"This should be official"

[nonsi]

.

D&D has presented to us quite a few classes that embody typical fantasy character concepts:
1. Fighter stands for the man at arms type.
2. Rogue stands for the all-round scoundrel.
3. Druid stands for a spellcasting derived from mother earth.
4. A psion overpowers reality by sheer force of his mind.
5. A soulknife produces spectral weapons out of thin air.
Etc. etc.

Some are not so well implemented. The PF Witch, for example, embodies only a particular type of witches (in my view at least).

Some have never been officially implemented. Not every fantasy character-concept has a decent class that embodies it.


The point of this thread is for people to note (putting editions aside) some of their "This should be official" class concepts that they haven't encountered a solid implementation for, if any.
This could be "Chronomancer", "Death Knight", or anything else that come to mind, as long as it is something that can be labeled in 5 words or less, and described in one or two sentences.

Elaborate PrC cocktails are also relevant here, if found appropriate.


So, what are your "This should be official" classes?

[Aniikinis]

I'd have to say...

http://mythicalrealm.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/shamenshapeshifter-stephanielostimolo-450x291.jpg?x28567
The Wild Shifter
Though he has no magic, save for innate shifting abilities and spiritual help, he rampages across the battlefield in forms reminiscent of nature's most efficient killing machines. Calling upon his ancestors and the natural savagery of the land, he uses many different animal forms for different utilities and many more are used, either combined or alone, for their raw brutality.

Druids and Wildshape Rangers don't count. The archetype I'm referring to is one with no spells at all, eventually gaining magic only for penetrating defenses and the like. Innate buffs through the class also count. Bear Warrior comes close to what I mean, but doesn't have the raw utility innate to shapeshifting abilities and locks you into bears or the base race.

[endlessxaura]

I always felt that D&D was missing an official class that channels raw energy. For instance, Thor from Thor: Ragnarok. He's definitely not casting spells: he can channel lightning to do a few cool things, but a spellcaster would have way more at his/her disposal. But, he's not a paladin or ranger, either.

[khadgar567]

call me selfish but the only class besides the kitchen sink d&d need is dancer class remaining concepts are kinda created by nearly every one

[noob]

A bard can use perform dance instead of singing or playing music(for using his bardic music)

[GalacticAxekick]

I agree with khadgar for the most part: D&D's classes cover just about every power source, so it's just a matter of providing subclasses, spells, and feats to fill in the blanks. I'm not personally interested in a kitchen sink class, though, since I prefer multiclassing over gishes.

What I would like to see is a class that operates exclusively using social skills. No magic (e.g. the current Bard) and no martial arts (e.g. the Warlord). I tried to make one myself (http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/SyJbQnhWl)

[Ashtagon]

Another major trope that is missing is the non-magical knowledge character.

[aimlessPolymath]

I'm going to plug my Coward class(in my sig) as an embodiment of the eternal underdog- the Rincewind of D&D. To my knowledge, its the only one of its kind.

As for other things that haven't been done before...
Well, most things have been covered, either in published material or otherwise, but I've never seen a real Sage-type character focus on actual knowledge of creatures over magic use. The Archivist comes closest AFAIK, but it's honestly just a full caster with Dark Knowledge stapled on.

Edit: Huh. Look at that timing.

[GalacticAxekick]

The class I plugged actually has the knowledge/sage archetype covered!

It's central theme is communication skill, with one subclass focused on emotions/inspiration and another focused on knowledge/information.

[nonsi]

I agree with khadgar for the most part: D&D's classes cover just about every power source, so it's just a matter of providing subclasses, spells, and feats to fill in the blanks.

Character Concept is a finer distinction than Power Source (e.g. Beguiler and Dread Necromancer are radically different concepts, even though both are arcane in nature).




I'm not personally interested in a kitchen sink class, though, since I prefer multiclassing over gishes.

Sometimes a seemingly-kitchen-sink class turns out to be not at all kitchen-sink (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?240717-The-better-man-There-is-no-such-thing-base-class). I made one just a few days ago (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?543015-Elementalist-master-of-the-4-elements-(PEACH)).
That said, kitchen-sink classes are perfectly legit, if a decent job is done (https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Soulknife_(3.5e))..... but this thread is about concept, not execution.

[GalacticAxekick]

Character Concept is a finer distinction than Power Source (e.g. Beguiler and Dread Necromancer are radically different concepts, even though both are arcane in nature).I'm aware of the distinction, but I'm against building class on a concept by conceot basis. By locking certain arcane abilities in the Dread Necromancer class, for example, you make them unavailable to other Wizards and close the door to concepts that would use some of them. It would be better to give the Wizard access to spells or feats that enhance their necromancy.


Sometimes a seemingly-kitchen-sink class turns out to be not at all kitchen-sink (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?240717-The-better-man-There-is-no-such-thing-base-class). I made one just a few days ago (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?543015-Elementalist-master-of-the-4-elements-(PEACH)). That said, kitchen-sink classes are perfectly legit if a decent job is done (https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Soulknife_(3.5e))...I think we understood "kitchen sink" differently. I saw it in terms of combining power sources, since that's what I consider class representative of. The official Bard, with its spells, martial abilities, social skill and skill monkeying is a kitchen sink class in that sense. It's a class I object to strongly.

But you seemed to interpret "kitchen sink" some other way. The Soulknife combines martial and magic power, but I don't see how the Evolutionist or Elementalist are "seemingly kitchen sink classes". Maybe because they can be built to suit a variety of roles and concepts? But I think every class should.


... but this thread is about concept, not execution.It's about making it possible to execute concepts. One way to do that is to write a class for every concept. The other is to write a few classes specialize or multiclass to achieve different concepts.

Because I advocate the latter, I think the only new class(es) needed are for power sources D&D has totally neglected to represent: social skill and knowledge.

[SkipSandwich]

I would have liked to see a class spread designed more like the following;

Fighter - The pure Martial class
Monk/Ninja - Hybrid Martial/Skill class
Barbarian - Hybrid Martial/Nature Magic class (shamanistic-flavored nature-paladin)
Paladin - Hybrid Martial/Divine Magic class
Sorcerer - Hybrid Martial/Arcane Magic class (innate magic expressed in both inward(self-empowerment) and outward(spellcasting) ways.)

Rogue - Pure Skill/Trickery class
Ranger - Hybrid Skill/Nature Magic Class
Bard - Hybrid Skill/Divine Magic Class, focused more on support/healing than classic bard.
Trickster - Hybrid Skill/Arcane Magic class, similar to Bard, but focused solely on debuff/control.

Druid - Pure Nature Magic - little bit of everything with a focus on out-of-combat utility
Shaman - Hybrid Nature/Divine Magic
Witch - Hybrid Nature/Arcane Magic

Cleric - Pure Divine Magic - mostly combat healing/buff/control
Mystic - Hybrid Divine/Arcane magic

Wizard - Pure Arcane Magic - mostly combat damage/debuff/control

between all of those, pretty much any character concept you care to name could be created. now, all of those, to a point are present in 3.5, but the game was not designed from the ground up with that set of clearly defined base concepts + hybrids.

[GalacticAxekick]

Modifying 5e, I'd like to see the following:
Fighter: martial arts
Barbarian: brute force
Rogue: cheating
Ranger: enemy/terrain lore
Wizard: studied magic
Sorcerer: innate magic
Cleric: borrowed magic
New Bard: leadership

The Ranger loses its spellcasting in favour of features that specialize it to handle certain foes and terrains.

The Paladin's features go to the Cleric, and it's archetype becomes an outcome of Cleric-Fighter multiclass.

The Monk's features go to the Fighter (if they concern martial arts) and spellcasters (if they are supernatural), and it's archetype becomes an outcome of Spellcaster-Fighter multiclass.

