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

[TrippyHippy]

None of the above, to be honest.

I think they are already all catered for with the current Classes, Sub-Classes and Backgrounds available.

 

[Parmandur]

Although the Witch could be covered in several different current flavours: Druid, Warlock etc., (should there be a comma after a full stop there?),?, a dedicated class might be interesting.

I know that there is a lot of support/interest for the dedicated Warlord Class and am unsure why WOTC are digging their heels in over just designing this class for the fans. It is wanted, so just bite the bullet and do it. Strange one, this.

I see no particular reason to think there is "a lot" of support: we know the cutoff for Xanathar's Guide was 70% of tested players supporting a concept. The WotC made it pretty clear they don't see a mechanical niche in 5E, and he narrative niche is well supported through backgrounds and proficiencies.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

 

[Parmandur]

And, if you are looking for more classes, EN World's Touch of Class is a very good book. Our table is having a lot of fun with it. I'm finding a lot of 3rd party stuff to be cool and useful.

As far as the Warlord goes, I too am puzzled by WOTC' s reluctance. Even if Mearls dislikes the concept, it's definitely a fan favourite, so why not?

Well, they did give us probably the final take on the concept in 5E in SCAG with the Banneret, Mastermind and Oath of the Crown subclasses. Really doubt we will see much more on the topic.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

Warlord

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Hussar]

I see no particular reason to think there is "a lot" of support: we know the cutoff for Xanathar's Guide was 70% of tested players supporting a concept. The WotC made it pretty clear they don't see a mechanical niche in 5E, and he narrative niche is well supported through backgrounds and proficiencies.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

You realize that they’ve never actually included warlords as a polling option right? The 70% cutoff doesn’t really apply when they won’t even bring it up.

Mostly imo out of fear of reopening edition war era crap. Those that constantly decried the warlord should stand proud. They made good and sure that their tastes are the only ones that count.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

 

[Guest 6801328]

And, if you are looking for more classes, EN World's Touch of Class is a very good book. Our table is having a lot of fun with it. I'm finding a lot of 3rd party stuff to be cool and useful.

As far as the Warlord goes, I too am puzzled by WOTC' s reluctance. Even if Mearls dislikes the concept, it's definitely a fan favourite, so why not?

It's a favorite of pre-existing fans from prior editions. My suspicion is that 5e has brought in so many new players who never saw the "warlord" in those prior editions, and the concept has to be explained to them.

Just think about how this sounds to a new player: "First, conjure an image of a 'warlord'. This class has nothing to do with that. Second, it's a lot like a cleric or a bard, except that it's not magical, which is really important. Third, before this makes any sense we have to explain the concept of 'roles' such as 'support' from previous editions, even though 5e doesn't really have that..."

By then the new player has already checked the "not interested" box in the poll.

 

[mach1.9pants]

It's a favorite of pre-existing fans from prior editions. My suspicion is that 5e has brought in so many new players who never saw the "warlord" in those prior editions, and the concept has to be explained to them.

Just think about how this sounds to a new player: "First, conjure an image of a 'warlord'. This class has nothing to do with that. Second, it's a lot like a cleric or a bard, except that it's not magical, which is really important. Third, before this makes any sense we have to explain the concept of 'roles' such as 'support' from previous editions, even though 5e doesn't really have that..."

By then the new player has already checked the "not interested" box in the poll.

Or a class that leads, supports, enables and heals other pc's without using magic. Not hard to explain.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Or a class that leads, supports, enables and heals other pc's without using magic. Not hard to explain.

Sounds like a high ranking field medic —> Fighter sub-class.

 

[mach1.9pants]

5E already has a Warlord - light subclass in the Battle Master, but a sub class doesn't have enough 'power space' to cover all the bits a Warlord should be able to do. Personally I don't care too much if there is a Warlord or not, but there is def design space, narrative space and public desire for one. It's just odd that WotC haven't bitten the bullet and put one in.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Or a class that leads, supports, enables and heals other pc's without using magic. Not hard to explain.

You really don't think that 'without magic' is going to resonate with most people who aren't veterans of the edition war? (If so I think you're kidding yourself.)

And if you're skeptical about the 'without magic' part you're left with:
- "Supports, enables, and heals" which we have already
- "Leads" which I think is going to raise alarms. "Wait...what...there's a class that's supposed to be the leader?" Then you have to start explaining, "No, 'leader' was a role in previous editions....blah blah blah."

The class everybody calls 'warlord' may add an interesting dimension to the game, but it's a contrived idea that lacks the immediate, clear connotation of identifiable archetypes like 'ninja' or 'pirate' or 'necromancer' or whatever. As evidenced by the fact that there isn't a good name for it.