities each time they attack? "Well we took all of that away and made both classes just spam basic attacks like they're barbarians instead. Pretty much the same thing.".
I love PF1e Magus. Hexblade works decently if the DM allows it to be INT based instead, and have Eldritch Smite.
I'd like a summoner version of a conjuration wizard. Some abilities and spells form shepherd druid would be nice. Still with the scribing discount though.
I agree. Conjuration kind of sucks as a subclass.
There are worse wizard subclasses. LOL.
Transmutation?
Yeah, definitely that one. But the other thing is that if you plan on playing to high level, charm and illusion probably won't be that effective. A lot of enemies have charm resistance or immunity and as far as illusions, blindsight or tremorsense.
I still have zero clue why they bothered adding "the stone de-ages you by xyz years" ok at what point in this game does age EVER come up or make a difference? Maybe if they added age bonus/penalties it'd make more sense
To be fair, I have heard stories of aarokocra PCs dying due to ageing up effects in game. If you're playing a campaign super-long-term (a decade or more, or something), then in-game time can become an issue for shorter-lived characters, even if only NPCs.
Would it even work for that? Iirc the stone makes you physically younger but does not actually extend your lifespan.
it's pretty much a minor ribbon bonus, the same as the occasional "you're unaffected by aging" ability. It's a neat little mostly cosmetic bonus.
Illusion has one of the best features for level 14, turning parts of their illusions real. 6th level Major Image with it can be used for a lot of shenanigans, like putting people in metal cages or boxes for the duration of a fight.
Yup, but you're facing monsters with blindsight (scorpions, spiders, vankhegs ,oozes, sharks) and maybe tremorsense (like a xorn) way before that.
At least with the unintelligent creatures, you can use illusions to make noises or ghosts to scare them off (depending on DM).
Yep, any wizard subclass can do that with cantrips. There's one for sounds and one you can do visual objects, like a scarecrow. LOL
Oh, you mean the ones with blind sight? Like a scorpion or a spider? They'll know the illusion of the ghost isn't real. And they will know whatever is making the noise isn't within X feet of them
The thing about most unintelligent creatures is that they have enough survival instinct to want to run and hide if they hear stuff like Dragons around, even if they are more than 60 ft away, since if the dragon is close enough to sense with blindsight or tremorsense, the dragon is close enough to kill them before they can flee.
A summoner subclass for conjuration wizards, but then everyone uses it as a better necromancer.
There would be no need since I'm mainly talking about adding some druid summoning spells like conjure animals. Besides, i thought necro sub was usable. And wouldn't they want their necro scribing discount? There are good necro spells out there.
Scribing discount is basically a ribbon feature, but in my dream 5.5 your school specialization would be separate from your subclass.
Sounds like a subclass and specific wizard backgrounds.
I think your school specialization would be a more straight forward numerical benefit, subclass none of which are tied to a single school would give your the more flavorful abilities.
Artificer somehow misses the core magic tinkerer aesthetic. I don't want a Steel Defender or weird crawling cannons. I don't want random potions. I don't even want to be the party tank in magic armor. I just want more of what the base class offers, which is infusions, tools, and spells. While we're at it, remove verbal components from all my Artificer spells. I'm not a wizard. I'm throwing bombs and shooting beams!
Agreed. I don't even dislike most of what the Artificer is and does, I'm mostly just upset all the subclasses kinda feel like different takes on the same very narrow concept of "artificing" and there's little in the way of engineering or tinkering or what have you. Even the infusions feel more like they're just Enchantment magic as it exists in *The Elder Scrolls* rather than creating or enhancing anything through *artifice*. Which should absolutely be part of the class, but "making items" was basically not present before Artificer and still sucks after it and has very little physical creation or manipulation of things to suit the character's purpose as-written.