The Druid's features go to the Cleric, particularly the nature domain. Wild Shape might be made available to other spellcasters much like Alter Self and Polymorph.

The Warlock's features go to the Cleric: particularly its slot system, invocations and pact boons. Divine Domains are permitted to include power non-gods such as Archfey, Fiends, Great Old Ones and powerful spellcasters.

The Bard is completely rewritten as a non-magical character who offers information and inspiration.

[JBPuffin]

I would like an official chronomancer/time traveler class. Most of my other desired archetypes are missing from the edition I play, not the game as a whole, and could be mechanically simulated...with about twenty pounds of refluffing.

[Yddisac]

Hm, I seem to come at what a class is supposed to do a bit differently from the rest of the thread. To me, a character focused on nonmagical knowledge or social skills doesn't need a class, it just needs a few skill proficiencies. I don't need class features to tell me how to socially interact; pretty much all the charming, intimidating, etc. I'd care to do, I can do with a regular paladin. This isn't 3e; classes and character concepts aren't the same thing.
As for low-magic stuff, well, I think the mechanics of spells get used a lot because they're fun and standardized across multiple classes. They don't have to be spells in terms of flavour. E.g., a lot of bard spells are metaphorical for social skills anyway. Vicious Mockery, Dissonant Whispers, Enthrall, Heroism, Hideous Laughter, Hypnotic Pattern... don't have to be spells; they're just effects springing from the bard's music. Or at least that's how I understand it. I don't have a problem separating the mechanics and flavour of a class, so it's easy for me to do that.

The class, to me, mainly establishes how a character fights. That's where the majority of the rules in D&D are required, after all. When I run low-combat games, I stop playing D&D and start using FATE and such - they outdo D&D completely w/o action in the picture. Other than combat effects, properly applied skill checks and the odd utility spell can cover just about anything a character wants to do.

On that note, these are the holes I've noticed most acutely at my table:

A proper engineer/mechanist class. I've had players asking for this for years and haven't found a satisfactory answer. The fact that most official products assume a heroic-fantasy setting is probably why we don't have that yet, but seeing as 5e does acknowledge playing in, e.g., early modern games, I still think we could use a mechanist class.
Artificer, which is similar to the engineer, but not really the same thing. (I tried to give the player that wanted a mechanist the UA Artificer and she rejected it out of hand.) This one is in the works, of course, but it's not done, so it's still an outstanding want for D&D.
A usable animal companion class.
Classes for different settings. I'd buy a sci-fi splatbook in a heartbeat. This isn't as bad an issue as it sounds, mind. We'd want a tech-based healer class, 'cuz I can't really think of a way to reflavour Channel Divinity, and we'd need the aforementioned engineer/mechanist, but that's about it. A mad scientist could be a reflavoured Wizard, a Boba Fett-type could be an Eldritch Knight, a Spock type expert could be a Rogue, etc.
Well, re: the thread title, I'd like to see books for more genres in general. D&D works for any genre with action: space opera, super-spy, superhero, steampunk, dieselpunk, solarpunk, '80s action...


If Wizards put out supplements for those, I'd buy them. So in that sense I can say they should be official :v

I was going to put lycanthropy on the list, but it occurred to me that a properly flavoured druid could fill the gap there, so I changed my mind. Just wildshape into the highest level wolf/bear/whatever when you want and use the kinds of spells that could be explained as nonmagical effects (Fog Cloud = kicking up sand, Earth Tremor = stomp w/shockwave, Enhance Ability, Conjure Anything...) and voilà, there's your lycanthrope.

[noob]

Try reading D20 modern and D20 future a bit.

[GalacticAxekick]

Hm, I seem to come at what a class is supposed to do a bit differently from the rest of the thread. To me, a character focused on nonmagical knowledge or social skills doesn't need a class, it just needs a few skill proficiencies. [...] The class, to me, mainly establishes how a character fights. That's where the majority of the rules in D&D are required, after all. Ah, but there's an unfilled niche for someone who fights by instructing and inspiring allies, or outsmarting and disheartening enemies.


As for low-magic stuff, well, I think the mechanics of spells get used a lot because they're fun and standardized across multiple classes. They don't have to be spells in terms of flavour. E.g., a lot of bard spells are metaphorical for social skills anyway. Vicious Mockery, Dissonant Whispers, Enthrall, Heroism, Hideous Laughter, Hypnotic Pattern... don't have to be spells; they're just effects springing from the bard's music [...] Just use the kinds of spells that could be explained as nonmagical effects (Fog Cloud = kicking up sand, Earth Tremor = stomp w/shockwaveMy issue here is that spell mechanics have constraints that only work with spell flavour. Why would someone have a limited number of insults, jokes or performances per day? Maybe against a given target, but why can't they come up with new insults or reuse old performances against new targets? Why can i only kick up sand or stomp so many times, and Why can i kick up sand regardless of my location? Why does antimagic stop the musician from playing, stop the scholar from thinking, and stop the brute from kicking sand?

To support mundane fluff, I'd need to strip away the resource economy, components and magical properies of spells, then write an action economy to replace them.


On that note, these are the holes I've noticed most acutely at my table:

A proper engineer/mechanist class. I totally agree, but I'm surprised you didn't delegate this to a skill alongside other forms of knowledge.
Well, re: the thread title, I'd like to see books for more genres in general. Agreed!

[nonsi]

I think we understood "kitchen sink" differently. I saw it in terms of combining power sources, since that's what I consider class representative of. The official Bard, with its spells, martial abilities, social skill and skill monkeying is a kitchen sink class in that sense. It's a class I object to strongly.

But you seemed to interpret "kitchen sink" some other way. The Soulknife combines martial and magic power, but I don't see how the Evolutionist or Elementalist are "seemingly kitchen sink classes". Maybe because they can be built to suit a variety of roles and concepts? But I think every class should.


Oh, I had this image of water in a sink draining down to a single narrow spot, while you're talking about the sink as a large container :smallbiggrin:





It's about making it possible to execute concepts. One way to do that is to write a class for every concept. The other is to write a few classes specialize or multiclass to achieve different concepts.

Because I advocate the latter, I think the only new class(es) needed are for power sources D&D has totally neglected to represent: social skill and knowledge.


I think you meant the former, not latter.
Anyway, I'm well aware that not every character concept should have a matching class. There's absolutely no justification in the world to make a base class for Sorcadin or Hellfire-Ur-Disciple. I'd mock any attempt to make one.
OTOH, no class combo I've ever seen came anywhere close to embody my Elementalist as a concept (not sure there is, using the official materials), and it was just begging to have a class of its own. Hence, Elementalist should be official in my view.

[GalacticAxekick]

Oh, I had this image of water in a sink draining down to a single narrow spot, while you're talking about the sink as a large container :smallbiggrin: I was actually thinking of the expression. As urban dictionary explains it (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=kitchen%20sink), Kitchen Sink is "used in expressions to describe work in which all conceivable (and some inconceivable) sources have been mined; such figures of speech might include "everything except the kitchen sink", "everything and the kitchen sink", and so on."


I think you meant the former, not latter.No, I mean the latter.

I'm strongly against writing a class for every concept (e.g. Beguiler, Chronomancer, Dread Necromancer). I advocate having the fewest possible classes, each defined by its power source, so that players can build their concepts freely (e.g. a Wizard should have access to the features of a beguiler, chronomancer or dread necromancer concept, and should be free to mix and match them).


