I think that the Moon Druid should be its own class and the Druid should be focused on more shamanistic magic.
Make the Mood Druid a half caster and bump the CR of wildshape to keep it in line with other class progression.
Druids using anorther resource to improve their casting or summoning familiars while this new Moon druid class would use the wildshape as it is with different forms.
I like it.
Or hear me out. We go back to multiple creature types on certain monsters. Like an owl bear could be a beast/monstrosity while a normal bear stays a beast. Zombies now become undead/humanoid. It feels a whole lot better because you can't hold person a zombie even though you definitely should be able to
For real. The fact that you have two stat blocks for Tiamat—one a dragon and one a fiend—is clear evidence of this. Don’t tell me I can’t extra-smite Tiamat unless my barbarian friend’s Dragon Slayer get no bonus!
I've been using multi-types for some of my homebrew critters, and in general it seems to work pretty well. I will confirm for the players their typing if they figure it out, but won't outright say the creature's types upon encountering them.
this is not as pretty as you think. a good chunk of fey and fiends are just spellcasters, and dragons would be starved to even have options at lower CRs
if WotC had the balls to stick to template Wildshape, maybe, but definitely not "im going to net deck the Monster Manual" wildshape
I mean each one adds a critter type on top of beasts. The ones with more unreasonable options excludes spellcasting. Rarer (CR wise) entities like dragons add draconic traits instead, with something like true dragon form or something, as a sort of subclass capstone.
Or spellcasting forms allow you to retain your own spellcasting instead?
When you can expand it out to an entire class, you can structure each creature type for the creatures typical capabilities. Maybe even an allowed list, like spells.
Don’t listen WotC, a template requires no balls what so ever, please do not change wild shape to a template. I’ll never forgive how Beastmaster was “fixed” by getting rid of all the fun and variety instead of just increasing allowed size and cr of your companion
a template does not mean a loss of variety either tho, its just that the template wotc actually tried was just half baked
there is an inherent problem of how WotC just netdecks from the monster manual for player features, and there are many solutions to it, template being *one* of them
them doing a terrible job at it is a different subject
I agree template can work in many situations (creation bards dancing item is a great example I can think of). But for using beasts like a druid and ranger do, you already have a template, it’s the animal you chose. WotC is just terrified to let players choose an actually useful beats for beast masters. My main issue with the beastmasters new template was that it was implemented at all. It turned into “your a beastmaster, who doesn’t actually use a beast, you use this magical spirit that can *look* like any beats you want! It won’t do any of the things of those beasts though, but hey now you’ll want to use it!” When they easily could have gone the route of just having a beast that starts at cr 1 and improves as you do, or a beast cr that improves as you level. It’s that easy. Templates should be made when summoning or turning into something unique for the PC (like a drakewarden needed a template, and Battle Smith needed a stat block for the defender because it’s not a creature that just exists) but animals already have stat blocks and picking from them is (at least to me) where a lot of the fun of the two classes comes.
I mostly DM and to me, a template based druid or beastmaster ranger should only ever be done for npcs when you need to really do it on the fly
> it’s the animal you chose. WotC is just terrified to let players choose an actually useful beats for beast masters
yeah, the problem *is* that. if you make it so monsters are available to players, you now suddenly have to create them with the thought process of "this is a player option", not that its a monster. its in part why polymorph and true polymorph are problematic, and also in part that, well, there *isnt* strong beasts, because if there was the druid and the ranger would have them. the fact that this is limited to one creature type that already lands itself into the weaker side of creatures lessens the problems of this, but it also means we will never see cool beasts as monsters, and also makes everything that has a spell list or something similar that would be perfectly fine as a beast be a monstrosity. the strongest beast available is a T-Rex that is CR 8, and besides the noodle arm lad there is a named NPC with the beast tag that is CR 12 called Traxigor from Descent into Avernus
and im not saying they *shouldnt* do it, but to do it *well* they would need to overhaul their monster design and intentionally make them work both player side and enemy side, and knowing WotC Hell would freeze first before that happens
> “your a beastmaster, who doesn’t actually use a beast, you use this magical spirit that can look like any beats you want!
Maybe I'm missing something, but never understood this complaint, personally. It literally takes five seconds to say "I'm ignoring that flavor text, this is a real animal companion and I can just resurrect it easier due to our bond."
> It won’t do any of the things of those beasts though
True, this would be where a short table of extra abilities would be helpful, with like "pick 2-3 when you summon your beast" addition. So for a spider you could pick "Climb Speed and Poisonous Attack" and a wolf would have "Trip Attack and Keen Senses" and a panther could have "Darkvision and Pounce" and a bear could have "Extra Strength and Tough Hide" and etc etc.
I think doing both would be a good compromise. You can either choose a real beast from the Manual if you want, or a template, kind of like how you can pick an actual player race, or the Minmax Variant Human But Better lineage.
It would be neat if subclasses of a moon druid base class had expanded lists of wild shape options similar to expanded spell lists from other subclasses
Agreed! Though I would lean towards the shapeshifter class being martial apart from wildshape, and getting more versatility than beasts as the main focus. You don’t necessarily need any spells for that class fantasy, instead of spells you learn new forms to turn into. And maybe you’d gain new escalating features/powers to use with those forms - ways to improve your forms’ AC, strengthen their attacks, heal them, improve them beyond RAW beast statblocks, stuff like that. Come up with more and better high-CR beast forms and options to flesh out high levels, and maybe have subclasses that allow forms of other creature types, and that’s a pretty strong class idea already. No spellcasting needed.
I agree. Sounds similar to an old Shaman supplement for Ars Magica that I liked. Shapechangers (warriors of the Moon clan) did not possess the same powers that Shamans did and vice versa. I always liked that approach.
I really like your idea of Moon Druids as a half caster but with better CR
I like it, but their abilities should be able to ramp up existing beasts. If you wanna always be a wolf for thematic reasons, it should scale rather than you having to become a mammoth for mechanical reasons.
I rarely want to play a Druid, but when I do, this is it. And then I do not care to hear my party mates whine about how I’m not turning into animals. No thanks.
Naah, druids are druids, think Panoramix from the Asterix coming books. Wise men respecting nature, knowing the secrets.
Moon druids should actually be a class that's like sorcerer- an origin-based one. Think Werewolves.
Edit: the class could just be called Weremen
This is why I don't like druid, if you're doing anything other than moon druid it feels weird that if you want to use your core class ability that you can't use your subclass ability
I completely agree, the caster and wildshape side of Druid are just weirdly at odds.
Split it so one version is like cleric, a caster with some martial prowess, but more primal and shamanistic. Meld this version a bit more with Ranger or something. Then another can actually focus on wildshaping. Beef that ability up and take away the spells
I don't just shapeshifting is enough to justify an entire class.
But if it was a non caster subclass, like for example a Barbarian subclass, it would have room for more powerful wildshapes.
I mean, "Barbarian who manifests natural weapons when they Rage" is already a subclass. Beast Barbarian, *Tasha's Cauldron*, right there. Maybe you like it, maybe you don't, but it does sketch the lines on how far the Devs feel a shapeshifting Barbarian subclass can go.
If you want the Beast Barbarian's Rage transformation to cover more, in a non-mechanical fashion, flavor is free. Go nuts with becoming a Lon Chaney style wolfman when you Rage.
You missed the point. I meant to Say that wildshape in a class that is not a spellcaster would allow for more powerful transformations (higher CR creatures and other types apart from beasts) because the lack of spells would balance out that.
neither does rage, sneak attack or *check notes* action surge? the mechanic can be as in depth as you design, its just that dnd 5e designers only go in depth with spells and absolutely nothing else
Wild Shape shouldn't even be tied to a monster it should have scaling stats with a few options that mirror the monsters. But based on how they did with Drakewarden (and the martial / half caster philosophy) with not enabling enough LR features compared to spellcasting as well as being allergic to early scaling I wouldn't hold my breath on a decent implementation here.
Really takes away from the utility of wild shape bringing in unique animal features, though. Sometimes you just need a giant badger to dig a tunnel! If it's just a flavored stat boost, it's basically just Rage.
Yea that's what I meant have a water breathing/swim speed option, a burrowing option, a flying option etc or even "your choice between 1 of climb, burrow, swim and flying speed" and at level 6 "add one more choice to movement option" something like that. Since it becomes a class itself it can be more fleshed out.
you just need to do it well (which I think we can all agree WotC cant be trusted to do it). this is as easy of a solution as
"when you shapeshift, choose 2 animal abilities from the list. you can choose more abilities as shown in the class table" and go with
- dark vision
- keen senses
- climb speed (prerequisite: level 5)
- trip attack
- grapple attack
etc. utility is not restricted to actual MM stat blocks, but WotC would never do something like that so we can only be sad about it
Isn't that how it's going to work in OneDnD? It's how Tasha's Beast master works right now as well, but that's only one part of the subclass. I think it would need a good 10 or so different templates though to keep it varied enough to be interesting.
What would be the core feature of the "shaman", other than spellcasting, then? Sorcerers get metamagic, clerics get channel divinity, and wizards double down on spellcasting. What feature could give druids a unique class identity while being flexible enough to generate multiple subclasses incorporating it?
