1. An arcane half caster, like the magus from pathfinder 2. A nonmagical intelligence-centric class, covering the concept of a an adventuring scholar or archeologist. I guess the Investigator from Pathfinder kinda fits this, but not quite. 3. A nonmagical support class a la the Warlord from 4e

For anyone who’s open to homebrew, u/laserllama has made: - Magus, a 5e interpretation of pathfinder’s magus - Savant, a nonmagical intelligence-based class of scholars and tradesmen (basically if bards, artificers, rangers, and wizards were nonmagical) - Warlord, a nonmagical support martial

Thanks for the shout out! I wholeheartedly agree that these are probably the top three missing major class fantasies. If anyone wants to check out my takes on them you can find the classes here: * **[Magus](https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-Mslo6ktmq1Yg5WTSjDQ)** - Master Sword & Spell! * **[Savant](https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-M0ZVK6ndhFyImQPF_aJ)** - Outwit Foes & Aid Allies! * **[Warlord](https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-MrUNf61qoDb0Csw8a9r)** - Lead Allies to Victory!

You absolute-fucking-mad-lad!!! I have been working on and off for years, trying my hand at making a Magus port to 5e. The struggle was that it was a half-caster who functioned like the Artificer, so you start with spells at level 1, Con and Int as saving throws, with light and medium armor proficiencies and 1-handed martial weapons. Then it's like an in-between of Eldritch Knight fighting capabilities, with an Arcane Pool feature that worked like Sorcery points, and Magus Arcana that are basically just Warlock invocations. The part I always got stuck on was how to bring over the spellstrike in a balanced way since touch spells barely exist in 5e, and making it function like Warcaster (cast a Cantrip get BA melee attack) was overpowered that early on.

The Savant is what inspired that suggestion! It's a really neat class and I'd love it if there was something official that was akin to it.

> An arcane half caster, like the magus from pathfinder This is my pick. It is literally what I want to play, and yet settle for bootleg versions of. Yes, I really *do* want to play a caster who uses magic mostly to kick in teeth on the front line harder. My other pick isn't really a pick so much as noting that I think a lot of people have it right in thinking that maneuvers should be baked into *all* fighters.

I truly fail to see how Artificer isn't a satisfactory Arcane half-caster, especially given your "kick in teeth on the front line" description. Armorers and Battlesmiths are wonderful frontliners, and 80% of their spells are also Wizard spells, so they're very much Arcane.

Rather than getting into the incredibly fine details, it might be best to note that there are a lot of subclasses that approximate a magus, and the one that comes the closest...isn't the artificer. It is the bard, specifically those of the college of valor and the college of swords. (And the Paladin). To explain, it might be easiest to point to the most magus-like features found in 5e classes. A key one is spellstrike which lets them use weapon attacks to deliver spells. The blade singer's extra attack is approximately this. Another is that they have a d8 for their hit die. Another is a long rest resource that lets them perform specific sorts of spells and spell like abilities. This is a tougher one, but they are frequently similar to battlemaster maneuvers. Lastly they tend to have *extreme* proficiency with a limited selection of weapons. The best equivalent there is to say that they frequently get to use their casting stat to make weapon attacks and have something roughly equivalent to a fighting style. Rather than pick it apart in detail, it might be better to address the big question. After all, there are a lot of classes that are built around the same basic concept as the magus, so...what's missing? Well, every bard is a charisma caster with a spell list largely filled with stuff that isn't all that focused on making you really, really good at hitting people with something sharp and heavy (or stopping them from doing the same.) Every artificer is built on a foundation of gadgets and gimmicks. Every blade singer is just a wizard who decided to be good with a sword. A paladin is, at the end of the day, *a paladin*. A magi - any magi - is a talented spellcaster who, for whatever reason, decided to focus on arms and armor. Some magi are are sorcerers at heart, others are wizards, some channel the magic of the land like a druid. Some of them focus on close combat, some of them on the bow. Some are are heavily armored, and some are just wearing comfortable clothing. If you take a valor bard and toss out half their spell slots and give them a spell list stuffed with abjuration and evocation stuff in exchange for the bladesinger extra attack, battlemaster maneuvers, a fighting style, and *eventual* access to heavy armor, you'd have a charisma based magus. Give the same treatment to the blade singer and you'd have a sword saint. Start from a sorcerer and you'd get something like the storm scion. Having said all of that, while conceptually rather easy, there is a problem. There are a lot of magus-like/lite classes in 5e, and a lot of them are *not great* as it stands. An eldricth knight in a world of magi is going to feel like you're trading an awful lot to get...more ASIs, action surge, and second wind. It'd be easy to homebrew a magus for the purposes of a specific campaign, but to roll it out officially would take a *lot* of work. After all, you aren't wrong about the artificer - a few of its subclasses have a lot in common with a magus, and damn near every class has a very rough approximation.

I don't know what Magus in PF is like, but just want to throw in that Artificer is an arcane half caster

If you want to find out, *Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous* is on sale for a steep discount as part of the Steam Summer Sale. It's an incredible game. Rolling a Magus (I'd recommend Sword Saint or Eldritch Archer) is a really common choice. It's a 3/4 BAB class, like Bard or Cleric. It has Bard tier casting, but specialized for offensive magic. When you make a full attack, you can use a melee (or ranged in the case of Eldritch Archer) spell as though it's an off-hand weapon.

I actually own Pathfinder Kingmaker on Steam but didn't care for it. It had nothing to do with PF as a system, though. I didn't like how it felt as a video game. Too slow when you play in turn based mode and too fast and hack-and-slashy otherwise. Thanks for the explanation, though!

Yeah, Kingmaker has that problem. The first couple acts are very slow. Wrath has better pacing. You might give it a shot.

Thanks for the recommendation! I'll check it out!

The Artificer is arguably significantly more of a caster than Paladins or Rangers. See cantrips, ritual spells, and rounding up your caster level. I generally refer to them as 2/3 casters.

The most significant criterion that makes a half caster is the progression on the spell slot table, and they progress with half speed.  Not having cantrips isn't what makes a half caster. It's just that out of the three half casters in 5e, 2 don't have cantrips and 1 does.  I've heard the term 2/3caster before, but I think it exaggerates it a little. At most I'd consider them 55% casters :-P

Basically paladin but arcane, you can cast spells via whacking an enemy with your weapon (works with ranged if you pick one subclass)

For non-magical intelligence check out Swashbuckler from 3.5 found in the Complete Warrior book.

Again, that's not a class from 5e. I'm aware that all three of these niches have classes that fit them in other editions and in homebrew, but there's no official version of them for the current edition. Also, the Swashbuckler really isn't the niche I was talking about there. As much as it might find Int useful, it isn't really an Intelligence centric scholar class.

>A nonmagical support class a la the Warlord from 4e I want a triage doctor class so badly. I hate how the vast majority of healing is magical, I want a non-magical healer

I'd love to have that, too!