Anyway, I'm well aware that not every character concept should have a matching class. There's absolutely no justification in the world to make a base class for Sorcadin or Hellfire-Ur-Disciple. I'd mock any attempt to make one.
OTOH, no class combo I've ever seen came anywhere close to embody my Elementalist as a concept (not sure there is, using the official materials), and it was just begging to have a class of its own. Hence, Elementalist should be official in my view.Your elementalist is, in my opinion, just a spellcaster. If they studied to control elements and transform themselves, they're a Wizard. If that's an innate power, they're a Sorcerer. If they borrowed it from a higher power, they're a Cleric or Warlock.

The spells and feats don't exist to support the concept with existing spellcasters, but I'd advocate writing those instead of writing a new class for things that spellcasters should be able to do themselves.

In other words, I think supporting that concept is great! I just disagree that a new class is the way to do so.

[Ashtagon]

fwiw, my current "ideal class list" is as follows, broadly divided into three groups. To aid with symmetry, I'm really looking for an extra "supernatural" class.


Mundane

Bard: (need a better class name) Non-magical social interaction class
Ranger: Wilderness survivalist and ranged combat specialist
Rogue: "Urban activities" and light combat specialist
Sage: (need a better class name) Non-magical knowledge class
Warrior: Melee and armoured combat specialist

Supernatural

Berserker: Rage barbarian with shapeshifting
Mystic: Ki-powered martial artist
Templar: Divine sword

Spellcasters

Adept: Caster who makes contracts with one or more extraplanar entities
Mage: Scholarly "book and wand" caster
Priest: Divine caster who benefits from having a community of co-religionists
Sorcerer: Innate caster

[Deepbluediver]

I always felt that D&D was missing an official class that channels raw energy. For instance, Thor from Thor: Ragnarok. He's definitely not casting spells: he can channel lightning to do a few cool things, but a spellcaster would have way more at his/her disposal. But, he's not a paladin or ranger, either.
I vaguely recall a PrC (I think) that was something like that- named Lighting Lord, maybe. I agree that it would be cool to do some sort of elemental-warrior class that had melee stats and full casting, but with a very limited spell-list focused on evocations; I can't imagine no one has ever not tried to homebrew something like that.

[nonsi]

No, I mean the latter.

Got it. I somehow read "advocate" as "object".





I'm strongly against writing a class for every concept (e.g. Beguiler, Chronomancer, Dread Necromancer).

Don't remember ever seeing a class-combo using official materials that did justice to the title "Chronomancer".
1. There aren't enough spells to cover the concept in a noteworthy manner.
2. Spellcasting is not the right tool to do Chronomancy. Chanting, gesturing, using materials/foci… that's not Chronomancy in any way. A poor imitation at best. A chronomancer should be someone who wields the powers of time as intuitively as breathing. A chronomancer should dominate the action economy without even breaking a sweat.





I advocate having the fewest possible classes, each defined by its power source, so that players can build their concepts freely (e.g. a Wizard should have access to the features of a beguiler, chronomancer or dread necromancer concept, and should be free to mix and match them).

Contemplating power sources, "fewest" is at least:
- Martial
- Trickster
- Arcane
- Divine
- Nature magic
- Nature spirits
- Psionic
- Meldshaping
- Truenaming
- Binding
- Leadership
- Pact magic
- Dream world manipulation
- Animalism
- Dragonism
- Demonology
- Inspiration
- Luck
- Hedonism
- Tantra
- Etc.

That's just based on what I could conjure to mind in 3 minutes from the official materials. If I tried, that list would be twice as long.
And don't assume that the above list represents my preferred distribution of resources. I consider some of the items above irrelevant, or subsets of other categories.





Your elementalist is, in my opinion, just a spellcaster. If they studied to control elements and transform themselves, they're a Wizard. If that's an innate power, they're a Sorcerer. If they borrowed it from a higher power, they're a Cleric or Warlock.

No chanting, gesturing, materials or foci. More known powers than any caster can accumulate, more daily uses than any other fullcaster, elemental metamorphosis, elemental evolution, multiple elements simultaneously, dominating elemental creatures, etc. What spellcaster did you ever see that does all that out of the box?






The spells and feats don't exist to support the concept with existing spellcasters, but I'd advocate writing those instead of writing a new class for things that spellcasters should be able to do themselves.

In other words, I think supporting that concept is great! I just disagree that a new class is the way to do so.

What I said about Chronomancer is equally relevant for Elementalist. I totally agree that Barbarian / Crusader / Knight / Marshal / Samurai / Swashbuckler / Warblade are not concepts that merit separate classes, but rather character builds of a warrior class.
Elementalist OTOH – of all the character concepts I've ever heard of that didn't get a class in D&D, in my view none is more worthy than "Elementalist" – someone who wields the fundamental building blocks of reality via innate powers and becoming.

[nonsi]

fwiw, my current "ideal class list" is as follows, broadly divided into three groups. To aid with symmetry, I'm really looking for an extra "supernatural" class.


Mundane

Bard: (need a better class name) Non-magical social interaction class
Ranger: Wilderness survivalist and ranged combat specialist
Rogue: "Urban activities" and light combat specialist
Sage: (need a better class name) Non-magical knowledge class
Warrior: Melee and armoured combat specialist

Supernatural

Berserker: Rage barbarian with shapeshifting
Mystic: Ki-powered martial artist
Templar: Divine sword

Spellcasters

Adept: Caster who makes contracts with one or more extraplanar entities
Mage: Scholarly "book and wand" caster
Priest: Divine caster who benefits from having a community of co-religionists
Sorcerer: Innate caster



Bard and Sage: implementing those is gonna be as tricky as hell. You got me curious.
Berserker: according to your description, I'd change the name to "Beast Master" or something.
Ranger: seems like you can implement it via Warrior-Priest multiclassing? (assuming your Priest can serve as Cloistered Cleric / Druid / Shaman / Healer / Exorcist / Oracle…)
Adept: definitely needs a better name, if you wanna describe someone that does pact magic.
Sorcerer: I always felt that it's too close to Wizard in execution. I'd make it a Mage variant

[Bohandas]

We need some kind of paranormal-investigator-and-eliminator class in the vein of Hellboy, Chrono Crusade, Danny Phantom, Priest, Van Helsing, and Ghostbusters

[GalacticAxekick]

Don't remember ever seeing a class-combo using official materials that did justice to the title "Chronomancer".
1. There aren't enough spells to cover the concept in a noteworthy manner. There aren't enough spells in 5th edition to write a pure necromancer either, but that doesn't make a necromancer any less of an ordinary spellcaster. The answer is to write more spells and features, (http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/HkQUYOHRql) not create a new class.

2.1 Spellcasting is not the right tool to do Chronomancy. Chanting, gesturing, using materials/foci… that's not Chronomancy in any way. A poor imitation at best. This is a failure of components and foci, not spellcasting as a concept. None of the spellcasters, in my opinion, should rely on components or foci either.

2.2 A chronomancer should be someone who wields the powers of time as intuitively as breathing. A chronomancer should dominate the action economy without even breaking a sweat. This is a description of how well they control time, and not how they control time. It's as if you're saying "Chronomancers are not spellcasters because they're stronger than spellcasters," to which I'd reply "no, they're just a higher level".


Contemplating power sources, "fewest" is at least:
- Martial
- Trickster
- Arcane I take this to mean "studied," as a Wizard's, which I would distinguish from a Sorcerer's innate supernatural abilities.
- Divine I take this to mean "borrowed," as a Cleric's, since a divinity themself is innately magical and technically a Sorcerer
- Nature magic Borrowed. Same class as "Divine". Different subclass to represent different borrowee
- Nature spirits Borrowed. Same class as "Divine".
- Psionic Power from within, I take? Sorcery.
- Meldshaping The difference between "incarnum" and more typical magic is informed but not explained. Totemists borrow power from nature and spirits, like Druids. Soulborn are innately powerful and use their convictions, like Paladin. It's given different mechanics, but there's no reason why other spellcaster should've have access to those mechanics in my opinion.
- Truenaming Studied. Same class as "Arcane".
- Binding Borrowed. Same class as "Divine".
- Leadership
- Pact magic Borrowed. Same class as "Divine".
- Dream world manipulation As in, the setting is a dream world and the character is lucid enough to manipulate it? In which case, I agree!
- Animalism ...Meaning?
- Dragonism ...Meaning?
- Demonology Borrowed.
- Inspiration I'd classify this with leadership as "social skill"
- Luck
- Hedonism Personality and lifestyle, not power source.
- Tantra ...Meaning?