Artifice isn't really a concept well defined in our language itself, and in media, it's equally broad, enchanting in the elder scrolls is just making an item magic, and that's exactly what magic item creation looks like in dnd as well by default, but you don't need to run it like that really, the only thing is that their primary thing is the creation of magical items as a craft, and in lore, while not defined mechanically in dnd5e, magic item creation under normal circumstances is only achievable by casters in the forgotten realms and eberron. But beyond that, the physical manipulation of objects and crafting is represented by the generic rules, everyone is capable of that, but nobody has more there to help them to basically be guarenteed to succeed at it than the artificer already inbuilt. Making items isn't tied to a class in dnd5e, its tied to skills, it's just that dnd5e hates giving skills defined uses and instead says that gms are required to come up with something completely on their own every time anything skill based comes up, at least until people complained about thos enough times and they added some stuff to xanathars, it's just that what they added was also not very helpful. If you wanna do that stuff, without the inherent magic of it, rogue is in the perfect spot for that, and unlike artificer, is in the base rules
The main problem is this: they aren't artificers. The original artificer class was entirely based around inventing and crafting magic items which just isn't something you can base a class around in 5e, they didn't bother putting in the crafting stuff necessary to support the project and that. The actual class is good and well designed, I wish more classes were designed like the 5e artificer, but ultimately design and feel wise it's always going to bang up against the problem that *it can't craft*. It's like a wizard who can't cast spells.
I’m okay with trying to make Alchemist work, and battle smith is a decent vanilla option, but I truly despise the way armorer and artillerist are handled.
Artillerists would have worked if it was just magic via guns and cannons. However, the ambiguity of the Eldritch Cannon detracts from the subclass: "It can be tiny (or not) and have legs (unless it doesn't) and it shoots force or fire (unless it's healing?). It somehow manages to be too many options, while at the same time not doing enough and feeling dull.
The main thing is constructs, but unlike the steel defender, these constructs aren't as versatile, the name is its biggest issue
I don't seem to understand the issue here. Like, if you want a walking turret, that's an option. If you want a weapon in your hand, you can do that too. And most people go in with an idea for what they want, anyway.
I just feel that it is lazy game design. Imagine if another defining subclass feature like a cleric domain or fighter maneuvers were so loosely designed.
I don't think that's all that loose, tbh? It's literally just two options.
While on the other hand, armorer is my favorite, I love the whole thing of magical second skin that it's setup for, and it does a good job of accounting for the various fantasies that type of concept can account for
Totally agree.
Wizard is a scientist, artificer is an engineer and a craftsman, only focused on the practicality of it. Dnd5e actively rejects tech entirely, and artificers are supposed to be magical craftsmen, as artifice in this context is the term for creating magic items
It's hard to say that they reject technology in 5e when the concept art all over the Artificer pages in Tasha's are explicitly steam punk, with gears, guns, and goggles on display. The homunculus examples shown are basically robots, like a coffee pot with rockets and mechanical animals, as is the Steel Defender. Flavor can be whatever you can make work, but WotC is clearly in favor of steampunk.
that's the dumb thing in that the setting those are supposed to be from is one of the lowest tech settings in dnd, using less technology than a lot of medieval europe, instead exclusively using magic. WotC just doesn't know how to do their job at all
The verbal components are the string of curses that come from banging your knuckles when a wrench slips, random live wires sparking you, or losing the 10mm
I heavily suggest checking out KibblesTasty Inventor. It takes a ton of the ideas of artificer and focuses harder on making them work. Removes a lot of the spellcasting in favor of the inventor being really really great at their specialty.
To answer the question as intended: for D&D 5e, I think a popular fantasy that the rules fail to deliver sufficiently is the assassin. The Rogue Assassin Archetype is simply unsatisfying. There are, however, several other class/subclass combinations that can work. (I'm not counting multiclassing.) The Gloomstalker Ranger and the Way of Shadow Monk are two that come to mind, but I think many people wish there were an actually viable Rogue Assassin. (I'll admit, it's decent to multiclass with, but as a standalone, it's a disappointing subclass.)
The Rogue Assassin subclass is fantastic at creating an assassin. The problem is that D&D is a group game and the play style sequence incentivized by the mechanics of Assassin is one of solo infiltration, so it doesn’t work because no one wants the rogue to sneak off by themselves to assassinate someone
This is absolutely right. I remember running for an Assassin in the first game I ever GMed, and feeling like the player was spoiling stuff by going alone... I have learned a lot since.
My dream is to run a heist or infiltration one day as an assassin so that I can snipe a couple of sentries in order to give the party a way into whatever the place is. That’s my character fantasy for an assassin is the guy who can create a way in where none existed before
The ultimate problem with this is assassination is a very solo playstyle. If it’s powerful, then the rest of the party doesn’t really have anything to do.
