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

[jrowland]

I wonder if there is room for a "Universal Pet Class"?

A single class with multiple sub-classes to cover things like the Beastmaster Ranger, or perhaps even a summoner? Not sure how you would do it, mechanically, but I think there is a "problem" with pet classes and perhaps that's because they are designed in whole cloth as a pet class.

Just a thought. I don't like pet classes, so I'll let others chew on it.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

Or maybe a universal pet background. 4E had a theme (Fey Beast Tamer) that granted a pet. The theme's pet wasn't as powerful or detailed as the beastmaster ranger's pet but it allowed any character who wanted one to have a pet.

 

[Aldarc]

What class do you want first? Why?

Warlord, Psion, and Artificer.

Edited 'psionist' to 'psion' for confusion with 2e class name/concept and general idea.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Warlord, Psionicist, and Artificer.

Why the 2e Psionicist instead of a Psion/Mystic or multiple psionic classes?

 

[TwoSix]

Why the 2e Psionicist instead of a Psion/Mystic or multiple psionic classes?

Because 1st level Disintegrate is never not fun.

 

[Aldarc]

Why the 2e Psionicist instead of a Psion/Mystic or multiple psionic classes?

I meant more in the general sense of a 'psionic class' as opposed to the name, flavor, and mechanics of the 2E class. Sorry for that confusion. I preferred the 3e treatment of psionics (and Dreamscarred Press best of all so far). I'm not a fan of the Mystic - particularly the Far Realms connection - as I worry that it may be trying to shove as many psionic archetypes as it can within one class, kinda like the idea of shoving all the arcane classes into a single 'mage' class. Maybe if WotC can also provide convincing psionic sub-classes of existing classes (e.g., rogue, monk, sorcerer, or even warlord, etc.) then I could be more open to a single psionic class.

 

[Southpaw79]

I loved the Totemist from Magic of Incarnum.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Because 1st level Disintegrate is never not fun.

It was always interesting to me how it was possible to get disintegrate at 1st level only if you weren't actually a psionicist, since it appeared on the wild talent table as a possibility but a psionicist didn't have enough PSPs to use disintegrate until 2nd level (with super-high stats in the right places) or 3rd level.

However, disintegrate at 3rd level, that's some big wow factor (that fades quickly since that's basically all you can do).

 

[TrippyHippy]

The design of the Fighter class limits what the fighter can be. It can be DPR. It can add a few tricks, it can even actually cast spells, but those tricks are really only viable so far as they support that main function. The 5e fighter is a beatstick, a very good beatstick, and one available in several styles, but still a beatstick. Trying to shove it into any other function renders it sub-optimal or even non-viable.
Which, is not, by itself, a bad thing: It's strongly reminiscent of the 2e fighter, which was a damage king, and exactly what a lot of folks want out of the class.

With the fighter so much more limited than it was in 3.5, and there being so few non-supernatural sub-class options (only 4-5, among Fighter, Rogue, and maybe, Barbarian - out of 38 sub-classes among 13 classes in total), new 'martial' classes are a must.

The Warlord is the obvious one to start with, since it was in a prior-ed PH1, and can fill the critical 'healer' role (even though it never literally healed, just restored hps via inspiration), enabling functional parties even in low/no- magic settings.

Then there's the Scout from 3.5, a more militant/wilderness rogue.

Then there's all the interesting/fun/crazy builds you could do with a Fighter in 3.x/PF...

...and the one you couldn't: a Defender, like the 4e Fighter, or 3.5/Essentials Knight or the 3.x Devoted Defender/Dwarven Defender/etc PrCs...

..then there's Bo9S.

A Duelist/Swashbuckler/non-mystical-Martial-Arts-Master might be a good addition, too.

Once we have 4-6 mostly-martial classes in total and 20 or 30 such archetypes, we might consider further over-stuffing the game with yet more casters...

You kinda illustrate my point here: you are basically saying that the Fighter is a "beatstick' and that is all it can be. Anything else is "suboptimal" and therefor we need new Classes, not for narrative/archetypal reasons, but to fulfil a mechanical niche like 'Healer' or 'Buffer' or 'Leader' and so on.

The Fighter, per it's current blurb, is meant to be the most diverse Class. It is possible to build a character that you might write off as 'suboptimal' but is in fact quite viable. Want to play a leader type of noble birth with military strategy as it's focus: Choose a Noble background, create a Fighter that emphasises Intelligence and Charisma over physical stats, pick up the Leadership Feat initially, and the Healer Feat in due course, along with the Protection fighting style. When you hit 3rd level, choose the Battlemaster option with Commander's Strike, Rally and Maneuvering Attack.

If you argue that this all should be the remit of another new Class, then all you are doing is restricting what a Fighter can be by default. It's akin to saying I want a new Class to specialising in picking locks, and inso doing I will be taking an option away from the Rogue Class. If you want more options, then create new Subclasses, build up the current Classes with more internal options, have more Backgrounds and/or Feats to suit too. It's about building on what we've got rather than watering down.

 

[TwoSix]

It was always interesting to me how it was possible to get disintegrate at 1st level only if you weren't actually a psionicist, since it appeared on the wild talent table as a possibility but a psionicist didn't have enough PSPs to use disintegrate until 2nd level (with super-high stats in the right places) or 3rd level.

However, disintegrate at 3rd level, that's some big wow factor (that fades quickly since that's basically all you can do).

Oh yea, that's right. I remember having it at character creation, but our games tended to start between 3rd-5th level.