Now, I know that maybe I should have put these in the opening post, but I figured that it was somehow more... ethical? To put these into a separate post. You'll notice that these are pretty much all caster based: firstly, the casters of D&D have always been far more interesting to me than the martials, save in 4e. Secondly, the martial subclasses in 5e already seem to fill just about every damn niche we could possibly hope for with a martial class. We've got two different kinds of scout (Fighter/Rogue), three different "knightly" subclasses for the Fighter (cavalier, knight, samurai), we've got the Sherlock Holmes style investigator to go with the Moriarty-inspired mastermind, we've got the monster hunter... really, what's left?
Artificer:
* Runesmith - I started my own thread about this idea, so I can't deny a certain bias in regards my interest to it, but, really, I think it's a worthwhile shot. The Artificer's entire schtick is that it's a fantasy gadgetteer, something touched upon by its two subclasses so far. Alchemists are a more "pre-prepared" version of wizards (to the point there was a "potion caster" wizard kit called the Eremite back in AD&D), relying on their pre-prepared potions and chemical compounds and other such semi-scientific gunk to help out on the battlefield. The Gunsmith, meanwhile, is closer to the "tech" side of the magitek equation, but still fits the general archetype. The Runesmith, then, would be a swing to the more magical side of the Artificer's creation; something that relies more on overt magic or on magical items, but still is predominantly an Int-based support class. Maybe it'd work better as a melee specialist in comparison to the more ranged-focused Gunsmith, I don't know, but I do know that I like the idea of a guy with a rune-etched staff nullifying an enemy's spell and then throwing it right back at them.
Barbarian:
* Bloodrager - Firstly, yes, the name was stolen from Pathfinder, and I apologize for that. The Barbarian's an interesting character in 5e because they've still surreptitiously kept a lot of the more "mystical" flavoring they gave it in 4e. Now, while I'm not a huge fan of many PF classes, the Bloodrager, which is essentially a Sorcerer-Barbarian hybrid that is driven into battle rage by surges of raw magic inside of them, strong enough to physically mutate it in order to express its inner rage, has some pretty cool base ideas. Now, I don't know if this works better as a subclass or even a whole new class, but I certainly wouldn't mind seeing it.
Sorcerer:
* Arcanist - One of the things I love about the Sorcerer is its whole "born to magic" fluff. It's awesome, it's what makes it different from the Warlock & Wizard, and yet... it's not quite as represented as it should be. There's no "naturally talented at magic" sorcerous origin thus far; oh, one can try to argue the Wild Mage, but it's got a chaos flair and flavoring that just makes it mesh poorly with that "natural prodigy" flavor. It's all about someone who can't control their inner magic, not who, say, was born to a dynasty of wizards and so finds magic comes as naturally to them as breathing. I'm not sure what abilities to actually give this sort of Sorcerer, in all honesty. Expanded spell lists, an increased pool of sorcery points and, at 18th level, Magic Resistance where you can regain sorcery points if you shake off the magical effect all come to mind.
* Elementalist - Elementalism is one of D&D's oldest and yet most under-utilised magical styles. 4th edition was beautifully set up for an Elemental Sorcerer-type class focused on invoking and transmuting elemental matter, but, of course, Essentials came out and screwed that up, so Elemental & Shadow became "sub-power sources" instead of joining the Arcane/Divine/Martial/Primal/Psionic quintet. Anyway, the Elemental Sorcerer seems the most obvious form of Sorcerer; beyond the Dragon Magic or Wild Magic Sorcerers, these would understandably be one of the oldest types of Sorcerer in existence. I keep trying to chip away at an array of elemental-themed homebrew subclasses for Sorcerer, but I keep wrestling with the idea that maybe this is silly and an Elementalist Sorcerer should be adept in all elements equally, that they should be more like the "Elemental Transmuter" I considered back in 4e. But then I start arguing with myself that I'm only thinking this way because I already did some pretty snazzy Elemental Wizard subclasses and now I'm all out of ideas to make the Sorcerer versions stand out.
* Voidbringer - We've got a fair few official Sorcerers, thus far. We got Wild Magic, Dragon Magic, Storm Elementalism, we got Angelic/Divine Heritage (Favored Soul), we got illusion/darkness-based Shadow Magic... but, the one thing we don't have is a Necromantic Sorcerer. I admit I'm not personally sure how to make this guy stand out compared to the Necromancer Wizard, but, we have seen it done before. The Dread Necromancer in 3.5 was essentially a Necromantic Sorcerer, and there's thematic room in D&D for a guy who is simply full of necrotic energy and can only barely control it, right?
* Cosmic Soul - I'll be honest; I think the principle of "star magic", of magic drawn from the stars, moons and suns, is an awesome theme that D&D has never really explored. Beyond the Cosmic Soul Sorcerer in 4th edition's Arcane Power and the Star Pact Warlock in 4e's PHB, can anyone name any cases of this theme being used? So, I really think that this is something 5e should rectify; moreover, I think there's enough cognitive room that Sorcerers, Warlocks and Wizards can all share it. A Cosmic Soul Sorcerer would be intimately connected to one or more celestial bodies, drawing power from the stars with which its soul aligns. The 4e version, where it could switch between different alignments (Sun/Moon/Stars), which had different associated boons and effects on its spells, was awesome, and I think it could be replicated in 5e to some extent.
Warlock:
* Dark Patron - Ironically, despite this being an obvious thing to include, it was 4e's first new Pact after all, we don't have this darkness-manipulating warlock yet. Underdark Adventurers gave us a light-based one instead. Which, admittedly, isn't bad, but still, I want my shadow-weaving umbral witch-priest back.