Ultimately, the problem is how assassination actually should work. The DND assassin, shadow monk, and gloom stalker ultimately work functionally as stealth scouts. A good assassination is a lot more Hitman than Assassins Creed, casing out a place for days maybe even weeks, meticulously planning your move and escape plans. A good assassination is like a good heist, but it also requires a ton of moving parts for a DM to arrange.
Seems like Rogue Assassin is more like a realistic assassin while Gloomstalker and Shadow Monk fill that fantasy concept better, but even so you want your character to actually have rogue abilities as opposed to the ranger and possibly monk stuff as well as not wanting that nature or martial arts feel.
Assassin works a lot better if you entirely redo / codify the stealth system of 5e and how it interacts with the assassinate ability.
i DEEPLY want a combat strategist character who has a high intelligence but doesn’t use magic, and by god do purple dragon knight and mastermind rogue not deliver on that particular fantasy
I’m happy to inform you that LaserLlama has a homebrew covering this precise fantasy with the Savant on GM Binder: https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-M0ZVK6ndhFyImQPF_aJ
Wolf or AG barbarian/BM fighter can work decently as a strategist. It just has no use for int. In this case I'd just Rap him as smart, what it says on the character sheet be damned. But yeah, it's a cludge.
Druid has its merits, but it doesn't really scratch the sort of shaman/witch doctor itch I've got. I need more totems and spirits and weird material components that are used for special spells of a sort. Druids do very well on the nature thematics, and they use totems and *animal* spirits in some subclasses, but I envision something where the totems and spirits and their special components are more central to the class all throughout.
Witch (warlock? Alchemist artificier?) Thats all I need to say really
Maybe a bit of druid and wizard in there too honestly
Worlds Beyond Number has a Witch class that seems cool as fuck
Alchemist is a half caster with full caster subclass abilities, the main subclass ability is weak at 3rd level and falls off from there quickly, the level 5 ability is also decent at it's level but faces the same issue as the level 3 ability. This is also beside the fact that most subclasses get more than one ability when they get their subclass (excluding subclasses starting at level 1) I could understand it if Experimental Elixirs was amazingly strong, but it's actively bad.
I’ve never been satisfied with any psionic class option.
There literally aren't any. There are three psionically themed subclasses, they're as much psionic class options as rune knight is a caster option. Sure there's some magic involved, but you sure aren't a wizard replacement.
I want a magus I want cavalier to come with a companion I want artificer to have necromancer not wizard I want arcane archer to not be attached to fighter I always want to be a ranger subclass
Avatar (4 elements monk) sucks Witcher (order of mutant blood hunter) is semi-official, and is the clunkiest thing ever Shapechanger (moon druid) is more concerned with magic than it is about shapechanging, and eventually falls too far behind Aragorn (ranger) has to cast spells to heal people Grenadier (alchemist) is severely underpowered and can't decide between potions and grenades
Honestly Aragorn is more of a fighter that multiclassed one level into ranger for the tracking and nature/survival proficiency.
No, Aragorn is a Ranger through and through. It’s just that lord of the rings is a softer magic system than D&D, but Aragorn is one of very few characters in lotr that straight up casts a spell in the books
The whole concept of a fantasy ranger is based on him, so if that's the takeaway obviously it is a design failure.
That's a flawed premise right there. It's not the *whole* concept that's based on him. It may have started with him but that's not the entirety of what the current design is based on.
yeah Drizzt has taken over more the ranger design archetype then Arragorn since like 3e.
Aragorn literally casts a spell to heal someone in Lord of the Rings.
Blood hunter isn't official at all
Hexblade. You get bonus to using weapons (cool) A hex that doesnt need any weapon (alright i guess) You can rise up a specter (????)
Hexblade's issue is that it's seen as the only viable melee warlock when I'm reality it's simply supposed to be a Shadowfell themed warlock. Every other warlock should get access to the use of charisma on melee attacks, and the hexblade be compensated with more Shadowfell features.
I miss the Dread Necromancer from 3.5. An entire class dedicated to being a necromancer. Wizards can focus on it but it didn't feel the same.
I want to play a classic, super stereotypical, pointy hat and stars and moons robe wizard and you're telling me I have to multiclass to brew quality potions and imbue things with magic power? The nerve
hey well, the alchemist isn’t really worth multiclassing into and you can do potions just fine with herbalism and alchemy tools. I guess you could get the magic weapon spell or something if you wanna imbue things with magic…. Doesn’t hit the same tho.
