# How many classes do you want to see this edition?



## Frozen_Heart

So I made this thread on the ODnD reddit and the results surprised me. Thought I'd post a duplicate here to see if the views are consistent over multiple forums.

Just wondering how many classes people want to see this edition. Not just in the PHB, but in the supplements which come afterwards too (e.g. artificer)

If you want less classes, which ones do you want to see removed or merged?

If you want more classes, which additional archetypes do you feel need covering more thoroughly?


----------



## delericho

Very slightly more than 5e - I would add a couple to the PHB (Assassin, Mageblade, and Warlord), and I'd like to see at least one psionic class added later.

But 5e as it stands is very close to my ideal.


----------



## aco175

I would like about the same, although if all the splat books are counted as well, then we likely have too many, but keep 3-4 subclasses with the PHB and let the less popular be in an optional book.


----------



## payn

Classes seem about right, but id love more subclasses and even return of prestige classes.


----------



## jasper

I say LESS but I am talking about subclasses.


----------



## Horwath

I said more, but I would like to see them take a shot on ability buy system.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold

A couple more I think. Current 13 classes might be hard to incorporate together to remove any given what we know of the way oneDnD is structured. Plus I'd like to see one or two more classes that aren't represented currently.


----------



## Horwath

Sorcerer and warlock could become one class.

or turn warlock into Int based caster.

Then we would have:

Int: artificer, warlock, wizard
Wis: cleric, druid, ranger
Cha: bard, paladin, sorcerer


----------



## DEFCON 1

What they have is fine.  

Sure, if given my druthers I'd love to see the Sorcerer turned into the "arcane half-caster" mechanical expression that so many people seem desperate for (which would allow them to get played two different ways-- with metamagic emphasis to boost casting power to full caster levels, or martial abilities to play the Swordmage archetype)... but the game is fine as-is if they don't.

Adding Psions and Warlords?  As I have no faith that the players who really want these classes would actually like whatever it is WotC would eventually publish (because WotC would do a more basic and default-like version of both of these classes) there's no point in using the page count to add them.


----------



## Grantypants

I don't see them eliminating any PHB classes in this edition. Giving players fewer options would be deeply unpopular, even if the overall game was better for it. 
I do think the new PHB will have something else new that didn't previously exist in 5e (besides the ardling) as a way to get players to switch over to the updated ruleset.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

DEFCON 1 said:


> What they have is fine.
> 
> Sure, if given my druthers I'd love to see the Sorcerer turned into the "arcane half-caster" mechanical expression that so many people seem desperate for (which would allow them to get played two different ways-- with metamagic emphasis to boost casting power to full caster levels, or martial abilities to play the Swordmage archetype)... but the game is fine as-is if they don't.
> 
> Adding Psions and Warlords?  As I have no faith that the players who really want these classes would actually like whatever it is WotC would eventually publish (because WotC would do a more basic and default-like version of both of these classes) there's no point in using the page count to add them.



Would the focus on magic or martial abilities be something like a pact boon?


----------



## Mephista

I would drop sorcerer, pick up artificer in its place, and then go all in with new, crazy subclasses.   We haven't really pushed the bounds of what subclasses can do for you yet.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Frozen_Heart said:


> Would the focus on magic or martial abilities be something like a pact boon?



Sure?  I guess?  All I know is that some people want "arcane half-casters" in the game, and some people want meaningful mechanical distinction between Sorcerers and Wizards.  Turning Sorcerers into that arcane half-caster solves both issues however WotC would do it, not that I know or care how they would design it.  I honestly care so little about both the "arcane half-caster" archetype and the Sorcerer as a class that I'd just like something done that could satisfy both groups so we don't have to hear them constantly complain about them anymore.


----------



## CreamCloud0

There could be a few more classes I think, primarily off the top of my head:
a dedicated combined-magic-and-weapon user, with swordmage and arcane archer subclasses.
a summoner-beastmaster-minons class.
a half-[creature]/were-[X]/monster-hybrid/‘blue mage’ class.
Edit: psions

I think warlord deserves to exist but i think it should be part of the fighter-baseline abilities.

Also bring back prestige classes.


----------



## RoughCoronet0

I think a few more classes would be neat.

Warlord
Swordmage/Gish Class
Psionic Class
Summoner/Pet Class
Maybe the Blood Hunter as well.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

DEFCON 1 said:


> Sure?  I guess?  All I know is that some people want "arcane half-casters" in the game, and some people want meaningful mechanical distinction between Sorcerers and Wizards.  Turning Sorcerers into that arcane half-caster solves both issues however WotC would do it, not that I know or care how they would design it.  I honestly care so little about both the "arcane half-caster" archetype and the Sorcerer as a class that I'd just like something done that could satisfy both groups so we don't have to hear them constantly complain about them anymore.



As those are my two favourite classes, I'd love to see that happen.

In fact the DnD Next playtest sorcerer was similar to that in some ways. Being both thematically and mechanically distinct and interesting. Yet for some reason it got canned and replaced with poor wizard with metamagic glued on instead.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

RoughCoronet0 said:


> I think a few more classes would be neat.
> 
> Warlord
> Swordmage/Gish Class
> Psionic Class
> Summoner/Pet Class
> Maybe the Blood Hunter as well.



This is pretty much my ideal list. Warlord, swordmage, beastmaster (sorry but the summoner name sucks), and then blood hunter as a setting specific class like artificer once was.

I'm torn on the psion. Currently it should definitely be its own class. But I feel if the sorcerer was done in a half interesting way, psion could be part of that.


----------



## Gorck

The 2014 PHB has 12 classes and Tasha's adds a 13th.  I wouldn't mind seeing them bring it up to 16 (4 per class group; *BOLD *= my hopes)):

EXPERT:  Bard, Ranger, Rogue, with the Artificer added later
PRIEST:  Cleric, Druid, Paladin, with the *Shaman* added later
MAGE:  Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard, with the *Psion *added later
WARRIOR:  Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, with either the *Warlord *added later or officially adding Matt Mercer's *Blood Hunter*


----------



## doctorbadwolf

delericho said:


> Very slightly more than 5e - I would add a couple to the PHB (Assassin, Mageblade, and Warlord), and I'd like to see at least one psionic class added later.
> 
> But 5e as it stands is very close to my ideal.



Yeah, I’d add Captain and Swordmage (I call mine the Athamir), and split off the Assassin back to its full glory. Psion I guess, too, since so many folks want it.


----------



## Blue

5.  Same as 5e, because they promised compatibility.  Nothing at all about it being perfect.

And while a good pick-and-choose system can be fun, classes both directly, and indirectly as needing a team to cover everything are both sacred cows of D&D that I would not have go away in the D&D brand.

Now, 6e I have opinions on.  But 5.5e (which they'll never call it but seems true) has different requirements.


----------



## tetrasodium

It's not at all surprising to see more so far ahead. currently 62% with the next highest 24/16/8.  It seems that 5.5/6e is still wedded to the class specific archetype progression levels at this point.  As a result of that there isn't enough room to do a lot of concepts well without creating new classes that create different sized & shaped spaces for their archetypes to fit within.  That's important because a lot of base classes contain a huge chunk of the total character's meaningful bread & butter abilities in ways that don't allow more fitting classes to accommodate archetypes they should be accommodating.


----------



## Pedantic

More is more, particularly in class and level systems. It's no loss to the Wizard if a more specific Witch Queen is published that has more appropriate archetypal abilities.

It's more design work, but that's not a player side problem, and it's precisely what game designers should be doing.


----------



## overgeeked

Less than 5E. There's already way too much overlap between archetypes. Three is the right number. Going with the class group names, there's warrior, mage/priest, and expert. The mage and priest group are only distinguished by their spell list and a bit of lore. Experts are variations on the same theme. Warriors are ever so slight variations on a theme. Combine the groups into three classes and strengthen the archetypes.


----------



## the Jester

Everything in the 5e PH plus an actual goddamn warlord.


----------



## Minigiant

I still say 5e was dreadfully missing 2 class, could use 2 more due to history, and 2 more after that rounds it out.

Basically each class group is missing a class.

Warrior: Warlord
Expert: Scholar
Priest: Inquisitor/Invoker
Mage: Gish

Then Psion/Mystic and Summoner round it out.


----------



## MichaelSomething

Why do we need more classes when you can just multiclass to create whatever concept you want?


----------



## Minigiant

MichaelSomething said:


> Why do we need more classes when you can just multiclass to create whatever concept you want?



because some aspects of heroic fantasy don't exist in 5e yet.
You can't multiclass into something that doesn't exist.


----------



## Benjamin Olson

I'm happy with the existing classes. Is there another concept or two I could get behind? Sure. I could also do with trimming a couple existing classes. But at the end of the day what I really care about is having a manageable number of classes so that a DM can basically know what to expect from every character who shows up and have a rough grasp of their class rules. My guess is that if they doubled the number of classes they'd add one or two more that I actually really liked and ten more that I'd have to learn the rules of to feel comfortable running a game but have no enthusiasm for.

I had a player bring a Blood Hunter once, and it's not a terrible class design or anything, and they enjoyed it and all, but I really hated having to digest a whole new class that I personally have no interest in playing in order to accommodate them.


----------



## Charlaquin

The same, plus Artificer and Warlord. And if the ranger absolutely must be a spellcaster, then a new class that fills the same wilderness expert, monster hunter niche, but without spellcasting.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

MichaelSomething said:


> Why do we need more classes when you can just multiclass to create whatever concept you want?



A multiclass doesn't do the concept nearly as well as a full class. They play very differently to a full class too. If you go 50/50 cleric/fighter, you don't play remotely like a paladin. You're just a bad fighter and a bad cleric.

Also some aspects just don't exist at all in 5e. That whole 'become the monster' the playtest sorcerer had is still completely untouched.


----------



## Corinnguard

I voted same as 5e. Most of the classes in D&D in their various incarnations have been around for a very long time. So long that getting rid of some of them might not be as easy it sounds. 

As for a possible Warlord class, there is A5e's Marshall class. Marshal | Level Up


----------



## Yaarel

Minigiant said:


> I still say 5e was dreadfully missing 2 class, could use 2 more due to history, and 2 more after that rounds it out.
> 
> Basically each class group is missing a class.
> 
> Warrior: Warlord
> Expert: Scholar
> Priest: Inquisitor/Invoker
> Mage: Gish
> 
> Then Psion/Mystic and Summoner round it out.



If the Eldritch Knight had more spell slots, starting at level 1, would that qualify for the missing Gish?

Personally, for me, the Paladin and Hexblade are the Gishes.

What aspects of the Gish are still missing?


----------



## Corinnguard

Yaarel said:


> If the Eldritch Knight had more spell slots, starting at level 1, would that qualify for the missing Gish?
> 
> Personally, for me, the Paladin and Hexblade are the Gishes.
> 
> What aspects of the Gish are still missing?



Good question. The Magus Class by laserllama   Maybe this homebrewed Gish from Laser Llama will help?


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Yaarel said:


> If the Eldritch Knight had more spell slots, starting at level 1, would that qualify for the missing Gish?
> 
> Personally, for me, the Paladin and Hexblade are the Gishes.
> 
> What aspects of the Gish are still missing?



The type of gish people are asking for is an arcane one. With the expanded definition of gish, paladin, hexblade, and ranger count as gishes, but they have totally different themes. It's like saying a wizard class is pointless when cleric is a class.

Though technically anyone who can do magic and combat is a gish at this point, what made the previous edition arcane gishes special was the ability to cast spells directly through melee strikes.

In 5e, paladin and ranger can do this through spells like searing smite and ensnaring strike. But as bladesinger and eldritch knight use the wizard list, they don't get access to these spells (funnily enough, the wizard list isn't designed with hitting people in mind). 3e, pathfinder, and 4e swordmages had this applying magic on melee strikes to an even greater degree than even modern paladin and ranger.

So essentially in 5e, the posterboy of the spellstrike mechanic doesn't have the spellstrike mechanic, while paladin and ranger do.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

I'd be fine with 3, honestly.

Take 3 vanilla classes and give the sprinkles to the archetypes.

Warrior (mix the identities of fighters and warlord): Weapon master, Paladin, Ranger, Berserker, Guardian

Mage (no different spell lists, ideally with themed magic group: fire, ice, creation, healing etc): Artificer, Nomad, Beguiler, Oracle, Geomancer, Dragon Disciple, Bladesinger etc

Rogues: Thief, Scout, Warlock, Duelist, Avenger

With a little more design time, could even go as a far as having two archetypes per character.


----------



## Mephista

Corinnguard said:


> Good question. The Magus Class by laserllama   Maybe this homebrewed Gish from Laser Llama will help?



This looks suspiciously like it just plays like a paladin with smites.  Like... the whole point is to use arcane blade thing.  so, you imbue the attacks with things like magic missile. Or, if you want control, you use color spray.  

People already complain that paladin doesn't use spells and just smites, smites smites. So, wouldn't the same thing happen here? These giant spell lists that never get used because people just "magic missile" smite?  Maybe use a Shield or Absorb Elements spell, like the current Eldritch Knight does?


----------



## Corinnguard

Mephista said:


> This looks suspiciously like it just plays like a paladin with smites.  Like... the whole point is to use arcane blade thing.  so, you imbue the attacks with things like magic missile. Or, if you want control, you use color spray.
> 
> People already complain that paladin doesn't use spells and just smites, smites smites. So, wouldn't the same thing happen here? These giant spell lists that never get used because people just "magic missile" smite?  Maybe use a Shield or Absorb Elements spell, like the current Eldritch Knight does?



What about using the Magus' 4th level Polymorph spell during a Spellstrike?   I don't recall the Paladin having anything close to it. If the Paladin could polymorph someone with a Smite, that would be something.


----------



## Minigiant

Yaarel said:


> If the Eldritch Knight had more spell slots, starting at level 1, would that qualify for the missing Gish?
> 
> Personally, for me, the Paladin and Hexblade are the Gishes.
> 
> What aspects of the Gish are still missing?




Basically what @Frozen_Heart said, the ability to infuse weapon attacks with arcane effects (slows, drains, fire, force, teleports).
It's not the spell slot but the spells or class features.


----------



## Yaarel

Corinnguard said:


> Good question. The Magus Class by laserllama   Maybe this homebrewed Gish from Laser Llama will help?



I am fond of the Psion by LaserLlama. I am checking out the Magus.

It looks something like a Paladin with mainly elemental spells and antimagic. There is even a smite-like feature, with a choice of damage type.

Note its spell progression is the same as 2014 Paladin and Ranger, however looking at the 1dd Ranger, level 1 should have spells and cantrips.

If the Eldritch Knight Fighter class had the same spell progression as the Ranger and Paladin, it would probably satisfy the need for a Gish.

But for the LaserLlama Magus, specifically, I would make a Paladin subclass with an alternate spell list.