That's just based on what I could conjure to mind in 3 minutes from the official materials. If I tried, that list would be twice as long. Or half, if you tried to examine which classes were doing basically the same things, encumbered by setting-specific limitations.


What I said about Chronomancer is equally relevant for Elementalist.I was going to same the same of what I said.


I totally agree that Barbarian / Crusader / Knight / Marshal / Samurai / Swashbuckler / Warblade are not concepts that merit separate classes, but rather character builds of a warrior class.I'm glad we agree on a few things!


Elementalist OTOH – of all the character concepts I've ever heard of that didn't get a class in D&D, in my view none is more worthy than "Elementalist" – someone who wields the fundamental building blocks of reality via innate powers and becoming.While I see that is sorcery and nothing more.


Bard and Sage: implementing those is gonna be as tricky as hell. You got me curious.I mentioned earlier in the thread, but I wrote a Bard/Sage (http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/edit/r1xk-7hhbl). It was tricky!


We need some kind of paranormal-investigator-and-eliminator class in the vein of Hellboy, Chrono Crusade, Danny Phantom, Priest, Van Helsing, and GhostbustersYou mean the Ranger?

[Ashtagon]

Bard and Sage: implementing those is gonna be as tricky as hell. You got me curious.
Berserker: according to your description, I'd change the name to "Beast Master" or something.
Ranger: seems like you can implement it via Warrior-Priest multiclassing? (assuming your Priest can serve as Cloistered Cleric / Druid / Shaman / Healer / Exorcist / Oracle…)
Adept: definitely needs a better name, if you wanna describe someone that does pact magic.
Sorcerer: I always felt that it's too close to Wizard in execution. I'd make it a Mage variant

Bard and Sage: Yeah, so tricky I can't even decide on a proper name. I know I can't stick with those names though, because I want the rules set I am building to be a decent enough fit for modern and SF games too.

Berserker: I wouldn't call it a beast master. That names implies someone who can command or otherwise lead other animals. The concept behind this one is more about letting your deeper emotions (primarily rage) flow out.

Aside: I think the idea of having "pet master" characters with a build focused on having a swarm of pets (whether summoned or always there) works against reasonable group social dynamics due to the amount of time required to direct their actions. Of the classes I have listed, the templar will probably have an option to have one, and the ranger, mage, and sorcerer could reasonably support an option too.

Ranger: This is definitely not simply a warrior-priest; it is intended to be a non-magical class (I listed it as a "mundane" class for a reason). The D&D style ranger would be implemented as a multiclass ranger/priest (or possibly ranger/adept) under this class list.

Adept: This is intended to conceptually cover all forms of "borrowed magic from a higher power". That includes binders, warlocks, and also clerics. Possibly D&D style druids too if you take the view that druids worship a deity.

Priest: Just to clear up a potential misconception, this is not a D&D cleric. I want this one to have mechanics that focus on and benefit from having a community of co-faithful present. I've seen such a mechanic used in TORG (an old RPG from the 90s), and really liked the concept.

Sorcerer: Since this is intended to include psions, I'm not sure making it a mage variant would really work.

[nonsi]

I would have liked to see a class spread designed more like the following;

Fighter - The pure Martial class
Monk/Ninja - Hybrid Martial/Skill class
Barbarian - Hybrid Martial/Nature Magic class (shamanistic-flavored nature-paladin)
Paladin - Hybrid Martial/Divine Magic class
Sorcerer - Hybrid Martial/Arcane Magic class (innate magic expressed in both inward(self-empowerment) and outward(spellcasting) ways.)

Rogue - Pure Skill/Trickery class
Ranger - Hybrid Skill/Nature Magic Class
Bard - Hybrid Skill/Divine Magic Class, focused more on support/healing than classic bard.
Trickster - Hybrid Skill/Arcane Magic class, similar to Bard, but focused solely on debuff/control.

Druid - Pure Nature Magic - little bit of everything with a focus on out-of-combat utility
Shaman - Hybrid Nature/Divine Magic
Witch - Hybrid Nature/Arcane Magic

Cleric - Pure Divine Magic - mostly combat healing/buff/control
Mystic - Hybrid Divine/Arcane magic

Wizard - Pure Arcane Magic - mostly combat damage/debuff/control

between all of those, pretty much any character concept you care to name could be created. now, all of those, to a point are present in 3.5, but the game was not designed from the ground up with that set of clearly defined base concepts + hybrids.

Nice spread.

I needed to rearrange your list to figure out how things break down:


Fighter - The pure Martial class
Rogue - Pure Skill/Trickery class
Druid - Pure Nature Magic - little bit of everything with a focus on out-of-combat utility
Cleric - Pure Divine Magic - mostly combat healing/buff/control
Wizard - Pure Arcane Magic - mostly combat damage/debuff/control

Monk/Ninja - Hybrid Martial/Skill class

Barbarian - Hybrid Martial/Nature Magic class (shamanistic-flavored nature-paladin)
Paladin - Hybrid Martial/Divine Magic class
Sorcerer - Hybrid Martial/Arcane Magic class (innate magic expressed in both inward(self-empowerment) and outward(spellcasting) ways.)

Ranger - Hybrid Skill/Nature Magic Class
Bard - Hybrid Skill/Divine Magic Class, focused more on support/healing than classic bard.
Trickster - Hybrid Skill/Arcane Magic class, similar to Bard, but focused solely on debuff/control.

Shaman - Hybrid Nature/Divine Magic
Witch - Hybrid Nature/Arcane Magic
Mystic - Hybrid Divine/Arcane magic


Where would you fit things like: limitless uses (Warlock), Chakra Binding, inspiring via Perform, Spell Siphoning (Spellthief), Truenaming and Dracology (DFA / Dragon Shaman)?

[nonsi]

The answer is to write more spells and features, not create a new class.

Provided that you find the design of the class in question a solid baseline to build on.





None of the spellcasters, in my opinion, should rely on components or foci either.

I didn't like that one either when I did BECMI, but I now recognize it as both appropriate for some spells and important as a balancing factor.





This is a description of how well they control time, and not how they control time. It's as if you're saying "Chronomancers are not spellcasters because they're stronger than spellcasters," to which I'd reply "no, they're just a higher level".

In my view, what distinguishes a class is being the absolute best at doing something… to the point where others might be able to mimic your main shtick, but your supremacy in it would be obvious compared to all others, because you have that extra that revolves around your shtick that's not available to anyone else.





- Divine I take this to mean "borrowed," as a Cleric's, since a divinity themself is innately magical and technically a Sorcerer
- Nature magic Borrowed. Same class as "Divine". Different subclass to represent different borrowee

There's a big difference in my view between drawing from divinity and drawing from the land. Parallel to the difference between animal and mineral.
Mages draw from the weave, yet you didn't suggest making them divine as well.





- Animalism ...Meaning?

Acquiring animal traits. Multiple animal types.




- Dragonism ...Meaning?

Acquiring draconic traits. Probably a single dragon type.





- Inspiration I'd classify this with leadership as "social skill"

My bad. I was referring to the Factotum, not Bard.