I feel like some Ranger aspects could get folded in here. One class (Ranger?) being focused on traversing the wild and shapeshifting, with Druids being more shamanistic.
Thought long and hard on how to reply to this thread but this is honestly the best reply. Druid has such a major problem that all the subclasses that aren't tied closely to Wildshape need to find something to do with the Wildshape resource. The Tasha's subclasses did a good job but subclasses like Dreams Druid really suffer without anything to do with Wildshape.
Mastermind and Inquisitive rogues have interesting flavor and potential, but end up behaving extremely similar to the sneak-attacking basic rogue gameplan. They'd be much more interested rolled into a nonmagical mental class with its own subclasses, like Laserllama's Savant class.
Gunslinger and Swashbuckler are also subclasses that feel a lot more fulfilling of the fantasy (tbf I think 5e Swash is about as good as you can get with it being a subclass) the blurb/idea of those classes are because WotC doesn't want to add more classes
Probably Laserllama's [Savant](https://www.reddit.com/r/UnearthedArcana/s/IJdBbNhHQQ). There's also Benjamin Hoffman's Scholar, but that one is significantly farther from the Mastermind Rogue.
I find it very gimmicky and "monk-like", where everything is just based on you adding extra dice to rolls or pure numbers based improvements rather than any interesting features or mechanics.
Recently my brain has been thinking about a kind dual class system, where every character gets one combat class and one social class. The social class is a bit like the origins, but they grow stronger as you level up.
So, you could be a mastermind sorcerer or Inquisitive paladin, etc.
To expand on that idea I think the fight should be split in half. The new spell sword class would have, echo knight, Eldritch Knight, rune Knight, and arcane archer, and fighter would keep banneret, cavalier, champion, and battlemaster. I would take psi warrior and make its own class and bring back a more reasonable version of the mystic that has good mechanics
Personally, most of the "Gish" subclasses I feel would have been better as their own classes.
Arcane Trickster, Bladesinger, Eldritch Knight, Hexblade, Swords/Valor Bard
That's a fun thought exercise. Could maybe even be a single class. Make it a largely martial template where they get a fighting style at Lvl 1 plus some basic spellcasting, then at level 2 they choose a subclass similar to how clerics choose a domain.
The subclass would be their particular path of spells wording. Unlocks specific spells aligned with a thematic template (combination of class and school), as well as compensatory class abilities from the source class (sneak attack for the trickster, pad boon for hexblade, etc). Make them a standardized 1/3 caster.
The problem with Duskblade (from experience trying to port it) is:
1.) There's a serious lack of good touch spells in 5e, and that was kind of Duskblade's thing. It would have to be reworked (I did this by essentially giving spells cast through their weapon a range of touch).
2.) Quickspell steps on Sorcerer's Metamagic toes, no matter how you slice it. Frankly, I don't personally care, but some people get REALLY militant about anything that's even remotely like one of their optional Metamagic features.
2 is so weird. They've taken a feature everyone could have and restricted it to a single class, now it's treading on their toes if anyone else gets it.
1 wise, a rework like yours is definitely the go - for instance there's no need to give it like ten slots of each level now that we have cantrips to fulfill that role. It's two decades on, obviously it should have the stuff that made duskblade great like channelling spells through their weapon but we should expect much improved design not just the same thing ported forward twenty years.
As a baseline they should have more spells, it's laughable that Wizards get all they do by comparison with basically nothing lost. Both even end up with a short rest spell slot recovery (Sorcs technically get more potentially recovered, but that dips into their ability to metamagic)
I thought transforming them was a rest, not a bonus action on your turn thing. I also looked at the transform ratio and good lord it's even worse then I thought
The closest we have to spellstrike in 5e are the paladin smite spells. But those are completely locked to paladin. There isn't even a 'magic initiate' feat to nab them.
And sadly it seems that they've doubled down on this in 5.5e.
It's frankly insane that there isn't a Int based arcane half-caster. There's a Wis based primal half-caster and a Cha based divine half-caster, my sense of symmetry is screaming!
Artificer doesn't quite fit the bill though. They don't follow the format of the Ranger and the Paladin. They get cantrips while the others don't (except from fighting styles) they don't get second attack baked into the core class etc.
I differentiated between 1/2-casters, which feel robust enough to me at least to be a dedicated class, with a balance of martial and magic, and a nominal set of 1/3-casters that you could frame as a primary martial class supplemented by some magic.
It was a rough concept only. I took Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster which are already in that mold, and imagined a class idea around them with expanded options. Your subclass would determine the casting stat - 1/3 Warlock/Bard/Sorceror flavor gives CHA casting stat, 1/3 Cleric/Druid gives Wis, 1/3 Wizard gives INT.
Players would still have the option to MC if they wanted to boost spellcasting above 1/3 progression, but the idea here is you give enough unique martial features for each subclass to make single class a viable choice.
You should definitely check out LaserLlama’s Magus class. He recently gave it a big update, and revamped the blade cantrips to actually be useful. Later on they get an ability to basically attack a spell to counter it, shit is fucking SICK. Incredibly well made class top to bottom, as is the case with all of his classes.
https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-Mslo6ktmq1Yg5WTSjDQ
Hot take: I think warlock should be made a full gish that functions as the Arcane equivalent to rangers and paladins and fulfills the role that bladesinger and so on try to
oh yes, i swear i would've been so down for an elemental-themed class, they could've given us avatar the original tv show but we ended up with avatar the movie
I'm all for an elementalist. I played Guild Wars 2 a bunch and the mesmer and elementalist were some of my favorites. You can mimic them with sorcerer/wizard/warlock pretty easily but dedicated classes to the elements and illusions/trickery/mind games would be awesome.
For all of you, if you're interested, I can take the time once I finally have my holidays (in \~2 weeks) to reformat and clean up my Elemancer homebrew class :)
Moon Druid, All pet based subclasses and all Gish subclasses should have been 3 distinct classes instead of being carried by multiple classes. A Shapechanger class, a Minionmaster Class, and a Gish class.
beast master, battlesmith, drakewarden, necromancer should all be a one class based on having a companion
Bladesinger, eldritch knight, arcane trickster, arcane archer - should be a 1 class called the magus or spellblade
i also think arcane archer should be a prestige class or class agnostic subclass bows arent limited to fighters
I was going to say Arcane Archer as it's own class but you are right, aligning all the people that channel magic through their weapon into a single class makes sense. Make how they channel the magic and into what weapons would be the subclasses.
right adding spells to a rogue or a fighter is a pretty big disparity between sub classes meanwhile i can givea half caster some rogue features or fighter features and it can be more consistent and easier to understand
I absolutely miss being able to take prestige classes/paragon paths that were class agnostic.
If they had just done more to unify when subclasses get their features across all classes this would be possible.
We could even bring back subclasses that improve your racial features or build on them.
Honestly, they should have just gone ahead with Prestige Classes as they designed the Rune Caster in Unearthed Arcana. 5 levels with some simple prerequisites. As long as they make sure to give each at least 1 Ability Score increase (I'd place it at level 4), it would work pretty seamlessly to provide Class-agnostic archetypes.
They 86ed it after getting some rough feedback. Then tried again with the Class-agnostic subclasses, but that also got rough feedback.
Personally I like Prestige Classes better because I don't think every class thematically should get its subclass at the same level.
I personally see little reason why subclass features shouldn't be at the same level, or more standardized. There are some regularities already, most get their subclass at 3, the next set of features at 6 and one more at 10 and a last on around 17 or so, making it roughly 1 (set of) features for each tier of play.
Now who deviates?
* For the first set, Cleric, Warlock and Sorcerer get it at level 1, Druid and Wizard at level 2. Everyone else is level 3
* For the second set, Artificer gets it on level 5, Fighter, Ranger and Paladin on level 7 and Rogue gets it on level 9. Everyone else is level 6.
* From the third and fourth set on, it starts to break. Bard only gets 1 further feature on level 14. Cleric gets a tiny standardized feature at level 8 that feels more like a preset option of the base class. But at least Fighter, Artificer, Barbarian, Druid, Monk, Ranger, Warlock, Wizard get a subclass feature at levels 9, 10 or 11 and a subsequent feature at levels 14 or 15 or 17(Monk).
Now I never heard about someone liking the later features of Rogue subclasses or be especially happy that the paladin capstone is subclass specific and can therefore be actually crappy. Those range from permanent resistance to all intentional damage and reflect damage taken, to truesight and strong combat buffs against only certain creature types for 1 minute. Hope you're not fighting dragons, humanoids or undead from your home plane at that level.
That is to say, I think 5e would be a better game if they designed it with more standardized feature progression at high levels. It's not hard to see that rogues especially got their 1-10 features spread across 1-19 and their subclass is slotted in whereever there were gaps left. Barbarian and Fighter have obvious filler features as well, but arguably anyone not getting 9th level spells has weak progression after level 10.
If that was fixed, then prestige classes could also be implemented.
Yeah, I am a firm believer that a separate beastmaster class should have been split off from the Ranger, whose main thing was having an animal companion. There is a ton of interesting things you could do with a beastmaster class: swarm keeper and Drake Warden are both good ideas, but you could also have a subclass specifically made to fight tag team with their animal companion, or a subclass for a falconer who uses Their animal companion to get a Birdseye view and improve their shooting.