----------



## Corinnguard

One of the players I am currently playing with in Descent into Avernus likened the Magus class to an Eldritch Knight Fighter/Bladesinger Wizard hybrid. As it has features from both subclasses.


----------



## Yaarel

Since "magus" and "mage" are the same thing, I would avoid the term "magus".

Maybe call it a Witchknight or an Eldritch.


----------



## Mephista

Would polymorph strike even work?  Like, Polymorph reverses when the target is reduced to 0HP. So, you hit it, transform it, it takes damage and turns back into a normal ... whatever it was before.  That sounds like an expensive way to give your enemy extra HP at high levels.   I don't like judging a class's potential at levels less than 2% of people play at.

Like, I get it, replace Polymorph with something like Hold Person.  But that's still just something akin to paladin smite-spells and how little they get used. So I have to wonder if it would happen in the face of higher dps. Even if Hold Person was considered better, it wouldmean you're worse than soemone that can upcast it and Hold an entire battlefield, and make you a crappy Controller type..

I suppose there's also arguments that this effectively gives you QuickenSpell metamagic at no cost, able to use it the entire day without a resource cost like Sorcerer has to.  So that makes this "strong" - personally,  I don't see it that way.  So, I've got to question just how much fun this is when you'll feel worse than a paladin or even a Valor Bard with Stunning Strike.


----------



## Minigiant

Mephista said:


> Would polymorph strike even work?  Like, Polymorph reverses when the target is reduced to 0HP. So, you hit it, transform it, it takes damage and turns back into a normal ... whatever it was before.  That sounds like an expensive way to give your enemy extra HP at high levels.   I don't like judging a class's potential at levels less than 2% of people play at.
> 
> Like, I get it, replace Polymorph with something like Hold Person.  But that's still just something akin to paladin smite-spells and how little they get used. So I have to wonder if it would happen in the face of higher dps. Even if Hold Person was considered better, it wouldmean you're worse than soemone that can upcast it and Hold an entire battlefield, and make you a crappy Controller type..
> 
> I suppose there's also arguments that this effectively gives you QuickenSpell metamagic at no cost, able to use it the entire day without a resource cost like Sorcerer has to.  So that makes this "strong" - personally,  I don't see it that way.  So, I've got to question just how much fun this is when you'll feel worse than a paladin or even a Valor Bard with Stunning Strike.



This is why the best way to do it is to make it into it's own spell or class feature. 

The Gish hits the Gnoll Packleader with the Gish's Verminmorph strike. The Gnoll takes damage then turns into the bunny statblock in the Gish class description. When the effect is ended or the bunny-gnoll is hit, the gnoll returns to its statblock.

Or the Gish can choose Paralyzing Strike or Slowing Strike or Transposition Strike.


----------



## CreamCloud0

I mentioned what new classes I’d like earlier but neglected to elaborate on what I’d do with the existing ones,
First, fighter upgrades into warlord, simple.

Second barbarian is removed and divided up as subclasses for fighterwarlord(as the ‘simple fighter’ option and champion+, druid, possibly something for monk? and, bear with me here, sorcerer, sorcerer already has a bunch of themes of connecting to wild magic so make one all primal-y have the subclass bump the hit die and say their rage catalyses the wild magic for stuff.

With Barbarian divided up replace the spot with a skirmisher type class, the non-magic ranger that lots of people ask for, the ‘light soldier’ option to the ‘heavy knight’.

Wizard, sorcerer and warlock all stay but some small tweaks to some, wizard refocuses on knowing spell schools, sorcerer focuses on highly thematic builds and spell lists and becomes a CON caster, warlock is good as is.

Bard is dropped down to a half caster but more focus is given to magical secrets and inspiration mechanics, let them really embrace the jack of all trades master of none role.


----------



## Yaarel

Minigiant said:


> This is why the best way to do it is to make it into it's own spell or class feature.
> 
> The Gish hits the Gnoll Packleader with the Gish's Verminmorph strike. The Gnoll takes damage then turns into the bunny statblock in the Gish class description. When the effect is ended or the bunny-gnoll is hit, the gnoll returns to its statblock.
> 
> Or the Gish can choose Paralyzing Strike or Slowing Strike or Transposition Strike.



The term "smite" could become a technical term that means inflicting a spell effect on a hit using a weapon or unarmed strike.


----------



## Minigiant

Yaarel said:


> The term "smite" could become a technical term that means inflicting a spell effect on a hit using a weapon or unarmed strike.



"Smite" has a bit too much divine flavor to it.

____________________________________

Personally, even before the gish and warlord, the class I think D&D is missing most is the Scholar class.

D&D has several knowledge skills in Nature, Medicine, History, investigation and tools (smith, cook, carpentry, woodcarver) that it doesn't explore fantasy elements of or "just makes into spells"

Fans cannot keep saying "There's too much magic" and "Not everything is a spell" and ignore how a fantastical blacksmith, surgeon, chef, or historian would be a help to some parties.


----------



## Yaarel

Minigiant said:


> "Smite" has a bit too much divine flavor to it.



To me smite means to strike completely, such as being "smitten with love".

But as a mostly archaic vocabulary, I can see how smite might have religious connotations.



Minigiant said:


> Personally, even before the gish and warlord, the class I think D&D is missing most is the Scholar class.
> 
> D&D has several knowledge skills in Nature, Medicine, History, investigation and tools (smith, cook, carpentry, woodcarver) that it doesn't explore fantasy elements of or "just makes into spells"
> 
> Fans cannot keep saying "There's too much magic" and "Not everything is a spell" and ignore how a fantastical blacksmith, surgeon, chef, or historian would be a help to some parties.



I feel, in a magical setting, skills should be able to check to interact with magic. I use the Arcana skill to allow "spell stunts" that modify the effect of a spell on the fly.

Likewise, an accomplished blacksmith should be able to produce a magical sword − and know what it takes to produce such a sword.

1e has a prominent NPC called a "Sage". This sounds like the Scholar.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Mephista said:


> This looks suspiciously like it just plays like a paladin with smites.  Like... the whole point is to use arcane blade thing.  so, you imbue the attacks with things like magic missile. Or, if you want control, you use color spray.
> 
> People already complain that paladin doesn't use spells and just smites, smites smites. So, wouldn't the same thing happen here? These giant spell lists that never get used because people just "magic missile" smite?  Maybe use a Shield or Absorb Elements spell, like the current Eldritch Knight does?



Yeah despite being an arcane gish class proponent, 90% of suggestions I see for it are either paladin clones, or people wanting bladesinger/hexblade/paladin all in one class because they have absolutely no concept of balance.

The biggest argument against an arcane gish class are people who want an arcane gish class.

Also no matter how people try to jam it in, 3e and pathfinder spellstrike doesn't work in 5e. It requires so many exceptions and clauses that it's a ruling/balance nightmare. Ranger/Paladin spells like searing smite, ensnaring strike, and lightning arrow are their replacement. They're just barred from all 5e arcane gish subclasses for some reason.


----------



## tetrasodium

Frozen_Heart said:


> Yeah despite being an arcane gish class proponent, 90% of suggestions I see for it are either paladin clones, or people wanting bladesinger/hexblade/paladin all in one class because they have absolutely no concept of balance.
> 
> The biggest argument against an arcane gish class are people who want an arcane gish class.
> 
> Also no matter how people try to jam it in, 3e and pathfinder spellstrike doesn't work in 5e. It requires so many exceptions and clauses that it's a ruling/balance nightmare. Ranger/Paladin spells like searing smite, ensnaring strike, and lightning arrow are their replacement. They're just barred from all 5e arcane gish subclasses for some reason.



There already is an arcane gish too, it's called a bard .

 I feel like a lot of the complaints about warrior group fish type archetypes could be avoided in 6e if extra attack at 5/11 17(?) was shifted to the subclass instead of sitting in the base class. That would even allow no gosh type archetypes like cavalier & such a pretty significant bit of design space to alter thematically with meaningful results.  For more traditional warrior group types it does not change anything if they get extra attack A from their base class or archetype.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

tetrasodium said:


> There already is an arcane gish too, it's called a bard .
> 
> I feel like a lot of the complaints about warrior group fish type archetypes could be avoided in 6e if extra attack at 5/11 17(?) was shifted to the subclass instead of sitting in the base class. That would even allow no gosh type archetypes like cavalier & such a pretty significant bit of design space to alter thematically with meaningful results.  For more traditional warrior group types it does not change anything if they get extra attack A from their base class or archetype.



(I mean, I consider Bard as 'occult' rather than arcane. Like in pathfinder).

What I loved so much about the 4e swordmage was the elemental focus. Genasi preferring that class gave it a theme of its own. I've loved the elemental focus from all the way back in the bionicle days, and that class embodied it beyond anything else in dnd ever has.


----------



## gorice

I think a problem discussions like these run into is that a class can be a lot of things simultaneously. It's a set of mechanical abilities, but also something that evokes a character archetype, and maybe also some kind of character goals or attitudes.

5e is kind of a mess on this front. For example: the full casters are all stepping on each others' toes, mechanically, but each is a slightly different kind of fictional fantasy. The fighter, on the other hand, is unique mechanically but also a big stale piece of unbuttered toast in the fiction (and even some subclasses, like the battlemaster, are too broad to suggest an archetype).

So, I voted that there are too many classes. I'm sure there are other ways of organising it, but having a small number of mechanical chassis (say, fighter, mage, expert) with really strong, flavourful subclasses is an obvious solution.


----------



## Mephista

I loved the elemental storm genasi.


----------



## Remathilis

I think a few class options I would want could be added if WotC wants to be flexible with subclasses.

For example, a summoner might be a good subclass for a druid or wizard (replacing the lackluster conjurer) as a pet sub. Likewise, a robust fighter with maneuvers built in could open up a real warlord subclass for fighter. I could even see a more flexible psionics caster built out of the sorcerer if they want to limit the tentacle fetish the aberrant mind has. You could also add a proper witch by giving a wizard or sorcerer some warlock and primal theming. I would prefer some of these to both the off-kilter options WotC pushed in Tasha or whole new classes if they were done right.


----------



## Sorcerers Apprentice

I want ALL the classes!!


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Remathilis said:


> I think a few class options I would want could be added if WotC wants to be flexible with subclasses.
> 
> For example, a summoner might be a good subclass for a druid or wizard (replacing the lackluster conjurer) as a pet sub. Likewise, a robust fighter with maneuvers built in could open up a real warlord subclass for fighter. I could even see a more flexible psionics caster built out of the sorcerer if they want to limit the tentacle fetish the aberrant mind has. You could also add a proper witch by giving a wizard or sorcerer some warlock and primal theming. I would prefer some of these to both the off-kilter options WotC pushed in Tasha or whole new classes if they were done right.



The reason I like the idea of beastmaster (or summoner if you really want it called that) being its own thing, is because it has a lot of opportunity for subclasses. Each could focus on a different creature type and gain different abilities to really mix up how the class plays.

The generic subclass could have a pet beast which it improves over time. With things like flight or water breathing. But then you can have things like a celestial subclass, a plant subclass, a construct subclass, and a draconic subclass.

And the most important bit about it not being a subclass is that it then allows the pet to be the majority of the power budget, rather than a glued on afterthought. Your beast can be large and ridable much earlier on. And have much more unique abilities like healing of their own if it's not having to compete with being a full caster.


----------



## Minigiant

Yaarel said:


> I feel, in a magical setting, skills should be able to check to interact with magic. I use the Arcana skill to allow "spell stunts" that modify the effect of a spell on the fly.
> 
> Likewise, an accomplished blacksmith should be able to produce a magical sword − and know what it takes to produce such a sword.
> 
> 1e has a prominent NPC called a "Sage". This sounds like the Scholar.



I always felt D&D was missing the fantasy blacksmith and doctor. 

The fantasy smith who is good with hammers and blades wears heavy armor, and has assorted fire powers. 

The fantasy doctor who stabs with surgical precision, boost potions, removes poisons and diesse, and enhanced uses of healing magic.


----------



## Yaarel

Minigiant said:


> I always felt D&D was missing the fantasy blacksmith and doctor.
> 
> The fantasy smith who is good with hammers and blades wears heavy armor, and has assorted fire powers.
> 
> The fantasy doctor who stabs with surgical precision, boost potions, removes poisons and diesse, and enhanced uses of healing magic.



It occurs to me.

I see the Warlord as able to function as a nonmagical physician.

The inspirational nonphysical healing via morale and coaching is great until a character starts rolling death saves. This when a lethal physical injury occurs. So at this point, I would rather the inspirational healing be ineffective. (The "Stay with us!" while someone is dying is more like during a short rest, and might help with death saves, but wont heal the physical injury.)

So, if an ally is dying from a physical injury, the Warlord resorts to its training as a physician to treat the injury.



I can also see the Warlord as a fantastical blacksmith.

Maybe the Warlord is the Sage/Scholar class?

The Warlord is the aristocratic warrior, with a formal well-rounded military education. Both Intelligence (tactics) and Charisma (leadership) are part of this education.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Yaarel said:


> It occurs to me.
> 
> I see the Warlord as able to function as a nonmagical physician.
> 
> The inspirational nonphysical healing via morale and coaching is great until a character starts rolling death saves. This when a lethal physical injury occurs. So at this point, I would rather the inspirational healing be ineffective. (The "Stay with us!" while someone is dying is more like during a short rest, and might help with death saves, but wont heal the physical injury.)
> 
> So, if an ally is dying from a physical injury, the Warlord resorts to its training as a physician to treat the injury.
> 
> 
> 
> I can also see the Warlord as a fantastical blacksmith.
> 
> Maybe the Warlord is the Sage/Scholar class?
> 
> The Warlord is the aristocratic warrior, with a formal well-rounded military education. Both Intelligence (tactics) and Charisma (leadership) are part of this education.



Warlord with a non magical apocathary subclass would be awesome!


----------



## CreamCloud0

Minigiant said:


> The fantasy doctor who stabs with surgical precision, boost potions, removes poisons and diesse, and enhanced uses of healing magic.



The artificer-alchemist currently has some of that happening with it in a vague sort of way imo, but not really enough to be properly identified as a ‘doctor’ archetype.


----------



## Charlaquin

Come to think of it, I’d be up for the PHB having the same set of classes, and then later getting a supplement with a new class for each group: artificer for expert, warlord for warrior, spellblade (or whatever other name they want to use for an arcane half-caster) for mage, and mystic for priest.


----------



## Blue Orange

There was actually a doctor class in a really, really old issue of Dragon. You could make them better at healing than clerics but with worse combat ability.