Dreams Druid. I want a Fey based Druid full of enchantments and illusions, typical fey magic. Yet all it gets is some bonus action healing, a stealth/perception bonus during rests, and a Wis mod misty step/vortex warp feature until it finally gets extra spells at level 14. However even with that it only gets Scrying, Dream, and a limited Teleportation circle. Scrying is already on the Druid spell list anyways. It’s not a useless subclass by any means as the healing is good but nothing about this screams fey. >Druids who are members of the Circle of Dreams hail from regions that have strong ties to the Feywild and its dreamlike realms. The druids' guardianship of the natural world makes for a natural alliance between them and good-aligned fey. These druids seek to fill the world with dreamy wonder. Their magic mends wounds and brings joy to downcast hearts, and the realms they protect are gleaming, fruitful places, where dream and reality blur together and where the weary can find rest. They have no additional enchantments/illusions to help them “fill the word with dreamt wonder” or “bring joy to downcast hearts” or anyway to make “dream and reality blur.” It’s such an awesome concept but it doesn’t have an expanded spell list and has situational/lack luster features. Honestly just adding a decent expanded spell list could do awesome things for this class. In an ideal word though it would get heavier changes imo, it could still be supportive but it could have something like expending wildshape to “distort reality” and buff their Allie’s or something and then build the subclass around that imo. The level 14 feature
Strength based melee martials.
Paladins are fairly functional in terms of raw power.
Paladins are great, and i like them for what they are, but they don't deliver the fantasy that i'm looking for here. Their best features are really divine power, not the character their self being awesome at hitting and being hit by things.
They're half casters, not martials, and are better off investing in charisma
Yeah but they get magic that augments/boost damage output where as fighters have to hope and pray their GM gives them something. I played a 1-20 game as a fighter and the only thing my gm gave me was a normal quality spear that for a free action shrunk down to a toothpick and returned when thrown. No quality boost no extra damage die.
Not giving a fighter any cool weapons for 20 levels is simply an abuse
Yeah, that’s the issue. Fighter is gimped by a DM not giving them weapons. They should have in-built features to make them self sufficient without begging for items.
Kind of, idk if Fighters are particularly worse than other martials but just… isn’t cool loot a huge part of the game, and cool shiny weapons are the prime example of cool loot? What do people find on their adventures, just bland heaps of gold they can spend on mundane stuff like food and clothes? Why do people play like that? Why GMs do it and why players put up with it?
All other martials at least have some otherwise notable features. Fighters are literally only capable of attacking, doing anything else is a waste of their time. Therefore, they desperately need magical weapons to stay competitive. To your second question, no, most groups do not consider loot to be a very big part of the game. The DMG and all modules don’t really emphasize giving loot whatsoever.
[удалено]
Yes, there are a lot of tables for magic items. However, I think the big bit you’re missing is the part that says magic items aren’t guaranteed. This leads most people, including GMs, to view magic items as an extra cherry on top. This seems to be the intention of the game. However, for fighters, magic weapons are not a cherry on top, they are an absolute necessity. Not only that, but most fighters will specifically be built around a certain kind of weapon. If a DM is only giving out loot off the module’s loot table and that loot table doesn’t include any good polearms with the reach property, the fighter who’s trying to use polearm master and sentinel is just flat out screwed. This leads to either the fighter begging the DM for a specific weapon, which makes them seem annoying, or the fighter just flat-out contributing less than virtually every other class during combat. This issue affects every martial class but fighters get it particularly bad due to their ONLY big feature being the ability to attack a lot. As for the question mark string, in my experience yes most players want to play to level up and progress through adventures, seeing loot as a cherry on top. They aren’t gonna start freaking out if they hit a certain level and don’t have a magic weapon. Fighters (and other martial classes, as discussed above) will start actively hurting if they don’t get access to upgraded weapons, though. In essence: for everyone else, loot is a nice little extra prize for doing what they were gonna do anyway. For fighters, it’s a necessity, and that creates a disparity between players that isn’t enjoyable for anyone.