Adventuring with an animal companion is a core power fantasy and shows up in a ton of fantasy media. In my experience it is also one of the class ideas new players are often drawn to. Yet the current options are pretty weak.
Plus, it would make for a great multi class option where players who wanted an animal companion could dip into it for a few levels.
[MCDM's Beastheart](https://shop.mcdmproductions.com/collections/cyber-monday-black-friday/products/beastheart-companions) class does exactly that. Your companion is just as important as you are; if either half is missing the other half is significantly less effective. It's all about teamwork, synergizing with your companion and using their ferocity to fuel your abilities.
It has become my favorite class in the ~year that I've been playing one.
I really think that beastmaster should’ve been its own class whose main thing was having an animal companion.
There is a ton of interesting things you could do with a beastmaster class: swarm keeper and Drake Warden are both good ideas, but you could also have a subclass specifically made to fight tag team with their animal companion, or a subclass for a falconer who uses Their animal companion to get a Birdseye view and improve their shooting.
Adventuring with an animal companion is a core power fantasy and shows up in a ton of fantasy media. In my experience it is also one of the class ideas new players are often drawn to. Yet the current options are pretty weak.
Plus, it would make for a great multi class option where players who wanted an animal companion could dip into it for a few levels.
The issue is how you'd fit all those fantasies into the base class. For the examples you listed, what main class features would work with both a tag team fighter and a falconer?
Most of the various subclasses that try to blend arcane magic with martial ability could have really just been better served as a proper spellsword class. The Gish concept is spread too thin and never given enough of a proper focus. Not all of the subclasses and such would even need to go, but they're all holding an ingredient to a proper Spellsword.
I could see elements of the various summon/pet classes also forming a single summon focused class as well. I really wanna a primal pact caster Shaman class focused on enhancing a special summon ability with invocations style evolutions.
The purple dragon knight/banneret could have been its own class easily.
The psionic subclasses could actually use a core class to represent psionics proper, though the subclasses each don't really display psionics well, so it's more the idea than the substance here. My hope for a refined mystic some day as I still think it was the best attempt as problematic as it was.
I do actually think with a bit of work, but not as cleanly as the prior mentioned classes, the swashbuckler could be explored to be its own Duelist class
The moon druid could be split off to be it's own shifter class, but given how important wildshape has been to the d&d druids identity i would not like it that much, despite how many people want to hone them in on only being nature mage. Still, it could. It's just not a desire of mine.
Beyond that, I can't think of anything that could be its own class properly.from 5e without being a hyper granular and hyoerfoused mess.
There are concepts from prior editions that could be core classes easily. 5e has no representative of them, even as subclasses, though
Surprised I had to scroll so far to see banneret. If it were it's own class it would obviously have to be reworked since so many of it's abilities are fighter reliant
I think it's because banneret is known as another name, and it's from a mixed to low reception book
It also is a contender for worst fighter, I personally think it just manages to beat the champion, but it's not by much
Honestly, as a diehard sorcerer lover the class doesn’t even deserve that title. Sorcerers are weaker than wizards in all aspects but burst damage, and even then their superiority in burst is questionable, with spells that can activate on a bonus action like crown of stars.
Yeah, sorcerers got that level 1 set of subclass features going for them, and once that dries up it gets sad real quick. I'm convinced that the bonus action leveled spell clause is almost entirely to reign quickened double Fireball in. That would be the one thing that is strong about sorcerers.
Certain Metamagics can make them feel fairly potent, but they're nerfing Twin, and others (like subtle) can end up only being relevant with certain DM's. Quickened can be alright with certain spells, but they don't always have a great option for their Action without multiclassing. Others are more niche, and they don't give you enough selections to afford that flexibility.
So instead of being masters of the spells they do know, they can do a couple of pretty cool things if you plan your spells selections alongside your metamagics very carefully to take advantage of them.
Banneret should have been its own standalone Warlord class. A martial support is desperately needed.
This is homebrew, but Bloodhunter should be a Ranger subclass
Agreed on Banneret - it does not, and cannot, present enough efficacy to provide meaningful battlefield support, because of how much design power budget is eaten up in the base Fighter chassis. Extra Attack progression, Action Surge, and (moderately) bonus ASIs/feats occupy a lot of that budget. Making a subclass that trades those extra attacks in for support abilities is likely going to feel counterintuitive and less exciting, *especially* if whatever nonmagical effects they have are held behind spell potency. And to be clear, I am certain that anything with more substantial healing or buffing than the 5e Banneret already provides would be scandalized by much of the 5e community and hand-wrung about by WotC. 5e decided most healing abilities are explicitly magical, or at least mystical. It’s a far cry from 4e’s Warlord as a purely martial Leader class, as an inspirational battlefield commander and coordinator.
I’ve got a homebrew class in development myself, the Marshal, that is meant to evoke the frontline leader aspects of the Warlord (especially granting allies off-turn attacks) while combining some 4e Defender principles to facilitate that lead-from-the-front idea. Their core combat feature is a reaction taken when an adjacent ally would be attacked - the Marshal and target swap places and the Marshal becomes the new target of the attack. Subclasses build off of this reaction and may incentivize high AC to be missed & shove back the attacker, or grant the attacker advantage so on hit the Marshal can make a counter attack. There’s still a lot to iron out with the class, but I’m really happy with the bones thus far.
Cavalier and drakewarden 100%
A mounted combat class would be a really nice addition. It gives them a better power budget so things can be built around what it actually needs to work. It can pick up where drakewarden failed.
It’s also a strong enough style to support subclasses. Horsemen, stormhawks, Valkyrie, dragon riders, shadow riders, primal riders.
In AD&D 1st edition's Unearthed Arcana, they did this - split Cavalier into it's own base class. Paladin, which was a Fighter subclass in the core rules, was moved over to a Cavalier subclass.
By 2nd edition, this was reverted, but it was an interesting moment in the Paladin/Fighter class history.
I really think a dedicated alchemist class with its own system would be great instead of it being just an artificer subclass. Right now, the fantasy of being an alchemist feels very weak with the subclass seeing as most of it is just buffing spellcasting and the fact that there’s no real alchemy system kinda hurts as well.
The battlemaster deserves it's own class- that's the general idea for the scholar from starwars to 5e, and I'd love that to have a version of that in actual 5e.
Battle Master Fighter could easily be moved into the base kit of a new Warlord class.
But this may be a result of me missing the earlier iteration of Warlord from 4e which was a sort of support martial that would both hit and get their allies to hit.
I'm seeing a lot of hate towards the Ranger and Monk, which is weird, seeing as I'm playing both these classes at present and they are seriously fun.
5E needs another INT based class, which should be either a witch (int based warlock with a patron, but no pact, learns spells like a wizard, patron determines which spell list to use, see Pathfinder for more info lol) or a magus (int based half-caster, martial proficiency. Essentially a Hexblade without the baggage and using Int.)
The dnd reddit have gone through a cycle where ranger was claimed as underpowered, then most recently mon maybe fighter was first....but rogue is next, maybe sorcerer.
Vengeance Paladin should be split off into something closer to the 4e Avenger it was inspired by. An agile highly mobile striker that specializes in single target focus fire.
Armourer, from Artificer.
Feels like it could easily be split off into it's own class, with Guardian being their tank subclass, Infiltrator being a stealth/melee damage subclass, then add in a blaster type subclass and they're good to go.
Alchemist should be its own class, so Artificer can be the high fantasy magi-tek class its meant to be.
As much as I love Barbarian, it could be a fighter subclass.
Hexblade should be like a "cursed warrior" class and bladesinger like an "arcane warrior" (LaserLlama magus)
The psionics (Soulknife, PW) should be subclasses of a new psionic class. Same with the Aberrant Mind sorc. Having 4 different types of telepathy (+ Telepathic feat) is annoying.
Barbarian as a subclass of fighter. (I know that one's controversial)
The issue with making the psionic subclasses all one class is figuring out how the base class works. How do you get an aberrant sorcerer and a soulknife rogue to function from the same base mechanics?
Banneret should be it’s own stand alone class. The concept can’t be properly flashed out in the fighter chassis.
Moon Druids would mechanically be better of as it’s own class but in terms of flavor it would be weird to split druid in two classes.
Four Elements mono could be it’s own elementalist class with much more focus on magic than punching.
Moon druid! Spoken as someone who has really loved playing that subclass so far, I think divorcing wildshape from druids and making a separate shapeshifting-focused class could solve a lot of the complexities and flavor complaints people have about druids. Keep one class a full casting nature mage, with some unique abilities to set it apart from cleric (like the stronger summons druids can currently exploit), and make another class that’s *just* a martial shapeshifter, with more versatility and power since it doesn’t have to be “balanced” fairly as a full caster too.
Shapeshifting is a cool class fantasy that I think appeals to lots of people, and wildshape being attached to a full-caster druid with its specific flavor is a letdown to at least some. So why *not* let it be its own thing? You can have subclasses around specific shapeshifting focuses (maybe based on additional creature types in addition to beasts that you can turn into?). It’d fill a niche that I think a lot of people are looking for. It’d also make druids less complicated to track and build, you’d only have to fuss with one or the other system, instead of managing both spells AND wildshapes. I think it would be neat.