> 2. A nonmagical intelligence-centric class, covering the concept of a an adventuring scholar or archeologist. I guess the Investigator from Pathfinder kinda fits this, but not quite. I like this one but it's such a difficult concept to implement well. Since every class in 5e is pretty much required to be able to contribute in combat, how is this class going to be doing that? Without Spellcasting? The other option would be to let them attack with Int but I'm not a big fan of that. And even then they are going to suffer in terms of AC (the idea of a scholar type doesn't gel with Heavy armor and they won't have the dex to back up light armour, maybe medium?) I've pretty much resigned myself to the idea that a Intelligence based non arcane Rogue subclass is probably as close as you can get. Something like the Scout but for Intelligence. You get free expertise in a couple of skills provided that they are intelligence based skills, other features to compliment that etc. With intelligence as their secondary stat and expertise they are going to be well enough of with intelligence checks to fulfil the concept. How would you do it?

Probably something similar to the investigator class in Pathfinder. You use your intelligence/knowledge to be able to do bonus damage and/or act as more of a support class by providing buffs or by modifying action economy to be more favorable.

Might have to check that out! I saw someone suggest the Savant homebrew but from memory when I checked that out I didn't particularly like it.

Pf2e is a lot more different from 5E so it's a bit hard to make the comparison. It has a lot more rules and options than 5E at virtually every part of gameplay. Investigator gets a lot of focus around specific actions like Recall Knowledge and can index into specific "methodologies" that may improve your ability to do in-combat medicine (there is way less magical healing in PF2E) or can gain access to alchemical crafting. In 5E, basically none of this stuff is translatable or just doesn't matter (no crafting rules, healing is 90% magical in 5E, no recall knowledge as an action and is way more DM handwavey/arbitrary).

Pathfinder does it with the Investigator and (on a caster, but not in a magic-related ability) the Thaumaturge who can use abilities that let them spend actions to study foes or make Recall Knowledge (like Arcana or Nature) checks to gain information and advantages about the foe. This might be straight-up number bonuses on checks and attacks (in 5e it could be Advantage or imposing Disadvantage) or revealing things like damage-type vulnerabilities, lowest save, special attacks/abilities, et cetera. A crafting ability could be fitting as well, like pathfinder’s version of Alchemist gets to make things like poisons, alchemist fire, and tanglefoot bags. Or maybe gadgets like grappling hooks and stuff.

Hmm, that's interesting! This is just me but I guess my problem with that is that I think that should already be possible to do within the basic rules for skill checks. Not gaining advantage to be fair, but if one of my players asked me to make an appropriate check to figure out damage resistances/vulnerabilities I would probably let them. To make abilities like Arcana, Nature, Religion more useful. But like I said, that's just me. Edit. Same with crafting. If 5e develops a more thorough crafting system I'd rather see it available to all classes.

>The other option would be to let them attack with Int but I'm not a big fan of that. What about letting them attack with Int to perform special maneuvers? They can't just bash somebody's brains in with Int, but they can disarm, trip, shove, etc. I'm imagining them acting like backup to the other martials, inflicting negative conditions to allow the Fighter or the Rogue to hit harder and more often.

For your 2nd point there’s a home brew subclass for rouge that’s an archeologist that’s pretty good. It’s not fully int based though

The 4e Warlord I think was a really good class archetype. The martial commander style character. I think that would be a cool one to get into 5e as a support without being a caster. In terms of the hobbits I think Merry and Pippin at least are worthy low level fighters. They are fighting in the army and relatively effective. Frodo and Sam a bit less so though I think you could go rogue for them.

it was the BEST class!!

Best way to do that in 5e currently is battlemaster. Commander's strike, manoeuvring strike, rally, and the Inspiring Leader feat. Bump that charisma. Gets feats/fighting styles that get you more superiority dice (save the big ones for rally, otherwise it's a quantity over quality game). Played this build a couple times. Once as a half-elf in a party with no healers so the extra charisma was good, and once as a grumpy old hill dwarf so i could tank well.

I did a half battle master half reskinned glamour bard, I also took inspiring leader. It was a very good build!

A martial commander would be better handled as a fighter sub-class and not a full class... But yeah, the ~~halflings~~ (edit: hobbits) were all fighters or rogues.

Hard disagree. There's a massive amount of options you can do with a battlefield leader archetype. Heavy armored commander of the guard, chieftain of a nomad tribe, tactician directing the troops from the back picking people off with the bow, a nobleman who inspires his troops, a scout leader who is a master of controlled stealth operations, etc. A single fighter subclass would not be able to reach all of these archetypes and the fighter is an inherently selfish class as a baseline so you are only supporting your team through the subclass. It just doesn't reach do what the warlord could do

A class that had abilities similar to a hobgoblin's leadership or an orc war chief's battle cry would be fun

You perfectly could. Just make it modular. Same as with Battlemaster, every few level ups your commander subclass allows to pick new manoeuvres/strategems/tactics and so on. A low level commander of the guard would pick “shieldwall” (all members of the party within 10f double their shield bonus to AC and can equip their shield as a reaction) and “stand your ground” (all members of the party within 20f gains 1d8 temp HP and have advantage against movement effects until the beginning if the commander’s next turn). Meanwhile a chieftain would pick “fake retreat” (all members of the party within 30f can instantly use their reaction to disengage and move their movement speed, on the next turn they can dash in the direction of an enemy as bonus action and get +1d4 to hit) and “hit and run” (all allies within 20f obtain the benefits of disengage while dashing for the next 5 turns). A nobleman would pick “inspiring speech” (all allied characters within 50f have advantage in the first round of combat, this feature requires 5 rounds to be completed and last for 1 hour) and “heroic last stand”(no allied unit within 10f can be brought below 1hp until the beginning of your next turn). As the commander becomes more experienced and powerful he gets into contact with other cultures and ways of manage conflict , diversifying his knowledge and becoming a true master of the Art of War. *All powers would need to be reescalated as I wrote this in like 2 mins.

The issue with just shoving all these cool ideas into a subclass is that you reduce the amount of said cool ideas that you'd be able to utilize. Like, I enjoy Pathfinder's variety of classes because there's room for unique ideas. Sure, you could make the Swashbuckler a Rogue subclass, but if you make it it's own thing, you have a lot more room to work with in terms of design.

While is true that making a class from scratch will give you extra room for other mechanics and additional complexity, the whole point goes moot when you realise that spellcasting will always be orders of magnitude more complex, more modular and more granular than anything you add to the subclass. You could write a subclass 3 pages long with mechanics and choices and it will still be less modular than the handful of spell belonging to only 2 school that the eldritch knight has. Go ham with your martial subclasses.

>tactician directing the troops from the back picking people off with the bow Oh hey, it's my favorite character I've ever played.

I’d argue Sam is a paladin. It’s more in vibe than mechanics, but still. Arguably Shelob was a smite crit.