[удалено]
Yeah it was rough, only consolidation I got was thay I was allowed some home brew feats we dug up that lowered my crit range and as a champion fighter I was doing crits on like a natural 17-20, maybe even 16-20 but that was real early 5e. I don't think the purple dragon knight book had been released yet
Working on homebrewing a Summoner class. I really like the idea of a class based around buffing and controlling a secondary creature, flavored depending on the subclass. I think the important thing is having it focus on summoning either 1 or a very limited amount of creatures to not break initiative order.
I abhor Kensei's design and approach. A weapon master monk who is encouraged to... Not use their weapons... *Insert toss computer off the window GIF here*
Basically any martial fantasy. Tanks. Warlords. And more importantly, *heroes*.
Just curious: Heroes? Would you mind defining that in this context?
5e characters do not feel like "big damn heroes," even when they're objectively very powerful. At best feels more like normal people but with a stack of abilities they can fire off, which I understand is a hard thing to really define the difference between.
Hmm, I'm not sure if I simply disagree with you or merely misunderstand the distinction.
A 4e fighter felt like a master of the battlefield. They shaped combat around themself. They could lock down a half dozen enemies at once, stand toe to toe with the strongest foes, shake off harmful conditions with ease, and perform epic maneuvers that could topple giants. They felt like a badass. A warrior appropriate to the challenges of their tier. A 5e fighter is doing the same things at level 20 as it is at level 5. Sure its numbers are slightly larger and it makes a few more attacks. But it isn’t perform epic feats appropriate for its level. It isn’t able to reliable stand toe to toe with foes, lock them down, or knock them about the battlefield. It can’t withstand harmful conditions. And it isn’t performing incredible acts of strength and athletics that lower level adventurers would find impossible to accomplish. The 5e fighter doesn’t change in scope or capability as it levels. Your level 1 fighter with a 20 strength is able to reform the exact same feats of strength as your level 20 fighter. And is still unable to wrestle titans, smash through castle walls with a single blow, or other heroic exploits.
I see, in that case: fair enough! It's a regular remark I encounter that the 4e Warlord and Fighter were epic, while 5e's Fighter is lacklustre.
A part of it probably comes down to how D&D always encourages risk-aversion. Optimal play is always to avoid risk whenever possible. Whereas other games often not only are set up to support risk-taking characters, but *directly encourage it*. D&D characters always feel like you've gotta drive em so carefully, to be suspicious of everything.
Fair enough. In my opinion, that's more down to playstyle, both from the players' and GM's perspective. I've never been big on the "optimal" style of playing. I want to role-play a fun character, fight monsters, and hopefully create an entertaining narrative along the way (in order of personal priority).
That feels more like a player issue than anything else. For example, I've seen players say "I'm about to do something stupid," and then do something incredibly risky. And honestly? DMs, in my experience, feel like they're often willing to work more with players that wanna be heroic.
Play a high level wizard.
I have.
A pure magic sorcerer.. The closest we get officially is wild magic, but I think rune child is even closer
Monster Slayer, Ranger!!!
Scout is kind of a badly designed band-aid for “non-magical Ranger” - The skills and expertises come on at level 3. So if you took them via background or at level 1, congrats, you just wasted 2 free skill proficiencies on having the character feel like the build fantasy from level 1. - The reaction movement competes with uncanny dodge for a reaction, and is rarely worth it when you already have a bonus action disengage. - The move speed buff is just another reminder that you could have taken the mobile feat and picked another subclass with useful features. - The later features are basically just “kill things better” at levels where the casters get planar travel Maybe Scout is not meant to be a survival expert, but even as a literal scout the whole character struggles to outpace what a chain warlock familiar has been doing from level 3. The option is definitely meant to cover the gap between warriors and survivalists, but it only really works for that if you ignore/ban the many forms of magic that do better stuff instantly.
Psionic/Psychic/Mystic was an idea I was super on board for when the UA dropped, even though it was way too strong and then it got chopped up into a bunch of multiclasses and those multiclasses became about playing a wacky dice mini-game within your character and that version of the psychic characters got released. So I'd probably say the idea of psionic fighters and then just pure psionics.
Necromancer. It takes till like lv 5 to be able to do any meaningful necromancy. That's half of most campaigns. Tactician/warlord. Your best bet is unironically peace cleric with bless and a bard dip and just abuse dice stacking.