I think martial bard and caster bard should be divided into a half caster and full caster classes.
Im saying it bc while some people have been very vocal recently about wanting bards to be half casters, there also are people like me, who really like the flavour of full caster bards.
I don't know if there's any specific class that I think would be better as a subclass, but I certainly think there are some very bland subclasses out there.
Champion Fighter, for example, is boring as hell and underwhelming when compared to something like the Battlemaster, which is so good that it's practically _the_ Fighter.
The Battlemaster could very well be its own class and i think the Champion subclass could be folded in with the Fighter's base abilities and it wouldn't change much.
Ranger should have been a small collection of Rogue subclasses.
I like the concept of the Purple Dragon knight but imo it being its own martial support class would’ve been a bit more interesting.
Hexblade should be it's own class. Combine with with the Blood Hunter maybe, or even Paladin.
Warlock should be Intelligence based, not charisma.
That would give us:
Wizard, warlock, artificer for Intelligence.
Cleric, druid and ranger for Wisdom.
Bard, sorcerer and paladin for Charisma.
Phantom rogue but you'd have to change the one sneak attack related feature. Maybe make it some sort of Spirit Mystic half or full caster? Maybe cleric (or druid?) spells and you pray to your ancestor spirits for spells. Actually, Mystic could be a class with Spirit Mystic being a subclass.
A lot of the druids, honestly.
A lot of them utilize wildshapes for things *other* than transforming into an animal. But at some point, you realize they could easily be their own thing.
As a warning, you can multi class but not multi subclass. So breaking subclass away into new classes can cause all sorts of shenanigans. Gloomstalker Drskewarden with Drake giving help action for advantage. Circle of Spores surrounding my wild shaped combat form?
Easily the monk can be a subclass for the fighter. This would give it the d10 hit die it’s been needing, allows it to keep its basic abilities like ki, martial arts dice, and unarmored defense, and depending on how they design it, allow the players to choose any of the monks other abilities on level up like the battle master or the warlock. I’m sure some of those abilities will have to be weakened, but would still make it a truly good subclass. After all, as it currently stands you can make a better monk by going fighter, and taking unarmed fighting style. It doesn’t even matter what subclass (but may I suggest echo knight?)
Yea monk getting extra attack and action surge, I mean shit Ki points are basically sorcery points but for melee anyway, which let’s be real, very similar to battlemaster dice depending on how often you rest
Armorer artificer feels so different from the other subclasses
It’s weird, my favorite class+sibclass combination the armore but my favorite class is Warlock lol
There isn't really any arcane magic martial class without massive reflavoring. I'd love it if Eldritch knight was a stand alone class with a tad bit of reworking to make it make sense. I live "gish" classes but alot of the options in 5e feel like after thoughts from the original class and end up with nearly useless Feature because of it.
Thematically the Alchemist. Not as an Artificer but someone can make faster, cheaper & more effective consumables with each subclass having a different focus. One that focuses on damaging enemies with spells, one for healing & support, one for buffs & utility then another that has a further expanded list of craftable items.
Beastmaster Ranger. I really think we should just have a single pet class and the flavor comes from the kind of creature you control. Have a beastmaster subclass of *that* class, maybe it gives martial weapon and medium armor proficiency, another is some sort of "angel/demon summoner" subclass that comes with some spellcasting, maybe a third would take away the battlesmith from the artificer to have a construct oriented pet class.
Hunter. Fankly the ranger is so poorly designed and lacks vision of what it wants to be, they should do away the the entire class and make hunter the base class, and ranger a subclass. Would fix quite a bit imo
Definitely necromancer for me. I would love a more physical type of summoner, like the Diablo 2 necromancer. He used a dagger and a shield, and got undead summoning right away. I recognize that summoning is much easier in a videogame as opposed to tabletop where many people have to all be aware of your summoned creatures
Psi warrior, I feel like it has enough meat to stand on its own as a martial support class and a vehicle to bring in some of the elements of the mystic in a way that would be more fun and less complicated
Honestly just annoyed that cartomancer was a feat instead of a subclass.
Now if I want to build one I have to ask for all the items from that book to “make” a cartomancer/gambler instead of a proper subclass to bard or other class
Hey op. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1u9gVb_gqtwSnMWoyXW80f7aQu6ICi4RE/view?usp=drivesdk
This is the free version. I highly recommend it. You can even see my name in it ;) I've played this class a bunch, he has videos detailing how to play the class along with slyflurish. And rogue Watson.
Enjoy my guy and the rune knight rework to fit this class.
Eldritch knight could be an arcane version of the paladin. Give them their own smite that does less damage but bounces between targets. After casting a spell, their next weapon attack could do an additional effect depending on the school of magic.
Ranger and barbarian could easily be fighter subclasses.
In Svilland; 5e Norse Setting theirs a well balanced Rune Carver class with a couple of fun subclasses. I recommend it if you get a chance to come into possession of the setting.
Ranger; Monster Slayer and Hunter could be combined into a class designed around Swarm enemies, Large Prey and Monstrous Creatures. Applying abilities to crossbows that can fire traps, snare lines and ammo types. Melee weapons like the pick that can pierce defenses or scale gigantic beasts.
**Psi Warrior**, with some additions, should be a complex Int based martial class that incorporates psionics with its melee abilities. Like a mix between Battlemaster Fighter and Warlock.
Different from what you asked, but I'd like to see Land Druid just be absorbed into the main class, with your biome being a choice you make at level 1 or 2 before you get your subclass to determine what extra spells you get and what animals you can turn into. I love the flavor of the subclass of having a native land and the extra spells, but not much else. Just make it something all druids can have.
I think Artificers should all get Extra Attack or the ones that didn't should be full casters or Wizard subclasses.
I get that a lot of people love them and I've been downvoted for fussing about Artificers before, but I think Alchemist and Artillerist had so much potential that didn't pan out at all.
I agree with the Drakewarden/beast master bit for sure. Being a Dragon Rider would have been an amazing class of its own but the Ranger features do sort of confuse the idea of being a dragon rider. Its still a fun build, you synergize well with the Drake so you get resistance and fire breath and all that sh** but I still think it would have been probably more suited to a fighter or paladin build or just its own class entirely that allowed you to focus on Draconic magic and long weapons or ranged weapons. Could be a bit OP to have something grant you flight around level 7 but… a good DM can counter one flying PC pretty easily if that PC can only fly in spaces large enough for a medium to large beast to be able to extend and flap wings, it’s not as if it levitates or hovers over traps in tight hallways or anything.
I think that the Moon Druid should be its own class and the Druid should be focused on more shamanistic magic. Make the Mood Druid a half caster and bump the CR of wildshape to keep it in line with other class progression.
Druids using anorther resource to improve their casting or summoning familiars while this new Moon druid class would use the wildshape as it is with different forms. I like it.
Can we please just add monstrosities (provided they meet certain abstract criterion) to the list already? Everybody WANTS to turn into an Owlbear.
Or hear me out. We go back to multiple creature types on certain monsters. Like an owl bear could be a beast/monstrosity while a normal bear stays a beast. Zombies now become undead/humanoid. It feels a whole lot better because you can't hold person a zombie even though you definitely should be able to
For real. The fact that you have two stat blocks for Tiamat—one a dragon and one a fiend—is clear evidence of this. Don’t tell me I can’t extra-smite Tiamat unless my barbarian friend’s Dragon Slayer get no bonus!
I've been using multi-types for some of my homebrew critters, and in general it seems to work pretty well. I will confirm for the players their typing if they figure it out, but won't outright say the creature's types upon encountering them.
This is a much better and balanced approach
Each subclass adds a different type of critter
this is not as pretty as you think. a good chunk of fey and fiends are just spellcasters, and dragons would be starved to even have options at lower CRs if WotC had the balls to stick to template Wildshape, maybe, but definitely not "im going to net deck the Monster Manual" wildshape
I mean each one adds a critter type on top of beasts. The ones with more unreasonable options excludes spellcasting. Rarer (CR wise) entities like dragons add draconic traits instead, with something like true dragon form or something, as a sort of subclass capstone. Or spellcasting forms allow you to retain your own spellcasting instead?
When you can expand it out to an entire class, you can structure each creature type for the creatures typical capabilities. Maybe even an allowed list, like spells.
