(D&D 5e) Interest Check; Base Class Contests for D&D 5e

Hey there playground, its good to see you all. For those of you who have been lurking around on the homebrew forum as of late, you have probably noticed that a fair amount of base classes are being created and published for D&D 5e. A lot of them actually. While looking through the forums I also couldn't help but notice the base class contests for D&D 3.5. This has sort of piqued my interest over the concept of homebrew competitions. 5th Edition is certainly extremely popular at this point, and there certainly seems to be a decent amount of 5e homebrew on this forum now. This has inspired me with the idea of holding Homebrew Contests for D&D 5e on this forum, similar to the ones that are made for 3.5. But before I go ahead and start making a thread for that I first must know that enough people will actually come. How many of you would be interested in seeing this happen? If I were to hold a competition, how many of you would be willing to enter and/or vote? Depending on the response I get in this thread, I may do just that.

Also as a side note, if I did happen to create a competition, what should the theme be? I was hoping that perhaps we could all vote for it. I personally think we should go with something very general, at least for the first contest, to make it a little easier for first timers in the competition. Possibly something broad such as say environmental biomes, necromancy, divine magic, etc. What do you all think?

I've done this before. It's fun!

And hell yes would I enter!

I have a couple kicking around that I could enter, if the themes were right.

I would consider it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre

I have a couple kicking around that I could enter, if the themes were right.

---

What themes do you think could fit? I am at a loss for what the first theme could be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Requilac

What themes do you think could fit? I am at a loss for what the first theme could be.

---

Well, I have an elemental pet user, a non-casting alchemist/artificer, and a pseudo-incarnum user. I'd love to see more straight up elementalists done, as well as full pet classes (where all subclasses have a pet).

Well, there's been a 5e concept based on Leadership (I reposted my entry as a separate thread), which had a class version. You probably don't need to post these interest checks, as you can just make a chat thread and work out the contest from there, much like the long-running 3.5 class contest has.

As for a theme for the first contest, you could go with Deals. Pacts, bargains, contracts, whatever synonym. This would likely result in a bundle of Pact Magic classes, most likely, but that's honestly a good thing because Vancian gets seven classes in 5e, with five that aren't Vancian, and Pact Magic classes are weirdly close to nonexistent in homebrew.

For the most part I don't think 5e needs many more base classes. Essentially every concept (except leadership and gadgetry) is accounted for.

But one idea I like is creating creature-classes to represent things like acquired vampirism/lycanthropy, as well as the innate powers of dragons and other creatures (which increase with maturity)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GalacticAxekick

For the most part I don't think 5e needs many more base classes. Essentially every concept (except leadership and gadgetry) is accounted for.

---

I don't necessarily think the point of homebrew is to always make an entirely new concept. Almost every character concept can be created using the 5e PHB with enough re-flavoring, but sometimes people just want something a little more customized. Or perhaps a new mechanical side of thing needs to be explored. Is there a need for more base classes, no of course not. Does that mean nobody wants anymore base classes, no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Requilac

I don't necessarily think the point of homebrew is to always make an entirely new concept. Almost every character concept can be created using the 5e PHB with enough re-flavoring, but sometimes people just want something a little more customized. Or perhaps a new mechanical side of thing needs to be explored. Is there a need for more base classes, no of course not. Does that mean nobody wants anymore base classes, no.

---

I'm sure other people would like new base classes to refine existing concepts, but
I think that's where subclasses, feats, spells and revisions come in. You're welcome to homebrew whatever, but I probably wouldn't participate in a contest for the best necromancer base class (for example).

Uncharted territories like leadership, technology, and creature-classes do interest me though. I'd be happy to participate in related contests.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GalacticAxekick

I'm sure other people would like new base classes to refine existing concepts, but
I think that's where subclasses, feats, spells and revisions come in. You're welcome to homebrew whatever, but I probably wouldn't participate in a contest for the best necromancer base class (for example).

Uncharted territories like leadership, technology, and creature-classes do interest me though. I'd be happy to participate in related contests.

---

Fair enough, you don't have to join all the competitions after all.

I think my top proposed theme would be something along the lines of "non-spell casters who aren't pure weapon users." Too often we pigeonhole all the "interesting" non-weapon abilities into the spell-casting system. I'd like to see more classes that while they don't cast spells aren't just non-magical. Non-mundane (although I hate that word) non-spellcasters.

Things like a non-spell-casting technologist/alchemist. More on the "mad science" side than the "craft magic items" side. Things that are magical (beyond what a normal untrained mortal can do), but not spells. Things like 3e's Incarnum (without the fiddly bits, which don't go well with 5e).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre

Things like 3e's Incarnum (without the fiddly bits, which don't go well with 5e).

