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

[Cap'n Kobold]

I can understand the desire for that. Just like I can understand the desire for a Warlord-type character.

I just don't think Dungeons and Dragons is the right game to support that.

In a truly non-magical world, a guy with armor and a sword is going to kill the martial artist, assuming both of them have the same level of talent & training. (And I *think* we can all agree that two characters of level X, with similar ability scores, have the same talent and training. Right?)

So to make martial artists viable we have to give them 'supernatural' abilities. I.e., the Monk.

Why do you assume that a martial artist can't also use armour and a sword?
Are we sticking to 'unarmed and unarmoured martial arts' only? Is that the defining concept of a Monk once you remove the magic/Ki?

 

[Satyrn]

I just don't think Dungeons and Dragons is the right game to support that.

Nonsense. D&D is a big game, capable of supporting far more than you think.

 

[Guest 6801328]

And there it is. This answer. Because the abilities are not magical spells.

I think it's not that an entire class is built around these concepts. As you yourself say on the first thread, there is room for a flexible martial support class, and there are different ways to translate that 5e that does justice to the 4E Warlord, the 3E Marshall, and other similar classes.

Yes. I do think there's room for a non-spellcaster who has interesting moves that interact with other characters. But somehow we always end up with this list of non-negotiable abilities by Warlord proponents. Pretty much everything that gets proposed is countered with, "Sorry, not good enough. At will Action granting and martial healing equal to cleric, with no magic at all, or we're not satisfied."

That's a terrible analogy.

Um, not it's not. Care to elaborate?

I suppose you are allowed to think however you want, if that makes you feel better about belittling the opposition position.

More irony. I've never said you are wrong to like Warlords, only that your aesthetic preference conflicts with mine. I get belittled for that. (Admittedly sometimes I retaliate when snark is directed my way.)

Why do you assume that a martial artist can't also use armour and a sword?
Are we sticking to 'unarmed and unarmoured martial arts' only? Is that the defining concept of a Monk once you remove the magic/Ki?

Oh, well in that case a fighter is a martial artist, right? So we have that covered.

Or what do you mean by 'martial artist'? Certainly 9/10...or 99/100...people that you ask would probably describe somebody who fights without weapons, so if you have a more expansive definition I'd love to hear it. Would be better than the high-and-mighty "Why do you assume..." approach.

Nonsense. D&D is a big game, capable of supporting far more than you think.

No, it's capable of supporting less than you think, because I can read your mind! Mwuhahahahaha.

How about we both offer our opinions without conjecturing what other people think? The amount that D&D is 'capable of supporting' is entirely subjective, depending on what an individual thinks makes it 'D&D', as opposed to a game that only has that name attached to it.

 

[tuxedoraptor]

As other have said before, a shifter class would be fantastic. Radiance RPG pulled it off really really well. If only there was a way to port it over and tweak it.

For those of you unfamiliar with it, the shifters shapeshift doesn't turn them into a werecreature, it just turns them into a monsterous form. You start with claws, fangs, a bonus to AC and a +1 to attack rolls, as you level up you customize the beast you turn into; gaining porcupine quills, acid spit, horns, a tail. Somehow bringing that class to 5e in an offical or unoffical product would be amazing. As a gamemaster, it gives a lot to work with and leads to a lot of unique interactions and discussion.

 

[Jester David]

But the narrative you offer is still...distasteful...to me. To me it makes it sound like the Warlord is better at spellcasting than Wizards, even if he can't cast himself. He's like a coach who maybe can't keep up on the court/field, but he still knows more about the game than the youngun's out there. Sorry but I don't want my player to have a 'coach' who knows more about his role than he himself does.

It's not that they're better than the wizard at casting spells or using magic, it's just that they're better at spotting the opening or timing an attack. They know what their allies can do and can give them suggestions. The wizard is worrying about other things: other enemies, dodging blows, their friends, etc. But the warlord yells "Left flank. The one in red. Aim low!" And the wizard and spin and drop that firebolt.
Like Captain America. He's not able to throw lightning or bullseye and arrow but he can call the play. He knows, given the situation, the best use of his ally's abilities.
It wouldn't likely be mandated. A good design would read "As an action you call out a weakness in an enemy that you can see. An ally of your choosing within 60 feet who can hear you and see the enemy, can choose to strike as a reaction, making a weapon attack or casting a cantrip."
Choice should also always been on the table. Which it is in my above example. So the wizard can look back and say "eff that, Imma save my reaction for shield."

Which is the only conclusion you can draw if most characters can never do two actions in a round, even when using the Help action, and then suddenly this new guy Tigger ("Casting spells is what Tiggers do best!") starts yelling "now!" and suddenly everybody is getting extra actions.

They could always get two actions: an action and reaction. This should be just giving people extra triggers for reactions being "when an enemy moves out of your reach".
By design, it's no stranger than the battlemaster fighter suddenly getting extra actions when they learn the Parry maneuver.

And there it is. This answer. Because the abilities are not magical spells.

Yes. Because the description says magic. But… if you just cross that out it becomes mundane.