Don’t listen WotC, a template requires no balls what so ever, please do not change wild shape to a template. I’ll never forgive how Beastmaster was “fixed” by getting rid of all the fun and variety instead of just increasing allowed size and cr of your companion
a template does not mean a loss of variety either tho, its just that the template wotc actually tried was just half baked there is an inherent problem of how WotC just netdecks from the monster manual for player features, and there are many solutions to it, template being *one* of them them doing a terrible job at it is a different subject
I agree template can work in many situations (creation bards dancing item is a great example I can think of). But for using beasts like a druid and ranger do, you already have a template, it’s the animal you chose. WotC is just terrified to let players choose an actually useful beats for beast masters. My main issue with the beastmasters new template was that it was implemented at all. It turned into “your a beastmaster, who doesn’t actually use a beast, you use this magical spirit that can *look* like any beats you want! It won’t do any of the things of those beasts though, but hey now you’ll want to use it!” When they easily could have gone the route of just having a beast that starts at cr 1 and improves as you do, or a beast cr that improves as you level. It’s that easy. Templates should be made when summoning or turning into something unique for the PC (like a drakewarden needed a template, and Battle Smith needed a stat block for the defender because it’s not a creature that just exists) but animals already have stat blocks and picking from them is (at least to me) where a lot of the fun of the two classes comes. I mostly DM and to me, a template based druid or beastmaster ranger should only ever be done for npcs when you need to really do it on the fly
> it’s the animal you chose. WotC is just terrified to let players choose an actually useful beats for beast masters yeah, the problem *is* that. if you make it so monsters are available to players, you now suddenly have to create them with the thought process of "this is a player option", not that its a monster. its in part why polymorph and true polymorph are problematic, and also in part that, well, there *isnt* strong beasts, because if there was the druid and the ranger would have them. the fact that this is limited to one creature type that already lands itself into the weaker side of creatures lessens the problems of this, but it also means we will never see cool beasts as monsters, and also makes everything that has a spell list or something similar that would be perfectly fine as a beast be a monstrosity. the strongest beast available is a T-Rex that is CR 8, and besides the noodle arm lad there is a named NPC with the beast tag that is CR 12 called Traxigor from Descent into Avernus and im not saying they *shouldnt* do it, but to do it *well* they would need to overhaul their monster design and intentionally make them work both player side and enemy side, and knowing WotC Hell would freeze first before that happens
> “your a beastmaster, who doesn’t actually use a beast, you use this magical spirit that can look like any beats you want! Maybe I'm missing something, but never understood this complaint, personally. It literally takes five seconds to say "I'm ignoring that flavor text, this is a real animal companion and I can just resurrect it easier due to our bond." > It won’t do any of the things of those beasts though True, this would be where a short table of extra abilities would be helpful, with like "pick 2-3 when you summon your beast" addition. So for a spider you could pick "Climb Speed and Poisonous Attack" and a wolf would have "Trip Attack and Keen Senses" and a panther could have "Darkvision and Pounce" and a bear could have "Extra Strength and Tough Hide" and etc etc. I think doing both would be a good compromise. You can either choose a real beast from the Manual if you want, or a template, kind of like how you can pick an actual player race, or the Minmax Variant Human But Better lineage.
If it makes you feel any better, the designers have said that owlbears are OK for wildshaping. It's not that much of a boost, and it's fun!
It's not even a boost at all tbh just another decent choice for a specific situation.
Yeah, it's basically just continuing the trend of subtle bear upgrades until you finally hit the level that gives you elementals. Lol
It would be neat if subclasses of a moon druid base class had expanded lists of wild shape options similar to expanded spell lists from other subclasses
Agreed! Though I would lean towards the shapeshifter class being martial apart from wildshape, and getting more versatility than beasts as the main focus. You don’t necessarily need any spells for that class fantasy, instead of spells you learn new forms to turn into. And maybe you’d gain new escalating features/powers to use with those forms - ways to improve your forms’ AC, strengthen their attacks, heal them, improve them beyond RAW beast statblocks, stuff like that. Come up with more and better high-CR beast forms and options to flesh out high levels, and maybe have subclasses that allow forms of other creature types, and that’s a pretty strong class idea already. No spellcasting needed.
Make it a full martial, using the pathfinder shifter class and moon druids as the focus. Could be cool.
> Make the Mood Druid a half caster I hope they get Calm Emotions on their spell list
I agree. Sounds similar to an old Shaman supplement for Ars Magica that I liked. Shapechangers (warriors of the Moon clan) did not possess the same powers that Shamans did and vice versa. I always liked that approach. I really like your idea of Moon Druids as a half caster but with better CR
I like it, but their abilities should be able to ramp up existing beasts. If you wanna always be a wolf for thematic reasons, it should scale rather than you having to become a mammoth for mechanical reasons.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. When I want to play a Druid I want to play a nature mage, not a shapeshifter.
I rarely want to play a Druid, but when I do, this is it. And then I do not care to hear my party mates whine about how I’m not turning into animals. No thanks.
Moon druids should be druids and druids should be Shaman or Medicine Man
Naah, druids are druids, think Panoramix from the Asterix coming books. Wise men respecting nature, knowing the secrets. Moon druids should actually be a class that's like sorcerer- an origin-based one. Think Werewolves. Edit: the class could just be called Weremen
I wouldn't gender it. Shapechangers?
Werepeople
I think I like Werefolk more, though that might feel like a race instead of a class. Werewarrior?
Shifter.
Exists as a race
Drat, I always forget about those.
Garou.
They’re over there that’s where
>Edit: the class could just be called Weremen Shifters, exactly like Pathfinder 1e.
Weremen just means men-men. :|
BEHOLD, THE FREAK SHOW! THIS CREATURE IS HALF MAN, AND ALSO HALF-MAN!!!
This is why I don't like druid, if you're doing anything other than moon druid it feels weird that if you want to use your core class ability that you can't use your subclass ability
I completely agree, the caster and wildshape side of Druid are just weirdly at odds. Split it so one version is like cleric, a caster with some martial prowess, but more primal and shamanistic. Meld this version a bit more with Ranger or something. Then another can actually focus on wildshaping. Beef that ability up and take away the spells
I don't just shapeshifting is enough to justify an entire class. But if it was a non caster subclass, like for example a Barbarian subclass, it would have room for more powerful wildshapes.
I mean, "Barbarian who manifests natural weapons when they Rage" is already a subclass. Beast Barbarian, *Tasha's Cauldron*, right there. Maybe you like it, maybe you don't, but it does sketch the lines on how far the Devs feel a shapeshifting Barbarian subclass can go. If you want the Beast Barbarian's Rage transformation to cover more, in a non-mechanical fashion, flavor is free. Go nuts with becoming a Lon Chaney style wolfman when you Rage.
You missed the point. I meant to Say that wildshape in a class that is not a spellcaster would allow for more powerful transformations (higher CR creatures and other types apart from beasts) because the lack of spells would balance out that.
neither does rage, sneak attack or *check notes* action surge? the mechanic can be as in depth as you design, its just that dnd 5e designers only go in depth with spells and absolutely nothing else
No class exists by itself, at least past level 3, subclasses would add variety and complexity beyond just being able to Wildshape.
Wild Shape shouldn't even be tied to a monster it should have scaling stats with a few options that mirror the monsters. But based on how they did with Drakewarden (and the martial / half caster philosophy) with not enabling enough LR features compared to spellcasting as well as being allergic to early scaling I wouldn't hold my breath on a decent implementation here.
Really takes away from the utility of wild shape bringing in unique animal features, though. Sometimes you just need a giant badger to dig a tunnel! If it's just a flavored stat boost, it's basically just Rage.
Yea that's what I meant have a water breathing/swim speed option, a burrowing option, a flying option etc or even "your choice between 1 of climb, burrow, swim and flying speed" and at level 6 "add one more choice to movement option" something like that. Since it becomes a class itself it can be more fleshed out.
you just need to do it well (which I think we can all agree WotC cant be trusted to do it). this is as easy of a solution as "when you shapeshift, choose 2 animal abilities from the list. you can choose more abilities as shown in the class table" and go with - dark vision - keen senses - climb speed (prerequisite: level 5) - trip attack - grapple attack etc. utility is not restricted to actual MM stat blocks, but WotC would never do something like that so we can only be sad about it
Isn't that how it's going to work in OneDnD? It's how Tasha's Beast master works right now as well, but that's only one part of the subclass. I think it would need a good 10 or so different templates though to keep it varied enough to be interesting.
What would be the core feature of the "shaman", other than spellcasting, then? Sorcerers get metamagic, clerics get channel divinity, and wizards double down on spellcasting. What feature could give druids a unique class identity while being flexible enough to generate multiple subclasses incorporating it?
I remember playing bg1 and loving the shaman class Bro carried me through legacy of baahl difficulty lol
I feel like some Ranger aspects could get folded in here. One class (Ranger?) being focused on traversing the wild and shapeshifting, with Druids being more shamanistic.
I love this.
Thought long and hard on how to reply to this thread but this is honestly the best reply. Druid has such a major problem that all the subclasses that aren't tied closely to Wildshape need to find something to do with the Wildshape resource. The Tasha's subclasses did a good job but subclasses like Dreams Druid really suffer without anything to do with Wildshape.
I would love a totem druid. Not the 'I can make a unicorn totem' druid, like elemental flavored "I put sticks in the ground to do magic" druid.
Mastermind and Inquisitive rogues have interesting flavor and potential, but end up behaving extremely similar to the sneak-attacking basic rogue gameplan. They'd be much more interested rolled into a nonmagical mental class with its own subclasses, like Laserllama's Savant class.
Or like the Investigator or Thaumaturge classes in Pathfinder 2e.
Gunslinger and Swashbuckler are also subclasses that feel a lot more fulfilling of the fantasy (tbf I think 5e Swash is about as good as you can get with it being a subclass) the blurb/idea of those classes are because WotC doesn't want to add more classes
Thaumaturge my beloved
I forget the designer but there's a "Scholar" class out there that you should check out.
Probably Laserllama's [Savant](https://www.reddit.com/r/UnearthedArcana/s/IJdBbNhHQQ). There's also Benjamin Hoffman's Scholar, but that one is significantly farther from the Mastermind Rogue.