Given the popularity of the elf class in BECMI D&D and the elven fighter/mage in 1e and 2e, and the swordmage in 4e, I think 'gish' is a clear area that could be filled and there is demand for. A lot of the other combos of the four major classes are filled in some sense--fighter/rogue (monk), fighter/cleric (paladin), cleric/mage (druid). You could even make an argument for bard as cleric/rogue as it plays support and trickery roles. I think the thing with fighter and mage is they're the two with the most offensive power and balance is an issue.


----------



## Parmandur

About the same would be great, but they seem to be setting some groundwork that would make a couple extra Classes acceptable (Psion as a Mage maybe).


----------



## Mephista

Charlaquin said:


> artificer for expert, warlord for warrior, spellblade (or whatever other name they want to use for an arcane half-caster) for mage, and mystic for priest.



Ya know.... Artificer as Expert bothers me a lot.  Like... Okay, expertise in your favorite crafter tool is great.  

But... I don't want a bunch of random artificers with thief tools and healer's lists running around, because they are the only useful ones.  
If you are an alchemist, getting expertise in alchemical tools makes sense.  But thief tools or gaming sets?  It's odd to me


----------



## beancounter

If they can come up with truly unique/original classes, then Yes.

If the new classes just overlap/combine existing classes, then No.


----------



## The Myopic Sniper

Mephista said:


> Ya know.... Artificer as Expert bothers me a lot.  Like... Okay, expertise in your favorite crafter tool is great.
> 
> But... I don't want a bunch of random artificers with thief tools and healer's lists running around, because they are the only useful ones.
> If you are an alchemist, getting expertise in alchemical tools makes sense.  But thief tools or gaming sets?  It's odd to me



As of the Expert playtest packet, you no longer can get expertise in tool proficiencies, only skills. You can however add your tool proficiency to your skill rolls as well. 

Not sure if that is going to stick or not when the 2024 rules come out.


----------



## Charlaquin

Mephista said:


> Ya know.... Artificer as Expert bothers me a lot.  Like... Okay, expertise in your favorite crafter tool is great.
> 
> But... I don't want a bunch of random artificers with thief tools and healer's lists running around, because they are the only useful ones.
> If you are an alchemist, getting expertise in alchemical tools makes sense.  But thief tools or gaming sets?  It's odd to me



They all get proficiency in thieves’ tools already…


----------



## Lojaan

I would like to see the return of the two Ws; warlord and warden. Apart from that, we're pretty good.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

I said "same as 5e" although I don't think it is perfect. I don't think however that besides psion all class concepts are covered. So 1 more would be good.

I don't want to make the impression that I want much more classes.

I specifically don't want a warlord, as I think, this concept could easily be done with a restructuring of the fighter class.
If battlemaster becomes standard, there is a lot of room to just give one archetype the full warlord experience.
An alternate feature for second wind and action surge and fighting style and battlemaster maneuvers. And then an archetype that lets you enhance all the capabilities that do healing and buffing.


----------



## Horwath

the Jester said:


> Everything in the 5e PH plus an actual goddamn warlord.



Battlemaster with Commander strike, Maneuvering attack and Rally with Inspiring leader feat could do the job.


----------



## Delazar

It will never happen, but I’d be happy with the Big Four, and everything else is a subclass


----------



## Remathilis

Delazar said:


> It will never happen, but I’d be happy with the Big Four, and everything else is a subclass



Easy to say until I ask "how do you handle druids And clerics having different spell lists?"


----------



## Mephista

The Myopic Sniper said:


> As of the Expert playtest packet, you no longer can get expertise in tool proficiencies, only skills. You can however add your tool proficiency to your skill rolls as well.
> 
> Not sure if that is going to stick or not when the 2024 rules come out.



Yeah, but I expect that to change for Artificer. It's super weird if the defining part of artificer (super crafting) isn't getting expertise while sleight of hand is.


Charlaquin said:


> They all get proficiency in thieves’ tools already…



Exactly. This is odd as hell to me - why should an alchemist be a super lock picker?

Its one thing if you are a locksmith, but what about a wood-carving wand maker?  I have a glassblower based subclass. Or the DM allows the Scribe subclass?


----------



## Charlaquin

Mephista said:


> Exactly. This is odd as hell to me - why should an alchemist be a super lock picker?
> 
> It’s one thing if you are a locksmith, but what about a wood-carving wand maker?  I have a glassblower based subclass. Or the DM allows the Scribe subclass?



I believe the reason they get thieves’ tools is because they’re used in trap making, which is a very artificer-y thing to do. Note though that artificers also get proficiency with tinker’s tools and one set of artisan’s tools of their choice.


----------



## tetrasodium

Mephista said:


> Yeah, but I expect that to change for Artificer. It's super weird if the defining part of artificer (super crafting) isn't getting expertise while sleight of hand is.
> 
> Exactly. This is odd as hell to me - why should an alchemist be a super lock picker?
> 
> Its one thing if you are a locksmith, but what about a wood-carving wand maker?  I have a glassblower based subclass. Or the DM allows the Scribe subclass?



Maybe because they know how to disable the divinatitory bits of it with ease?


The physical bits are rarely much better but at the end of the day it comes down to the fact that "door opener" is a boring niche with little room for interesting stakes so it's nothing but good if people aren't sinking their power budget into a dead end.  Having a lot of ways a player at the table can be proficient in thieves tools without trying mitigates those problems.


----------



## the Jester

Horwath said:


> Battlemaster with Commander strike, Maneuvering attack and Rally with Inspiring leader feat could do the job.



It can't. I mean, it can do some styles of warlord, but only those who are "lead from the front" types. There really isn't a way to do a lazylord in 5e, the "lead from the back" warlord that is so easy to achieve with an actual warlord class. It's like saying that you can make a cool druid by multiclassing ranger and bard or ranger and cleric. It's, I dunno, 65% to 75% of the way there.


----------



## Parmandur

Mephista said:


> Yeah, but I expect that to change for Artificer. It's super weird if the defining part of artificer (super crafting) isn't getting expertise while sleight of hand is.
> 
> Exactly. This is odd as hell to me - why should an alchemist be a super lock picker?
> 
> Its one thing if you are a locksmith, but what about a wood-carving wand maker?  I have a glassblower based subclass. Or the DM allows the Scribe subclass?



The point is they will get two Skill profs at least for being Experts...more likely Arcana and Medicine than Sleight of Hand


----------



## Delazar

Remathilis said:


> Easy to say until I ask "how do you handle druids And clerics having different spell lists?"



BECMI did it more than 30 years ago. I’m sure 5e can manage it


----------



## Remathilis

Delazar said:


> BECMI did it more than 30 years ago. I’m sure 5e can manage it



So druids just get both the divine and primal spell lists?


----------



## cbwjm

I'd like to see a proper warrior-mage class so that's +1 to the number of classes, but I also think that wizard, sorcerer, and warlock could be merged quite easily into a single class so that's -2 classes, so I guess I'd like to see less classes.


----------



## DEFCON 1

cbwjm said:


> I'd like to see a proper warrior-mage class so that's +1 to the number of classes, but I also think that wizard, sorcerer, and warlock could be merged quite easily into a single class so that's -2 classes, so I guess I'd like to see less classes.



Wait... so you want a warrior mage to be added... but the Hexblade warlock-- ostensibly a warrior mage-- you want merged into the wizard?  That seems counter-intuitive.


----------



## Horwath

DEFCON 1 said:


> Wait... so you want a warrior mage to be added... but the Hexblade warlock-- ostensibly a warrior mage-- you want merged into the wizard?  That seems counter-intuitive.



Some merger of half-caster eldritch knight might be the idea:

Extra attack feature that can cast one cantrip instead of one attack(bladesinger style), plus weapon attack as bonus action when you cast a spell with your action(EK style).


----------



## CreamCloud0

DEFCON 1 said:


> Wait... so you want a warrior mage to be added... but the Hexblade warlock-- ostensibly a warrior mage-- you want merged into the wizard?  That seems counter-intuitive.



While I don’t agree with the premise of merging the three casters I presume the logic is that the hexblade is only a single subclass whereas a warrior-mage would be an entire class with its own subclasses to explore different versions of the swordmage concept in more depth and variety.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

DEFCON 1 said:


> Wait... so you want a warrior mage to be added... but the Hexblade warlock-- ostensibly a warrior mage-- you want merged into the wizard?  That seems counter-intuitive.



For a lot of tables, theme isn't so easy to reflavour. I know from your comments in other threads that your table seems to play pretty fast and loose with the rules, giving you a lot more flexibility.

Lots of people want to be an arcane swordmage without a shadow patron sword baked in. But a lot of tables will absolutely force that theme if the player picks hexblade.


----------



## Parmandur

Frozen_Heart said:


> For a lot of tables, theme isn't so easy to reflavour. I know from your comments in other threads that your table seems to play pretty fast and loose with the rules, giving you a lot more flexibility.
> 
> Lots of people want to be an arcane swordmage without a shadow patron sword baked in. But a lot of tables will absolutely force that theme if the player picks hexblade.



To be fair, playing loose like that is explicitly in Xanathar's Guide to Everything: that's the RAW approach, not flavor enforcement.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

CreamCloud0 said:


> While I don’t agree with the premise of merging the three casters I presume the logic is that the hexblade is only a single subclass whereas a warrior-mage would be an entire class with its own subclasses to explore different versions of the swordmage concept in more depth and variety.



Ideally for me, Bladesinger, EK, and Hexblade would end up as subclasses for a dedicated arcane gish class.

Along with an elemental themed subclass, and one themed like a WoW Death Knight type thing (seriously we don't have a single cold themed subclass in all of 5e).


----------



## Yaarel

Frozen_Heart said:


> Ideally for me, Bladesinger, EK, and Hexblade would end up as subclasses for a dedicated arcane gish class.




I wouldnt mind a new class that is an arcane half-caster that takes over Eldritch Knight, Hexblade, and Psi Warrior, maybe even the elemental Monk. If it also has subclasses that add spell slots to become a full caster for Bladesinger, Hexblade, and 4e Swordmage, even better.

The fact that so many classes and subclasses are in need of this shows there is plenty of flavors to flesh out a great class and subclasses.


----------



## Clint_L

Well, they aren't going to be removing any classes for OneD&D, because nothing says "not backwards compatible" like your character's class no longer existing. Though if I was designing a new expansion from the ground up I would make sorcerers a mage sub-class.

Realistically, we will get the same classes and probably new sub-classes eventually.


----------



## Minigiant

I just wanna make a mad scientist who has a Hyde potion in one hand, an explosive fire potion in other hand, and healing potions in the last.

So I'm in the a few more group.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Clint_L said:


> Well, they aren't going to be removing any classes for OneD&D, because nothing says "not backwards compatible" like your character's class no longer existing. Though if I was designing a new expansion from the ground up I would make sorcerers a mage sub-class.
> 
> Realistically, we will get the same classes and probably new sub-classes eventually.



Though I disagree with folding sorcerers into a subclass, If I had to merge them with another class, it would be warlock.

They already have all the same subclass themes. Divine Soul - Celestial Warlock, Aberrent Mind - Goolock, Shadow Sorcery - Hexblade.

Anything which can be a patron can also be a sorcerer subclass. The most talked about being the idea of a draconic patron for warlocks.


----------



## CreamCloud0

Sorcerer and warlock both have their own unique mechanics to them that make them play in their own ways, plus the bard has its jack of all trades thing going on, if anything I’d rather alter the wizard as it lacks its own defining feature beyond more spells, more slots, just more _more, _I’ve stated in threads before I’d rather strip the wizard of it’s levelled direct damage spells and make it a pure utility/control caster but i know that would be rejected as heresy against the class.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

I'm honestly pretty confused about what will happen to the sorcerer this edition. If everyone is going to spells prepared, and it now uses the same list as the wizard (or a cut down one like the bard), then the two already far too similar classes become almost identical.

And I've seen some people speculate that metamagic might be the 'mage' class group unique mechanic. If that's the case, then there is absolutely no reason for sorcerer to exist as a class.

If anything, I'd like it to take some inspiration from the DnD Next playtest sorcerer. Spell or will point casting instead of spell slots. The majority of the power budget taken up by the subclass. And as spell points are spent over the adventuring day, the sorcerer takes on more and more physical and mechanical traits of its bloodline.


----------



## Parmandur

Frozen_Heart said:


> I'm honestly pretty confused about what will happen to the sorcerer this edition. If everyone is going to spells prepared, and it now uses the same list as the wizard (or a cut down one like the bard), then the two already far too similar classes become almost identical.
> 
> And I've seen some people speculate that metamagic might be the 'mage' class group unique mechanic. If that's the case, then there is absolutely no reason for sorcerer to exist as a class.
> 
> If anything, I'd like it to take some inspiration from the DnD Next playtest sorcerer. Spell or will point casting instead of spell slots. The majority of the power budget taken up by the subclass. And as spell points are spent over the adventuring day, the sorcerer takes on more and more physical and mechanical traits of its bloodline.



No, metamagic is unlikely to be a general Mage mechanic, because they are designing for backwards compatibilitywith all existing Subclasses. Hence we can be sure that Sorcerer will still ne the Metamagic Class.


----------



## Clint_L

Sorcerers play like a wizard sub-class already, and fill the same slot in party composition.

Don't get me wrong, I like the flavour of the various sorcerer sub-classes. But it's the one class that doesn't really bring anything substantially new to the table. They're just wizards who use charisma, have less spells, and can use a secondary point system to add interesting effects. They're like battle master fighters, except battle master fighters are properly a sub-class.

This is just a problem with 5e's original design - they had some good ideas for what could make sorcerers different from wizards in terms of flavour, but few good ideas for how to make them play differently. 

Like, what if sorcerers didn't have spell slots and just did everything with sorcery points? What if their sorcery points and hit points were merged? There's lots of things you could have done so that players would have significantly different choices to make.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Clint_L said:


> Sorcerers play like a wizard sub-class already, and fill the same slot in party composition.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I like the flavour of the various sorcerer sub-classes. But it's the one class that doesn't really bring anything substantially new to the table. They're just wizards who use charisma, have less spells, and can use a secondary point system to add interesting effects. They're like battle master fighters, except battle master fighters are properly a sub-class.
> 
> This is just a problem with 5e's original design - they had some good ideas for what could make sorcerers different from wizards in terms of flavour, but few good ideas for how to make them play differently.
> 
> Like, what if sorcerers didn't have spell slots and just did everything with sorcery points? What if their sorcery points and hit points were merged? There's lots of things you could have done so that players would have significantly different choices to make.



Yeah sorcerers are already too much like gimped wizards with the metamagic feat glued on.

If this edition they end up with the arcane spell list (same as wizard) and spells prepared (same as wizard), then they don't have a reason to exist.


----------



## Corinnguard

Frozen_Heart said:


> Yeah sorcerers are already too much like gimped wizards with the metamagic feat glued on.
> 
> If this edition they end up with the arcane spell list (same as wizard) and spells prepared (same as wizard), then they don't have a reason to exist.