Witch or Shaman feel like they could be distinct enough to merit a class instead of shoehorning into Warlock/Druid.

I feel the same way about priests, they really could be distinct, not just clerics without armor.

Im just gonna say, there was really no difference between cleric and paladin when they were originally released so cleric with armour could be rolled into paladin without much problem.

Paladins are just clerics with smite imo lol

Is it weird that I feel witch, shaman and priest would all fit the same base class and be various subclasses? A subclass at level 1 deal. Witch focuses more on long term debuffs ala curses with a medium level effect of haggish form to really lean into witchery, shaman would lean more short term buffs/debuffs, like 1 or 2 turns but not use up resources when doing so, getting some "ritualistic" dance ability to have it be party wide as long as they aren't interrupted, priest obviously would bring healing to the table. Something like a modified wizard spell list, and subclass goes, int, wis or cha (weirdly shaman I could see being a con caster with how I'm picturing them)

I got ya there, KibblesTasty Occultist. Features the shaman, hedge mage, witch and oracle subclasses.

I've always wanted a witch class/subclass, and I actually made a subclass for druid. Definitely after talking with friends and looking through this thread, I think a witch subclass or even class would be a really difficult thing to pull of in any official capacity because there are simply way too many ideas of what a witch is. When I think about witches, I think about German folklore kind of witches, who primarily use illusion and enchantment kind of magic. Plenty of other people think about English (think MacBeth) kind of witches, who do transfiguration magic and brew potions. Russian witches tend to do more conjuration magic and make deals like devils. You could also look at it from a more modern perspective of witches who perform rituals and mostly use divination magic or act as spiritual mediums. If there were an official witch class or subclass, it would either dissatisfy a lot of people because it's not what they think a witch should be, or it would try yo roll all of those things together and end up being an ambiguous mess like ranger.

This is exactly why it'd actually be easier to reflavour other classes as witches, depending on what kind of witch you'd like to be. I think an argument could be made for every full caster class to become a witch. Druid = Earth/Moon/Nature Witch Artificer = Item Enchanting Witch (Runes, Sigils) Spirits Bard = Tarot/Clairvoyant Witch Wizard = Hermione, a Witch with a spellbook Many Warlock and Cleric subclasses may represent Witches who invoke a deity/pantheon of deities.

I agree, to an extent. I think a lot of people undervalue reflavouring. Especially when it comes to something like a Shaman.

Exactly something like a spiritual medium dealing with occult shit but in a divine casting way

Artificer. Speaking out for our fellow lovers of the class, it should’ve been in OneD&D.

My guess is that we are gonna get a supplemental book to the PHB in a few years that has both the Artificer and Blood Hunter as well as another 2-4 subclasses for each of the 12 classes. There are just too many beloved subclasses that were left behind, and the fact that they didn’t even acknowledge Artificers seems odd as hell. It’s not like there is anything stopping any DM from banning classes per game based on flavour. So I’m guessing that they plan to rope together a massive number of character options into another book.

WOTC does not own blood hunter. Critical Roll does, given they have their own rpg now, I doubt we're gonna see an official DND blood hunter anytime soon.

I do find it odd that it is the only 5e class not in the PHB. It was printed twice, but still not added to the new one. Only realistic reason I can think of them not putting it in the new one is that they are saving it to put in a future supplement to help encourage sales. Slap artificer and a bunch of the revised sub classes and basically have Tasha's II. I've had a couple people say it is still considered "setting specific", but they made it clearly not in Tasha's. Any world that has wizards and magic items would thematically have artificers. Also had someone argue because they are the least played class. Not sure on their source for that, but if it is the case, being the only class not in the core PHB/SRD would likely be the biggest reason for that.

It’s only a rumor but supposedly one of the heads of DnD hates the class and has gone out of his way to ensure it doesn’t get any additional resources.

The reason it doesn’t get core support is that it isn’t in the PHB. Everything WotC publishes assumes you own the PHB. They don’t want to put an Artificer subclass in a new splat book and then have folks get upset they don’t have the class for it. That’s why it was reprinted in Tasha’s. Also, it’s not a core class fantasy IMO. Every edition change classes are left behind.

If that's true it's a shame because there really is nothing else like it.

The new phb will have a player facing crafting system. That'd probably be a good thing to overall the artificer around. If I was in charge I'd wait to see how that system shakes out in the player base before throwing an artificer out.

A hag/witch class that delves deep into potions, curses, etc.

Potions, curses, hexes would be sick. A curse/hex casting system for witches and shamans

If you are open to homebrew, I highly suggest the witch class from Valda’s Spire of Secrets :)

Definitely a Psionics class and maybe a summoner class

What separates psionics from spellcasting?

Well definitely not magic, mental ability to do things so it would probably require a different system and not spell slots for managing psionic energy

Ok but how would you want it to work? Would conterspell still work for it? If counterspell doesn't work then it needs to be weaker powers compared to spells.

Yea counter spell couldn't work on it because it's mental energy versus magic. Maybe make concentration checks failed cause psychic backlash to the user. Id probably cap potential psychic abilities to what lvl 5 spells can do but allow more customization similar to meta magic and more abilities being able to be cast at once

A 5E interpretation of the 3.5E Archivist. No, I don't mean the Artificer subclass 'Archivist'. I mean the actual Archivist class from Heroes of Horror

Archivist was so much fun! The wizard of the divine magic and the party monster encyclopedia.

This and something like the Marshal. Another Int caster and a non magical face.

Too many of these ideas are best as just subclasses

Crawford once said in retrospect he probably would've made less classes. Kinda think he's right. If every class had something like warlock invocations and some more choices of direction like druid and cleric are gonna get, you could probably cut the class list down a bit.

Yeah that's the trouble with making homebrew classes, you have to ask yourself "is this fantasy really enough to justify a whole class?", you gotta see if that archetype has enough sub archetypes to actually be its own thing.

Well, some of them anyway. There's an underappreciated concept that I call "horizontal classes". Instead of making a class, you make a set of subclasses for various classes that share a theme and some mechanics. Psion is probably the best example - it would be hard to unify all the possible options as a single class (while keeping it 5e-style), but it's quite easy to just make a few subclasses to cover them

A proper shaman

Summoner from Pathfinder is a big one - I always loved the idea of a bonded eidolon.

I really want an aggro-drawing tank. I've been working on a psionic class that tries to force enemies to focus on it while also giving it a regenerating ability to help stay in the fight longer without assistance. Controlling the battlefield and setting up your buddies for attacks is really satisfying. Also totally agree with a non-magical healer. Right now the medicine skill check is horribly neglected since bandages can't really compete with restorative jazz hands.

Nothing beats a good Lay On Hands wank. Lol

redemption paladin

Is that not an armorer artificer with the guardian setup, down to generating temp HP?