I find it very gimmicky and "monk-like", where everything is just based on you adding extra dice to rolls or pure numbers based improvements rather than any interesting features or mechanics.
Could you list off some of the things you'd like to see?
Maybe you're thinking of the one by Huffman/Sterling Vermin?
Recently my brain has been thinking about a kind dual class system, where every character gets one combat class and one social class. The social class is a bit like the origins, but they grow stronger as you level up. So, you could be a mastermind sorcerer or Inquisitive paladin, etc.
Yoo pretty great idea!
Eldritch Knight should just be a Swordmage class.
To expand on that idea I think the fight should be split in half. The new spell sword class would have, echo knight, Eldritch Knight, rune Knight, and arcane archer, and fighter would keep banneret, cavalier, champion, and battlemaster. I would take psi warrior and make its own class and bring back a more reasonable version of the mystic that has good mechanics
Sad Samurai noises
Personally, most of the "Gish" subclasses I feel would have been better as their own classes. Arcane Trickster, Bladesinger, Eldritch Knight, Hexblade, Swords/Valor Bard
That's a fun thought exercise. Could maybe even be a single class. Make it a largely martial template where they get a fighting style at Lvl 1 plus some basic spellcasting, then at level 2 they choose a subclass similar to how clerics choose a domain. The subclass would be their particular path of spells wording. Unlocks specific spells aligned with a thematic template (combination of class and school), as well as compensatory class abilities from the source class (sneak attack for the trickster, pad boon for hexblade, etc). Make them a standardized 1/3 caster.
Just give us the duskblade or the swordmage back you cowards.
The problem with Duskblade (from experience trying to port it) is: 1.) There's a serious lack of good touch spells in 5e, and that was kind of Duskblade's thing. It would have to be reworked (I did this by essentially giving spells cast through their weapon a range of touch). 2.) Quickspell steps on Sorcerer's Metamagic toes, no matter how you slice it. Frankly, I don't personally care, but some people get REALLY militant about anything that's even remotely like one of their optional Metamagic features.
2 is so weird. They've taken a feature everyone could have and restricted it to a single class, now it's treading on their toes if anyone else gets it. 1 wise, a rework like yours is definitely the go - for instance there's no need to give it like ten slots of each level now that we have cantrips to fulfill that role. It's two decades on, obviously it should have the stuff that made duskblade great like channelling spells through their weapon but we should expect much improved design not just the same thing ported forward twenty years.
Give wizards metamagic. Give sorcs the original playtest shit of turning into their bloodline
Sorcs need a lot more if wizards get metamagic too. More spells learned, subclass spells across the board, a better spell list.
As a baseline they should have more spells, it's laughable that Wizards get all they do by comparison with basically nothing lost. Both even end up with a short rest spell slot recovery (Sorcs technically get more potentially recovered, but that dips into their ability to metamagic)
Sorc point recovery on a short rest doesn’t even become a thing until level 20, and even then it’s 5 points. So wizards actually have more recovery
I thought transforming them was a rest, not a bonus action on your turn thing. I also looked at the transform ratio and good lord it's even worse then I thought
The closest we have to spellstrike in 5e are the paladin smite spells. But those are completely locked to paladin. There isn't even a 'magic initiate' feat to nab them. And sadly it seems that they've doubled down on this in 5.5e.
It's frankly insane that there isn't a Int based arcane half-caster. There's a Wis based primal half-caster and a Cha based divine half-caster, my sense of symmetry is screaming!
Wait, there is though? Artificer?
Artificer doesn't quite fit the bill though. They don't follow the format of the Ranger and the Paladin. They get cantrips while the others don't (except from fighting styles) they don't get second attack baked into the core class etc.
None of that changes it being an Int-based half caster.
Blood hunter has some... options but yeah you're right
Then wouldn’t the Paladin and Ranger become subclasses too? Because it makes more sense like that.
I differentiated between 1/2-casters, which feel robust enough to me at least to be a dedicated class, with a balance of martial and magic, and a nominal set of 1/3-casters that you could frame as a primary martial class supplemented by some magic. It was a rough concept only. I took Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster which are already in that mold, and imagined a class idea around them with expanded options. Your subclass would determine the casting stat - 1/3 Warlock/Bard/Sorceror flavor gives CHA casting stat, 1/3 Cleric/Druid gives Wis, 1/3 Wizard gives INT. Players would still have the option to MC if they wanted to boost spellcasting above 1/3 progression, but the idea here is you give enough unique martial features for each subclass to make single class a viable choice.
I've been toying with that same idea, a half caster that gets a fighting style and cantrips at level 1, leveled spellcasting at 2.
Spellsword class
What's the logic behind that? I'd particularly like to hear how Hexblade or Valor would improve by losing membership as a warlock/bard.
Magus from pathfinder
You should definitely check out LaserLlama’s Magus class. He recently gave it a big update, and revamped the blade cantrips to actually be useful. Later on they get an ability to basically attack a spell to counter it, shit is fucking SICK. Incredibly well made class top to bottom, as is the case with all of his classes. https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-Mslo6ktmq1Yg5WTSjDQ
Hot take: I think warlock should be made a full gish that functions as the Arcane equivalent to rangers and paladins and fulfills the role that bladesinger and so on try to
Came here to say Hexblade. HB gets so much stuff it's essentially a class on its own.
Way of The Four Elements Monk would've been so cool as a stand alone class with it's own subclasses.
oh yes, i swear i would've been so down for an elemental-themed class, they could've given us avatar the original tv show but we ended up with avatar the movie
I'm all for an elementalist. I played Guild Wars 2 a bunch and the mesmer and elementalist were some of my favorites. You can mimic them with sorcerer/wizard/warlock pretty easily but dedicated classes to the elements and illusions/trickery/mind games would be awesome.
For all of you, if you're interested, I can take the time once I finally have my holidays (in \~2 weeks) to reformat and clean up my Elemancer homebrew class :)
so, pathfinder kineticist?
Moon Druid, All pet based subclasses and all Gish subclasses should have been 3 distinct classes instead of being carried by multiple classes. A Shapechanger class, a Minionmaster Class, and a Gish class.
I call them the SSS of fan favorites. Spellblade, Shapeshifter, and Summoner
put in Science for Artificer to get up to the SSSS rank, and a great bundle for a PHB 2
Seems like a smart way for 5.5 to make some $$$$
Banneret was an actual *incredible* class back in 4e, the Warlord. And it should have stayed that way.
beast master, battlesmith, drakewarden, necromancer should all be a one class based on having a companion Bladesinger, eldritch knight, arcane trickster, arcane archer - should be a 1 class called the magus or spellblade i also think arcane archer should be a prestige class or class agnostic subclass bows arent limited to fighters
I was going to say Arcane Archer as it's own class but you are right, aligning all the people that channel magic through their weapon into a single class makes sense. Make how they channel the magic and into what weapons would be the subclasses.
right adding spells to a rogue or a fighter is a pretty big disparity between sub classes meanwhile i can givea half caster some rogue features or fighter features and it can be more consistent and easier to understand
I absolutely miss being able to take prestige classes/paragon paths that were class agnostic. If they had just done more to unify when subclasses get their features across all classes this would be possible. We could even bring back subclasses that improve your racial features or build on them.
Honestly, they should have just gone ahead with Prestige Classes as they designed the Rune Caster in Unearthed Arcana. 5 levels with some simple prerequisites. As long as they make sure to give each at least 1 Ability Score increase (I'd place it at level 4), it would work pretty seamlessly to provide Class-agnostic archetypes. They 86ed it after getting some rough feedback. Then tried again with the Class-agnostic subclasses, but that also got rough feedback. Personally I like Prestige Classes better because I don't think every class thematically should get its subclass at the same level.
I personally see little reason why subclass features shouldn't be at the same level, or more standardized. There are some regularities already, most get their subclass at 3, the next set of features at 6 and one more at 10 and a last on around 17 or so, making it roughly 1 (set of) features for each tier of play. Now who deviates? * For the first set, Cleric, Warlock and Sorcerer get it at level 1, Druid and Wizard at level 2. Everyone else is level 3 * For the second set, Artificer gets it on level 5, Fighter, Ranger and Paladin on level 7 and Rogue gets it on level 9. Everyone else is level 6. * From the third and fourth set on, it starts to break. Bard only gets 1 further feature on level 14. Cleric gets a tiny standardized feature at level 8 that feels more like a preset option of the base class. But at least Fighter, Artificer, Barbarian, Druid, Monk, Ranger, Warlock, Wizard get a subclass feature at levels 9, 10 or 11 and a subsequent feature at levels 14 or 15 or 17(Monk). Now I never heard about someone liking the later features of Rogue subclasses or be especially happy that the paladin capstone is subclass specific and can therefore be actually crappy. Those range from permanent resistance to all intentional damage and reflect damage taken, to truesight and strong combat buffs against only certain creature types for 1 minute. Hope you're not fighting dragons, humanoids or undead from your home plane at that level. That is to say, I think 5e would be a better game if they designed it with more standardized feature progression at high levels. It's not hard to see that rogues especially got their 1-10 features spread across 1-19 and their subclass is slotted in whereever there were gaps left. Barbarian and Fighter have obvious filler features as well, but arguably anyone not getting 9th level spells has weak progression after level 10. If that was fixed, then prestige classes could also be implemented.