Sorcerers in the new edition ought to be more like the class in Pathfinder 1st edition, which placed more emphasis on what sired the sorcerer's bloodline.


----------



## Minigiant

Frozen_Heart said:


> Yeah sorcerers are already too much like gimped wizards with the metamagic feat glued on.
> 
> If this edition they end up with the arcane spell list (same as wizard) and spells prepared (same as wizard), then they don't have a reason to exist.



Well the playtest sorcerer had something special.

The problem is the 3.X and PF fans wanted a clone of the 3rd edition sorcerer and gave it bad survey reviews.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Minigiant said:


> Well the playtest sorcerer had something special.
> 
> The problem is the 3.X and PF fans wanted a clone of the 3rd edition sorcerer and gave it bad survey reviews.



5e playtest sorcerer my beloved.

 We're probably in for a repeat of the 5e playtest. Where anything new is rejected and we end up with gimped wizard with metamagic feat mk2.

This time with the wizard spell list and wizard spell preparation too!


----------



## Parmandur

Frozen_Heart said:


> Yeah sorcerers are already too much like gimped wizards with the metamagic feat glued on.
> 
> If this edition they end up with the arcane spell list (same as wizard) and spells prepared (same as wizard), then they don't have a reason to exist.



Metamagic is the Class. It changes things significantly in practice. Expect the Sorcerer to double down on that, in line with the Tasha's options.


----------



## Remathilis

Minigiant said:


> Well the playtest sorcerer had something special.
> 
> The problem is the 3.X and PF fans wanted a clone of the 3rd edition sorcerer and gave it bad survey reviews.



The problem was the playtest sorcerer was a reverse gish and worked fine for a character who gets more martial/monster as they lose spell slots. It works fine for a draconic Sorc, but it feels off once you move to the other subs. Some sorcerers are just casters born with unique subsets of magic: wild magic, shadows, storms, order, divinity, lunar/cosmic, etc. A sorcerer should have the option to become a monster, but some people want to a play a theme caster and the sorcerer should lean on having lots of options to expand that theme. 

I just don't want to lose the option to play a sorcerer like a regular mage with a unique theme and be forced to transform into dragons, Slaads, shadow monsters, etc as I level.

I guess it will depend on how wizard and sorcerer spell prep changed.


----------



## Mephista

Is it still the class if we have metamagic feat


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Parmandur said:


> Metamagic is the Class. It changes things significantly in practice. Expect the Sorcerer to double down on that, in line with the Tasha's options.



I never actually liked metamagic as the class mechanic. It's always felt rather dry and flavourless. Which when combined with sorcerer subclasses having pretty minor playstyle impacts, has left the entire class feeling bland.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Remathilis said:


> The problem was the playtest sorcerer was a reverse gish and worked fine for a character who gets more martial/monster as they lose spell slots. It works fine for a draconic Sorc, but it feels off once you move to the other subs. Some sorcerers are just casters born with unique subsets of magic: wild magic, shadows, storms, order, divinity, lunar/cosmic, etc. A sorcerer should have the option to become a monster, but some people want to a play a theme caster and the sorcerer should lean on having lots of options to expand that theme.
> 
> I just don't want to lose the option to play a sorcerer like a regular mage with a unique theme and be forced to transform into dragons, Slaads, shadow monsters, etc as I level.
> 
> I guess it will depend on how wizard and sorcerer spell prep changed.



Would be interesting to have a dedicated class where that is the theme. It doesn't even need to be a caster.

It could easily have subclasses leaning towards werewolves and vampires, and that entire 'character story' is missing from 5e apart from beast barbarian.

Grimhollow and the Blood Hunter homebrew class both touch on the 'become the monster' themes too.


----------



## tetrasodium

Remathilis said:


> The problem was the playtest sorcerer was a reverse gish and worked fine for a character who gets more martial/monster as they lose spell slots. It works fine for a draconic Sorc, but it feels off once you move to the other subs. *Some sorcerers are just caster*s born with unique subsets of magic: wild magic, shadows, storms, order, divinity, lunar/cosmic, etc. A sorcerer should have the option to become a monster, but some people want to a play a theme caster and the sorcerer should lean on having lots of options to expand that theme.
> 
> I just don't want to lose the option to play a sorcerer like a regular mage with a unique theme and be forced to transform into dragons, Slaads, shadow monsters, etc as I level.
> 
> I guess it will depend on how wizard and sorcerer spell prep changed.



all those "some sorcerers" need is an interesting creature instead of dragon. If they are "_just_ casters" then those archetypes need to be under the _appropriate_ caster class like cleric/druid/wizard or maybe even warlock/bard/ranger.  Just a caster with a twist is the place for caster archetypes not an entire class that clonestamps the caster & adds a twist with a more useful attrib.


----------



## Mephista

tetrasodium said:


> all those "some sorcerers" need is an interesting creature instead of dragon. If



Like fiends? Undead?  Fey? Maybe a genie?  Now wherever have I seen that before....

Seriously, though, this is part of the Venn diagram of origins/patrons is a circle thing. Warlock already does this in no small part of you look at their subclasses


----------



## Corinnguard

Mephista said:


> Like fiends? Undead?  Fey? Maybe a genie?  Now wherever have I seen that before....



Pathfinder 1st edition?


----------



## Undrave

Honestly, each subclass could be an individual, concise, class of its own and I wouldn't mind.


----------



## tetrasodium

Mephista said:


> Like fiends? Undead?  Fey? Maybe a genie?  Now wherever have I seen that before....
> 
> Seriously, though, this is part of the Venn diagram of origins/patrons is a circle thing.



Yes.  The next sorcerer in question became more inhuman as they advanced & gained things related to their bloodline instead of being a charisma based wizard with a few bloodline tricks.  A caster who learns fiemdish/fey/undead themed magic does not need to turn into one  to the same degree or have one in the family tree


----------



## Corinnguard

tetrasodium said:


> Yes.  The next sorcerer in question became more inhuman as they advanced & gained things related to their bloodline instead of being a charisma based wizard with a few bloodline tricks.  A caster who learns fiemdish/fey/undead themed magic does not need to turn into one  to the same degree or have one in the family tree



Unless you decide to be a Sorlock who happens to be a descendant of the very patron you made a pact with.   Then you start to bear a resemblance to your ancestor.


----------



## Mephista

tetrasodium said:


> Yes. The next sorcerer in question became more inhuman as they advanced & gained things related to their bloodline instead of being a charisma based wizard with a few bloodline tricks. A caster who learns fiemdish/fey/undead themed magic does not need to turn into one to the same degree or have one in the family tree



You missed my point.  Warlock patrons have features that turn them into beings like their patrons.  Fathomless transform you more and more into one of the fish people that serve kracken. Genie / talisman literally gives you a magic lamp to live in while you get the power to grant wishes. Undying/undead makes you closer to undeath. 

You can't claim this niche for the sorcerer and claim others are "only casters " If anything it's the opposite right now.


----------



## Mephista

Also. The wild magic sorcerer would become like .. what exactly?  A super-halfling? 

Like, yes, dragon sorc should become more dragon-like and gishy.  But that's the equivalent of going Bladesinger Wizard.


----------



## Kobold Avenger

Mephista said:


> Also. The wild magic sorcerer would become like .. what exactly?  A super-halfling?



Probably more like a Fey, if the Wild Magic Sorcerer is a bloodline of something (which I view as being a limiting idea) it'd be a Fey bloodline.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Mephista said:


> You missed my point.  Warlock patrons have features that turn them into beings like their patrons.  Fathomless transform you more and more into one of the fish people that serve kracken. Genie / talisman literally gives you a magic lamp to live in while you get the power to grant wishes. Undying/undead makes you closer to undeath.
> 
> You can't claim this niche for the sorcerer and claim others are "only casters " If anything it's the opposite right now.



Shame there isn't a dragon patron warlock.


----------



## tetrasodium

Mephista said:


> You missed my point.  Warlock patrons have features that turn them into beings like their patrons.  Fathomless transform you more and more into one of the fish people that serve kracken. Genie / talisman literally gives you a magic lamp to live in while you get the power to grant wishes. Undying/undead makes you closer to undeath.
> 
> You can't claim this niche for the sorcerer and claim others are "only casters " If anything it's the opposite right now.



I'm not saying that sorcererss should be "only casters", quite the opposite.   "Some sorcerers are just casters" wasn't a point I originally brought up, it's as point that was raised in favor of sorcerer remaining wizard with a twist.  The shift to flex vancian in bard/ranger is so significant that I don't think there has really even been much speculation over  how 5.5/6e will ultimately  handle warlock.



Mephista said:


> Also. The wild magic sorcerer would become like .. what exactly?  A super-halfling?



No the caster version should be a wizard or druid cleric archetype as appropriate, the chaos themed sorcerer could draw from a chaos themed outsider or fey


Mephista said:


> Like, yes, dragon sorc should become more dragon-like and gishy.  But that's the equivalent of going Bladesinger Wizard.



a dragon sorc would be becoming more dragon or start out hatching & gain more control/power as they advance giving something to people who don't think humanoid dragonborn is dragon _enough_.  Having a mage group class that's home of gish type bloodlines also gives athings like bladesinger a place with better balance & roo to draw on its super elven bloodline than the multi cantrip/round 5e version of bladesinger.  Wizard should be the home for caster archetypes not gish archetypes.


----------



## Corinnguard

Frozen_Heart said:


> Shame there isn't a dragon patron warlock.



The Dragon God – 5th Edition SRD  It all depends on where you look.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Corinnguard said:


> The Dragon God – 5th Edition SRD It all depends on where you look.



Not all tables allow homebrew classes or subclasses.


----------



## Corinnguard

Frozen_Heart said:


> Not all tables allow homebrew classes or subclasses.



Too true. The DM always has the final say on what they will or won't allow in their session they're running. It also helps when your fellow players review the material and provide their input to what you want to play as.


----------



## Parmandur

Frozen_Heart said:


> I never actually liked metamagic as the class mechanic. It's always felt rather dry and flavourless. Which when combined with sorcerer subclasses having pretty minor playstyle impacts, has left the entire class feeling bland.



Not my experience. Don't expect anything too new and different here.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Parmandur said:


> Not my experience. Don't expect anything too new and different here.



Maybe it's just because I've only played draconic and storm sorcerers. The first of which is very 'safe' design wise, and the second is like playing without a subclass.


----------



## Remathilis

Mephista said:


> Like fiends? Undead? Fey? Maybe a genie? Now wherever have I seen that before....
> 
> Seriously, though, this is part of the Venn diagram of origins/patrons is a circle thing. Warlock already does this in no small part of you look at their subclasses



Personally, I'd like to see the sorcerer be the full caster version of the warlock and the warlock be a half-caster/pact magic partial caster, but cover the same themes. For example, if I want to have weird tentacles/psionics, I can choose the GOOlock or AMsorc depending on if I want a more traditional spellcasting system or not. What has limited sorcs is not enough spells (both enough choices and enough thematic options) to support the themes of the subclasses. I think the new system will fix this.


----------



## Parmandur

Frozen_Heart said:


> Maybe it's just because I've only played draconic and storm sorcerers. The first of which is very 'safe' design wise, and the second is like playing without a subclass.



The Wild Mage is quite the experience.


----------



## Minigiant

Remathilis said:


> The problem was the playtest sorcerer was a reverse gish and worked fine for a character who gets more martial/monster as they lose spell slots. It works fine for a draconic Sorc, but it feels off once you move to the other subs. Some sorcerers are just casters born with unique subsets of magic: wild magic, shadows, storms, order, divinity, lunar/cosmic, etc. A sorcerer should have the option to become a monster, but some people want to a play a theme caster and the sorcerer should lean on having lots of options to expand that theme.
> 
> I just don't want to lose the option to play a sorcerer like a regular mage with a unique theme and be forced to transform into dragons, Slaads, shadow monsters, etc as I level.
> 
> I guess it will depend on how wizard and sorcerer spell prep changed.



But they only showed the draconic sorcerer. If the draconic sorcerer is a Gish, how does it make the wild or storm sorcerer one?

Are we to have another lame sorcerer because the playtest dragon sorcerer has dragon claws?


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Parmandur said:


> The Wild Mage is quite the experience.



Never liked the idea of playing wild magic. It's just too wild and wacky for the type of character I like to run.

I prefer the more dark and serious 'classic' fantasy type (generic I know), and randomly turning into a potted plant or going blue just doesn't go with that.


----------



## tetrasodium

Minigiant said:


> But they only showed the draconic sorcerer. If the draconic sorcerer is a Gish, how does it make the wild or storm sorcerer one?
> 
> Are we to have another lame sorcerer because the playtest dragon sorcerer has dragon claws?



Storm giant? Behir? Mephit? House lyrander dragonmark of storm?  Air Elemental?  Some other lightning themed critter? Darksun Elemental Priest 

Failing that what makes it mechanically  distinct from a lightning specialized evoker?     If it's just "an evoker but lightning" does it actually have enough space in the mechanics & fiction to exist?


----------



## Frozen_Heart

I do strongly feel that 'wizard but hot' is not enough of a thematic niche to justify a sorcerer class.


----------



## Remathilis

Minigiant said:


> But they only showed the draconic sorcerer. If the draconic sorcerer is a Gish, how does it make the wild or storm sorcerer one?
> 
> Are we to have another lame sorcerer because the playtest dragon sorcerer has dragon claws?



So if memory serves (it has been nearly a decade) much of that sorcerer class was built around depleting spell slots as you cast spells also increased your tankiness (HP, AC, melee damage) and gaining more draconic elements as you exhausted them. IIRC, subclasses weren't a part of the system yet (themes, which would become backgrounds and feats did that) so that was the only sorcerer build available. ALL sorcerers were dragons who started the day out as a ranged caster and ended it as a melee warrior. 

Assuming that the draw is starting out a mage and ending it a monster, I think that is extremely limiting. Every sorcerer would have to turn into a monster (or otherwise become tankier) as you are depleting spells. I assume your subclass would determine what you turn into (so a divine sorcerer turns into an angel/fiend, an aberrant mind goes full tentacle aberration, clockwork soul becomes a modron) but others aren't so clear cut (what does a storm Sorc become? A shadow Sorc? A lunar sorcerer?) Further, assuming subclasses would remain a 4 level package, we're still looking for a mechanic that the base class needs for the other 16 levels. And I assume many of the other problems would have remained (limited spell choices and spell list). 

I don't think the design was bad, but it was very niche and only worked if you wanted "Dragon: the Class". I don't think what we got was particularly good, but I think the other design was too specific.


----------



## Remathilis

Frozen_Heart said:


> I do strongly feel that 'wizard but hot' is not enough of a thematic niche to justify a sorcerer class.