* Sorcerer-King Patron - One of the many things I loved about 4e was its reinventions of old classes in ways that made sense. Thus, the 4e Templar, traditionally a form of "evil Paladin", became a Warlock drawing its magic from one of the Sorcerer-Kings. I would love to see this come back when 5e finally takes us back to the blasted wastes of Athas.
* Dark Mother Patron- This is something I've tried to tackle on my own for ages. There are so many weird "mother of monsters" spirits and dark fertility gods across fantasy; Slaanesh, Lamashtu, Shub-Niggurath, Echidna and others I can't hope to recall, that this "antihero healer" warlock just seems a natural fit for a more dark fantasy or pulpy style setting.
* Angelic Patron - There was a Scarred Lands sourcebook, can't remember which one, that had a beautiful story about a self-sacrificing hero who sells his soul to a "fiend" for sorcerous powers, which he used to do much good, only to learn on his deathbed as he prepared to suffer for eternity in hell that his patron had been an angel all along. After all, why should the powers of darkness be the only ones to offer a hand? With this logic, I'd love to see a more Celestial/Angelic patron added to the Warlock's list, and it's about the only major extraplanar mojo-granter that WoTC has left to cover - they did Fiends, Faeries and Eldritch Abominations right out of the corebook, after all.
* Lifebringer Patron - I can't really explain this one beyond the fact that the Warlock has always seemed a perfect fit for the "witchdoctor" archetype. Similar to Angelic Patrons, there have to be healing/nurturing/life-bringing/whatever spirits and entities out there who are willing to empower individuals to protect their chosen people with a healing touch from one hand and a fistful of death in the other. Hell, the Irish god Dagdha had a magical club that could kill with one end and restore life with the other, it's not that crazy, right?
* Doomspeaker Patron - Warlocks go together with both curses and with strange, apocalypse-seeking abominations like peanut butter and chocolate. A Doomspeaker Warlock might be a crazed suicidal nihilist, a cursed soul, or desperately trying to harness an apocalyptic power to annihilate some force of evil, but either way, it'd be an entropy-wielding monster that really excels in the field of tearing things apart.
* Primordial Patron - The Archomentals, both good and evil, have been around for a long time. 4e just gave them a real chance to shine with such incredible creatures as Mual-Tar the Thunder Serpent, Piranoth the World Mover, and Iktha-Lau the Ever Empty. Archomentals have a long tradition of offering their own "weird" flavor of magic to loyal minions and witch-priests, and to me that sounds just perfect for a Warlock subclass. I mean, come on, what's uncool about drawing upon the powers of a continent-sized dragon-storm to shatter enemies with thunder, lightning, wind and hail?
* Great Beast Patron - I grew up on a lot of pulpy fantasy-horror stuff. Weird wilderness gods and savage nature deities like Jhebbal-Sag have long struck a chord with me that the Druid just... doesn't hit. I'd love an option for warlocks to offer themselves to such creatures. Maybe gain a beast companion out of the deal.
* Star Patron - I'll be honest; I think the principle of "star magic", of magic drawn from the stars, moons and suns, is an awesome theme that D&D has never really explored. Beyond the Cosmic Soul Sorcerer in 4th edition's Arcane Power and the Star Pact Warlock in 4e's PHB, can anyone name any cases of this theme being used? So, I really think that this is something 5e should rectify; moreover, I think there's enough cognitive room that Sorcerers, Warlocks and Wizards can all share it. I know a lot of people will think of this as already handled by the Great Old One Patron, given the 4e Warlock's Star Pact was a sort of Lovecraftian Deity and Cosmic Magic hybrid in terms of theme. But, even if 4e, there was room for playing a more "pure star magic" sort of Warlock, and I think it can be done in 5e. I'd probably go with more of a space & time theme to this Patron, more teleportation and time-hinkery than anything.
Wizard:
* Chronomancer - Time magic is, I'll be honest, a risky prospect. It can easily become overpowered or overly complicated to run. A Chronomancer would be a hard thing to get right... but, I believe it's been
* Elementalist - As with all arcanists, Wizards are naturally suited for the idea of drawing magic from the elements. With how much 5e makes them shine under the subclass system, I know an elementalist would be far greater than the AD&D version that appeared in the original Tome of Magic. Of course, as I've done 6 elementalist archetypes (Earth/Wood/Metal/Fire/Water/Air) and think I did pretty well on them, I'm kind of biased.
* Space Mage - I'll be honest; I think the principle of "star magic", of magic drawn from the stars, moons and suns, is an awesome theme that D&D has never really explored. Beyond the Cosmic Soul Sorcerer in 4th edition's Arcane Power and the Star Pact Warlock in 4e's PHB, can anyone name any cases of this theme being used? So, I really think that this is something 5e should rectify; moreover, I think there's enough cognitive room that Sorcerers, Warlocks and Wizards can all share it. When I think a "Cosmic Wizard", I probably think of Warhammer Fantasy and it's Lore of the Heavens spells - a blend of "space/sky themed" evocation (crashing meteors, lightning bolts, blasts of fire from the sun, freezing spells to invoke the chill of space), air elementalism, teleportation and "offensive divination"; cursing foes and the like. I'm not sure how a 5e version would be best suited to go, but there's surely plenty of thematic room to build from. Besides, can you really say it's impossible to see wizards studying the movements of the stars and learning to draw into the powers emanating from that celestial pattern or the individual bodies themselves?