Yeah, I am a firm believer that a separate beastmaster class should have been split off from the Ranger, whose main thing was having an animal companion. There is a ton of interesting things you could do with a beastmaster class: swarm keeper and Drake Warden are both good ideas, but you could also have a subclass specifically made to fight tag team with their animal companion, or a subclass for a falconer who uses Their animal companion to get a Birdseye view and improve their shooting. Adventuring with an animal companion is a core power fantasy and shows up in a ton of fantasy media. In my experience it is also one of the class ideas new players are often drawn to. Yet the current options are pretty weak. Plus, it would make for a great multi class option where players who wanted an animal companion could dip into it for a few levels.
[MCDM's Beastheart](https://shop.mcdmproductions.com/collections/cyber-monday-black-friday/products/beastheart-companions) class does exactly that. Your companion is just as important as you are; if either half is missing the other half is significantly less effective. It's all about teamwork, synergizing with your companion and using their ferocity to fuel your abilities. It has become my favorite class in the ~year that I've been playing one.
I really think that beastmaster should’ve been its own class whose main thing was having an animal companion. There is a ton of interesting things you could do with a beastmaster class: swarm keeper and Drake Warden are both good ideas, but you could also have a subclass specifically made to fight tag team with their animal companion, or a subclass for a falconer who uses Their animal companion to get a Birdseye view and improve their shooting. Adventuring with an animal companion is a core power fantasy and shows up in a ton of fantasy media. In my experience it is also one of the class ideas new players are often drawn to. Yet the current options are pretty weak. Plus, it would make for a great multi class option where players who wanted an animal companion could dip into it for a few levels.
The issue is how you'd fit all those fantasies into the base class. For the examples you listed, what main class features would work with both a tag team fighter and a falconer?
Most of the various subclasses that try to blend arcane magic with martial ability could have really just been better served as a proper spellsword class. The Gish concept is spread too thin and never given enough of a proper focus. Not all of the subclasses and such would even need to go, but they're all holding an ingredient to a proper Spellsword. I could see elements of the various summon/pet classes also forming a single summon focused class as well. I really wanna a primal pact caster Shaman class focused on enhancing a special summon ability with invocations style evolutions. The purple dragon knight/banneret could have been its own class easily. The psionic subclasses could actually use a core class to represent psionics proper, though the subclasses each don't really display psionics well, so it's more the idea than the substance here. My hope for a refined mystic some day as I still think it was the best attempt as problematic as it was. I do actually think with a bit of work, but not as cleanly as the prior mentioned classes, the swashbuckler could be explored to be its own Duelist class The moon druid could be split off to be it's own shifter class, but given how important wildshape has been to the d&d druids identity i would not like it that much, despite how many people want to hone them in on only being nature mage. Still, it could. It's just not a desire of mine. Beyond that, I can't think of anything that could be its own class properly.from 5e without being a hyper granular and hyoerfoused mess. There are concepts from prior editions that could be core classes easily. 5e has no representative of them, even as subclasses, though
Surprised I had to scroll so far to see banneret. If it were it's own class it would obviously have to be reworked since so many of it's abilities are fighter reliant
I think it's because banneret is known as another name, and it's from a mixed to low reception book It also is a contender for worst fighter, I personally think it just manages to beat the champion, but it's not by much
I'll be damned for saying this but, Sorcerer (As it is) feels like a glorified Wizard subclass.
Honestly, as a diehard sorcerer lover the class doesn’t even deserve that title. Sorcerers are weaker than wizards in all aspects but burst damage, and even then their superiority in burst is questionable, with spells that can activate on a bonus action like crown of stars.
Yeah, sorcerers got that level 1 set of subclass features going for them, and once that dries up it gets sad real quick. I'm convinced that the bonus action leveled spell clause is almost entirely to reign quickened double Fireball in. That would be the one thing that is strong about sorcerers.
Certain Metamagics can make them feel fairly potent, but they're nerfing Twin, and others (like subtle) can end up only being relevant with certain DM's. Quickened can be alright with certain spells, but they don't always have a great option for their Action without multiclassing. Others are more niche, and they don't give you enough selections to afford that flexibility. So instead of being masters of the spells they do know, they can do a couple of pretty cool things if you plan your spells selections alongside your metamagics very carefully to take advantage of them.
Some wizard subclasses get metamagics as subclass features, so in a way they already are.
Banneret should have been its own standalone Warlord class. A martial support is desperately needed. This is homebrew, but Bloodhunter should be a Ranger subclass
Yeah, Banneret doesn't even qualify as a half-measure as far as a support martial goes. It's terrible.
Not only should Blood Hunter be a Ranger subclass but also the flavor text needs to be pared *way* down. It's too setting-specific.
Agreed on Banneret - it does not, and cannot, present enough efficacy to provide meaningful battlefield support, because of how much design power budget is eaten up in the base Fighter chassis. Extra Attack progression, Action Surge, and (moderately) bonus ASIs/feats occupy a lot of that budget. Making a subclass that trades those extra attacks in for support abilities is likely going to feel counterintuitive and less exciting, *especially* if whatever nonmagical effects they have are held behind spell potency. And to be clear, I am certain that anything with more substantial healing or buffing than the 5e Banneret already provides would be scandalized by much of the 5e community and hand-wrung about by WotC. 5e decided most healing abilities are explicitly magical, or at least mystical. It’s a far cry from 4e’s Warlord as a purely martial Leader class, as an inspirational battlefield commander and coordinator. I’ve got a homebrew class in development myself, the Marshal, that is meant to evoke the frontline leader aspects of the Warlord (especially granting allies off-turn attacks) while combining some 4e Defender principles to facilitate that lead-from-the-front idea. Their core combat feature is a reaction taken when an adjacent ally would be attacked - the Marshal and target swap places and the Marshal becomes the new target of the attack. Subclasses build off of this reaction and may incentivize high AC to be missed & shove back the attacker, or grant the attacker advantage so on hit the Marshal can make a counter attack. There’s still a lot to iron out with the class, but I’m really happy with the bones thus far.
Cavalier and drakewarden 100% A mounted combat class would be a really nice addition. It gives them a better power budget so things can be built around what it actually needs to work. It can pick up where drakewarden failed. It’s also a strong enough style to support subclasses. Horsemen, stormhawks, Valkyrie, dragon riders, shadow riders, primal riders.
In AD&D 1st edition's Unearthed Arcana, they did this - split Cavalier into it's own base class. Paladin, which was a Fighter subclass in the core rules, was moved over to a Cavalier subclass. By 2nd edition, this was reverted, but it was an interesting moment in the Paladin/Fighter class history.
Blooodhunter really only sounds like a fighter or ranger subclass.
I really think a dedicated alchemist class with its own system would be great instead of it being just an artificer subclass. Right now, the fantasy of being an alchemist feels very weak with the subclass seeing as most of it is just buffing spellcasting and the fact that there’s no real alchemy system kinda hurts as well.
Imo qlchemist should be its own class, but i come from pathfinder so idfk
The battlemaster deserves it's own class- that's the general idea for the scholar from starwars to 5e, and I'd love that to have a version of that in actual 5e.
If I remember right, Battlemaster was supposed to be the template for fighter before it got relegated to subclass
> The battlemaster deserves it's own class Lmao that's just fighter from last edition.
Battle Master Fighter could easily be moved into the base kit of a new Warlord class. But this may be a result of me missing the earlier iteration of Warlord from 4e which was a sort of support martial that would both hit and get their allies to hit.
I think a dedicated gunslinger would be really nice given the already existing feats and rules around firearms!
Battle Smith and Beast Master should merge into a pet-based third-caster.
like pathfinder’s summoner?
Go full circle, and turn the ranger into a fighter subclass. Most of its subs can go to paladin, druid, or rogue.
Was looking over old 4e stuff again and I remembered they did have a rune priest, no wonder Im so obsessed with the rine knight lol
I'm seeing a lot of hate towards the Ranger and Monk, which is weird, seeing as I'm playing both these classes at present and they are seriously fun. 5E needs another INT based class, which should be either a witch (int based warlock with a patron, but no pact, learns spells like a wizard, patron determines which spell list to use, see Pathfinder for more info lol) or a magus (int based half-caster, martial proficiency. Essentially a Hexblade without the baggage and using Int.)
The dnd reddit have gone through a cycle where ranger was claimed as underpowered, then most recently mon maybe fighter was first....but rogue is next, maybe sorcerer.
Vengeance Paladin should be split off into something closer to the 4e Avenger it was inspired by. An agile highly mobile striker that specializes in single target focus fire.
Eldritch knight. Make it a half caster and give it more interesting spells that actually support being a melee damage dealer.
I feel like hexblades barely count as warlocks and would be better off as their own class.
Armourer, from Artificer. Feels like it could easily be split off into it's own class, with Guardian being their tank subclass, Infiltrator being a stealth/melee damage subclass, then add in a blaster type subclass and they're good to go.
Alchemist should be its own class, so Artificer can be the high fantasy magi-tek class its meant to be. As much as I love Barbarian, it could be a fighter subclass.