I still am drawn to the "natural caster" vs book learning. I tend to view sorcerers like Mutants (aka X-Men), born with special magical powers. I'd like the sorcerer to expand in that route: magic tied to a type of theme or power source that isn't the classic schools of magic. Powers like Order, Wild Magic, Shadow, the Moon, psionics, etc. No spell books. No research. Just training and talent.


----------



## Minigiant

Mephista said:


> Like fiends? Undead?  Fey? Maybe a genie?  Now wherever have I seen that before....
> 
> Seriously, though, this is part of the Venn diagram of origins/patrons is a circle thing. Warlock already does this in no small part of you look at their subclasses



Warlock patron are near deities.
Sorcerer origins are usually freak accidents, fortune, or blood of a powerful but not that powerful monster.

The Fiend and the Dragon are not the same. Because the Fiend is an archfiend.


----------



## Undrave

Remathilis said:


> So if memory serves (it has been nearly a decade) much of that sorcerer class was built around depleting spell slots as you cast spells also increased your tankiness (HP, AC, melee damage) and gaining more draconic elements as you exhausted them. IIRC, subclasses weren't a part of the system yet (themes, which would become backgrounds and feats did that) so that was the only sorcerer build available. ALL sorcerers were dragons who started the day out as a ranged caster and ended it as a melee warrior.
> 
> Assuming that the draw is starting out a mage and ending it a monster, I think that is extremely limiting. Every sorcerer would have to turn into a monster (or otherwise become tankier) as you are depleting spells. I assume your subclass would determine what you turn into (so a divine sorcerer turns into an angel/fiend, an aberrant mind goes full tentacle aberration, clockwork soul becomes a modron) but others aren't so clear cut (what does a storm Sorc become? A shadow Sorc? A lunar sorcerer?) Further, assuming subclasses would remain a 4 level package, we're still looking for a mechanic that the base class needs for the other 16 levels. And I assume many of the other problems would have remained (limited spell choices and spell list).
> 
> I don't think the design was bad, but it was very niche and only worked if you wanted "Dragon: the Class". I don't think what we got was particularly good, but I think the other design was too specific.



Maybe a Storm Socerer would become closer to a lightning elemental and even start flying around? 

It wouldn't need to become a tanker melee guy, but maybe they gain an at-will lightning attack and lose versatility as it goes on? Or they become a living zone dangerous to anyone, but not specifically tankier?


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Lots of things which a storm sorcerer could be based on, and they wouldn't even need to go the tank route.

Air elementals, djinni, elder tempests, mephits, invisible stalkers, or bronze/blue dragons. Even something as simple as animated lightning breath.

They all have unique traits which could be leaned into as class features which you gain as you lose will points.


----------



## Minigiant

Remathilis said:


> So if memory serves (it has been nearly a decade) much of that sorcerer class was built around depleting spell slots as you cast spells also increased your tankiness (HP, AC, melee damage) and gaining more draconic elements as you exhausted them. IIRC, subclasses weren't a part of the system yet (themes, which would become backgrounds and feats did that) so that was the only sorcerer build available. ALL sorcerers were dragons who started the day out as a ranged caster and ended it as a melee warrior.
> 
> Assuming that the draw is starting out a mage and ending it a monster, I think that is extremely limiting. Every sorcerer would have to turn into a monster (or otherwise become tankier) as you are depleting spells. I assume your subclass would determine what you turn into (so a divine sorcerer turns into an angel/fiend, an aberrant mind goes full tentacle aberration, clockwork soul becomes a modron) but others aren't so clear cut (what does a storm Sorc become? A shadow Sorc? A lunar sorcerer?) Further, assuming subclasses would remain a 4 level package, we're still looking for a mechanic that the base class needs for the other 16 levels. And I assume many of the other problems would have remained (limited spell choices and spell list).
> 
> I don't think the design was bad, but it was very niche and only worked if you wanted "Dragon: the Class". I don't think what we got was particularly good, but I think the other design was too specific.



I didn't see design going that way. I saw it as getting spell like or monster like abilities as you spell slots run it.

Dragon would go monstrous.
Storm would get lightning spell like.
Wild would go all survey.
Favordsoul/Celestial would get SMITE and HEAL.



tetrasodium said:


> Storm giant? Behir? Mephit? House lyrander dragonmark of storm?  Air Elemental?  Some other lightning themed critter? Darksun Elemental Priest
> 
> Failing that what makes it mechanically  distinct from a lightning specialized evoker?     If it's just "an evoker but lightning" does it actually have enough space in the mechanics & fiction to exist?




I didn't mean I didn't think lightning or air sorcerers wouldn't exist.

I meant they wouldn't turn into monsters but get at will lightning spells.


----------



## Yaarel

I feel the 5e Wizard class should focus on magic relating to: magical energy and force effects, the four elements, and illusion.

What these themes have in common is the nature of reality and creativity.



The Wizard should lose Enchantment to the Bard.

The Wizard should lose Necromancy (including Undead, Fiend, and Aberration) to the Warlock and Cleric.

The Wizard should lose any Beast and Plant spells to the Druid. Even spells like Clone should go elsewhere.

Even Divination with Teleportation should only be a Wizard subclass, or else split off entirely to the Bard and Cleric.


----------



## tetrasodium

Minigiant said:


> I didn't see design going that way. I saw it as getting spell like or monster like abilities as you spell slots run it.
> 
> Dragon would go monstrous.
> Storm would get lightning spell like.
> Wild would go all survey.
> Favordsoul/Celestial would get SMITE and HEAL.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't mean I didn't think lightning or air sorcerers wouldn't exist.
> 
> I meant they wouldn't turn into monsters but get at will lightning spells.



There are plenty of lightning themed creatures & ways to use lightning without resorting to lightning bolt.  Why not & what makes it different from an evoker who chooses lightning spells if they "_get at will lightning *spells*_"?  Touch attack abilities, short range teleport abilities, incorporeal abilities, damage/reflect shield abilities, lightning aura abilities, etc... All of those & more could be justified by transforming all or part of the sorcerer's body to varying degrees into various elemental themed monsters

If you are saying that the problem is  reverse gish is not a big enough niche to fit more than just the dragon sorcerer then does that not also confirm that "wizard but element & charisma" is not  a big enough niche either.  Do we acknowledge that charisma as a primary attribute is much more valuable than intelligence as a primary stat while giving "wizard but x & charisma" extra stuff?


----------



## Frozen_Heart

One really frustrating thing about the sorcerer is that you can't even true polymorph or shapechange into your bloodline creature at level 20.

Neltharion the dragonborn draconic sorcerer can't turn into a dragon. But Timmy the gnome over there who plays the flute. Yep he totally can!

It feels like you're actively discouraged from trying to push into your theme.


----------



## Minigiant

tetrasodium said:


> There are plenty of lightning themed creatures & ways to use lightning without resorting to lightning bolt.  Why not & what makes it different from an evoker who chooses lightning spells if they "_get at will lightning *spells*_"?  Touch attack abilities, short range teleport abilities, incorporeal abilities, damage/reflect shield abilities, lightning aura abilities, etc... All of those & more could be justified by transforming all or part of the sorcerer's body to varying degrees into various elemental themed monsters
> 
> If you are saying that the problem is  reverse gish is not a big enough niche to fit more than just the dragon sorcerer then does that not also confirm that "wizard but element & charisma" is not  a big enough niche either.  Do we acknowledge that charisma as a primary attribute is much more valuable than intelligence as a primary stat while giving "wizard but x & charisma" extra stuff?



What I am saying that fro. The playtest, I saw the sorcerer as a pseudo at day class.

Meaning when it has spell slots, it works like a normal caster just themed.

Draconic would have elemental spells.
Wild would have powerful but chaotic spells.
Storm would focus on wind, thunder, and lightning spells.
Divine mixed in healing, radiant, and necrotic spells.
Aberrant would have telekinetic and telepathic spells
"Arcane" has fast rituals and wand magic.

But when they run out of slots, they can potentially tap into a new role.

Draconic goes Heavy Gish
Wild goes harder on Control
Storm shifts to a Striker/Control as it zips around zapping and knocking stuff around.
Celestial turns into a healbot
Aberrant goes into Psionic control mode
"Arcane" goes pew pew with suped up cantrips.

As it a subclass, I figured the amount of crazy would be tempered down somewhat and not be extremely versatile.


----------



## tetrasodium

Minigiant said:


> What I am saying that fro. The playtest, I saw the sorcerer as a pseudo at day class.
> 
> Meaning when it has spell slots, it works like a normal caster just themed.
> 
> Draconic would have elemental spells.
> Wild would have powerful but chaotic spells.
> Storm would focus on wind, thunder, and lightning spells.
> Divine mixed in healing, radiant, and necrotic spells.
> Aberrant would have telekinetic and telepathic spells
> "Arcane" has fast rituals and wand magic.
> 
> *But when they run out of slots, they can potentially tap into a new role.*
> 
> Draconic goes Heavy Gish
> Wild goes harder on Control
> Storm shifts to a Striker/Control as it zips around zapping and knocking stuff around.
> Celestial turns into a healbot
> Aberrant goes into Psionic control mode
> "Arcane" goes pew pew with suped up cantrips.
> 
> As it a subclass, I figured the amount of crazy would be tempered down somewhat and not be extremely versatile.



I don't think that blaster who burns up their spell slots then _after_ using them all shifts to a second very functional sounding role would be  balanced.  It sounds more like a PC made using the 3.5 UA gestalt rules.  The various creature related abilities should be fueled by spell slots not free after they "run out" unless you are talking about something like making sorcerer half caster .


----------



## Parmandur

Frozen_Heart said:


> I do strongly feel that 'wizard but hot' is not enough of a thematic niche to justify a sorcerer class.



That's not the niche, though: mwtamagic effects are. And those can be very awesome if used well.


----------



## Minigiant

tetrasodium said:


> I don't think that blaster who burns up their spell slots then _after_ using them all shifts to a second very functional sounding role would be  balanced.  It sounds more like a PC made using the 3.5 UA gestalt rules.  The various creature related abilities should be fueled by spell slots not free after they "run out" unless you are talking about something like making sorcerer half caster .



Very functional sounding role is a bit much. 

The playtest draconic sorcerers just got +2 melee attacks and resistance to their dragon damage type on top of d8 HD heavy armor, martial weapons, and shields. That's isn't enough to replace a warrior type for long.

I expected the wild mage sorcerer to be able to wild surge at will and get bonuses based on rolls.

Now transforming or unlocking power wouldn't have been my favorite. However I love the idea that origin could grant a foot into a second role. Draconic into Tank. Wild into Control. Cosmic into Scholar. Storm into Utility. Shadow into Damage. It would put the sorcerer as being special compared to the wizard as they'd have a multiple non-concentration buffs on them.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Parmandur said:


> That's not the niche, though: mwtamagic effects are. And those can be very awesome if used well.



I just find metamagic thematically dry. Especially when combined with the small subclass power budget sorcerers have. It's essentially making a class out of a glorified feat.


----------



## tetrasodium

Minigiant said:


> Very functional sounding role is a bit much.
> 
> The playtest draconic sorcerers just got +2 melee attacks and resistance to their dragon damage type on top of d8 HD heavy armor, martial weapons, and shields. That's isn't enough to replace a warrior type for long.
> 
> I expected the wild mage sorcerer to be able to wild surge at will and get bonuses based on rolls.
> 
> Now transforming or unlocking power wouldn't have been my favorite. However I love the idea that origin could grant a foot into a second role. Draconic into Tank. Wild into Control. Cosmic into Scholar. Storm into Utility. Shadow into Damage. It would put the sorcerer as being special compared to the wizard as they'd have a multiple non-concentration buffs on them.





That shows the gap between what we are talking about.  I think the monstrous abilities should be at least as competent  as college of swords bards/rangers/etc.  draconic might get bite/claw/tail & even a EB type breath weapon with serious costs to their spell slots/progression that justifies it.  The various other beastly gish but x-twist archetypes could have abilities fitting & themed to their bloodline.  Like the moon druid, casting is the secondary role not primary.

 If "gish but X" isn't big enough to support an entire class though doesn't that also make it pretty clear that "wizard but x" is likewise not big enough to support an entire class.  At least gish but X isn't copying some other class.


----------



## Remathilis

tetrasodium said:


> If "gish but X" isn't big enough to support an entire class though doesn't that also make it pretty clear that "wizard but x" is likewise not big enough to support an entire class. At least gish but X isn't copying some other class.




It's not that gish but x couldn't support an entire class, it's that "you slowly become a monster" is limiting. Especially if the transformation is limited to the four levels you get subclass features on. 

I think the current "wizard but x" is fine, it just needs a lot more spell support and more going on than metamagic.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

I just want to remove the ridiculous 3e-style multiclassing and offer more classes to cover more concepts... but I know that's not where we're at.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Remathilis said:


> It's not that gish but x couldn't support an entire class, it's that "you slowly become a monster" is limiting. Especially if the transformation is limited to the four levels you get subclass features on.
> 
> I think the current "wizard but x" is fine, it just needs a lot more spell support and more going on than metamagic.



I do think that the 'play as a monster' theme could work as its own class though. The current sorcerer is pretty poor for it though as it has next to no subclass power budget.

You would just need a different base class with a smaller power budget, and then subclasses which take up a lot more of the theme and abilities. Could even work as a pure martial. Would be a good option for vampire and werewolf style PCs.


----------



## Horwath

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> I just want to remove the ridiculous 3e-style multiclassing and offer more classes to cover more concepts... but I know that's not where we're at.



more feat slots and more feats that imitate class features.

I.E.

practiced backstabber: requires level 4;
gain sneak attack +3d6, your max number of sneak attack dice can be 1/2 your level, round up. No ASI

Improved caster: requires level 4;
+1 int, wis or cha
gain +2 caster levels of chosen class, your caster level cannot be higher than your character level.

Extra attack: requires level 8, cannot have Extra attack feature.
You gain 2nd attack when you make Attack action. No ASI

Primal combat: requires level 4
+1 str or con
Gain rage of 4th level barbarian or increase your effective barbarian level by 4 for calculating rage.
You effective barbarian level cannot be higher than your character level.

Magic initiate: level 1 feat (buffed)
pick a spellcasting class,
learn 2 cantrips from that class,
learn 2 level one spells from that class,
gain 2 level one spell slots.

Lay on hands: requries level 4
+1 str, con or cha
gain lay on hands of 4th level paladin or increase your paladin level by 4 for LOH.
your effective paladin level cannot be higher than your character level


----------



## Parmandur

Frozen_Heart said:


> I just find metamagic thematically dry. Especially when combined with the small subclass power budget sorcerers have. It's essentially making a class out of a glorified feat.



OK, so you find it "dry", but it is the basisbfor the Class, and given the backwards compatibility mandate...that is not changing. In fact, the main adjustment I would expect is to lean into metamagic even more fully.