---

What fiddly bits don't work with Incarnum in 5e? The magic item slot thing is the only thing I can think of, and that's an easy translation. At most, you have to add minimum Investments to get effects in line with higher-rarity items.

As I have only played 5e, can someone enlighten me as to what incarnum is. I tried looking it up, but I can’t understand at all what any of the websites are talking about, and this whole soulmeild business is confusing me beyond all belief.

I'm a big fan of PhoenixPyre's angle.

5e has alchemy and tinkering as tool proficiencues, which means the mechanics for each are weak and vague. Treating some tools as classes would probably be the best way to flesh them out.

Alchemists would probably use a slot system (with mixtures rather than spells) and heavy emphasis on preparation during short or long rests. Subclasses might focus on violent chemicals vs transformative potions.

Tinkerers might use a similar slot system. Subclasses might focus on violent traps, bombs and weapons vs harmless utilities like parachutes and grappling hooks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morphic tide

What fiddly bits don't work with Incarnum in 5e? The magic item slot thing is the only thing I can think of, and that's an easy translation. At most, you have to add minimum Investments to get effects in line with higher-rarity items.

---

I'm thinking the round-by-round switching and all the small stacking bonuses. I wrote a pseudo-incarnum class by basically giving you a small pool of known shapes (called them "forms"); each has a passive effect that increases at higher levels and an activatable effect using basically a ki pool of points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Requilac

As I have only played 5e, can someone enlighten me as to what incarnum is. I tried looking it up, but I can’t understand at all what any of the websites are talking about, and this whole soulmeild business is confusing me beyond all belief.

---

It's basically a set of classes focused on creating temporary magic items out of incarnum (soul stuff). Most of them are basically force-field effects. In 3e each took up a slot and could be enhanced; you had a floating pool of points you could move around between different melds to get various effects. It strongly emphasized round-by-round micromanagement (which doesn't fit well with 5e), but the idea is pretty cool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre

I'm thinking the round-by-round switching and all the small stacking bonuses

---

Round-by-round switching is no different to how spellcasters already work, the difference is purely that in one case you're swapping points between allocation fields and in the other you're picking a thing to do each round. Very slight difference in complexity.

The small stacking bonuses are a laughably easily solved issue, as you have both magic items and spellcasting to base solutions on. Both were covered in small stacking bonuses. Look at how they're done in 5e for solutions. Also, Incarnum's bonuses actually rarely stacked, as it used Insight bonuses, which were non-stacking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morphic tide

Round-by-round switching is no different to how spellcasters already work, the difference is purely that in one case you're swapping points between allocation fields and in the other you're picking a thing to do each round. Very slight difference in complexity.

The small stacking bonuses are a laughably easily solved issue, as you have both magic items and spellcasting to base solutions on. Both were covered in small stacking bonuses. Look at how they're done in 5e for solutions. Also, Incarnum's bonuses actually rarely stacked, as it used Insight bonuses, which were non-stacking.

---

I have my doubts but it's worth a shot. I'm no incarnum expert either. I built a class using the same fluff, but the mechanics are different. Never got to play test, because I'm always a DM these days.

Wow, this thread certainly got a lot of posts, it certainly seems like people are interested. I think I am going to go through with this contest. Now all we need is a ruleset, which I will start working on right now, and a theme. Here are some of the themes that have been mentioned so far. Why don't we all hold a vote on what we want the next theme to be? We can all pick the three of our most favored choices and rank them in order from most favored to least favored. If that theme is someone's first choice that theme gets three points, if that theme is someone's second choice it gets two points, and if it is their third choice it gets one point. The theme with the most points will be the one we are going with.

- Elemental based
- Pet classes
- Classes based around pacts
- A class which represents a monster as a PC character
- Non-casting classes which aren't martials either
- Incarnum users

Here are my personal thoughts on each of the subjects and how I would rank them.

Spoiler: My votes

Show

1st choice: Classes based around pacts
2nd choice: Non-casting classes which aren't martials either
3rd choice: A class which represents a monster as a PC character

The four elements system is over-used as enough as is, the pet class theme is focusing more on mechanics then roleplaying, and this whole incarnum business sounds terribly broken if applied to 5e.

Total Votes
- Elemental based: 2 points
- Pet classes: 0 points
- Classes based around pacts: 6 points
- A class which represents a monster as a PC character: 4 points
- Non-casting classes which aren't martials either: 8 points
- Incarnum users: 4 point

The contest begins on april 15th Eastern Standard Time

1st choice: Non-casting classes which aren't martials either, because it would vastly expand the range of characters and monsters possible in the game.
2nd choice: A class which represents a monster as a PC character, because it refine the range if characters and monsters possible in the game.
3rd choice: Incarnum users, because I'm unfamiliar with the system and curious to see what it has to offer.