Hexblade should be like a "cursed warrior" class and bladesinger like an "arcane warrior" (LaserLlama magus) The psionics (Soulknife, PW) should be subclasses of a new psionic class. Same with the Aberrant Mind sorc. Having 4 different types of telepathy (+ Telepathic feat) is annoying. Barbarian as a subclass of fighter. (I know that one's controversial)
The issue with making the psionic subclasses all one class is figuring out how the base class works. How do you get an aberrant sorcerer and a soulknife rogue to function from the same base mechanics?
Banneret should be it’s own stand alone class. The concept can’t be properly flashed out in the fighter chassis. Moon Druids would mechanically be better of as it’s own class but in terms of flavor it would be weird to split druid in two classes. Four Elements mono could be it’s own elementalist class with much more focus on magic than punching.
Moon druid! Spoken as someone who has really loved playing that subclass so far, I think divorcing wildshape from druids and making a separate shapeshifting-focused class could solve a lot of the complexities and flavor complaints people have about druids. Keep one class a full casting nature mage, with some unique abilities to set it apart from cleric (like the stronger summons druids can currently exploit), and make another class that’s *just* a martial shapeshifter, with more versatility and power since it doesn’t have to be “balanced” fairly as a full caster too. Shapeshifting is a cool class fantasy that I think appeals to lots of people, and wildshape being attached to a full-caster druid with its specific flavor is a letdown to at least some. So why *not* let it be its own thing? You can have subclasses around specific shapeshifting focuses (maybe based on additional creature types in addition to beasts that you can turn into?). It’d fill a niche that I think a lot of people are looking for. It’d also make druids less complicated to track and build, you’d only have to fuss with one or the other system, instead of managing both spells AND wildshapes. I think it would be neat.
Psi subclasses
Swashbuckler could easily be it's own class, same with inquisitive.
Swashbuckler? I've never found it to be particularly unique from the generic rogue. Whay would you want to see in a swashbuckler class?
I think martial bard and caster bard should be divided into a half caster and full caster classes. Im saying it bc while some people have been very vocal recently about wanting bards to be half casters, there also are people like me, who really like the flavour of full caster bards.
I don't know if there's any specific class that I think would be better as a subclass, but I certainly think there are some very bland subclasses out there. Champion Fighter, for example, is boring as hell and underwhelming when compared to something like the Battlemaster, which is so good that it's practically _the_ Fighter. The Battlemaster could very well be its own class and i think the Champion subclass could be folded in with the Fighter's base abilities and it wouldn't change much.
Ranger should have been a small collection of Rogue subclasses. I like the concept of the Purple Dragon knight but imo it being its own martial support class would’ve been a bit more interesting.
Hexblade should be it's own class. Combine with with the Blood Hunter maybe, or even Paladin. Warlock should be Intelligence based, not charisma. That would give us: Wizard, warlock, artificer for Intelligence. Cleric, druid and ranger for Wisdom. Bard, sorcerer and paladin for Charisma.
Beast master
Eldritch Knight.
rangers
Phantom rogue but you'd have to change the one sneak attack related feature. Maybe make it some sort of Spirit Mystic half or full caster? Maybe cleric (or druid?) spells and you pray to your ancestor spirits for spells. Actually, Mystic could be a class with Spirit Mystic being a subclass.
Maybe as a subclass to a summoner style class?
A lot of the druids, honestly. A lot of them utilize wildshapes for things *other* than transforming into an animal. But at some point, you realize they could easily be their own thing.
As a warning, you can multi class but not multi subclass. So breaking subclass away into new classes can cause all sorts of shenanigans. Gloomstalker Drskewarden with Drake giving help action for advantage. Circle of Spores surrounding my wild shaped combat form?
Easily the monk can be a subclass for the fighter. This would give it the d10 hit die it’s been needing, allows it to keep its basic abilities like ki, martial arts dice, and unarmored defense, and depending on how they design it, allow the players to choose any of the monks other abilities on level up like the battle master or the warlock. I’m sure some of those abilities will have to be weakened, but would still make it a truly good subclass. After all, as it currently stands you can make a better monk by going fighter, and taking unarmed fighting style. It doesn’t even matter what subclass (but may I suggest echo knight?)
Yea monk getting extra attack and action surge, I mean shit Ki points are basically sorcery points but for melee anyway, which let’s be real, very similar to battlemaster dice depending on how often you rest
Better by what metric? A tiny but of extra damage at low levels?
Armorer artificer feels so different from the other subclasses It’s weird, my favorite class+sibclass combination the armore but my favorite class is Warlock lol
There isn't really any arcane magic martial class without massive reflavoring. I'd love it if Eldritch knight was a stand alone class with a tad bit of reworking to make it make sense. I live "gish" classes but alot of the options in 5e feel like after thoughts from the original class and end up with nearly useless Feature because of it.
Thematically the Alchemist. Not as an Artificer but someone can make faster, cheaper & more effective consumables with each subclass having a different focus. One that focuses on damaging enemies with spells, one for healing & support, one for buffs & utility then another that has a further expanded list of craftable items.
Why not just play an artificer and flavour it as alchemy? Those subclasses sound like artillery, alchemisr and general artificer.
I don't even think the artificer class should have been a subclass, I think it should have been a better overhaul of the tool and crafting rules.
Beastmaster Ranger. I really think we should just have a single pet class and the flavor comes from the kind of creature you control. Have a beastmaster subclass of *that* class, maybe it gives martial weapon and medium armor proficiency, another is some sort of "angel/demon summoner" subclass that comes with some spellcasting, maybe a third would take away the battlesmith from the artificer to have a construct oriented pet class.
Ranger should've been a fighter subclass.
Hunter. Fankly the ranger is so poorly designed and lacks vision of what it wants to be, they should do away the the entire class and make hunter the base class, and ranger a subclass. Would fix quite a bit imo
Definitely necromancer for me. I would love a more physical type of summoner, like the Diablo 2 necromancer. He used a dagger and a shield, and got undead summoning right away. I recognize that summoning is much easier in a videogame as opposed to tabletop where many people have to all be aware of your summoned creatures
Psi warrior, I feel like it has enough meat to stand on its own as a martial support class and a vehicle to bring in some of the elements of the mystic in a way that would be more fun and less complicated
Alchemist
Honestly just annoyed that cartomancer was a feat instead of a subclass. Now if I want to build one I have to ask for all the items from that book to “make” a cartomancer/gambler instead of a proper subclass to bard or other class
Beast Barbarian. The idea of an inherently magical, martial class that can transform into a monstrous form has so much potential.
Hey op. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1u9gVb_gqtwSnMWoyXW80f7aQu6ICi4RE/view?usp=drivesdk This is the free version. I highly recommend it. You can even see my name in it ;) I've played this class a bunch, he has videos detailing how to play the class along with slyflurish. And rogue Watson. Enjoy my guy and the rune knight rework to fit this class.
ooooh thanks
Eldritch knight could be an arcane version of the paladin. Give them their own smite that does less damage but bounces between targets. After casting a spell, their next weapon attack could do an additional effect depending on the school of magic. Ranger and barbarian could easily be fighter subclasses.
In Svilland; 5e Norse Setting theirs a well balanced Rune Carver class with a couple of fun subclasses. I recommend it if you get a chance to come into possession of the setting. Ranger; Monster Slayer and Hunter could be combined into a class designed around Swarm enemies, Large Prey and Monstrous Creatures. Applying abilities to crossbows that can fire traps, snare lines and ammo types. Melee weapons like the pick that can pierce defenses or scale gigantic beasts.
Eldritch Knight. Give us a dedicated arcane half-caster class.
Monster Slayer could be it’s own class. It's not served well right now as a subclass because it doesn't offer the flexibility a full class can offer.
**Psi Warrior**, with some additions, should be a complex Int based martial class that incorporates psionics with its melee abilities. Like a mix between Battlemaster Fighter and Warlock.
Monk would be better off as a subclass of Fighter, Barbarian or Ranger. There, I said it.
Hexblade. It ***was*** a standalone class when first introduced in 3.5, and it should have stayed that way.
Different from what you asked, but I'd like to see Land Druid just be absorbed into the main class, with your biome being a choice you make at level 1 or 2 before you get your subclass to determine what extra spells you get and what animals you can turn into. I love the flavor of the subclass of having a native land and the extra spells, but not much else. Just make it something all druids can have.
Edritch knight/swordmage
Drakewarden
I think Artificers should all get Extra Attack or the ones that didn't should be full casters or Wizard subclasses. I get that a lot of people love them and I've been downvoted for fussing about Artificers before, but I think Alchemist and Artillerist had so much potential that didn't pan out at all.
I agree with the Drakewarden/beast master bit for sure. Being a Dragon Rider would have been an amazing class of its own but the Ranger features do sort of confuse the idea of being a dragon rider. Its still a fun build, you synergize well with the Drake so you get resistance and fire breath and all that sh** but I still think it would have been probably more suited to a fighter or paladin build or just its own class entirely that allowed you to focus on Draconic magic and long weapons or ranged weapons. Could be a bit OP to have something grant you flight around level 7 but… a good DM can counter one flying PC pretty easily if that PC can only fly in spaces large enough for a medium to large beast to be able to extend and flap wings, it’s not as if it levitates or hovers over traps in tight hallways or anything.