----------



## Remathilis

Frozen_Heart said:


> I do think that the 'play as a monster' theme could work as its own class though. The current sorcerer is pretty poor for it though as it has next to no subclass power budget.
> 
> You would just need a different base class with a smaller power budget, and then subclasses which take up a lot more of the theme and abilities. Could even work as a pure martial. Would be a good option for vampire and werewolf style PCs.



Absolutely. If 5e was keen on new base classes, I could see one. Unofficial classes like blood hunter already dip their toes in this. But I don't think the sorcerer is a good chassis for it. You might be able to grant some monstrous abilities (like draconic claws or angel wings) but the focus is on the magic and that's what needs fixing.


----------



## tetrasodium

Frozen_Heart said:


> I do think that the 'play as a monster' theme could work as its own class though. The current sorcerer is pretty poor for it though as it has next to no subclass power budget.
> 
> You would just need a different base class with a smaller power budget, and then subclasses which take up a lot more of the theme and abilities. Could even work as a pure martial. Would be a good option for vampire and werewolf style PCs.



I agree that full caster with basically all of the go to wizard spells is not a chassis that can support it but don't think that all of the mage group classes need the same full casting any more than we expect Fighter Barbarian & Monk (or Paladin) to have the same number of attacks


Remathilis said:


> It's not that gish but x couldn't support an entire class, it's that "you slowly become a monster" is limiting. Especially if the transformation *is limited to the four levels you get* subclass features on.
> 
> I think the current "wizard but x" is fine, it just needs a lot more spell support and more going on than metamagic.



"Wizard but X" is not a wide enough niche for the same reason you say gish but X is too small.  Look at the spells for sorcerer: fireball?:yup Web?:Yup slow?:Yup So on & so forth right down the list of top shelf spells.  The sorcerer is limited in spell choices on theoretical level, but if you were to watch a sorc & wizard player at the table they are likely to have a very similar spell selection  & offer no real differentiation unless a social situation breaks out. 

With the bolded bit.  *At least one of the  bard or ranger levels now has a subclass feature when it didn't before.* Gish but x as a theme could make good use of that without needing to lean so hard on a theoretically limited selection of the wizard spell list by giving very different distribution of power budget.  Fighter gets extra attack at 5 11 & 20 while Paladin gets smite aura or lay on hands features at 1 2 6 10 11 & 18 thanks to being a half caster.  There's no reason a "gish but x" class would need to get all of their abilities in 4 early levels because a fractional caster sorc would have the power budget to do similar with meaty arcane gish features not laden with ribbons.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Remathilis said:


> Absolutely. If 5e was keen on new base classes, I could see one. Unofficial classes like blood hunter already dip their toes in this. But I don't think the sorcerer is a good chassis for it. You might be able to grant some monstrous abilities (like draconic claws or angel wings) but the focus is on the magic and that's what needs fixing.



This is why I'm hoping for more base classes after the PHB in 5.75e. 5e leaves certain class and character concepts completely without support, and the low subclass power budget for most classes means that they don't function as those either.

It's why I love artificer so much. The base class I actually find pretty 'meh'. But the subclasses each change so much that it's like playing a different class. Shame WotC likes to pretend it doesn't exist as it's not in the PHB and so doesn't give it new subclasses.


----------



## Minigiant

tetrasodium said:


> That shows the gap between what we are talking about.  I think the monstrous abilities should be at least as competent  as college of swords bards/rangers/etc.  draconic might get bite/claw/tail & even a EB type breath weapon with serious costs to their spell slots/progression that justifies it.  The various other beastly gish but x-twist archetypes could have abilities fitting & themed to their bloodline.  Like the moon druid, casting is the secondary role not primary.
> 
> If "gish but X" isn't big enough to support an entire class though doesn't that also make it pretty clear that "wizard but x" is likewise not big enough to support an entire class.  At least gish but X isn't copying some other class.



A Gish would be a whole new class.

The Sorcerer should remain a primary spellcaster.

In my head D&D has room for 4 more weapons classes.

The Chosen
The Gish
The Scholar
The Warlord


----------



## Kobold Avenger

I think overall 15 or 16 classes should be the upper limit to how many base classes there are. 

We're already at 13 with the Artificer, just the Psion and maybe 1 or 2 others would be enough.


----------



## Remathilis

tetrasodium said:


> I agree that full caster with basically all of the go to wizard spells is not a chassis that can support it but don't think that all of the mage group classes need the same full casting any more than we expect Fighter Barbarian & Monk (or Paladin) to have the same number of attacks
> 
> "Wizard but X" is not a wide enough niche for the same reason you say gish but X is too small. Look at the spells for sorcerer: fireball?:yup Web?:Yup slow?:Yup So on & so forth right down the list of top shelf spells. The sorcerer is limited in spell choices on theoretical level, but if you were to watch a sorc & wizard player at the table they are likely to have a very similar spell selection & offer no real differentiation unless a social situation breaks out.
> 
> With the bolded bit. *At least one of the bard or ranger levels now has a subclass feature when it didn't before.* Gish but x as a theme could make good use of that without needing to lean so hard on a theoretically limited selection of the wizard spell list by giving very different distribution of power budget. Fighter gets extra attack at 5 11 & 20 while Paladin gets smite aura or lay on hands features at 1 2 6 10 11 & 18 thanks to being a half caster. There's no reason a "gish but x" class would need to get all of their abilities in 4 early levels because a fractional caster sorc would have the power budget to do similar with meaty arcane gish features not laden with ribbons.



Well warlock already has a nonstandard caster progress, so the mage group already has a proud nail.

My issue is that I don't want the sorcerer to become a fighter/mage hybrid with a monster transformation subtheme. It needs a boost, but slapping medium armor and martial weapons isn't the fix I want. And if this is the design option they went with, I'd want EVERY current sorcerer subclass ported to the wizard ASAP. I don't feel the lunar or wild magic themes fit a fighter/mage class, nor them transforming into... Uh, I don't even know. 

Basically, I want the sorcerer, not the magus.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Kobold Avenger said:


> I think overall 15 or 16 classes should be the upper limit to how many base classes there are.
> 
> We're already at 13 with the Artificer, just the Psion and maybe 1 or 2 others would be enough.



20 classes so I can multiclass a new class each level.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Remathilis said:


> Well warlock already has a nonstandard caster progress, so the mage group already has a proud nail.
> 
> My issue is that I don't want the sorcerer to become a fighter/mage hybrid with a monster transformation subtheme. It needs a boost, but slapping medium armor and martial weapons isn't the fix I want. And if this is the design option they went with, I'd want EVERY current sorcerer subclass ported to the wizard ASAP. I don't feel the lunar or wild magic themes fit a fighter/mage class, nor them transforming into... Uh, I don't even know.
> 
> Basically, I want the sorcerer, not the magus.



Ideally I'd have the concepts as three different classes.

Sorcerer - Spell point casting, metamagic, and an 'avatar state' or 'mage rage'. This temporary power up boost like a barbarian but for casting. Lots of fantasy tropes where someone finally powers up and goes all out with their magic as part of their character development.
Swordmage - Arcane half caster. Reaction based teleports. Lots of spells like searing smite and ensnaring strike along with similar ones which paladin and ranger don't have.
The 'play as monster' class. Not sure of what the name should be. - Pure martial, but with a huge chunk of the power budget on the subclass to really vary the playstyle. Can go into all the horror themes like lycanthropy, vampirism, something ithillid based, and something plague or disease based. Basically takes all the monster themes from the 5e playtest sorcerer and makes it its own class. Edit: Grimhollow is a good example here. Just moved into a class rather than separate transformations.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Frozen_Heart said:


> 20 classes so I can multiclass a new class each level.




This is the way to go!

Lets just check if we can manage it with point buy:

27 points.
8 to 13 is 5 points. x3
8 to 12 is 4 points x3
+3 points from stats.
Yes, works perfectly.

So go for it!


----------



## tetrasodium

Minigiant said:


> A Gish would be a whole new class.
> 
> The Sorcerer should remain a primary spellcaster.
> 
> In my head D&D has room for 4 more weapons classes.
> 
> The Chosen
> The Gish
> The Scholar
> The Warlord



Why?  I keep hearing how sorcerer can't be something else because it doesn't have enough space for that or because it needs to be  wizard copy with a twist instead of leaving wizard with a twist to archetypes for the actual wizard class.  I've asked a bunch but what about sorcerer hi es it enough space in mechanics & fluff to exist as a full class *distinct* from wizard?

Paladin Ranger & cleric are all very distinct with little confusion which is which from an observer but sorcerer & wizard not so much


----------



## Frozen_Heart

tetrasodium said:


> Why?  I keep hearing how sorcerer can't be something else because it doesn't have enough space for that or because it needs to be  wizard copy with a twist instead of leaving wizard with a twist to archetypes for the actual wizard class.  I've asked a bunch but what about sorcerer hi es it enough space in mechanics & fluff to exist as a full class *distinct* from wizard?



I mean that's the issue. Partially because wizard has this stereotyped theme of cranky old man without natural talent learning everything in a formulaic way from books.
Then you look at fiction, and there is tons of examples is characters who are basically wizards but young and know magic due to just having it in their blood.

So you end up with two class ideas which are near identical in mechanics, but have different themes. And then any attempt to bend sorcerer into being its own thing rather than wizard clone means people no longer get their 'wizard but hot'.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

That is... stupidly accurate. Sexy Wizard subclass, presented as its own class.


----------



## Clint_L

That's why they swap intelligence for charisma.


----------



## Remathilis

How about this: sorcerer becomes the default caster class, but there is a subclass for "bookish wizard" types who gets a spell book and more spell choices. They can even get metamagic!


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Remathilis said:


> How about this: sorcerer becomes the default caster class, but there is a subclass for "bookish wizard" types who gets a spell book and more spell choices. They can even get metamagic!



As much as I hate wizards, that will never happen. They're basically THE DnD caster class. With everything else being an offshoot.


----------



## Minigiant

Kobold Avenger said:


> I think overall 15 or 16 classes should be the upper limit to how many base classes there are.
> 
> We're already at 13 with the Artificer, just the Psion and maybe 1 or 2 others would be enough.



I can easily think of 20. 

But 16-17 is probably the limit of "fully supported official base classes" WOTC knows how to support.

I think you could got 5-6 more "supported only by the book it's included in" classes if the rules are self referential enough and the source book goes hard enough into design.


----------



## Horwath

4 classes only, with huge amount of subclasses:

1. Warrior; 
d12 HD, 
no spellcasting, possible 1/3 caster for some subclasses
extra attacks at levels 5, 11, 17 and 20

2. Gish;
d10 HD,
half caster
extra attacks at levels 5 and 17. Possible extra at level 11 with subclass.

3. "2/3 caster";
d8 HD,
2/3 caster,
extra attack at level 11 and 20. Possible extra at levels 5 or 17 with subclass.

4. mage
d6 HD
full caster,
extra attack at level 17. possible extra at levels 5 or 11 with subclass.


starting proficiencies for all classes:

pool 10pts:

skills: 1 to 5 skills. worth 1 to 5 pts
weapon proficiencies: simple 0 pts. Martial 2 pts
armor proficiency: none to heavy: 0 to 3 points
cantrips: 0 to 4 cantrips. 0 to 4 points.
saving throws: 
dex, con or wis, worth 2 points. max one of those
str, int or cha, worth 1 point. max two of those
3 tools or languages, worth 1 point.


----------



## Minigiant

Horwath said:


> 4 classes only, with huge amount of subclasses:
> 
> 1. Warrior;
> d12 HD,
> no spellcasting, possible 1/3 caster for some subclasses
> extra attacks at levels 5, 11, 17 and 20
> 
> 2. Gish;
> d10 HD,
> half caster
> extra attacks at levels 5 and 17. Possible extra at level 11 with subclass.
> 
> 3. "2/3 caster";
> d8 HD,
> 2/3 caster,
> extra attack at level 11 and 20. Possible extra at levels 5 or 17 with subclass.
> 
> 4. mage
> d6 HD
> full caster,
> extra attack at level 17. possible extra at levels 5 or 11 with subclass.
> 
> 
> starting proficiencies for all classes:
> 
> pool 10pts:
> 
> skills: 1 to 5 skills. worth 1 to 5 pts
> weapon proficiencies: simple 0 pts. Martial 2 pts
> armor proficiency: none to heavy: 0 to 3 points
> cantrips: 0 to 4 cantrips. 0 to 4 points.
> saving throws:
> dex, con or wis, worth 2 points. max one of those
> str, int or cha, worth 1 point. max two of those
> 3 tools or languages, worth 1 point.




-1 HP a level and -1 attacks at levels I likely won't reach for 1/2 casting sounds like a great trade.

A big thing that Feat using Editions taught me is armor and weapon proficiency and extra attacks don't mean much if you hand them out as feats or don't scale weapon power to a "hard to game" attribute. 

It's why "3-4 class" D&D clones rarely get big. They only succeed with the subset of gamers who don't optimize even by accident and typically play D&D for the struggle.

---
Also if expert/skill monkey is a category of class and it too can be split into 1/2 and 2/3 then that's *9* classes for a point but class system..

Warrior/Expert/Priest/Mage is 18 classes.

If you go Warrior/Expert/Divine/Primal/Arcane, that's 25 classes right?


----------



## cbwjm

Remathilis said:


> How about this: sorcerer becomes the default caster class, but there is a subclass for "bookish wizard" types who gets a spell book and more spell choices. They can even get metamagic!



I think it would be better to merge wizard, sorcerer, and warlock into 1 and you decide at the beginning how you learned you magic, by book, by blood, or by pact. Pretty sure I've seen this in at least 1 5e/OSR-like game. Then all the subclasses become something like, studied under a dragon, have dragon blood, made a Pact with a dragon.


----------



## Yaarel

cbwjm said:


> I think it would be better to merge wizard, sorcerer, and warlock into 1 and you decide at the beginning how you learned you magic, by book, by blood, or by pact. Pretty sure I've seen this in at least 1 5e/OSR-like game. Then all the subclasses become something like, studied under a dragon, have dragon blood, made a Pact with a dragon.



Heh, want to see the Wizard split up into separate classes!

But yeah, Sorcerer and Warlock are too similar thematically. I would like to see the Sorcerer and Warlock merge.

The "metamagic" of the current Sorcerer can become "Mage Feats".



Both the Warlock and Sorcerer essentially make a "pact" that imbues the body with magic. Typically, in the case of the Sorcerer, it is an ancestor who made a pact with a dragon, and now the Sorcerer has inherited the bodily magic and now learns to exercise its potential. But it is also possible for the Sorcerer character to have made a pact with a dragon personally to transform ones body. Likewise, while the Warlock often establish the pact personally, it too can inherent an ancestral pact from generations ago.