- Tantra ...Meaning?

Using preserved body energy to fuel your powers.





While I see that is sorcery and nothing more.

How would you build a single "Sorcerer" class for encompassing psionics, invocations, elementalism and dracology (with the latter two actually transform on the physical level as levels accumulate)?
How would you encompass in it character concepts that aren't specified in advance?

[Bohandas]

You mean the Ranger?

Not really. The ranger has one relevant class feature (favored enemy) but the rest are unrelated.

EDIT:
And I guess the track feat is related too. But other than that the rest is still unrelated

[GalacticAxekick]

Provided that you find the design of the class in question a solid baseline to build on.Admittedly a huge challenge! But one I'd like to tackle.


I didn't like that one either when I did BECMI, but I now recognize it as both appropriate for some spells and important as a balancing factor.Agreed.


In my view, what distinguishes a class is being the absolute best at doing something… to the point where others might be able to mimic your main shtick, but your supremacy in it would be obvious compared to all others, because you have that extra that revolves around your shtick that's not available to anyone else.I see class more in terms of means than ends. I might be the absolute best at raising the dead, but if I made it there by studying magic, I'm still a Wizard. I might be the absolute best fencer, but because I'm still just handling a sword, I'm still a Fighter.

A chronomancer might be able to control time constantly and effortlessly, but that only means that they're a high level. Before they borrowed that much power, or before they studied that far, or before their abilities matured that much, they must've been comparable to other Clerics/Sorcerers/Wizards.


There's a big difference in my view between drawing from divinity and drawing from the land. Parallel to the difference between animal and mineral. Mages draw from the weave, yet you didn't suggest making them divine as well. Sorcerers and Wizards exert themselves over the weave, the same way a Barbarians and Fighter exerts herself over steel tools. They are not asking (and could not ask) the weave for help anymore than you could ask a sword to swing. Druids, on the other hand, are explicitly worshiping something and asking something for borrowed power. 3.5e says "[The Druid] gains her magical powers either from the force of nature itself or from a nature deity". Pathfinder says "Druids worship personifications of elemental forces, natural powers, or nature itself. Typically this means devotion to a nature deity, though druids are just as likely to revere vague spirits, animalistic demigods, or even specific awe-inspiring natural wonders."


Acquiring animal traits. Multiple animal types. [...] Acquiring draconic traits. Probably a single dragon type.Ends and not a means. How are they acquiring animal traits? If it's an innate ability, it's Sorcery. If it's study, it's Wizardry. If they have help, it's Clerical.


My bad. I was referring to the Factotum, not Bard.I see. I'd almost omit the Factotum because it's a kitchen sink/jack-of-all/gish class: because it dabbles in every power source rather than having one of its own. But it does stand out for never truly learning anything, but always imitating. That's pretty cool.


Using preserved body energy to fuel your powers.Innate supernatural power. Sorcery.


How would you build a single "Sorcerer" class for encompassing psionics, invocations, elementalism and dracology (with the latter two actually transform on the physical level as levels accumulate)?
How would you encompass in it character concepts that aren't specified in advance?Subclass. Depending on the source of your innate powers (celestial, draconic, fey or fiendish bloodline? being some form of shapechanger? etc) you should have a totally different range of supernatural abilities, so I'd throw away the Sorcerer's broad spell list (which already resembles the Wizard's too much) and replace it with subclass-specific lists. Cantrips, rituals, and spells with day-long duration would become important to represent features the Sorcerer never "runs out of" (such as transformations, senses and resistances). I might write "passive" spells that count against your spells known but don't consume slots because they're always on. Core Sorcerer features would focus on personalizing and refining the selected features (as Metamagic does to spellcasting).


Not really. The ranger has one relevant class feature (favored enemy) but the rest are unrelated.

EDIT:
And I guess the track feat is related too. But other than that the rest is still unrelated5e Rangers gain Favored Enemy, Natural Explorerer (to improve ambushes, tracking and exploration), some stealth features (explicitly for ambushes) and a limited form of bindsight to handle invisible or obscured creatures. The Hunter subclass gets specialized offensive and defensive tools to handle the enemy of their choice. The Stalker subclass gains a feature and several spells to ambush creatures with enhanced senses. And Unearthed Arcana added the Horizon Walker subclass, who specializes in hunting extraplanar foes.

These features, alongside some great skill proficiencies and spells, make Rangers perfect paranormal investigators and supernatural hunters.

[Xerlith]

I'd have to say...

http://mythicalrealm.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/shamenshapeshifter-stephanielostimolo-450x291.jpg?x28567
The Wild Shifter
Though he has no magic, save for innate shifting abilities and spiritual help, he rampages across the battlefield in forms reminiscent of nature's most efficient killing machines. Calling upon his ancestors and the natural savagery of the land, he uses many different animal forms for different utilities and many more are used, either combined or alone, for their raw brutality.

Isn't that, exact to a T, the Totemist?

[Aniikinis]

Isn't that, exact to a T, the Totemist?

Short answer: No.

Long answer: Not quite, although that's what the picture I posted might have implied. The totemist uses a system of magic (because that's essentially what it is, pun intended :smallwink:) to borrow the abilities, powers, and weapons of other creatures and wield them with a powerful hand. That is not what I'm talking about. Their claws are not their own, their bonuses and abilities are not their own, none of their abilities are their own. Rather they are manifested and "worn" and/or bound to the person as a form of magic item formed from unrefined soul-stuff through granted abilities and unlocked centers of energy.

What I'm talking about is a class focused around wild shape and the like as the main class feature with no spellcasting ability, a scaling ability through the class to overcome damage reduction, then various "aspect of the beast" abilities through the class at certain levels that allow you to keep certain features/abilities/attacks through your shifted forms and your base form, maybe with late level abilities at like levels 15 and 20 that allow you to access abilities of the forms that normal wild shape doesn't allow such as spell-likes and special qualities, possibly limited Summon Nature's Ally usages keyed to the class level, the ability to use magic items and armour while in wild shape (as in they don't meld to your form, rather reshape to fit it), and maybe other abilities that my sleep-deprived brain can't come up with at the moment.

Totemist is a good substitute for a Wild Shifter/Skinwalker/Beast Rager/Whatever Name, but that's all it is to me. In my opinion, it will never meet the standard of the archetypal warrior going into a rage so furious that he literally becomes a bear with white hot flaming claws, eyes burning hotter than the flames of Dis themselves, and a roar so full of power that it causes the very wildlife around him to aid him in his battle from the sheer power of nature itself coursing through him and not by the manipulation and binding of soul energy.

And I will try to 'brew up a class that fits that when I get better at class design, but until then I'll just sit here and play a druid or shaman or even a totemist and sigh at what I want to play, not quite being there.

[Morphic tide]

Short answer: No.

So, what you want is, essentially, Warshaper as a base class, but with the basic abilities being tied to existing animal forms rather than just shifting body parts into whatever, at least at the start. Then a sprinkle of Monk for DR stuff.

[Aniikinis]

So, what you want is, essentially, Warshaper as a base class, but with the basic abilities being tied to existing animal forms rather than just shifting body parts into whatever, at least at the start. Then a sprinkle of Monk for DR stuff.

Yeah, kind of, with druid-like wild shape progression and a couple of other bits too, but at the most basic level? Yes.

[elanfanboy]

I'd have to say...

http://mythicalrealm.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/shamenshapeshifter-stephanielostimolo-450x291.jpg?x28567
The Wild Shifter
Though he has no magic, save for innate shifting abilities and spiritual help, he rampages across the battlefield in forms reminiscent of nature's most efficient killing machines. Calling upon his ancestors and the natural savagery of the land, he uses many different animal forms for different utilities and many more are used, either combined or alone, for their raw brutality.