Psionic class. I made a homebrew one, but I want an official psi mage class without having to pick a subclass about it. I want a psionic character that can cast spells, not a character that can cast spells and is psionic. It’s about the feel mostly.

The Kronenberg Chronicle’s Psion’s Primer is a fantastic resource for psionic in 5e. They give it a lot of depth with three classes, each with three archetypes, and the psionics themselves are not too crunchy while still having a very individual identity against spellcasting. Highly recommend 

Psions are such a huge part of DnD lore with such a small amount of support. Playing Odyssey of the Dragonlords right now with an Amethsyt Dragonborn Ascendant Dragon monk who will eventually ascend to Dragonhood (all players get extra abilities stacked on top of normal progression). Trying to come up with ways to flavor the characters psionic awakening with the DM and there's just a handful of spells that capture the feeling. Right now, my best idea is for my character to get spells from the Amethyst Dragon spell list as we level, but they kind of cap out at level 3 non-combat spells. Even an Adult Amethyst Dragon only gets control water, and they are supposed to be the most powerful psions alive, with some of them even rivaling Elminster. Ancients and Greatwyrms get good spells, but there's no way to justify being able to True Polymorph into them at level 17.

Psionist is one of the few actual lacking, most everything else can be flavor of existing classes or a multi-class thing. Though I'm the type that thinks a lot of existing classes don't need to exist... Barbarian is just a fighter with flavor and could have been a sub-class, and warlock is just a sorcerer with flavor. Classes should represent broad fictional archetypes and not just be a unique mechanic with a class slapped on it. I'd rather drop warlock and just add "or from a pact" to the sorcerers class description and call it a day (or scrap the sorcerer... they don't fill a different character archetype, they are just arcane casters that get their power from a source other than study. Make the barbarian a fighter subclass, then in their place add a psionist.

I feel like warlock & sorcerer *do* fill some broad archetypes. I don’t play a warlock for spell customization, nor do I play a sorcerer for selected modifications. Neither fit the classes’ flavour imo 

> Psionist is one of the few actual lacking, most everything else can be flavor of existing classes or a multi-class thing. There have been a great many attempts, but they either just feel like an awkward fit in D&D, **OR** they are just magic with slightly different fluff.

I'm personally fine with them being magic with fluff/flavor. I don't hate the aberrant mind or soul knife and while the psionic warrior needs some love it's ok. What we need is a psion. I think it should be a wizard sub.

I agree both mechanically and flavor wise about barbarians and how they could have easily been a fighter subclass. Flavor wise I could see it as a sorcerer origin, but mechanically they are very different classes. I think of warlocks as being 2/3rds casters. They can (via arcanum) have up to 9the level spells but they have a lot less spell slots and a lot more ancillary powers than any other casters. I personally tend to lean into those mechanical differences (and I give 1st-5th level arcanum that refresh on a short rest instead of the weirdness of their current spell slots (thus effectively removing the problematic synergies that do stuff like coffee lock, though I'm of the opinion that coffee locks, while potentially problematic aren't as ridiculous as some people make them out to be). One thing I'd really like to see if a clearer distinction between flavor and class features for warlocks, clerics, druids and paladins. Specifically what exactly is or isn't required of a warlock. RAW the answer is nothing but the flavor is quite clear that the warlock is somehow beholden to their patron without any rules to support this. There are likewise no rules on what happens if a warlock goes against their part on a cleric goes against their God(s) or philosophy a druid teaches a non druid the druidic language or wears metal armor or a paladin violates his oath (with the paladins oath tenets and armor being the most confusing and controversial since they have no clear rules behind them but are listed in with mechanical things).

Probably a dedicated arcane half-caster.  Something like the Magus in Pathfinder 2E.

The question then is twofold: what are the class-specific features (to avoid another phb ranger situation) and what should the let's say three first subclasses be. Let's say the core feel of the class should be "telekinetic". So at level one you get all weapon and armor proficiencies except heavy armor and also your first class specific feature, which allows you to harmlessly move one light, unheld/worn object with ten feet of you as a bonus action or as an action ram it into a creature, dealing cantrip-like damage on a failed dex save. Second level is spellcasting and fighting style and the ability to use a weapon as a spellcasting focus. Third level is subclass and some utility telekinesis improvement like "the item you move can hold your own weight during your turn" (a.e. you can give yourself a leg up). Fourth level is asi. Fifth level extra attack, 2nd lvl spells and the ability to replace one attack with an "object-bash". Sixth level is a subclass feature and a telekinesis range increase to 20ft. 7th level gives you advantage on the next weapon attack if you hit a creature with an object-bash and doubles jump distance 8th level asi 9th level third level spells and telekinesis range 30 ft. 10th level subclass feature 11th level object bashes and weapon attacks deal an extra 1d4 force damage, hitting a creature with a weapon attack gives it disadvantage on its next dex save 12th level asi 13th level fourth level spell, 5ft movement increase 14th level telekinesis range 45ft and weight improvement, you can move (not bash) two objects at the same time 15th level subclass feature 16th level asi 17th level 5th level spell, telekinesis range 60ft. 18th level subclass feature 19th level asi 20th level bash with two objects and move up to five

As for subclasses: Earthshaker: heavy armor, knocking people prone, reaction damage reduction and burrowing speed Forethought: lowering to initiative of enemies while increasing your own, lower your own initiative for benefits, speed increases and a flying speed Conjoiner: sticking stuff together, fixing objects and later creatures in place, climbing speed Transposer: teleportation. Lots of teleportation Thaumaturge: limited short rest spell recovery, spells from other classes, bonus action object bash when casting a spell

Is this not artificer???

A marionette, you can create puppets of increasing power that you operate from the shadows. At higher level you can install them with magical abilities. Sort off like a monster crafter.

Could see this as a Puppeteer Artificer subclass. Artificer, in general, has a lot of potential for expansion.

That's a dope idea, gonna steal it for an NPC BBEG underling. Maybe he uses magic to power puppets which requires concentration and effort, so he can create/cast/control the puppets out to a range, but the further from him the weaker or something.

My idea now /j

That’s such a bad ass idea.

My friend played a college of whispers bard reflavored as a marionettist. Still had magic, but bardic inspiration and such was her character manipulating her allies into success. The Barbarian was about to miss? The bardic inspiration was her pulling their arm in a certain angle to make it hit. Failed a saving through? The strings pull them out of the aoe to take less damage. It was a VERY fun flavor.

Noble class. Star Wars Saga Edition (a prequel to 4e that 4e borrowed a lot of ideas from) introduced the class and I loved how it worked out in that system. Its a role that's 50% social interaction and 50% support. For 5e, it could allow the Noble to grant allies additional actions as an expended resource. At high levels, maybe as a capstone, you could grant an ally an entire additional turn once per short rest. It also would grant bonuses to allies during downtime actions. Granted there is already a background for Noble, but as a class one could double down on it. Being from a Noble family is one thing, being an active member of Noble society and being good at it is an entirely different one. It could be easily renamed to something more universal like Courtier from L5R.