Both the Sorcerer and Warlock are like living wands, a magical equivalent of a cyborg.


----------



## Remathilis

cbwjm said:


> I think it would be better to merge wizard, sorcerer, and warlock into 1 and you decide at the beginning how you learned you magic, by book, by blood, or by pact. Pretty sure I've seen this in at least 1 5e/OSR-like game. Then all the subclasses become something like, studied under a dragon, have dragon blood, made a Pact with a dragon.



It was tried during the 5e playtest; though to be fair we never saw the spontaneous caster version of the 5e "mage" class, just the book/prep caster.


----------



## Minigiant

Yaarel said:


> But yeah, Sorcerer and Warlock are too similar thematically. I would like to see the Sorcerer and Warlock merge.



The Sorcerer and the Warlock are only similar thematically and mechanically because the designers of certain "gaming generations" who don't explore theme differences much or are swayed heavily by those of those groups.

The fact that the Sorcerer has few exclusive spells points that D&D designers since the Sorcerer's creation in 3e, don't _get_ the Sorcerer, and wont try hard to get it unless forced (ie 4e PHB, experimental DNDN playtest).

We will see what happens when Mages hit playtest. The sorcerer will very likely see heavy experimentation. The wuestion is if the experiment continues past the first showing.


----------



## tetrasodium

Minigiant said:


> The Sorcerer and the Warlock are only similar thematically and mechanically because the designers of certain "gaming generations" who don't explore theme differences much or are swayed heavily by those of those groups.
> 
> The fact that the Sorcerer has few exclusive spells points that D&D designers since the Sorcerer's creation* in 3e,* don't _get_ the Sorcerer, and wont try hard to get it unless forced (ie 4e PHB, experimental DNDN playtest).
> 
> We will see what happens when Mages hit playtest. The sorcerer will very likely see heavy experimentation. The wuestion is if the experiment continues past the first showing.



There were some efforts to explore it in 3.5 but 5e doesn't provide sorcerer the designspace.  In 3.5 unearthed arcana (it was a book then not what it is now) there was a "Battle sorcerer" variant sorcerer


Spoiler: Battle Sorcerer variant had this...




Hit Die:d4→d8
Class Skills: Remove Bluff add intimidate
Weapons & armor prof: simple weapons & no armor → any light or one handed martial weapon of the player's choice & light armor
Spellcasting:  Can cast in light armor with no chance of ASF but spell slots are reduced by one spell per day from each spell level(min zero)
At the time chain shirt was considered light armor




It made for a pretty decent sorcerer based gish that was even more different from the 3.5 wizard than the 3.5 sorcerer already was.  IIRC there was also a bunch of draconic sorcerer PrC?+feats in complete arcane races of dragon or something too but I don't remember much about them.

Putting both casters on the same spontaneous casting wasn't the only change in 3.5→5e though, no longer getting int mod to skill points having skills combined & bounded accuracy making ok & untrained good enough in 5e also cut into what was a wizard strength at the time.


----------



## cbwjm

tetrasodium said:


> It made for a pretty decent sorcerer based gish that was even more different from the 3.5 wizard than the 3.5 sorcerer already was. IIRC there was also a bunch of draconic sorcerer PrC?+feats in complete arcane races of dragon or something too but I don't remember much about them.



From memory, they came up with a bunch of sorcerer only feats that explored their bloodline, some of which gained more power the more feats you had (like a draconic feat might grant you additional hit points for each draconic feat you chose. I remember there being dragon and fey bloodline feats, I wouldn't be surprised if there were most of the planar races with celestial and fiendish feats that could be chosen instead. I'd have to hunt down the 3e books to confirm though.


----------



## CreamCloud0

I’m fine with wizard sorcerer warlock all existing and i think they all have their own unique spin on things, the only thing I would say is that sorcerer really needed their metamagic capacity boosted, like an extra MM known and free application of MM to cantrips rather than requiring sorcery points on them.

The lore differences between the three IMO could be analogised as such:
—The wizard went to a fancy formal cooking school, they know the core techniques required how to cook lots of different types of meal but don’t have the recipes memorised as well as they could do and as such must refer to the cookbook when cooking and can’t deviate from the recipe,
—The sorcerer learnt cooking from a close relative who owned a cafe or small restaurant, they don’t know as many techniques or recipes but the ones they do know they’ve got down off by heart and can even tweak the recipe on the fly for different variations when required,
—Finally the warlock, the warlock doesn’t really know how to cook, they’re close friends and have an agreement with the owner of the megamart or take-out place across the way and have a super special deal for all the frozen readymeals or fried chicken they could want, yes maybe they’ve learned a few things for themselves along the way but for the most part but all the food is coming from someone else.


----------



## Marandahir

Mu.

This IS 5e, so the classes should be the same as 5e, by virtue of logic.


----------



## Mephista

Minigiant said:


> The Sorcerer and the Warlock are only similar thematically and mechanically because the designers of certain "gaming generations" who don't explore theme differences much or are swayed heavily by those of those groups.



The sorcerer and warlock are similar thematically and mechanically because they've always been so.  In 3e, they were both alternative wizards with innate, inherited magic. In 4e, they were both Arcane strikers.  In 5e, well, people say that the Venn Diagram of Patrons and Origins is a circle for a good reason. 

In each edition, sorcerer has struggled to find its niche, while warlock has basically eaten a few other classes into itself to make its own niche.



Minigiant said:


> The fact that the Sorcerer has few exclusive spells points that D&D designers since the Sorcerer's creation in 3e, don't _get_ the Sorcerer, and wont try hard to get it unless forced (ie 4e PHB, experimental DNDN playtest).



Wait, wait wait.  Are you saying that the designers of the 3e sorcerer don't get their own creation?  The "lets try messing with Vancian casting and see if it breaks the game" class?  Maybe you care to enlighten us on how you understand the sorcerer more than the people that made the class?


----------



## tetrasodium

cbwjm said:


> From memory, they came up with a bunch of sorcerer only feats that explored their bloodline, some of which gained more power the more feats you had (like a draconic feat might grant you additional hit points for each draconic feat you chose. I remember there being dragon and fey bloodline feats, I wouldn't be surprised if there were most of the planar races with celestial and fiendish feats that could be chosen instead. I'd have to hunt down the 3e books to confirm though.



This pushed me to look them up since it was more than I remembered about them


Spoiler: draconic feats from complete arcane




Draconic breath:  Burn spell slots for a breath weapon that deals 2d6 per level of the slot
Draconic Claw:small d4/med d6/lg d8  claw attack & can use as a swift action in any round you cast a spell.
Draconic Flight: fly speed of 10ft* slot level for 1 round when you cast a spell
Draconic Heritage: Gain a class skill & some bonuses to certain saves that depend on the number of draconic feats you have
Draconic Legacy: Needs 4 draconic feats but adds 3 spells to spells known
Draconic power: +1 caster level & add +1 to the dc of spells with a given energy type
Draconic presence:  wjen you cast a spell opponents with fewer HD than you make a will save or are shaken
Draconic resistance:  Get resistance to the linked energy type = to num draconic feats
Draconic skin: +1 _natural_ armor (this stacked with armor)





I don't know what book might have had the other flavors you mention but they definitely provided some pretty cool options for a sorcerer that carved out a new niche. The breath weapon might sound iffy but 3.x was also the edition where there were monster feats players could qualify for if they managed to get things like that so it was probably a gateway to other feats on top of being plus one draconic feat to feats that count. (the flight maybe too).  3.x made  a lot of interesting things sorcerer could snag.
*edit: *There were some pretty neat breath weapon feats Some flight ones too


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Marandahir said:


> Mu.
> 
> This IS 5e, so the classes should be the same as 5e, by virtue of logic.



I mean adding classes doesn't make the game no longer backwards compatible.

Hell, even if a class is removed, you could still play the 2014 version in the system if the game really is as backwards compatible as they claim.


----------



## Minigiant

tetrasodium said:


> There were some efforts to explore it in 3.5 but 5e doesn't provide sorcerer the designspace.  In 3.5 unearthed arcana (it was a book then not what it is now) there was a "Battle sorcerer" variant sorcerer
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Battle Sorcerer variant had this...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hit Die:d4→d8
> Class Skills: Remove Bluff add intimidate
> Weapons & armor prof: simple weapons & no armor → any light or one handed martial weapon of the player's choice & light armor
> Spellcasting:  Can cast in light armor with no chance of ASF but spell slots are reduced by one spell per day from each spell level(min zero)
> At the time chain shirt was considered light armor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It made for a pretty decent sorcerer based gish that was even more different from the 3.5 wizard than the 3.5 sorcerer already was.  IIRC there was also a bunch of draconic sorcerer PrC?+feats in complete arcane races of dragon or something too but I don't remember much about them.
> 
> Putting both casters on the same spontaneous casting wasn't the only change in 3.5→5e though, no longer getting int mod to skill points having skills combined & bounded accuracy making ok & untrained good enough in 5e also cut into what was a wizard strength at the time.



But that's kinda my point.
UA back then was about experimental new rules. So if they did UA for other classes, they would be forced to explore the sorcerer's theme (in comparison and contrast of the wizard and warlock). Sorcerer wasn't a priority in 3e. Soit wasn't really a shock it was pushed to PHB2 in 4e. And the 5e Sorcerer's 2014 publication state shows that either none of the top designers really loved the sorcerer, internally they used houserules they culdn't print, or they figured no one cared enough to call it out because "metamagic!".


Mephista said:


> The sorcerer and warlock are similar thematically and mechanically because they've always been so. In 3e, they were both alternative wizards with innate, inherited magic. In 4e, they were both Arcane strikers. In 5e, well, people say that the Venn Diagram of Patrons and Origins is a circle for a good reason.
> 
> In each edition, sorcerer has struggled to find its niche, while warlock has basically eaten a few other classes into itself to make its own niche.



And  keep saying there is lore and setting differences between a patron candidate and a origin ancestor. 

There is a reason why there isn't a Dragon Patron.
There is a reason why there isn't an Archfey Origin.

The sorcerer doesn't struggle to find a niche. The problem is both designers and fans ignore core sorcerer fluff. The little true lore it has.




Mephista said:


> Wait, wait wait. Are you saying that the designers of the 3e sorcerer don't get their own creation? The "lets try messing with Vancian casting and see if it breaks the game" class? Maybe you care to enlighten us on how you understand the sorcerer more than the people that made the class?



There was noticeable wizard snobbery and sorcerer hate with the fluff blurbs and amongst designers in 3e. And a lot of the 3,e content made specifically for sorcerer was late in the edition when WOTC typically is forced to create content to print books. There is even speculation that some designers didn't care for the class.


----------



## cbwjm

tetrasodium said:


> This pushed me to look them up since it was more than I remembered about them
> 
> 
> Spoiler: draconic feats from complete arcane
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Draconic breath:  Burn spell slots for a breath weapon that deals 2d6 per level of the slot
> Draconic Claw:small d4/med d6/lg d8  claw attack & can use as a swift action in any round you cast a spell.
> Draconic Flight: fly speed of 10ft* slot level for 1 round when you cast a spell
> Draconic Heritage: Gain a class skill & some bonuses to certain saves that depend on the number of draconic feats you have
> Draconic Legacy: Needs 4 draconic feats but adds 3 spells to spells known
> Draconic power: +1 caster level & add +1 to the dc of spells with a given energy type
> Draconic presence:  wjen you cast a spell opponents with fewer HD than you make a will save or are shaken
> Draconic resistance:  Get resistance to the linked energy type = to num draconic feats
> Draconic skin: +1 _natural_ armor (this stacked with armor)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what book might have had the other flavors you mention but they definitely provided some pretty cool options for a sorcerer that carved out a new niche. The breath weapon might sound iffy but 3.x was also the edition where there were monster feats players could qualify for if they managed to get things like that so it was probably a gateway to other feats on top of being plus one draconic feat to feats that count. (the flight maybe too).  3.x made  a lot of interesting things sorcerer could snag.
> *edit: *There were some pretty neat breath weapon feats Some flight ones too



The others were in the complete mage (I had an inkling that was where they all were, but google confirmed). My guess is that the draconic ones were popular, or perhaps the designers just liked them, so they created a few others. If I went back to 3.5, I'd probably be inclined to let a sorcerer have bonus feats that they could choose from these trees.


----------



## Minigiant

The truth is I am fine with the "new class for different settings" if  the settings actually came with new classes.

Swordmage- Forgotten Realms
Artificer- Eberron
Psion- Dark Sun
Warlord- Nentir Vale
Noble- Birthright
Chosen- Some New Dark Mythic setting
Invoker/Inquisitor- Some New Warrior Pantheon setting


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Minigiant said:


> The truth is I am fine with the "new class for different settings" if  the settings actually came with new classes.
> 
> Swordmage- Forgotten Realms
> Artificer- Eberron
> Psion- Dark Sun
> Warlord- Nentir Vale
> Noble- Birthright
> Chosen- Some New Dark Mythic setting
> Invoker/Inquisitor- Some New Warrior Pantheon setting



_hopefully I can mention this without getting verbal abuse from people_

Exandria - Blood Hunter


----------



## Minigiant

Frozen_Heart said:


> _hopefully I can mention this without getting verbal abuse from people_
> 
> Exandria - Blood Hunter



Dragonlance- Tinker


----------



## Remathilis

Ravenloft - Witch
Planescape - Factotum


----------



## Horwath

Remathilis said:


> Ravenloft - Witch
> Planescape - Factotum



couldn't Factotum be setting neutral.

Also it could be made with 45 Feats across 20 levels and "make your own class" class.


----------



## MoonSong

Mephista said:


> Wait, wait wait. Are you saying that the designers of the 3e sorcerer don't get their own creation? The "lets try messing with Vancian casting and see if it breaks the game" class? Maybe you care to enlighten us on how you understand the sorcerer more than the people that made the class?



If you might believe it, among the 3e design team nobody was more vocal against sorcerer than Skipp Williams, also known as the first creator of the sorcerer


----------



## MoonSong

tetrasodium said:


> This pushed me to look them up since it was more than I remembered about them
> 
> 
> Spoiler: draconic feats from complete arcane
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Draconic breath:  Burn spell slots for a breath weapon that deals 2d6 per level of the slot
> Draconic Claw:small d4/med d6/lg d8  claw attack & can use as a swift action in any round you cast a spell.
> Draconic Flight: fly speed of 10ft* slot level for 1 round when you cast a spell
> Draconic Heritage: Gain a class skill & some bonuses to certain saves that depend on the number of draconic feats you have
> Draconic Legacy: Needs 4 draconic feats but adds 3 spells to spells known
> Draconic power: +1 caster level & add +1 to the dc of spells with a given energy type
> Draconic presence:  wjen you cast a spell opponents with fewer HD than you make a will save or are shaken
> Draconic resistance:  Get resistance to the linked energy type = to num draconic feats
> Draconic skin: +1 _natural_ armor (this stacked with armor)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what book might have had the other flavors you mention but they definitely provided some pretty cool options for a sorcerer that carved out a new niche. The breath weapon might sound iffy but 3.x was also the edition where there were monster feats players could qualify for if they managed to get things like that so it was probably a gateway to other feats on top of being plus one draconic feat to feats that count. (the flight maybe too).  3.x made  a lot of interesting things sorcerer could snag.
> *edit: *There were some pretty neat breath weapon feats Some flight ones too



There's the heritage feats from Dragon magazzine too.


