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

[Aldarc]

It's a great general play concept (and part of the reason I'm looking forward to the new Conan game) but I would argue that D&D is not the place to explore it. What I fear is D&D trying to be all things to all people in all genres all of the time.

This "general play concept" is not to say that everyone in the party is non-magical - though that too should be viable - but, rather, that not every class, ability, and object is regarded as intrinsically magical. That "general play concept" I described has been viable in D&D since its inception: all five editions. You say that D&D is not the place? That is complete garbage that flies in the face of the game's history.

 

[Mouseferatu]

short of [MENTION=80342]morris[/MENTION] saying out right "No more warlord discussions" nothing is stopping this freight train... and even then I bet a few full out bans would come form this...

I wish he would, at least in threads that aren't specifically about the warlord. I'm not on either side of the pro- or anti-warlord discussion, but I'm tired of getting caught in the crossfire. It's here, it's in the mastermind rogue thread... It's reaching the point where it's impossible to have a conversation about new/added classes that doesn't eventually devolve into the exact same arguments we've seen in--and I'm not even exaggerating--over half a dozen threads over the past week. I'm not one for shutting down discussion, but the argument itself is shutting down other discussion. And it doesn't solve anything. It's the same people making the same points page after page after page after page after page after page after page after...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

What is it? What does it do?

in 3.5 it was in the book of 9 swords (one of my favorite books of all time and one of 3 out of edition books I still keep out)

it was a hybrid monk fighter with special manuvers that gave different effects...

they could wear light armor and got wis to AC and a bounse to intitative...

the special manuvers they could take were supernatural so shadow and fire were common...

the holcost cloak I mentioned up thread was a reaction to being hit lighting an enemy on fire for xd6 dmage

 

[TwoSix]

I want a Witch. The fairy-tale sort. I think I might have said that in the early pages of this thread.

Yeah, I know, it's sort of a warlock, sort of a wizard, sort of a bard. But I'd love to have it be a distinct class.

Also a Jester/Fool sub-class of Bard. I envision him bending probability.

I'd go for the Witch. Honestly, I'd love more of a fairy-tale feel to D&D in general.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I want a Witch. The fairy-tale sort. I think I might have said that in the early pages of this thread.

Yeah, I know, it's sort of a warlock, sort of a wizard, sort of a bard. But I'd love to have it be a distinct class.

Also a Jester/Fool sub-class of Bard. I envision him bending probability.

I agree on witch, I'm not a big fan of the jester (though somene did a cooll juggle mechanic for one in another thread)

 

[TwoSix]

I wish he would, at least in threads that aren't specifically about the warlord. I'm not on either side of the pro- or anti-warlord discussion, but I'm tired of getting caught in the crossfire. It's here, it's in the mastermind rogue thread... It's reaching the point where it's impossible to have a conversation about new/added classes that doesn't eventually devolve into the exact same arguments we've seen in--and I'm not even exaggerating--over half a dozen threads over the past week. I'm not one for shutting down discussion, but the argument itself is shutting down other discussion. And it doesn't solve anything. It's the same people making the same points page after page after page after page after page after page after page after...

To be fair, as one of the guilty parties, I think the Mastermind thread only tangentially touched on the Warlord. It got bogged down on discussion of the utility of various stats.

This thread, yea, we're totally rehashing topics that were thrashed out several years back. But hey, some of the people are new!

 

[Mouseferatu]

This thread, yea, we're totally rehashing topics that were thrashed out several years back. But hey, some of the people are new!

Years? This was all--every last word--being thrashed out in other threads yesterday.

 

[TwoSix]

Years? This was all--every last word--being thrashed out in other threads yesterday.

Was it? I didn't read those. Seriously, those people go on forever.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I will point out that meta-discussions about warlord threads are also an over-flogged horse.

In any event, the "Shaman" is another class I want, but I'm afraid that (like the Warlock) it's something that gained some kind of meaning from 3.5 or 4e which is now baggage that cannot be jettisoned. What I'm picturing is a primalist/spiritualist, who uses divine magic, but not because of a connection to spirits, not to a specific god. The spirit pet concept that showed up in the UA Ranger variant would be something I could see a Shaman having.

I could even get behind a whole 3rd branch of magic: Spirit Magic. Shaman, Witch Doctors, Witches, Mediums...there could be a bunch of classes and sub-classes that use it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

(Is that permissible? To make personal attacks on posters in other forums? If those personal attacks are 100% true?)

Truth is only a valid defense in court.

The only decent analogy there is harry potter. No, you should *not* get to play Harry Potter because you chose the class.

One of the 8 wizard sub-classes? Sure seems that way, or you could make him a Sorcerer, I suppose, he is all hereditary-power like.

What does that leave for everybody else?The Ron Weasly class?

Arcane Trickster?