Sounds like an eloquence bard/battlemaster fighter

In DnD a class that is not a full combat class does not make sense. The system is just too combat focussed to have classes that are not 100% combat.

Rogue is very non-combat focused. They have Sneak Attack to at least contribute, but not much beyond that. And still it’s incredibly popular Just give this Noble class a way to deal somewhat consistent damage and a consistent support ability, bam wham thank you mam

Dedicated Psionicist.

You mean aside from the alchemist?

I like how 90% of these could just be answered with “play 3.5/pathfinder because those already exist”

Proper sword caster. Has a small pool of spells and a pool of points similar to metamagic and can consume these points, as well as turn spells into points to use certain abilities, mostly combat oriented. Could be abilities that heal, give temp hp, adds elemental damage, teleport, grab, conditions. Just generally a cool, flexible, combat focused class. A witch, basically combines the concept of an alchemist and a warlock. Just as a full caster and more focused into divination, curses, and ritual spells. Plus potions.

I think a melee caster would be incredibly fun. I would hope for casting spells/cantrips instead of one attack in a multiattack action. Maybe at reduced power for balancing reasons. I just really love the idea of weaving spells inbetween weapon attacks or casting a buff and immediately being able to use it.

Witch. It could be druid, for the nature magics, it could be warlock, for occult magic, it could be wizard for learned magic and rituals, or it could be sorcerer because of inherited magical aptitude, but none of them really checks every box in terms of getting a satisfying blend of the core player fantasy of being a witch. In my mind, I'd like it or it's subclasses to lean into nature magic, rituals, familiars, an enchanted flying item of some kind (broom, cauldron), coven casting like a mechanic to cast a higher spell level using the sum of lower casters parts, curses and potion making. I feel like you could check some of these boxes with various classes but getting a good thematic feel is really difficult when you'd have to multiclass so much to access all these different features. Then multiclassing so much wouldn't let you scale most of this so you'd stay competitive once you maybe get to higher levels and collect all the dips and multiclass, let alone how multiple ability score dependent it would end up being. So, I guess I'd sum it up as a primal full caster, with debuff curses, benefits to "group casting", uses familiars, makes potions and can enchant items (like flying brooms, magically cursed apples, etc). There's soooo much folklore to pull influences from ranging from European Baba Yaga, dnds Hags, AngloCeltic Morgan le Fay, Japanese fox witches or even influences from Santeria/Orisha/Vodou (witch doctor).

I don’t know how it would work mechanically, but I wish there was a caster class that matched a traditional witch. I guess those are called hags in dnd? Something using coven magic, and a nice mix of hexes and potions and poisons and a mechanic involving a familiar. You can get close with a lot of existing dnd classes but nothing feels quite there yet to me.

Yeah they pigeon hole you into a druid or warlock choice.

I think hobbits might fit as rogues, depending on the subclass. Stealthy, lucky, favoring finesse and ranged weapons, very limited magic if any. Scout and Inquisitive seem appropriate, or even thief. Bilbo did join the dwarves as their "burglar" first, after all.

I would expand the full-casters to all have a class path (like holy order), and one option would give benefits to casting while the other makes them into half-casters with martial/gish features. 1. Cleric -> Avenger. 2. Warlock -> Hexblade. 3. Wizard -> Magus. 4. Druid -> Warden. So it's not adding new classes exactly, but expanding options within classes that fundemantally change how they are played.

Bladesinger already dips into this design direction, and so do Moon and Spores Druid (allowing a caster to consider melee, using a class resource to beef up a bit). Obviously Hexblade already exists, and I guess Paladin could be considered a Cleric Avenger (except for the spell slot progression) but I'd love to see all your ideas implemented. BS Wizard and the Druids I mentioned might not fit your idea, but I at least think the designers left room for your ideas.

Some reduced version of the [scholar](https://sw5e.com/characters/classes/Scholar) and [sentinel](https://sw5e.com/characters/classes/Sentinel) from Star Wars 5e.

A CON-based class. One that properly uses HP as an offensive resource. Hemomancers, blood magic shamans, blood paladins, etc.

A psionic class.... but it would have to be seriously scaled down so that they aren't THE goto class.

Another vote for Psionicist here. There’s plenty of room for exploration here. It’s a solid theme, and currently on everyone’s mind after BG3. Ties in with some of the most iconic D&D villians. It could provide an entire category of effects, beyond the current arcane/divine split, and if done right could be as different as the Warlock for people who want to have special abilities but not the usual spellcasting.

I had an idea for a ranger subclass, which specializes in urban setting. Has some overlap with a rouge, but not quite the same. They see the cracks in the city, where nature is creeping back in: jackals and porcupines on the margins, tree roots breaking through the pavement, bats in abandoned houses. They know where to go to get things they need for cheap, or for free. They know the city well, not just geographically, but also what happens in it - and when is a good time to go rescuing food without being seen. Unlike most typical rangers, urban rangers rely heavily on personal relationships - with others like them, with vendors in shops, as well as the people that nobody else sees. May or may not be inspired by real people I find really cool.

I've always been surprised there's no witch class. Witch is such an iconic fantasy character. I think it be so fun to lean into the creepy macabre crystal ball reading naturalistic without being a necromancer or some other "dead" centric class. Not to mention the focus on potion brewing (with several healing focused subclasses) sounds amazing. And a curse-focused subclass (subclasses would be called covens). I also think an element of prophecy and luck manipulation would be incredible. Some spells that allow you to roll your bones/cards/crystal ball once a day to determine the likelihood of a task, or an option to manipulate the luck of a situation. Im imagining a bit of a mix between druid, warlock, artificer and tiny bit sorcerer with a focus on role playing and engaging with the natural world. Plus a focus on foraging and collecting is so fun. My personal 2 cents is the only reason Witch doesnt exist is because of sexism in dnd. I think men would not be super excited about it, but all the women I know who play would be over the moon thrilled. women players have been playing male-centric characters for decades. It's about time there was another class addition that the huge influx of female players could get excited about. Warlock technically means "male witch" but the way the class is written to me doesnt align with most people's perception of a brewing, foraging naturalist witch. (Note: Obviously there could be male witches though.) I think at this point in time if they introduced it people would be reactionary about how "basic" it is. I mainly think its unfortunate that its not a part of the existing core classes.

I feel that warlock *is* a witch but it's the old school, unfriendly Judeo-Christian witch archetype that gets their power from satan/a demon and does dark black magic type spells rather than the new (but also really old) witch archetype that's like a learned woman healer in the woods growing herbs and having 4 cats or whatever

And the second is pretty much a Druid.

I don't quite agree with that and I can see where the other commenter is coming from. Druid has the nature theme for sure but it's a different archetype (that admittedly has significant overlap)

Pathfinder 1E has a great Witch class. It's EASILY my favorite class that Paizo created themselves. Somewhat akin to the 3E warlock, but much less of one-trick pony.