Let's look at bless:

You bless up to three creatures of your choice within range. Whenever a target makes an attack roll or a saving throw before the spell ends, the target can roll a d4 and add the number rolled to the attack roll or saving throw.​

But tweak a few words and it becomes

You shout a rallying cry heard by up to three creatures of your choice within range who can hear you. Whenever a target makes an attack roll or a saving throw before the effect ends, the target can roll a d4 and add the number rolled to the attack roll or saving throw.
​

BAM! Non-magical. That's totally a power than a warlord type character would have.
The rules and flavour are not shackles. You can do whatever the heck you want with the game. If your DM is on board, you can pick and choose a few key spells and turn a valour bard or cleric of war into a warlord with almost zero effort.
But, you say, what about anti-magic fields and other stuff?
Again, the rules aren't shackles. In this case the DM just says waves their hand and says "bibbidi bobbidi fiat" and the "warlord's" powers are not spells and non-magical. But they have the extra requirement of requiring hearing, a shared language, and can't be done subtly.
As far as house rules go, I've made waaaaay bigger changes to my game in the past. Changes that affect every character and not just one PC. Like dumping hit points in favour of Wound Points and Vitality.
Heck, in my game right now, I have a sorcerer that casts uses Intelligence because the player hates being a Charismatic character and the party "face". It keeps him happy and doesn't unbalance things.

I think it's not that an entire class is built around these concepts. As you yourself say on the first thread, there is room for a flexible martial support class, and there are different ways to translate that 5e that does justice to the 4E Warlord, the 3E Marshall, and other similar classes.

I do agree.
But to do the concept well, a lot of 4e-isms will probably need to go away. Just like the 3e marshall needs a lot of its stuff updated and jetissened. And there's lots of stuff that could be added as well that just wasn't a think in 4e and 3e.
But all this is moot as I don't think the class is a priority. They've done two attempts and neither made people happy. A third attempt won't likely make people happy either. So it's easier to focus on content that will make the most people happy. It's just setting themselves to fail with a class that won't succeed on their satisfaction surveys.
The hard truth is that 4e wasn't popular. A third of the audience didn't convert and a third switched to Pathfinder. And of the people who DID switch to 4e, not every one of them would be a warlord fan. So even limiting the audience who played the game a decade ago, a minority is pro-warlord. While many fans have come back to D&D, just as many new players have joined with 5e. There's potentially more new blood playing than old fans. And none of those new fans give a crap about the warlord. The support isn't there.
If you could somehow poll all the D&D fans in the world and ask them what class they want added to an official book, the #1 answer would probably be psychics—like Eleven in Stranger Things—followed by Witchers and then either the artificer or blood hunter owing to their presence in Critical Role. Potentially followed by the death knight or demon hunter because of Warcraft. (Really, combining the witcher, demon hunter, and blood hunter would probably be the most popular unfilled class niche.)

 

[Satyrn]

As other have said before, a shifter class would be fantastic. Radiance RPG pulled it off really really well. If only there was a way to port it over and tweak it.

For those of you unfamiliar with it, the shifters shapeshift doesn't turn them into a werecreature, it just turns them into a monsterous form. You start with claws, fangs, a bonus to AC and a +1 to attack rolls, as you level up you customize the beast you turn into; gaining porcupine quills, acid spit, horns, a tail. Somehow bringing that class to 5e in an offical or unoffical product would be amazing. As a gamemaster, it gives a lot to work with and leads to a lot of unique interactions and discussion.

Could be a neat class. 3e experimented with that in Unearthed Arcana with a druid wildshape variant . . .

And I could see actually doing it in 5e by creating custom ranger spells to trigger the shifting. Now that's not a new class, so my helpful suggestion would be to use that as a baseline idea for developing the class.

 

[Satyrn]

And now I want a shifter added to the game.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Oh, well in that case a fighter is a martial artist, right? So we have that covered.

Well maybe. Its what I thought, but its not the same for everyone. So I'm asking for yours, and Satyrn's, and anyone else who wants to contribute's input. Its come up in other threads recently as well, so I was curious.

Or what do you mean by 'martial artist'? Certainly 9/10...or 99/100...people that you ask would probably describe somebody who fights without weapons, so if you have a more expansive definition I'd love to hear it.

I'd probably go with something like wikipedia: someone who follows a codified system and tradition of combat practice. Kenjutsu, jujutsu or KDF for example, I'd regard as martial arts just as much as those designed for unarmed/unarmoured civilians like karate.

In the modern day, where weapons and armour aren't carried, unarmed martial arts are generally more popular. In D&D, where the setting generally allows the panalopies of war, then the arts of war would be more common I think. As you say, a trained combatant in armour and with a sword is going to win fights more than someone unarmed and unarmoured (excepting magic). Hence why I regarded fighters as the archetypal martial artists: trained in one or more systems and traditions of combat techniques.

Would be better than the high-and-mighty "Why do you assume..." approach.

Sorry if I gave offence. But I was honestly curious as to why you (and possibly Satyrn) made that assumption.

Is the unarmed/unarmoured fighting the defining feature of the monk? or is it their role and capabilities as a highly mobile and resilient melee combatant with good control abilities? To me, Satyrn's name of 'Martial Artist' wasn't helpful in defining what they were after.

So I asked.

 

[Mecheon]

I just don't think Dungeons and Dragons is the right game to support that.

D&D's done it before, it can do it again

 

[Guest 6801328]

So I asked.

Fair enough. I read it (maybe given the tone of this thread) in a less generous way. Sorry.

I'll have to think more about my answer before responding, though. I started typing but it's actually kind of a slippery question, isn't it?