Druids and Wildshape Rangers don't count. The archetype I'm referring to is one with no spells at all, eventually gaining magic only for penetrating defenses and the like. Innate buffs through the class also count. Bear Warrior comes close to what I mean, but doesn't have the raw utility innate to shapeshifting abilities and locks you into bears or the base race.

they have this now. it's in PF, and not many people like it though it's pretty good.

[pi4t]

Another major trope that is missing is the non-magical knowledge character.

It's (highly-respected) third party Pathfinder, but the Scholar of Spheres of Power fills that niche rather nicely. As does the Technician from the same source, in a rather different way.

Actually, in general, Spheres seems to cover most of the character concepts you might come up with due to its flexibility...


For my own suggestion, since I've just had to quit a PbP game I was hoping to join since I couldn't make the character concept I wanted to play without using Gestalt:

A character who learns spellcasting some time after level 1 (ie during the game itself) and uses it in a utility context while still giving the player a good choice of combat styles beyond "roll to hit and damage" (eg "focus on disabling the enemies"). Ok, in 5e that's kind of possible with the fighter using the spellcasting archetype, but that costs you most of your customisation of your actual fighting ability and kind of locks you into "roll to hit" when you're not casting. And it's particularly difficult in first-party-only Pathfinder, which is what I was trying to use.. :smallfurious:

[GalacticAxekick]

It's (highly-respected) third party Pathfinder, but the Scholar of Spheres of Power fills that niche rather nicely. As does the Technician from the same source, in a rather different way.

Actually, in general, Spheres seems to cover most of the character concepts you might come up with due to its flexibility... Looking into this immediately! Non-magical, non-martial classes are a niche I really want in 5e, so I'd love to pull ideas from here.



For my own suggestion, since I've just had to quit a PbP game I was hoping to join since I couldn't make the character concept I wanted to play without using Gestalt:

A character who learns spellcasting some time after level 1 (ie during the game itself) and uses it in a utility context while still giving the player a good choice of combat styles beyond "roll to hit and damage" (eg "focus on disabling the enemies"). Ok, in 5e that's kind of possible with the fighter using the spellcasting archetype, but that costs you most of your customisation of your actual fighting ability and kind of locks you into "roll to hit" when you're not casting. And it's particularly difficult in first-party-only Pathfinder, which is what I was trying to use.. :smallfurious:Multiclassing Fighter/Spellcaster would get you halfway there, I think. The real barrier, in my opinion at least, is that martial characters in 5e all lack combat styles beyond "roll to hit and damage". The Battle Master comes closest, but I'd like to see AoE, area control, status effects (physical and mental), buffs, and saving throws made available to the martial classes.

With that in place, I think the Fighter/Spellcaster could do what you're looking for.

[Aniikinis]

they have this now. it's in PF, and not many people like it though it's pretty good.

Which class/archetype?

[THEChanger]

Which class/archetype?

Shifter (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/shifter), from the newly released Ultimate Wilderness. As the fanboy says, opinions on its effectiveness vary. I haven't looked at it too closely, but it seems...alright.

[Aniikinis]

Shifter (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/shifter), from the newly released Ultimate Wilderness. As the fanboy says, opinions on its effectiveness vary. I haven't looked at it too closely, but it seems...alright.

Hmm, it's pretty darn close to what I was wanting. I didn't even know this existed because I haven't read Ultimate Wilderness yet. Dankeschön.

[pi4t]

Hmm, it's pretty darn close to what I was wanting. I didn't even know this existed because I haven't read Ultimate Wilderness yet. Dankeschön.

Seriously? I discover this after making a druid//unchained monk wildshape build? Oh well, it brought my character in an interesting direction anyway, and I got an animal companion and spellcasting out of it.

Another approach to the same concept is again in Spheres of Power. The (now rather confusingly-named) Shifter, in particular. It's technically a spellcaster still, but if you take the Lycanthropic drawback (see Casting Traditions) and only take talents from the Alteration sphere the effect would be extremely easy to fluff as an innate shifting ability.


Multiclassing Fighter/Spellcaster would get you halfway there, I think. The real barrier, in my opinion at least, is that martial characters in 5e all lack combat styles beyond "roll to hit and damage". The Battle Master comes closest, but I'd like to see AoE, area control, status effects (physical and mental), buffs, and saving throws made available to the martial classes.

With that in place, I think the Fighter/Spellcaster could do what you're looking for.

Yeah, that would probably be a workable option if I was playing 5e. Unfortunately I'm playing Pathfinder, and because bounded accuracy isn't a thing doing a martial/caster multiclass is far less effective, especially if I want to continue progressing my casting slowly as I level.

[nonsi]

Isn't that, exact to a T, the Totemist?
Short answer: No.

Long answer: Not quite, although that's what the picture I posted might have implied. The totemist uses a system of magic (because that's essentially what it is, pun intended :smallwink:) to borrow the abilities, powers, and weapons of other creatures and wield them with a powerful hand. That is not what I'm talking about. Their claws are not their own, their bonuses and abilities are not their own, none of their abilities are their own. Rather they are manifested and "worn" and/or bound to the person as a form of magic item formed from unrefined soul-stuff through granted abilities and unlocked centers of energy.


That's what I was trying to say in my exchange with GalacticAxekick.
There's a handful of themes that merit classes of their own that grant innate powers via a character's physical evolution: elemental domination, draconic traits, polymorphic abilities, chronomancy etc. Abilities/properties/traits that cannot be shut down by anti-magic, just like you can't un-dragon a dragon with anti-magic. those themes and a few others merit "becoming", not just "borrowing" powers.
I don't see how spells or spell-like abilities can do the job right on their own in such cases.

[Deepbluediver]

elemental domination
STORMLORD!
http://dnd.arkalseif.info/classes/stormlord/index.html

That's the class I was thinking of.

[nonsi]

STORMLORD!
http://dnd.arkalseif.info/classes/stormlord/index.html

That's the class I was thinking of.

Nice concept; poor execution.
Paying 3 terrible feats for class features that are mostly situational or are obtainable via a small portion of your WBL just ain't worth it.
At the very least, I'd give it the ability to conjure javelins as a free action on a whim, and make their enhancement scale all the way up to +5. That'll give the class something substantial when it's not outdoors.
Storm of Elemental Fury: Since druids already have access to this spell and since it's a 1/day usage (one level after you've already obtained it), I'd replace "as if he were a 17th-level cleric" with "the stormlord's CL when using this ability equals his character level +2".

Anyhow, "Storm" is a niche within the element of Air, which is not exactly elemental domination. However, that doesn't make it not worthy a concept in and on itself for this thread.

[Deepbluediver]

Nice concept; poor execution.
You could make that assessment about a lot of PrCs. IMO the biggest issue is that they tried stretch a very specific concept too far. Something like "a dwarf who is really good at killing giants with an axe"- and that's supposed to be worth 10 levels. If you compressed a lot of the 10-level PrCs down to just 5 levels and maybe combined a few of the 5-level PrCs, while keeping the same features, they wouldn't necessarily be great but the investment for a character-concept wouldn't be as crippling from a mechanical perspective.

I mostly just provided the link to show that WotC was thinking about this, too.


Edit: I feel like a lot of PrCs were designed with a specific story in mind, as opposed to fill a mechanical niche, which IMO makes them better for NPCs. Someone that the characters meet once, and either assist, are assisted by, or are opposed by, and then disappears from the story. It's kind restrictive for a PC to spend 10 levels on a class that makes them really good at killing dragons and nothing else, for example, especially when the rest of the party probably won't do the same. But if the party runs into Thesilien Dragonsbane, dragon-hunter extraordinare, and he offers to split the bounty with them for killing a black dragon that's terrorizing the local villages, that makes for a fun moment. And then the party goes off to fight ghouls or explore an old tomb or negotiate an alliance with the elementals or something like that, while Thesilien wanders off to find more dragons.