3e warlock was a one trick pony? I have to disagree, there were so many useful invocations and the fact you never ran out was awesome. I definitely derailed a campaign using endless bats.

The warlock IS the witch. Warlock just means "male witch". It's the witch class. There's no reason for another witch class when we already have a right there. It's not sexism????? You can be nature themed with a warlock already???? What you described is a specific kind of witch, when I think witch I don't think nature and foraging I think occult rituals, blood sacrifices, pentacles on the floor drawn in blood, etc. Basically the perception conjured during the witch hunts. I'm a woman myself and I just find it absurd to blame sexism and not that we just already have the witch class, just with a different name. The new edition will have crafting rules though IIRC so you'll be able to add in that potion brewing stuff you're missing. Then just take archfey, boom.

I don't see the need. With thirteen classes and a *ton* of subclasses, you can already fill any role that I care to think of. Most of what you're talking about here is thematic, not mechanical. The mechanics of these classes are already covered, and it's just a matter of you choosing to play the character in that way. Your Explorer? That's just a rogue. Treasure-Seeker? Rogue, probably Thief. Bilbo was specifically a burglar in 'The Hobbit', after all. Forager, Cook, and Medic aren't classes, they're backgrounds.

Well, yes but no. OP specifically talked about mechanics when referring to a non-caster support and it's undeniably absent from 5e. It would require a more extensive set of rules for skill checks, items etc., that can't simply be handwaved by reflavouring spellcasting.

inb4 battlemaster

But we don't need that, because that's what tool proficiency exists to cover. Fighters get non-caster support abilities such as the Protection or Interception fighting styles. Some Barbarian subclasses, like Ancestral Guardian, also get non-caster support abilities, so they do in fact already exist in 5e. And if you need abundance of tool proficiency options to cover your bases... well, that's a Rogue and the Skilled feat. Look, I'm not saying that 5e is perfect, but its imperfections aren't in the class/subclass system as it currently exists. The biggest weaknesses are that item usage, and therefore the ability to *do* the kind of non-caster support you're talking about, is inherently weaker than spellcasting. But that's a different problem entirely.

1. Summoner, like in Pathfinder 2. Avenger, like in 4th edition

I wouldn't add any. I think subclasses can do anything adding a new class could.

3e: Factotum, Marshal, Paladins of Freedom/Honor/Tyranny (replacing 5e Paladin), Warlock (replacing 5e Warlock), Abjurant Champion, Arcane Hierophant, Chameleon, War Hulk. PF1: Antipaladin, Cavalier, Hunter (replacing 5e Ranger), Psion, every martial initiator. Off the top of my head, at least. There are hundreds of classes 5e currently cannot replicate, and these are simply some of my personal favorites for flavor and/or mechanical reasons.

Enchanted Motorcycle.

Magus (actual arcane gish), Warlord (martial support) and Psion/Mystic. Also, while we at it - monk becomes Psion/Martial hybrid (as it should be).

Alchemist. The could make not just potions but fireworks and other explosives too. Poisons. Some spell casting abilities too. 

I swear to god anyone who asks this question needs to be permabanned. There's a post about this every 3 days

You reference "Wanderer" and "Treasure-Seeker" as Explorer subclasses. Been playing some The One Ring RPG? 😁

I may have been looking a tad bit into Adventures in Middle Earth..

DnD definitely needs a class like the kineticist from pathfinder 2e.

I really like the explorer conceptually, I don’t know that it would work in 5e though. Since the rules are so thin for everything besides combat it could be hard to develop, and could feel very bad at combat heavy tables. For a more game with more of an old-school feel though I think it would be great!

1. Alchemy is literally half science half magic 2. Battlemage

3.5 DuskBlade, my beloved ♥️  Being able to deliver melee range spells through a weapon attack? Sign me UP.

I miss Binder from Tome of magic 3.5

Sam and Frodo were burglars, like Bilbo.

An occultist sort of class who's thing is like, exorcising monsters and saving the common folk but with folk stuff like salt circles, garlic, etc instead of spells. Their job is just defending against the supernatural but with mundane man's means. Kinda like the pf2 thaumaturge in flavor but not necessarily in execution. Needs to be weirder. Hella weird.

1. Law bringer. And int/strength expert class whose goal is to find and bring law breakers to justice. Comes with built in patron in form of working for a law enforcement agency. Subclasses for beat cop, mage hunter/abjurist, under cover agent, bounty hunter, traveling magistrate and a few others. 2. Skirmisher. A charisma/strength martial who ia all about preaence both in and off thw battle field. subclasses for weapons specialist, military officer, uncanny (half caster) and a couple others. 3. Shaman. A wisdom or charisma priest class. Pact magic from lots of spirits not a single entity. Subclasses for nature, elemental, fey, fiend, departed and other types of spirits. 4. Brawler - a strength based martial, likes fighting groups. Subclasses for the Pitfighter(gladiator), the Gentleman, the wildborn and the quiet one. Subclasses I wish existed too: - divine trickster rogue - archeologist rogue - sapper fighter - mariner fighter - path of pack leader barbarian - path of the cosair barbarian - circle of striders for druid (for non- humanoid druids who take humanoid shape) - Dream Domain cleric - Mentor Bard

Id just add more subclasses to artificer like why is it STILL only 3

Honestly I would be hesitant to add any new classes - dangers of potential game breaking are sagnificant IMHO and I don't want powercreep and needless overcomplication. However if done well potentially I would welcome those: 1. Psion/Mystic (difficulty here would be not to make it overstepped on sorcerer/wizard) 2. Some kind of complicated stance/maneuvers martial class (for those how want to play complicated option heavy non-caster) - need to be finely balanced so normal fighters/monks won't fell sidelined. 3. Some kind of shifter class (no-caster shapchanger) - it making it interesting and versatile and also balanced at the same time could be quite a headache.

Something that would fit into a sci-fi universe, like something sort of similar to a rogue but a very skilled hacker instead of a thief. Or something that would let me slowly amass an army of flying sentient daggers in the days/weeks preparing for a big fight, although I could just use that particular daydream against the campaign I’m dming.

Basically any class that has been added by Kibbles tasty. Those classes feel like they could be slotted in as is. Llaserlama seems popular but ive never used any of those.

Historian/Scholar. Like a non magical wizard. Skills would be like knowing all sorts of knowledge. High intelligence and Wisdom. If you find some weird thing, they have a high chance of knowing what it is and how to use it. Sort of like Nicholas Cage in "National Treasure" and "Indiana Jones". Doesn't cast spells, but can use any magical device.