I personal think pets should be accessible using skills, spells and feats. Its thematic that Fighters and Barbarians would have mounts and attack animals without multiclassing, that Rangers would have animals to help them track and chase, that Druid's would have animal friends, that Wizards and Clerics would have familiars, and so on.

Controlling elements to me is am outcome, not a method (e.g. wizardry, sorcerer), while class represents method.

Warlocks already represent pacts, followed loosely by Clerics (who I'd argue should be the same class).

Of the listed ones, I'll go with non-casters as first, incarnum as second, and monsters as third.

1st choice: Classes based around pacts
2nd choice: Elemental based
3rd choice: Incarnum users

I'd be interested, but I've never played 5e. I've just been browsing what's available online because a buddy of mine plays it and I'd like to be able to jump in some time. As for themes, I think the best ones don't dictate the mechanics; for instance, if you wanted to do "nature," then druids, scouts, barbarians, or rangers could fit. I'm not suggesting nature, I'm just saying I'd rather have a theme that could lend itself to a martial mundane or a full caster equally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sengmeng

As for themes, I think the best ones don't dictate the mechanics; for instance, if you wanted to do "nature," then druids, scouts, barbarians, or rangers could fit. I'm not suggesting nature, I'm just saying I'd rather have a theme that could lend itself to a martial mundane or a full caster equally.

---

And what would such a theme be that accomplished this goal? Knowledge may work, but it would involve too much magic. Science could also be a theme, but that would start falling into a theme of magitech much more than what we are looking for. Do you have any suggestions?

Light, darkness, luck, outer planes, memes, dungeons, dragons, music, life, death, mythology, money, movies, monsters, dinosaurs... or check out the 3.5 contest's chat thread's initial post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sengmeng

Light, darkness, luck, outer planes, memes, dungeons, dragons, music, life, death, mythology, money, movies, monsters, dinosaurs... or check out the 3.5 contest's chat thread's initial post.

---

I think you misunderstood me. I know what the themes could be, and have read through that same list actually, I am just trying to discover what theme fits what everyone here is looking for. Something that heavily endorses the whole non-Caster, non-martial class concept. Thank you though for the help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Requilac

I think you misunderstood me. I know what the themes could be, and have read through that same list actually, I am just trying to discover what theme fits what everyone here is looking for. Something that heavily endorses the whole non-Caster, non-martial class concept. Thank you though for the help.

---

I'm not looking for what everyone else was. I was trying to steer the conversation away from mechanics at all. In any event, I believe in the democratic process above everything else, so while I may try to persuade others to my point of view, if the people want something else, I say give it to them. Of the themes I just threw out, I think luck is the most neutral towards mechanics, and hasn't been done in any contest I can recall.

I will tally up all the votes and start the competition on April 15th Eastern Standard Time.

Here are the rules I have thought about for the competition. They are heavily based around the 3.5 base class contest's rules. I am willing to change any of them if need be.

Spoiler: the rules

Show

1) The class you homebrew must be based around the theme of X. So long as you can justify that your class follows the theme in anyway it is valid. Although you cannot be punished for making a class which does not follow the theme, it is unlikely that your work will get voted for if you do so.
2) You may only create one base class. If you create more than one class then you must choose which one to enter and remove all the others from this thread and the contest (making them invalid) . If you do not specify which one you favor by the time voting begins, all of your content is invalid.
3) Until the contest is over your homebrew cannot be posted anywhere else except for this thread. If the content has been posted anywhere else before you entered it into the contest, then it cannot be posted here. Failure to comply will result in disqualification. That being said, you do not necessarily need to write the class on a post in this thread, you may instead post a link to the document which contains the content.
4) You may use other homebrew content (such as feats, spells, magical items and monsters) or even features which you have created elsewhere to supplement your class, but these must be written at least partially by you. Taking a concept from someone else’s homebrew is acceptable, but the exact mechanics cannot be the same. Failure to comply will result in disqualification.
5) Your class must have fully completed mechanics and descriptions for it to be valid. Entries are due at 11:59 pm on June 23rd Eastern Standard Time. Any submissions after this point are invalid. No changes can be made to your class while voting is taking place. Failure to comply will result in disqualification.
6) Any content which has been declared invalid by the rules above cannot be voted for, but you may decide to remove it from the contest and create another class instead. If you are disqualified then you are not allowed to enter any more homebrew for this competition, though you may still vote and compete in a different contest later.

Keep in mind that this contest is entirely for recreational purposes and there is no reward (aside from bragging rights) for someone who succeeds.

Competition is up! Here are the links to all the threads. Please review all of the rules before submitting anything.

Submissions thread: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...s-OR-Sorcerery
Chat thread: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...-I-Chat-Thread
Voting thread (do not use yet!): http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...-Voting-Thread