[nonsi]

You could make that assessment about a lot of PrCs. IMO the biggest issue is that they tried stretch a very specific concept too far. Something like "a dwarf who is really good at killing giants with an axe"- and that's supposed to be worth 10 levels. If you compressed a lot of the 10-level PrCs down to just 5 levels and maybe combined a few of the 5-level PrCs, while keeping the same features, they wouldn't necessarily be great but the investment for a character-concept wouldn't be as crippling from a mechanical perspective.

I mostly just provided the link to show that WotC was thinking about this, too.


Edit: I feel like a lot of PrCs were designed with a specific story in mind, as opposed to fill a mechanical niche, which IMO makes them better for NPCs. Someone that the characters meet once, and either assist, are assisted by, or are opposed by, and then disappears from the story. It's kind restrictive for a PC to spend 10 levels on a class that makes them really good at killing dragons and nothing else, for example, especially when the rest of the party probably won't do the same. But if the party runs into Thesilien Dragonsbane, dragon-hunter extraordinare, and he offers to split the bounty with them for killing a black dragon that's terrorizing the local villages, that makes for a fun moment. And then the party goes off to fight ghouls or explore an old tomb or negotiate an alliance with the elementals or something like that, while Thesilien wanders off to find more dragons.

FYI, Mike Miller published a project for condensing PrCs 2 months ago (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?539572-Decreasing-Prestige-Class-Dead-Levels).


[EDIT]: Regarding the bolded part, do you have any particular PrCs in mind?

[noob]

Mindbender should be reduced to 1 level: the first one.
Nobody ever take more than one level in it.
Fatespinner could be a 4 level class: it would save ink.

[Deepbluediver]

Regarding the bolded part, do you have any particular PrCs in mind?
Not off hand. There's just to many PrCs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prestige_classes#3.5_revision) for me to remember most of them. The only reason I vaguely recalled Stormlord was because like the title says, it was something I myself had considered for a base-class concept.
For the rest, it's just a thought I've had multiple times: "Hey, this PrC from [splatbook X] feels a bit like a PrC from [splatbook y]; I bet it would be easy to combine them mechanically and/or thematically."


Edit: There are also apparently a lot more non-standard level (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?226460-3-X-List-of-PrCs-with-quot-nonstandard-quot-levels) classes than I thought.

[nonsi]

There's just to many PrCs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prestige_classes#3.5_revision) for me to remember most of them.


That's one of several reasons why I've removed the concept of PrCs from my proposed overhaul project altogether (and lost nothing as consequence of that decision, AFAICT).

[Deepbluediver]

That's one of several reasons why I've removed the concept of PrCs from my proposed overhaul project altogether (and lost nothing as consequence of that decision, AFAICT).
I'd agree with you that the majority of them could be fairly well encapsulated with an Archetype or ACF or set of Feats. The only ones atm I really feel fit the PrC design are the various "Champions of X" type of PrCs. The best-known of example of that is the Paladin, IMO, which is why in my own overhaul I made it a PrC. I think it feels weird to be the "sword of the gods!" or "zealout of the cause!" and you're still running around killing level-1 goblins and haggling over how many copper pieces a potion costs.

I feel more inclined to keep PrCs that actually require you to prove you're some sort of baddass or dedicant, and jettison the rest. And I mean with requirements more complicated than "BAB +5", which EVERYONE gets if you just hang in there long enough. Like, I want the requirements to be something that would actually set you apart from the rest of people playing the same base-class that could lead into the PrC as you.

[nonsi]

I'd agree with you that the majority of them could be fairly well encapsulated with an Archetype or ACF or set of Feats. The only ones atm I really feel fit the PrC design are the various "Champions of X" type of PrCs. The best-known of example of that is the Paladin, IMO, which is why in my own overhaul I made it a PrC. I think it feels weird to be the "sword of the gods!" or "zealout of the cause!" and you're still running around killing level-1 goblins and haggling over how many copper pieces a potion costs.

I feel more inclined to keep PrCs that actually require you to prove you're some sort of baddass or dedicant, and jettison the rest. And I mean with requirements more complicated than "BAB +5", which EVERYONE gets if you just hang in there long enough. Like, I want the requirements to be something that would actually set you apart from the rest of people playing the same base-class that could lead into the PrC as you.

I get what you're saying, but that's a very narrow group of concepts.
In my overhaul project, I attacked this idea of elite characters with something that I called "Class Combo Feats", which stands for multiclassing plus a lot of character resources that combine to enhance/justify a very specific set of powers.

[Amechra]

The Paladin should have been a template, honestly. "You get permanent, supernatural Protection from Evil, Detect Evil, and Bless Weapon effects as long as you keep your oaths" would have been pretty decent.

[Deepbluediver]

I get what you're saying, but that's a very narrow group of concepts.
In my overhaul project, I attacked this idea of elite characters with something that I called "Class Combo Feats", which stands for multiclassing plus a lot of character resources that combine to enhance/justify a very specific set of powers.
I'm willing to expand the variety of PrCs if someone can justify for me why a particular concept NEEDS to be a PrC as opposed to a variant of a normal class (or a feat, or ACF, etc) and I think capping more of them at 5 levels would help with that.



The Paladin should have been a template, honestly. "You get permanent, supernatural Protection from Evil, Detect Evil, and Bless Weapon effects as long as you keep your oaths" would have been pretty decent.
Templates, I forgot about that because using the more powerful (and therefor more interesting ones) always seemed to come with complicated rules for adjusting level, and so I never used them. But that's also a valid option and something I think should also have been a little more standardized- like the classic example that there's about 4 different ways to be a half-dragon in 3.5.


Someone once said to me that a Paladin needed to be a base-class because there needed to be more options for tanks in the core rules, which is a terrible justification for something like that IMO, but makes sense from the perspective of what WotC would have been thinking.

[Amechra]

The Paladin was only a base class because it has ALWAYS been a base class. Crack open the 1e PHB and you get an iconic image of a Paladin fighting demons in Hell.

People would complain really hard if there wasn't a Paladin class in 6e.

---

My ideal set-up would be a four class system - Fighter, Speaker, Scholar, and Thief*. Notice the lack of spellcasters or the divinely inspired.

Instead, there would be subsystems that anyone could participate in. You want to play a spellcaster? Buy some spell scrolls, take a feat that lets you get a bit more out of them, and convince the party to pass any scrolls in the loot to you. You wanna be a cleric? Curry divine favor by doing the things that Vectron wants to see in the world.

* Better than my other suggestion of Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, and Spy. Or Monkey, Ninja, Pirate, and Robot.

[JBPuffin]

Oooh! If we're talking about ideal class setups, one of two things:

1. Make multi-classing almost the default by having characters pick 2 classes at level 1 (no multiclassing after that) and keeping the list short: adept (psionics users, including some monkish powers), expert (skill-focused martials), priest (divine magic-users, including warlocks and druids), mage (arcane magic-users, including artificers and sorcerers), and warrior (combat-focused martials, including barbarians)

So roughly, for the 5e list, we have Barbarian (Warrior x2, take an Archetype which provides Rage-type abilities), Bard (Expert w/ Mage secondary), Cleric (Divine x2 for an actual PRIEST, Divine w/ Martial secondary for DnD's traditional "I get a bunch of magic and can use actual weapons" cleric, minus the full casting), Druid (Divine x2), Fighter (Warrior x2, Warrior w/ Mage secondary for an Eldritch Knight), Monk (Warrior w/ Adept secondary), Paladin (Warrior w/ Divine secondary), Ranger (Expert/Divine...? Maybe?), Rogue (Expert x2, ATs setup like Bard but with different Archetype selection), Sorcerer (Arcane x2, Archetype selection), Warlock (Divine x2, Archetype selection), and Wizard (Arcane x2, Archetype selection).