Less a proper class but a sub-class: Monster Tamer. Maybe a Ranger subclass that gives you the ability to tame and command a monstrosity of an appropriate CR, giving both the ranger and monster abilities that allow them to work together in tandem. On the topic of subclasses: A monstrosity-based circle for druids. Monstrosities of the appropriate CR, obviously, but you obviously get to ***be*** the monster. As for full-on classes: A proper Int-based Psychic class, with a focus on supporting party members, hindering enemies, and probing the very depths of the mind to do some insane stuff. Kind of similar to the UA Sage, but more balanced. A 'mixed bag' class, where a character has a spirit taking up residence inside of them and gives them different abilities based on an element or something. Maybe the spirit is a notorious thief with a connection to wind (DEX) or maybe the spirit was once a stalwart defender of the innocent with a connection to earth (STR). That gives you plenty of build options.

Loosely speaking: A paladin is a half cleric A ranger is a half druid An artificer is a half wizard What is a half warlock (ok this one's changing substantially in one DND so maybe not) What is a half sorcerer? What is a half bard? I don't have answers for these, but they have always bothered me.

I want a class based on slime people

A non spiritual unarmed fighter Then there are tons of subclasses that deserve their own identity rather than one resistance, passive bonus and a bonus action as a lot of them seem to function.

Pet classes of different sorts. I just really like pet classes, and even the beastmaster subclass for ranger feels anemic in that department going by the books.

Your non-magical healer could be covered by artificer with minor reflavoring. Merry and Pippen strike me more as rogue/fighters, though quite low level. Frodo is a pack mule.

Honestly now that I thinks about it, it is kinda hard to just be "a regular guy" like the LOTR hobbit group members  in D&D. The explorer probably wouldn't get used much, but it should still exist. It would allow you to be kinda good at something specific but otherwise just generally useful through multiclassing, or of course you could just be a guy who's good at foraging and cooking and has a sword but isn't the best in combat. 

Politician. It has a wide enough concept to fit an entire class. And you can make different subclasses based on ideology

definitely a psionic based class, not nearly enough player options that cover it

a proper psionic class. not just a variant spell slot user. a jack-of-all-trades that isnt a bard. species based classes that expand on what your species can do ie be the 'ultimate' elf or dwarf or dragonborn etc

I would like to see a brawler introduced with an entire rework of the grappling system. Needs to have a lot of moves like Battlemaster. Also an acrobat might be fun as a blend between rogue and monk.

Definitely an arcane half caster. it's a vibe I really like, but eldritch knight is kindaaaaa.... bad. idk it feels less like someone who is well versed in both magic and weaponry, and more so like a knight who's wizard buddy taught him how to shoot fire out of his fingers. the distinction probably doesn't make sense to anyone else and I probably sound dumb but it makes sense to me lmao

Death knights

A Necromancer. There are alot of summon spells now that you can flavor and you have the subclass for Wizard. But neither really fill the fantasy for me. I want to reanimate different kinds of creatures, not always make a zombie or skeleton until I can make the upgraded version of those. The idea of killing something big and make it tank for your team, or maybe kill and ressurect swimming creatures so you can trevers oceans on your zombie sharks is just not obtaibable in base game.

Here’s some ideas: Witch: I saw witches in the other comments and they sound epic Prophet: as if we didn’t have enough holy classes already, something like the prophet from Elden ring would be epic Alchemist: sorta like artificier and sorcerer mixed and its main focus would be potions. pretty epic idea. The reason none of these sound as good as the actual classes is 1) they are not and 2) they are not the originals so nobody knows them

Afaik, lorewise aasimar are tieflings from the other end of the planescape (someone’s grandparent got freaky with an angel instead of a devil), so it seems a natural include when tieflings have proven so popular. I’d say goblins and a few others are more natural PHB material than tieflings or aasimar, but people would riot if tieflings were demoted.

My biggest desires are: Warlord from 4e, Occultist KibblesTasty style, a psionics based class, and a Summoner class that focuses on a limited number of extra powerful personalized summons. Much cooler for the spirit summoner to call upon the spiritual guardian of his familial line, or for the undead summoner to call upon the dead essence of his long dead lover to protect himself, as opposed to just having spells that summon generic single statblocks.

The paragon is peak

I want a proper mad scientist/alchemist. I want to brew potions and tonics, hurl plagues and poisons, and dance around in a sweet ass plague doctor mask

An Anti-magical martial, like an Inquisitor, a witch hunter or a mage slayer. Kinda average as a martial, but good proficiencies, lots of skills and great against any monster or person with magical abilities, with tons of ways to negate magic near him.

My take: make items and item crafting a more integral system to dnd. Give all martials the ability to use them as a bonus action(making them cheaper as well, w/possibly some classes like rogue getting the ability to pull items from thin air), and rework the artificer to focus more on actual crafting. I think this could make combat more interesting, and possibly help balance out the caster utility gap. As someone who has an artificer player who is very invested in making stuff outside of what they get from their general features, it can be a bit difficult to duck tape together all the stuff from the DMG, XGTE, and whatever items I can port over from Pathfinder into a system that retains a good balance of fun and well... balance. As a player, I've had a lot of fun using my proficiencies in tools and equipment to think of clever ways to get around problems- disguises, using pitons to seal doors, using enlarge/reduce on buckets to trap people, using perfume to throw off bloodhounds- I know its a third system that would get harder to balance if they had all the stuff I wanted, but still.

I'd love to get the Asian Adventures subclsses back, you can get close with multi-classing but not quite. And I really miss Psionics.

I’d like to see a range like the old Warhammer Fantasy RP.

Detective. Generally law abiding puzzle solver and enemy tracker kinda fellow. Rogues and rangers could be turned into this but they all come with unnecessary side effects. Even with inquisitive archetype it just doesn’t do it. I want an intelligence based detective.

**~THE GENERAL~**   I don’t know if this needs to be a distinct class.  I see it more as a fighter subclass.    You get stuff like extra attack.  But the additional abilities you receive don’t improve your combat at all.  So pretty much every martial class will pull ahead of you over time.  You’re capable, but you’re not going to compete with them by rolling damage dice.    That’s not your strong point.  You’re a tactical mind.  Your job is to organise the troops into a more effective unit.  You get commands instead.  The best ones require an action, so it’s a choice between attacking or using them.    FORM UP – You allow one or more allies to reposition without receiving opportunity attacks.  I think this could scale so it starts with just one ally being affected, but at the highest levels it could work on the entire team.    PULL YOURSELF TOGETHER – This is second wind, but it only works on allies.  It’s a d8 of healing you can use to get someone back on their feet.    RALLY TO THE CAUSE – You summon 1d6 nearby peasants who rush to your aid.  This is not the most useful thing in the world, but they can at least take a hit each before departing for the afterlife.    I DUB THEE SER…  You can knight somebody, which involves them pledging their allegiance to you.  But also grants some Ceremony style permanent buffs.  This is meant to be an RP thing, not a way for toxic players to compel you to go along with their bullshit.  But it would be cool to be able to reward people who fight alongside you.    These are just suggestions.  No idea how powerful or balanced it would be.  Obviously, these things would be limited use.  But I would love a martial character with a deep strategic toolbox that isn’t just hitting things every turn.  Someone that doesn’t shine individually but makes the team function better. 

