D&D 5E Which classes would you like to see added to D&D 5e, if any? (check all that apply)

I want oriental adventures back please, complete with an awesome campaign book like those so far. Ideally set in Rokugan (but as the IP means that Fantasy Flight have that sewn up any homogenous Chinese/Japanese hybrid setting will do.)

So Samurai, Ninja, Shugenja and Courtier would be on my list. I’m happy to except subclasses for the all of them.

Jedi - LG, combo various skills from Monk, Psionicist and Fighter.

Mercule said:

... -- just without the "I'm angry" bit, which is silly, anyway.

Click to expand...

Angry berserkers have a historical and mythological origin, so I think there is a place for the "angry barbarian".

Erechel said:

Many things you are listing already have a common representative... In the PHB. Ninjas are the Way of the Shadow (they even call them ninjas). And in many ways, an Assassin rogue covers much of the ground, only with a cultural approximation. The witch is the warlock, only female.

Click to expand...

Who cares? Many classes in the PHB can be approximated with many other classes in the PHB. Having a full class represent a concept means making that concept a fully developed and central part of the world it inhabits, and this sort of creative freedom is a large part of what D&D is all about. This is why all of the zeal about not wanting to see new classes doesn't make any sense.

Mercule said:

With the 5E backgrounds, I think you could easily just roll Ranger into a woodsy background + Fighter class. I'd miss some of the "spec ops" bits, but not so much I'd have an internet rage quit over it.

The Paladin could really just be a divine flavored Eldritch Knight knock-off. I see no reason why we need a bunch of variants for Paladin, anyway. The PHB sub-classes are mostly fine, but I don't think there have been any expanded options that don't seem pointless, to me. Since I've only seen two paladins played since 1983, I can't say I'd really miss it.

Regardless, I'd happily give up both of those to put a stake in the heart of the Barbarian. If there was ever a class that should be a sub class of another, it's Barbarian. Just make an "angry Fighter" subclass and call it a day. Totem warrior stuff could be a sub-class of Druid or, if inclined to keep the Ranger, a subclass of that -- just without the "I'm angry" bit, which is silly, anyway.

Click to expand...

And, if MCing were assumed, there'd be no meaningful need to have 'half casters,' either, yes.

There are a lot of ways 5e could have gotten by with fewer, simpler, & more consistent classes, while presenting more net viable options for players, and probably, if the simplicity & consistency gains were marked enough, without requiring greater system mastery to get there. But, there are so many ways D&D could be a better game, and they're all prettymuch off the table, because D&D is locked into a certain feel and deviating from it is caus belli.

SkidAce said:

Angry berserkers have a historical and mythological origin, so I think there is a place for the "angry barbarian".

Click to expand...

Or... Just a "berserker" sub-class for Fighter.

I never said having a rager was silly, just coupling being angry with summoning animal spirits -- unless you're going for Captain Planet or Werewolf: the Apocalypse, which could both be considered "silly", as well.

Tony Vargas said:

And, if MCing were assumed, there'd be no meaningful need to have 'half casters,' either, yes.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty mixed on this proposition. On the one hand, I can't disagree that a Paladin could be done as a MC Fighter/Cleric (or the Eldritch Knight as a Fighter/Wizard). On the other, certain concepts seem like they shouldn't warrant a MC. Many of those are the ones with a D&D tradition (I find myself objecting to making Paladin MC, but couldn't care less about the Eldritch Knight -- if Paladin spent an edition as an EK-like subclass of Fighter, I might be softened about removing it, entirely).

There are a lot of ways 5e could have gotten by with fewer, simpler, & more consistent classes, while presenting more net viable options for players, and probably, if the simplicity & consistency gains were marked enough, without requiring greater system mastery to get there. But, there are so many ways D&D could be a better game, and they're all prettymuch off the table, because D&D is locked into a certain feel and deviating from it is caus belli.

Click to expand...

This is where the rub really is, no? When I think too much about what should and shouldn't get a base class vs. a subclass vs. take a background vs. use multi-classing, I end up just getting fed up with the whole thing and wanting a skill-based/character point system and screw the class and level structure, entirely. I'm actually starting to recognize a pattern with each new edition: 1) get excited about coming back to D&D, 2) run a campaign or two to kick the tires, 3) get comfortable with the system and start to focus on character concept before mechanics, 4) get fed up with the large grain nature and inability to handle certain concepts, 5) move to something else or take a break from gaming until the next edition.

Mercule said:

I -- if Paladin spent an edition as an EK-like subclass of Fighter, I might be softened about removing it, entirely).

Click to expand...

The Paladin was a sub-class of the fighter, who cast cleric spells, from the cleric list, in 0D&D and AD&D, both.

Though 'sub-class' as 5e implements it is much closer to the Essesntials take than to 1e.

1) get excited about coming back to D&D, 2) run a campaign or two to kick the tires, 3) get comfortable with the system and start to focus on character concept before mechanics, 4) get fed up with the large grain nature and inability to handle certain concepts, 5) move to something else or take a break from gaming until the next edition.

Click to expand...

I only ever hit stage 5 with 2e.