2. If that doesn't float your boat, Adept/Expert/Priest/Mage/Warrior, and you have to do the multiclassing yourself.

[Deepbluediver]

The Paladin was only a base class because it has ALWAYS been a base class.
WotC seems weirdly reluctant to change certain things. For example, I'm not really familiar with 4th and 5e mechanics, but AFAIK combat is still delineated by specific actions within a round- did they even TRY to tinker with that formula? Its like, they'll aim to re-jigger the entire type of experience a person gets, but still want to set it in the same framework as older editions.

[Mith]

The Paladin was only a base class because it has ALWAYS been a base class. Crack open the 1e PHB and you get an iconic image of a Paladin fighting demons in Hell.

People would complain really hard if there wasn't a Paladin class in 6e.


Here's me thinking that Paladin used to be a Name level distinction like Druid was from Cleric.

[nonsi]

Here's me thinking that Paladin used to be a Name level distinction like Druid was from Cleric.

BECMI is the origin of the Paladin and Druid concepts in D&D - both accessible starting at 9th (Name) level of Fighter and Cleric respectively.

[Amechra]

Here's me thinking that Paladin used to be a Name level distinction like Druid was from Cleric.

For AD&D (i.e., the branch of the game that we're on the 5th edition of)? You could start the game as a Paladin.

Either that, or there were shenanigans going on in my group.

[ideasmith]

BECMI is the origin of the Paladin and Druid concepts in D&D - both accessible starting at 9th (Name) level of Fighter and Cleric respectively.

Not true. There were two earlier versions each of the Paladin and Druid classes, one in an OD&D supplement (Greyhawk for the Paladin, Eldritch Wizardry for the Druid), and one in the first AD&D Players' Handbook.

[Mith]

For AD&D (i.e., the branch of the game that we're on the 5th edition of)? You could start the game as a Paladin.

Either that, or there were shenanigans going on in my group.

Nonsi has the answer for my confusion. That doesn't bar shenanigans though.

I wonder if it would be worthwhile to have name level class ideas. Not at 9th level, but perhaps level 6?

[Deepbluediver]

I wonder if it would be worthwhile to have name level class ideas. Not at 9th level, but perhaps level 6?
How exactly is this different from the existing PrC format?

[Mith]

How exactly is this different from the existing PrC format?

Fair point. I am looking from a 5e perspective with no built in PrCs.

[Deepbluediver]

Fair point. I am looking from a 5e perspective with no built in PrCs.
Ah ok- I'm not familiar with 5e. In 3.5 I certainly think the idea had potential but it was wasn't implemented well, leading to a HUGE number of PrCs with only a very few that the players actually wanted to take.

I'm not going to say "there should be fewer PrCs than base classes"- whichever you have more off depends entirely on what sort of design scheme you're going for. But I do think they work best when you can splash in one or several of them for a bit of niche appeal, while maintaining most of your main build.

[Amechra]

There were a few problems, design-wise, with PrCs:

1) 3.5e's multiclassing assumed that classes were linear in terms of power. In the ideal situation for 3.5e style multiclassing, each class level would be "worth" the same amount as the others. As I'm sure anyone who played 3.5e is aware, that edition was rife with forward-loaded classes, dead levels, and quadratic power growth.

2) There was a weird insistence that PrCs be 5 or 10 levels long - while there are a few that are different lengths, they were few and far between. The problem being, of course, that a lot of PrCs just aren't conceptually worth being that long. A lot of them could have been 2 to 4 levels long with no love lost. Heck, some of them were effectively one level long.

3) Prestige classes were usually too tightly tied to a given build, by mechanical necessity. Rather than being organic, you instead had to plan out your character from day 1... which meant that any PrCs that came out later would almost always require you to rebuild your character if you wanted to try them out.

[dragonjek]

I'd like to the racial paragons redone as actual classes. They're horrible as is, but the idea of a class that takes the inherent magical and supernatural nature of their races and focuses on advancing it is really attractive to me.

You could get rid of race-based prestige classes and provide them as path options in this class as they further become icons of their species's cultural identity and traditions.

I don't know what I'd do with humans, though. Having a race whose specialty is that it isn't special or has multiple cultures is silly. My own campaign world resolves this by making them reproductively compatible with everything, even a lot of things that don't reproduce sexually (or at all). Explains why half-elves/orcs are always humans and why planetouched are almost exclusively born from human parents. This doesn't really change stats, though (although it let me add in some bizarre feats). Using just the humans as-written, trying to make class features improving their given racial features is ludicrously hard.

[nonsi]

3) Prestige classes were usually too tightly tied to a given build, by mechanical necessity. Rather than being organic, you instead had to plan out your character from day 1... which meant that any PrCs that came out later would almost always require you to rebuild your character if you wanted to try them out.


A PrCs (as a concept) is designed to allow you to be particularly effective at doing something, based on your character's "infrastructure" that had opened the door to the said PrC.
Given the above, I don't see how you'd circumvent the need to plan ahead. If you drop the prereqs, then they're just classes with less levels (which is a legitimate angle to explore)... and then you can't excuse them progressing features of other classes.
The problem with classes that have a dynamic number of levels, is that they tens to pop up like mushrooms after the rain, and with so many trees you can't see the forest anymore.
20 levels is a good framework for motivating solid class design with each class having its tools to shine w/o stepping on the toes of other classes.

[Mith]

I'd like to the racial paragons redone as actual classes. They're horrible as is, but the idea of a class that takes the inherent magical and supernatural nature of their races and focuses on advancing it is really attractive to me.

You could get rid of race-based prestige classes and provide them as path options in this class as they further become icons of their species's cultural identity and traditions.

I don't know what I'd do with humans, though. Having a race whose specialty is that it isn't special or has multiple cultures is silly. My own campaign world resolves this by making them reproductively compatible with everything, even a lot of things that don't reproduce sexually (or at all). Explains why half-elves/orcs are always humans and why planetouched are almost exclusively born from human parents. This doesn't really change stats, though (although it let me add in some bizarre feats). Using just the humans as-written, trying to make class features improving their given racial features is ludicrously hard.

I'm stealing your idea for humans.

In general, what I would like to try for 5e is that all races get a feat at 1st level, with humans getting potentially two feats at 1st with variant human. However the feat granted is for racial feats only for the non human races, and potentially a bit bigger of a list for humans.

[Deepbluediver]

I'd like to the racial paragons redone as actual classes. They're horrible as is, but the idea of a class that takes the inherent magical and supernatural nature of their races and focuses on advancing it is really attractive to me.
I know some settings do race-as-class to varying degrees, but in D&D it seems difficult to me to come up with something that isn't already represented. If your race's schtick is "magic", why not just play a Wizard or Druid? If it's "fighting", why not play a Ranger or Barbarian? The question is- what about this "class" differentiates you from other classes?

I feel like the Racial Paragon theme might work better as feat. You could the prerequisites tie into that race's stat-boosts or favored class, and then have it do....something. I don't know what, exactly; given the variety of racial abilities and themes you'd probably have to write separate feats for every single class you wanted to do one for.

I guess the other option might be some sort of Gestalt-class mechanic, where your main class is an existing one, and then in exchange for other restrictions you get to boost some of the attributes.

[Morphic tide]

I guess the other option might be some sort of Gestalt-class mechanic, where your main class is an existing one, and then in exchange for other restrictions you get to boost some of the attributes.

*points at Pathfinder Archetype system* Your class variants are over there.