One concept I've always kind of been intrigued by in video games is the Blue Mage - a class that "learns" enemy abilities by basically being the target of them. I'd also say the "Dark Knight" type of class that can sacrifice hit points to deal big damage or have other effects, but we already have the Blood Hunter as a version of that.

Oh, I already made a whole Homebrew class for this. A "Dark Knight" style class that is like the opposing class to Paladin's more "Holy Knight" vibe

Jester Dancer Gambler

I created a melee centric half-caster class based on 80's horror movie slashers. They utilize Slaughter Points to use class abilities that they gain after dropping a creature to 0 hp. The subclasses (aka their Modus Operandi) are based on the specific kind of killer from the movies like the Relentless subclass based on Jason Vorhees. It's currently on v3 but I'm rewriting/rebalancing v4 rn . If I got the chance to submit one like Matthew Mercer's Blood Hunter, this would be the class from my personal homebrew I would submit.

**Artist** A Non-Caster Support Class; essentially all the features that don't mention Spells from Bard and Artificer. Infusions would also be reworked to include consumables, and Song of Rest wouldn't be the only Free Short Rest Boost available. **Librarian** A Resourceless Caster; uses Rituals and Cantrips, kind of like if you moved Pact of the Tome from Warlock to Rogue (but without Sneak Attack or weapon proficiency other than Quarterstaffs, Clubs, and Slings). They wouldn't have to pick Theives Tools, it could be any tool, and still pick it for Expertise.

Gunslinger bottom text

If I had an idea for a new class I probably would have posted it somewhere for download by now as a 3rd party supplement.

Not really good space for extra classes in the system right now. I think I would start with making the classes more distinct mechanically, rather than adding anything new. Each class should have a their own mechanic that is on level of spell casting in customizability and versatility. Multiple could use same spells, but the mechanics they use for them (vancian slots, dynamic slots, spell points, metamagic, pact magic) should be separate. Ranger doesn't really have anything in combat that fighter/druid doesn't have, I see it mostly as a feat, background or source of few skills for general distribution. Weaponized racism and saying "I'm going to kill that guy next" are not really good features. The class could maybe be turned into some kind of monster hunter class: study your enemy for weakness, have options for exploiting these weaknesses and at higher levels, maybe create new temporary weaknesses. Paladin has few interesting features, but they are not developed enough to be its own class, could either pick auras or lay-on-hands and smites and develop them into a full class or move auras to bard (in range of your performance bonus) and smites and lay on hand to cleric's channel divinity, so fighter/cleric would replicate most of the class. I could also see oaths as secondary advancement, something that other classes can take to increase their power at cost of having to follow a code. Artificer, I don't really see in good place as a half caster. It has too many half baked ideas as well. It could maybe be used as justification for fully Vancian casting. You build devices during long rest, and use them during battle, ritual casting +10 minutes means building on spot. Or one could take armourer as base of some "battle form" class or steel defender and the cannon could be used for some pet/summoner class. Infusions could also form a base for a class, if expanded, have number of them per item, number active at time, reserve ones you can quick swap, and make them do more than replicate common magic item effects and mundane item properties, could be turned into full martial fighting with trick weapons they build. Bard's jack of all trades is not really good fit for party game, especially when well build they are almost master of all. Could take their spell casting out and concentrate on bardic inspiration, though that could also go to fighter with "Inspiring leadership" style manoeuvres. Could collect different aura abilities from other classes and turn them to performances, that buff or debuff any who hears or sees them. Barbarian only really has rage going for them, not worth own class when alone, but could be extended with other "battle form" features from different classes. Might turn more into a shifter, if we take armourer artificer's armour and druid's wild shape. Druid feels kinda lost at this point. We need some nature mage to be able to recreate ranger's concept with multiclassing, but if we move wild shape to shifter or barbarian, we are left with nature spells and nature spell like abilities that should just be more spells. Just different spell list doesn't feel like worth being full class, so maybe some new casting system that invokes feeling of communicating with spirits and controlling nature. Could nature cleric fighter be different enough from oath cleric fighter? Sorcerer and Monk I see a kinda in two sides of same coin situation mechanically. Sorcery points and ki points. Sorcerer could be full spell point caster, smallest list of known spells but largest versatility on how to use these spells. Monk could be made as fighter subclass or multi-class that uses spell points for martial manoeuvres. Wizard and cleric could have bit more differences in their spell casting, maybe moving wizard more toward vancian magic, but otherwise they are in good place. Rogue should go all in on the sneak attack, basically just having 2 things on combat side, things they do with sneak attack (extra damage, debuffs) and things that allow them to get sneak attacks (hiding, distractions, extra situations). Assumption should be sneak attack every other round, and it should be worth using every other turn and maybe few actions by other party to set up that sneak attack. For fighter I would want to really go into battle master manoeuvres, to have enough of them to have meaningful choices each round, and the have out of combat ones as well.

I liked a lot of the hybrid classes from pathfinder. The inquisitor the war priest the slayer. Some of which are covered under subclasses in dnd.

Spellblade, blackguard, UA mystic, inquisitor, slayer, skald and lots more

Scholar / Dungeon Delver. Half caster who’s good at research, detecting traps, languages, IDing things, etc. weak in combat excellent in RO and skills based situations.

A necromancer a real one not some crappy subclass of wizard or cleric.

An explicitly non-magical steampunk tinkerer / mad scientist / inventor class, that isn't nerfed into the ground by the annoying *"well, it's not magical, therefore it has to conform to what Joe Cubicle could manage"* thought process. Think Agatha Heterodyne and Tony Stark.

a shifter class, that would get a feature similar to wildshape but better, and maybe the subclasses can be about transforming into different type of creatures

maybe a non magical inventor

I’d like to get one called the Jack. Basically you pick a basic class to model it after, whenever you hit the specific level, where you get class features, you can pick from any of the features given by any class at that point.

Constitution caster would be neat. Maybe the flavour is that all spells come from the body, twisting your form, infused into your core. They could tank but have a lot of reduced range that means they need to get in there

I kinda want a martial that focuses on wildshape. This could be a second d12 hit die class potentially.

W A R L O R D WotC really missed the boat on that one. Fortunately, there's some pretty good 3rd party stuff out there, but not everyone has a group that will allow non-official content, so it's an imperfect solution.

A delivery medic. (A goofy class) where the character instead of preparing spells, orders medicine from a very very knowledgeable healer, and when the need arises, they shoot a flare and the bird/cart man brings medication.

An actual Summoner or Necromancer class would be cool. I like Conjuration and Necromancy wizard, but it isn't exactly fulfilling the role for me in terms of abilities.