----------



## Knight_Marshal

I am still looking for a shaman class or at the very least a subclass.


----------



## Horwath

Knight_Marshal said:


> I am still looking for a shaman class or at the very least a subclass.



1/3 caster for barbarian with some cool features could work in this manner.

some auras that work while in rage.

ability to cast and concentrate on shaman only spells in rage, adding rage bonus to damage with spells that have attack roll,


----------



## Mind of tempest

look I just want more but ideally, big meaty classes not one concept stretched out a hundred ways I am looking at you druid.


----------



## Minigiant

Horwath said:


> 1/3 caster for barbarian with some cool features could work in this manner.
> 
> some auras that work while in rage.
> 
> ability to cast and concentrate on shaman only spells in rage, adding rage bonus to damage with spells that have attack roll,



Shamans in D&D have been traditionally caster of the same level of a cleric or druid: full.

A shaman class in 1D&D would be better suited as a Priest class with access to a subset of both Divine and Primal spells and have a chunk of. their power budget attributed to a (default noncombat) spirit companion.


----------



## MPA2000

Frozen_Heart said:


> So I made this thread on the ODnD reddit and the results surprised me. Thought I'd post a duplicate here to see if the views are consistent over multiple forums.
> 
> Just wondering how many classes people want to see this edition. Not just in the PHB, but in the supplements which come afterwards too (e.g. artificer)
> 
> If you want less classes, which ones do you want to see removed or merged?
> 
> If you want more classes, which additional archetypes do you feel need covering more thoroughly?



Call me old school, but there never should have been more than the four classes (Fighter, MU, Cleric and Thief) or four races (Human, Elf, Dwarf and Hafling (aka Hobbit)), as originally meant.   They should go back to that, at least in a separate game for new players, but that's never going to happen.


----------



## MoonSong

MPA2000 said:


> Call me old school, but there never should have been more than the four classes (Fighter, MU, Cleric and Thief) or four races (Human, Elf, Dwarf and Hafling (aka Hobbit)), as originally meant.   They should go back to that, at least in a separate game for new players, but that's never going to happen.



I think you mean three classes? No edition at its core has ever had exactly four classes.


----------



## Hatmatter

I voted "more than 5e," but I would like to qualify. I have not had an opportunity to read this thread yet, so if I reproduce what others say, it is not due to the influence of anything already written here. 

I voted this way b/c I think there is still conceptual space in 5e for a psionist.

If, in the revision of classes in One D&D, the sorcerer core class features are revised so that it could capture a psionist without some of the arcane holdovers of the 5e sorcerer, I think a psionist subclass (perhaps something like the Aberrant Mind sorcerer) could cover the conceptual space of a person who has trained and perfected an innate psionic power.

I also (and I have given this feedback in the first survey) think that the spell lists should include "psionic" in addition to arcane, divine, and primal categories. 

I think a revised sorcerer with a psionist subclass and then the existing psionic subclasses for fighter, rogue, and warlock -- along with maybe a future psionic subclass for the monk -- and then the psionic feats that appeared in _Tasha's_ (along with perhaps some new ones), would probably be the best integration of psionics into the D&D core rules.


----------



## Mind of tempest

MPA2000 said:


> Call me old school, but there never should have been more than the four classes (Fighter, MU, Cleric and Thief) or four races (Human, Elf, Dwarf and Hafling (aka Hobbit)), as originally meant.   They should go back to that, at least in a separate game for new players, but that's never going to happen.



aside from nostalgia what justifications do you have for it why those classes why those races?


----------



## steeldragons

4 Class Categories X 3 Base Classes per = 12.
Warrior (Fighter, Barbarian, Martial Adept), Rogue (Thief, Acrobat, Ranger), Mystic (Cleric, Druid, Warlock),
Wizard (Mage, Psychic, Swordmage/"Magus")

12 Base Classes X 3 Sub-(or "Expert")classes per = 36
Warrior: Fighter:  Default Fighter, Cavalier, Dungeoneer
Warrior: Barbarian: Default Barbarian, Totem Warrior, Skald
Warrior: Martial Adept: Default Martial Artist/"Monk", Kensei, Dragon Adept
Rogue: Thief: Default Thief, Bravo/"Assassin," Rake (charisma/courtier thief)
Rogue: Acrobat: Default Acrobat, Swashbuckler, Jester/"Trickster"
Rogue: Ranger: Default Ranger, Beastmaster (animal companion ranger), Horizon Walker (magic ranger)
Mystic: Cleric: Default Cleric, Invoker/"Priest" (caster cleric), Templar/"Paladin" (martial cleric)
Mystic: Druid: Default Druid, Shaman (spirit summoners/shapeshifters), Elementalist (element caster-druids)
Mystic: Warlock: Default Warlock, Hexblade, Conjurer/"Binder"
Wizard: Mage: Default Mage, Illusionist, Abjurer
Wizard: Psychic: Default Psychic, Seer, Telekinetic
Wizard: Swordmage: Default Magus, Psi-Warrior, Bladecaster (bamfing bladesingery type) 

6 "Prestige"/"Paragon" Classes that cannot be taken without several levels of other prerequisites.
Warlord: must have levels in Warrior class, et al
Avenger: must have levels in Rogue class, et al
Bard: must have levels in Warrior or Rogue class, et al.
Thaumaturgist: must have levels in a Wizard class, et al.
Theurge: must have levels in Mystic class, et al
Witch: must have levels in Mystic or Wizard class, et al.

42.


----------



## Mind of tempest

steeldragons said:


> 4 Class Categories X 3 Base Classes per = 12.
> Warrior (Fighter, Barbarian, Martial Adept), Rogue (Thief, Acrobat, Ranger), Mystic (Cleric, Druid, Warlock),
> Wizard (Mage, Psychic, Swordmage/"Magus")
> 
> 12 Base Classes X 3 Sub-(or "Expert")classes per = 36
> Warrior: Fighter:  Default Fighter, Cavalier, Dungeoneer
> Warrior: Barbarian: Default Barbarian, Totem Warrior, Skald
> Warrior: Martial Adept: Default Martial Artist/"Monk", Kensei, Dragon Adept
> Rogue: Thief: Default Thief, Bravo/"Assassin," Rake (charisma/courtier thief)
> Rogue: Acrobat: Default Acrobat, Swashbuckler, Jester/"Trickster"
> Rogue: Ranger: Default Ranger, Beastmaster (animal companion ranger), Horizon Walker (magic ranger)
> Mystic: Cleric: Default Cleric, Invoker/"Priest" (caster cleric), Templar/"Paladin" (martial cleric)
> Mystic: Druid: Default Druid, Shaman (spirit summoners/shapeshifters), Elementalist (element caster-druids)
> Mystic: Warlock: Default Warlock, Hexblade, Conjurer/"Binder"
> Wizard: Mage: Default Mage, Illusionist, Abjurer
> Wizard: Psychic: Default Psychic, Seer, Telekinetic
> Wizard: Swordmage: Default Magus, Psi-Warrior, Bladecaster (bamfing bladesingery type)
> 
> 6 "Prestige"/"Paragon" Classes that cannot be taken without several levels of other prerequisites.
> Warlord: must have levels in Warrior class, et al
> Avenger: must have levels in Rogue class, et al
> Bard: must have levels in Warrior or Rogue class, et al.
> Thaumaturgist: must have levels in a Wizard class, et al.
> Theurge: must have levels in Mystic class, et al
> Witch: must have levels in Mystic or Wizard class, et al.
> 
> 42.



why is a circus performer in the rogue slot it makes no sense try something better?


----------



## steeldragons

Mind of tempest said:


> why is a circus performer in the rogue slot it makes no sense try something better?



Huh....jeez...I wonder why? ...That's right! 1) It DOES make sense. Oh yeah, and 2) has D&D cred going back to 1e...with subclass options appearing in every edition... and 3) has multiple different cool character archetypes.

Maybe "try something better" is more applicable to your character conceptions than my class list. But thanks for your ever-valuable input.


----------



## Mind of tempest

steeldragons said:


> Huh....jeez...I wonder why? ...That's right! 1) It DOES make sense. Oh yeah, and 2) has D&D cred going back to 1e...with subclass options appearing in every edition... and 3) has multiple different cool character archetypes.
> 
> Maybe "try something better" is more applicable to your character conceptions than my class list. But thanks for your ever-valuable input.



yeah it has tradition but lots of dumb idea where in 1e that does not make them good ideas.

aside from dnd derive media and superheroes who work on different setting assumptions do you have an acrobat example character? an origin point as swashbuckler is at least a media idea? what next a rat catcher class or a chief class?


----------



## cbwjm

MPA2000 said:


> Call me old school, but there never should have been more than the four classes (Fighter, MU, Cleric and Thief) or four races (Human, Elf, Dwarf and Hafling (aka Hobbit)), as originally meant.   They should go back to that, at least in a separate game for new players, but that's never going to happen.



Sounds kind of like the basic/starter versions of dnd.


----------



## Gorck

Horwath said:


> 1/3 caster for barbarian with some cool features could work in this manner.
> 
> some auras that work while in rage.
> 
> ability to cast and concentrate on shaman only spells in rage, adding rage bonus to damage with spells that have attack roll,



I would prefer it if Barbarians couldn't cast magic.  As it is, we have 13 official classes in the game:

6 are full casters (Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard)
3 are 1/2 casters (Artificer, Paladin, Ranger)
3 have a subclass that allows them to become a 1/3 caster (Eldritch Knight Fighter, Arcane Trickster Rogue)
1 has a subclass that allows them to become a pseudo-caster (Way of the 4 Elements Monk)
which leaves the Barbarian as the only class that can't cast magic (and I'm perfectly fine if they would remain that way).


----------



## cbwjm

Gorck said:


> I would prefer it if Barbarians couldn't cast magic.  As it is, we have 13 official classes in the game:
> 
> 6 are full casters (Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard)
> 3 are 1/2 casters (Artificer, Paladin, Ranger)
> 3 have a subclass that allows them to become a 1/3 caster (Eldritch Knight Fighter, Arcane Trickster Rogue)
> 1 has a subclass that allows them to become a pseudo-caster (Way of the 4 Elements Monk)
> which leaves the Barbarian as the only class that can't cast magic (and I'm perfectly fine if they would remain that way).



I think for most, having a subclass doesn't really count as "this class can cast magic".


----------



## Remathilis

Gorck said:


> I would prefer it if Barbarians couldn't cast magic. As it is, we have 13 official classes in the game:
> 
> 6 are full casters (Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard)
> 3 are 1/2 casters (Artificer, Paladin, Ranger)
> 3 have a subclass that allows them to become a 1/3 caster (Eldritch Knight Fighter, Arcane Trickster Rogue)
> 1 has a subclass that allows them to become a pseudo-caster (Way of the 4 Elements Monk)
> which leaves the Barbarian as the only class that can't cast magic (and I'm perfectly fine if they would remain that way).



Are you talking about the PHB only? Because the animal totem barbarian gets two rituals, and beyond that the wild magic barbarian and storm barbarian are pretty darn magical.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Frozen_Heart said:


> Also some aspects just don't exist at all in 5e. That whole 'become the monster' the playtest sorcerer had is still completely untouched.



In my homebrew Binder class I have a subclass that is based on binding a power inside yourself, and thus gaining its power and transforming into a version of it. 

It might end up having to be separate, though, because it’s…a big concept.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Gorck said:


> I would prefer it if Barbarians couldn't cast magic.  As it is, we have 13 official classes in the game:
> 
> 6 are full casters (Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard)
> 3 are 1/2 casters (Artificer, Paladin, Ranger)
> 3 have a subclass that allows them to become a 1/3 caster (Eldritch Knight Fighter, Arcane Trickster Rogue)
> 1 has a subclass that allows them to become a pseudo-caster (Way of the 4 Elements Monk)
> which leaves the Barbarian as the only class that can't cast magic (and I'm perfectly fine if they would remain that way).



Totem has ritual spells.


----------



## Gorck

Remathilis said:


> Are you talking about the PHB only? Because the animal totem barbarian gets two rituals, and beyond that the wild magic barbarian and storm barbarian are pretty darn magical.



I did not take into account rituals.  I was mostly thinking of spell slots (with the arbitrary exception of the Monk).


----------



## Marandahir

Frozen_Heart said:


> I mean adding classes doesn't make the game no longer backwards compatible.
> 
> Hell, even if a class is removed, you could still play the 2014 version in the system if the game really is as backwards compatible as they claim.



You misunderstand me.

It doesn't matter if One D&D adds additional classes or not, it will still be the same number of classes as 5e because One D&D and 5e are the same edition. Adding more classes in 2024 is the same thing as adding more classes in 2014.

By the same virtue, it can't REMOVE classes because it's the same game - it can add variants of some classes but not others, but the ones it doesn't add variants to aren't removed… just not updated with the latest errata. They still exist in the game, which is One Edition - the 5th of D&D.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Marandahir said:


> You misunderstand me.
> 
> It doesn't matter if One D&D adds additional classes or not, it will still be the same number of classes as 5e because One D&D and 5e are the same edition. Adding more classes in 2024 is the same thing as adding more classes in 2014.
> 
> By the same virtue, it can't REMOVE classes because it's the same game - it can add variants of some classes but not others, but the ones it doesn't add variants to aren't removed… just not updated with the latest errata. They still exist in the game, which is One Edition - the 5th of D&D.



Too true.  And this explains quite well why there's no need for the Artificer to be in the 2024 PHB-- it's already been printed twice in the last 3 years, it doesn't need to be printed a third time in 5.  You can use the Eberron and/or Tasha's versions in 2024 same as you can with the 2014.


----------



## Marandahir

DEFCON 1 said:


> Too true.  And this explains quite well why there's no need for the Artificer to be in the 2024 PHB-- it's already been printed twice in the last 3 years, it doesn't need to be printed a third time in 5.  You can use the Eberron and/or Tasha's versions in 2024 same as you can with the 2014.



Agreed - though I think eventually the setting-specific lineages and classes/subclasses should be updated to conform to the new stylistic forms, to make them fit cleaner with the 2024 PHB standards. Just don't think that needs to happen in 2024.


----------