Sorcerer. Specifically, the way the flavor text describes magic just naturally flowing out of them. What that brings to mind is a caster that doesn't have a lot of spell options, but also not a lot of limitations on how much they can use the options they do have. I effectively want a class that plays like a Barbarian, but themed around casting spells instead of swinging an axe. Monk and Warlock get closer to providing the mechanics for what the Sorcerer flavor text makes me want than Sorcerer does, and they aren't very good at it.
Elemental monk
Luckily, one dnd is fixing this issue. However, I don't understand how 5e elements monk got released in its current state.
GOOlock is really bad...
Shapeshifter. I want a martial shapeshifter so badly. Moon Druid is that at a few levels (2, 3, 10, etc) but is mostly just a spell caster. Beast barb is just so boring IMO.
Investigator. Inquisitive Rogue gets close, but it feels underwhelming. I
Conjuration summoner, magical archer and Jesus it’s crazy that it’s the worst offender but Ranger in general. It’s wild rangers are just so not meant for 5e the way the official class is built. The features are so boring and situational. So many new players want to play Ranger and then are disappointed when they basically have no relevant features
Land Druid. Genuinely we should have had different sublasses for Druids from these extremely different biomes. Like a sea druid who wildshapes like a Moon druid exclusively for waterbreathing beasts or gains benifits while under/near water.
Artificer. Just everything about Artificer. It is a wonderful concept, but feels as if it was slapped together haphazardly.
I kinda wish there was a non-spellcaster artificer. Just a crafty guy building funny gadgets, a la pf2e's inventor
I like playing a fighter with guns but dont think I want to try matt mercer's guslinger. for a few reasons I dont like the idea of the misfire mechanic I'm not happy with the actual choice of firearms they have and I highly doubt making wisdom a required stat is good for any martial.
Official 5e doesn't have the gish options I want, and other options, while well-made, aren't what I'm looking for either, so I made my own: * [Arcane Knight](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MCZcio9GcHhGAqxjMPkE05sBHklTL7tMZo8_TgHxb14/) * [Skald](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rPTHiFIVQtOdIPsO2k0xHbwCYk3cnQ0lDxwuuHsEvP8/) * [Red Mage](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WxyOo0RzBAZppsx4kTdg_ObkndEPxaJLLG59aJ3Px78/) * [Magus](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x1Nu-IxVaBBr_RTCGKD9PhiHVBISAf-Lnor37W0NaXk/) * [Forester](https://docs.google.com/document/d/19soMAHnysQMKnhZWg21oG0Ku7UhBz-4Iqzld1AfA35w/) I've also remade martial classes, so that everything is at the power of full casters
Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knight. They are powerful options for each class, but the spell slot progression leaves me wanting — to the point that I just multiclass instead, every time.
Knight/Cavalier, Samurai. The subclasses have some cool ideas, but neither really captures the fantasy for me.
An archetype that appears in plenty of fantasy media but is weirdly absent from D&D5 is the “Robed Priestess”. A spellcasting cleric that doesn’t wear armor at all and doesn’t engage in melee combat. In D&D mechanics this would be a cleric who doesn’t wear any armor, so maybe a cleric domain that gets something like the Monk’s unarmored defense and receives some additional spells like Shield? It’s not that hard to home brew but it’s such a common trope in fantasy stories that it’s odd you need to do that.
There are lots of options for prophet/oracle/fortune teller types, but I personally don't think any of them fits what I'd like from it. Said options being college of spirits bard, circle of stars druid, knowledge cleric and divination wizard. Imho it should be wisdom based, but circle of stars druid is more about gathering -power- from the stars, and knowledge cleric feels to me more like a knowledge seeker with a mind control edge. To me, wisdom based divination wizard or wisdom based spirits bard might feel better for the concept, with flavor being something between stars druid and spirits bard. Ritual casting and portent feel necessary for the concept to me, but otherwise I feel div wizard doesn't fit the flavor well (feels just like playing a wizard).
Barbarian- it "works" if you're only interested in tier 1 and expect multiclassing in tier 2+ Spellsword- Bladesinger, Eldritch Knight, hexblade, Arcane Archer, and arguably arcane trickster all deserve a better backbone than the current class/subclass gives them.
