D&D 5E What classes do you want added to 5e?

[Rya.Reisender]

I don't really want more classes, though I'm a bit sad that the character I always play in any freeform P&P is not really possible in D&D without bending the rules a little.

 

[ZickZak]

From 3.5: Soulblade
From 4e: Ranger
From Pf: Zen Archer Monk

My fav classes. Archetypes of Psion & Monk and Ranger obviously already exists, even though not so cool. I don't see many reasons to add some other core class.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

warlord
warden
psion (mystic)
and a half caster arcane class (duskblade/bladesinger/spellsword)
a real fighter based more on a mix of 4e and warblade

 

[ZickZak]

and a half caster arcane class (duskblade/bladesinger/spellsword)

Bladesinger was announced to be in the SCL players guide coming out in November.

 

[Thymm]

I don't know anything about 4e classes, as this was a terrible edition (in my oppinion, not in gerneral), so I don't know why everyone wants a Warlord class. What makes that class so great?

Personally, I'm waiting for psionic classes.

 

[TrippyHippy]

More Subclasses? Yes! More Backgrounds? Yes! More Classes? No.

If there was a supplement released that advertised it as having new Classes in it - I wouldn't buy it. There is a tremendous variety of Class/Subclass and Background combos within the Players Handbook alone, that covers most fantasy archetypes.

The expansion of more backgrounds would be nice and some Classes could be expanded with Subclass options, but I very much find that more Classes actually ends up meaning less choice ultimately as each new Class becomes an increasingly watered down archetype and often undermines the current Classes that are available. It also can cause havoc around the game table if we end up with more players coming in with Classes not known by other players and the DM.

With regards to the recent kerfuffle about Warlords, for example, my feeling is that introducing them really just tends to limit what Fighters can be - as in the Fighters can only be grunts, and any intelligence or leadership becomes the sole reserve of the Warlord. As I say, more classes equates to less roleplaying choice to me.

 

[Mercule]

Artificer. It does not belong under Wizard because the mechanics wouldn't make sense (I think reskinned Warlock mechanics would be a good fit). It could be done as part of a 5E Eberron book, rather than general release. That'd require a 5E Eberron book, though (hint, hint).

I'd say Psion, but it's clear that my definition of Psion is different from the folks at WotC and about half the fan base. If it has anything to do with the Far Realm, it's not a psionics (seriously, all the arguments I've heard for it are either nonsequiters or orthogonal). I'd also say that making it "not magic" is a mismatch, but I can at least follow some of the logic, there.

Otherwise, I don't see any concepts that don't work just as well (or better) as builds of existing classes or a new subclass.

 

[Malshotfirst]

I think subclasses are the way to go. If folks want 60,000 class options, well, there are two (arguably) awesome systems already out there for that (Pathfinder and 4th).

My only suggestion would be to revamp the EK into more of a Magus like subclass ala Pathfinder.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I don't know anything about 4e classes, as this was a terrible edition (in my oppinion, not in gerneral), so I don't know why everyone wants a Warlord class. What makes that class so great?

Personally, I'm waiting for psionic classes.

well I personally liked the warlord as giving more options and opened up a style of play that has been hard in D&D before. I was able to play a healer and buffer without having any religious overtones.

As a DM it often annoys me when clerics get played as healer buffer wizards because the play feels that they 'need' a healer but don't wat to be a cleric...

 

[Yunru]

Time Wizards. They would specialise in things such as exhaustion (from rapid aging) and buff spells like Haste.