Like most GMs I enjoy tinkering with and embellishing systems. However, I've noticed  that, most of the time, when I want to add a class or class option to 5e I find the system has already accounted for it in some way with existing options, backgrounds, feats, or some combination of the above. I'm impressed.

Lately when I go to other forums and see people trying to add this or that character concept they feel is 'missing' from the class lineup I tend to get confused at what seems to be unnecessary or premature (in the sense that they haven't given the existing mechanics a chance to express the concept) work.

How do you folks feel about the selection? Do you think there are any glaring gaps that need filling?

More sorcerer variants would have been nice, as I like the class very much, but the variants are lacklustre.

Swordmages. You can build a whole bunch of different half-caster half-warrior types, but the actual flavour and combat style of 4e swordmages is very difficult to recreate.

I think martial characters (and rangers) are a bit underserved in terms of non-combat options as well. I understand WotC's idea of not getting into a supplement treadmill with 5e but I think a player's companion with a focus on this stuff would have been useful.

Quote from: soviet;852850Swordmages. You can build a whole bunch of different half-caster half-warrior types, but the actual flavour and combat style of 4e swordmages is very difficult to recreate.

I think martial characters (and rangers) are a bit underserved in terms of non-combat options as well. I understand WotC's idea of not getting into a supplement treadmill with 5e but I think a player's companion with a focus on this stuff would have been useful.

The Sword Coast Adventurers guide coming in Nov. contains some more class variants i think.

Little in the way of pet users (Summoners, Sha'irs, Shamans, etc.) and non-magical variants (even the martial classes have high magical representation). A less "magical" range of paladin, ranger, barbarian, and bard would be nice. Backgrounds thankfully do a lot of the flavorful lifting from old class kits, which is nice, but some lynchpin class features loom too large for backgrounds to really be enough differentiation (Rogue Sneak Attack and Paladin Simte I am looking at you...).

It's got a lot of what folks might want, and waaaay more than I personally need. But since you can always pare options, I'd say more is better. It's nice not to have to invent the extra wheels.s

Yeah, more melee variants. I grant with magic being pumped up, it's hard to make melee attractive, but it really seems like every party relies mostly upon ranged combat. It isn't just magic, though, since the archery feat is identical to the two-handed fighting feat (except better).

I'm half tempted to start making monsters with their own personal spheres of darkness or simple "ranged attack immunity".

Quote from: MoracaiMore sorcerer variants would have been nice, as I like the class very much, but the variants are lacklustre.

I can see that, but I'm having trouble imagining what conceptual ground would be left for such a sorcerer since many of the other classes have already trod the obvious turf; the storm sorcerer they provided in UA for instance feels redundant with the storm cleric's presence, and either a fey or demonic sorcerer would feel redundant next to the warlock.

Quote from: Opaopajr;852859Little in the way of pet users (Summoners, Sha'irs, Shamans, etc.)

I thought the impression was that the summoning spells we do have are too strong?

It's an action economy thing, and thus why I don't expect them to produce much if any. Adventure League is the bread and butter word of mouth; it sits next to MtG for FLGS space, and dedicated (read: niche) retailers are important in WotC's business plan. Pets would screw up that field by letting forth the deluge, hence why the Ranger beastmaster is rather tame.

However, they did release Aarakocra in the EE:PC, while also not letting it be AL legal. So there is hope for new classes that would break the rather even paradigm. I find flight so much more grotesque than pet dependent extra action economy; third dimension tactics wipes out whole adventure swaths.

Quote from: Opaopajr;852859Little in the way of pet users (Summoners, Sha'irs, Shamans, etc.) and non-magical variants (even the martial classes have high magical representation).

There was a "Pact of the Sha'ir" for Warlocks in the closed playtest material for Princes of the Apocalypse, but it did not make it to the actual book.

That's interesting. Warlocks would be a solid choice to place the archetype, though I'd have to check the class core features to see if it would cause challenges elsewhere.

Big one for me is that almost every class dips into magic, if at least through an archetype, and it gets into oversaturation. I mean, yeah, I could port Birthright into it and just cap non-blooded spellcasters at 3rd lvl spells, or run low/no- magic faux historical games with just two or three class+archetypes. Yet with those martial options then I get into rewriting core class features, like Second Wind or Sneak Attack, and sometimes I just wanna be creatively lazy and not have to deal with it.

Quote from: Moracai;852847More sorcerer variants would have been nice, as I like the class very much, but the variants are lacklustre.

The unearthed arcana articles on the WOTC site added at east one more sorcerer option. Favoured Soul and Storm.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;852924I can see that, but I'm having trouble imagining what conceptual ground would be left for such a sorcerer since many of the other classes have already trod the obvious turf; the storm sorcerer they provided in UA for instance feels redundant with the storm cleric's presence, and either a fey or demonic sorcerer would feel redundant next to the warlock.

I don't see it that way. To me a dude who loans his god's power to lightning the shit out of his enemies is kinda lame when compared to a dude who controls storm through his own sheer will.

Sure, they aren't mechanically that much different, but the concept behind mechanics is vastly different.

Quote from: Omega;852989The unearthed arcana articles on the WOTC site added at east one more sorcerer option. Favoured Soul and Storm.

Thanks! I haven't followed those because I am not going to run (probably play neither) 5e anytime soon.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;852841How do you folks feel about the selection? Do you think there are any glaring gaps that need filling?

Quote from: Moracai;852847More sorcerer variants would have been nice, as I like the class very much, but the variants are lacklustre.

Same here. The variety of sorcerer bloodlines is one of a few things I genuinely like about Pathfinder, despite not being a fan of hyper-crunchy systems. Not crazy about Dragon and Wild sorcerers; however, I did love the Storm sorcerer (from some free to download official supplement or other; the one with the minotaurs).

Quote from: Opaopajr;852859Little in the way of pet users (Summoners, Sha'irs, Shamans, etc.) and non-magical variants (even the martial classes have high magical representation). A less "magical" range of paladin, ranger, barbarian, and bard would be nice. Backgrounds thankfully do a lot of the flavorful lifting from old class kits, which is nice, but some lynchpin class features loom too large for backgrounds to really be enough differentiation (Rogue Sneak Attack and Paladin Simte I am looking at you...).

Opa, you and I should share a game table one of these days. We agree on far too much.

Of course, non-magical variants are always nice. I'm always happy to see non-spellcasting Bards and Rangers.

But the lack of a good summoner class is, to my eyes, the only really glaring omission. What happened to the monster summoning family of spells? Not a lot of summoning options for Conjurer Wizards, or even for Warlocks who get a measly familiar at most. I really, honestly feel a fantasy RPG without rules for magicians who summon and bind demons is a fucking travesty.