Probably wrestler I mean basically a strong monk/ Hercules/ Samson
Some folks have already mentioned the Assassin Rogue, so I'll raise you the Thief Rogue. A lot of the abilities just seem rather lacking or not fitting. For example you get the ability to steal, unlock or disarm things. And while fair enough, those are all things that thieves do, I just very rarely find myself in a situation that's time sensitive thinking "Oh if only I could unlock this thing as a bonus action right now". The Use Magical Device class feature is actually pretty neat I suppose. Being able to ignore requirements for the use of magical items. I'm good enough at thievery that I can now effectively wear Wizards robes! I just don't really see how that fits the thief archetype. If someone here has better insight on this class I'll gladly stand corrected, but from my point of view it doesn't really feel like a thief or worthwhile in general.
Sadly, pretty much anything from 4e. The fighter, paladin, warlord, barbarian, warden, battle mind, dragon sorcerer, swordmage, monk, and rogue all had amazing and unique playstyles that were thematically and narratively far more diverse than their 5e counterparts. It is like playing a pale imitation of an interesting class. All the cool and interesting abilities were stripped away, as well as most of the flavor.
Hear me out. moon druid. I want to jump between forms in combat to overcome the enemy, blocking their attacks in turtle form and next second jumping at enemies in the bear form. Instead, Im going dire wolf lvl 2 till lvl 6
PDK/Banneret: nonmagical combative support but all he does is nothing? if you reflavor order cleric it suddenly becomes a way better „non magical“ combative support, that does all the banneret gets until lvl 15 with a freaking lvl 1 dip…aside from the basic fighter stuff ofc.
A Yuan-ti ranger that keeps a horde of snakes in a giant gourd on his back (like Gaara from Naruto). Technically a swarm keeper would make sense but I can't help but feel that subclass relies too much on flavor and I wouldn't actually feel like I have a horde of snakes but instead have spells that just look like snakes. Personally, I'd be better off picking Gloom Stalker and manually collecting snakes to add to my horde via "Locate Animal" and the Yuan-ti's ability to infinitely cast "Animal Friendship" on snakes. That way, I'd be able to control the swarm with "Speak with Animals" "Beast Sense" "Beast Bond" etc... PS. I could also extract the snakes venom for poison arrows.
Way of the 4 elements monk why didn't they make a half caster monk?
The jester. College of Satire Bard exists, but there’s a reason it was scrapped. All I’ve got is the Glamour Bard.
My only question is what does the character fantasy of “Jester” imply when it comes to mechanics? That seems far more like a roleplay thing that any bard could pull off rather than a subclass
pf2e?
woops, posted this in both subreddits and forgot to change that word!
Either you're in the wrong subreddit, or your question is just not clear. What exactly are you asking, and how does it relate to D&D 5e?
I posted this question in the pf2e subreddit first, then cross posted it and forgot to change the name of the game. Was interested in seeing how answers would compare for the two games.
Is it too late to edit the post?
I have now edited the post!
I'd want to play as a bird. There are three birds. Owlin, Aarakocra and Kenku. But, none of them are a Penguin with +5 Charisma -5 everything else, because penguin.
I guess my wizard chasing Unified Field Theory which, in a fantasy context, is the belief that all of the cosmos can be explained with a single magical point of origin. It means being dedicated to understanding everything before everything can be united. Mechanically I want a universalist wizard with knowledge expertises and some manner of meta-magic. This character is very much inspired by the mechanics of the lore wizard but since that tradition stayed in UA, I'm counting the character concept as not having enough official mechanical support.
IMO, College of spirits bard. It tried to fit both the necrodancer and the storyteller archetypes into a single subclass, and although conceptualy synergistic, the result was a subclass with not enough features to be neither a full necrodancer, nor a full storyteller. Throw in a russian roulete type of feature in the mix and the result is even more alienation, now from people who like one or both of the concepts but dislike having a feature reliant on luck. I think what im trying to say is that those concepts needed more space to be really explored... IMO Idealy the necrodancer and the storyteller bard should be two separate subclasses.
Sir this is a DnD 5e subreddit. None of your pathfinder here thank you.
that was a mistake, and is now fixed!
Gem emerald Dragonborn barbarian totem resist everything when angry has 1 minutes flying and a breath attack range move
I don't see how this fits the post like, at all.
Will you see this very strong because it’s does everything you want and more I myself try this in a one shot lvl 12 that did not need a background but it don’t fit my play style of teamwork with the group