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

[Erechel]

D&D 5e does a good job of giving us enough class options and sub-class options to fill almost every void. But are there some ideas that are missing that you would love to bee shown?

Now, before you start philosophizing about, "Why this class, why that class, why not this class, why not that class," just sit back, relax, and have some fun with it. Choose any or all options that best suit your thoughts on the matter.

Now, does D&D 5e need more classes? Most likely not! But, it seems people prefer more character creation options no matter what they are!

A true psionic character, not the UA unwieldy killing machine. Centered in Telekinesis, for Jebus!

Enviado desde mi XT1063 mediante Tapatalk

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I believe so. Warlord came off of the Commander class, which appeared late in the 3.5 run, but was well received. The Warlord in 4e was also popular. There is a Commander class in 13 True Ways, a supplement for 13th Age. Also popular. EN' s Noble class in A Touch of Class seems to be one of the more popular choices in that book, and its very commander like. So yes, I think that there is an appetite for the class. Wouldn't call it Warlord, though. I think of a tyrant in black spikey armour wearing a huge horned helmet as a warlord.

The White Raven discipline in the 3.5 Tome of Battle (Bo9S) was also quite popular. I think a fairly significant amount of the 4e Warlord class capabilities were based off that as well.

 

[mellored]

[MENTION=6801328]Oh but how greedy! Why not release it as OGL instead?

Because I want to see what my work is worth.
But I also want people to use it.

 

[PrimevalSeeker]

I voted for Alchemist and Artificer, but i would prefer if they were included as one class which is an arcane half-caster (5 lvls + cantrips), that is Int based.
The spell list could have more utility oriented spells than damage or healing. Instead each subclass could offer options like the 'alchemical formulas' of the alchemist subclass in UA, but without sacrificing subclass feats. So each subclass could get a list of 'maneuvers' to choose from.
They could also have an invocation (innovation) type system like the warlock has instead of the whole create one magic item per X levels.

On the alchemist side, there can be archetypes like the classic alchemist which creates potions and bombs, some kind of Dr. Frankenstein 'reanimator' subclass with an undead pet and a Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde 'mutagenist' subclass.
On the artificer, a tinkerer with maybe a better fleshed-out mechanical servant option, the gunsmith was nice as well for a ranged option, but maybe include a battlesmith archetype for the melee combat atificer. An artificer that focuses on spells and arcane creations could also fit here, as well as a trapsmith/saboteur artificer as well.
Other subclasses could be inspired by genres like magitech, steampunk and maybe dieselpunk.

 

[gyor]

The only classes to hit 20% (with rounding up to the nearest whole number) appear to be Artificer, Warlord, Mystic (Psion), Shaman, and Summoner.

 

[Erechel]

I voted for Alchemist and Artificer, but i would prefer if they were included as one class which is an arcane half-caster (5 lvls + cantrips), that is Int based.
The spell list could have more utility oriented spells than damage or healing. Instead each subclass could offer options like the 'alchemical formulas' of the alchemist subclass in UA, but without sacrificing subclass feats. So each subclass could get a list of 'maneuvers' to choose from.
They could also have an invocation (innovation) type system like the warlock has instead of the whole create one magic item per X levels.

On the alchemist side, there can be archetypes like the classic alchemist which creates potions and bombs, some kind of Dr. Frankenstein 'reanimator' subclass with an undead pet and a Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde 'mutagenist' subclass.
On the artificer, a tinkerer with maybe a better fleshed-out mechanical servant option, the gunsmith was nice as well for a ranged option, but maybe include a battlesmith archetype for the melee combat atificer. An artificer that focuses on spells and arcane creations could also fit here, as well as a trapsmith/saboteur artificer as well.
Other subclasses could be inspired by genres like magitech, steampunk and maybe dieselpunk.

I liked your warlock-like artificer idea, although I don't quite like the gunsmith idea. I'm a bit surprised that it's that needed such type of character, but I feel like it is a cultural thing: mostly an USA trait. In the Hispanic community isn't near that popular. In Argentina and Spain, at least, doesn't have any popularity. I don't mean to disrespect, it's only that most of us don't see gunmen as heroic at all, we see them as bullies and cowards, without anything to do in our fantasy worlds.

Enviado desde mi XT1063 mediante Tapatalk

 

[Arilyn]

Which classes would you like to see added to 5e, if any?

I voted it’s fine like it is because pretty much every concept there could be done (and in many cases has been done) via a subclass and feat options.

In a classed system like DnD, the players are pretty much handing character creation over to the designers. The advantages are having templates made up for your career, at least a rough balance between character concepts, cool very specific goodies which only really work for a particular career. The downside, is of course, a certain loss of creative control, on the part of the player. If I want to play a warlock, for example, I have to choose between a few narrow pre-written concepts.

This is why, in my opinion, classed based games should have lots of choices. Some people want to reduce the classes down even more. Rangers, for example, are just fighters with the outlander background and the archery fighting style. The problem is that DnD is a game with over-the-top heroes with cool and wacky abilities. A ranger, therefore, will fall flat if it's not given the same treatment as a rogue. There are tons of ideas for character concepts out there. If we have to accept the designers' ideas, we should, at least, get lots of ideas to choose from. New classes are exciting to many players because it opens up choice, which is otherwise, somewhat constrained.

This does not mean that I'm down on class based systems. They make no sense, but it's fun picking stuff and getting nifty abilities I might never have even thought of. This does not mean I'm using class abilities in place of roleplaying. More options get my juices flowing. Oh, a playwright class? That'll be perfect for my n'er do well, disowned noble. Sure, bard could work, but this playwright class has exactly what I need with nifty playwright specific abilities.

 

[PrimevalSeeker]

I liked your warlock-like artificer idea, although I don't quite like the gunsmith idea. I'm a bit surprised that it's that needed such type of character, but I feel like it is a cultural thing: mostly an USA trait. In the Hispanic community isn't near that popular. In Argentina and Spain, at least, doesn't have any popularity. I don't mean to disrespect, it's only that most of us don't see gunmen as heroic at all, we see them as bullies and cowards, without anything to do in our fantasy worlds.

Enviado desde mi XT1063 mediante Tapatalk

I can see why a gunsmith would not fit in all campaign settings. I am not aware if it is "needed", but I didn't mind it, since the subclass blended guns and magic. On the other hand, a non-magic oriented gun wielding subclass would interest me a lot less. Rules for such weapons could be added for those playing in campaigns with such items.

 

[MoonSong]

I liked your warlock-like artificer idea, although I don't quite like the gunsmith idea. I'm a bit surprised that it's that needed such type of character, but I feel like it is a cultural thing: mostly an USA trait. In the Hispanic community isn't near that popular. In Argentina and Spain, at least, doesn't have any popularity. I don't mean to disrespect, it's only that most of us don't see gunmen as heroic at all, we see them as bullies and cowards, without anything to do in our fantasy worlds.

Enviado desde mi XT1063 mediante Tapatalk

Here from the birthplace of tunas, corn and chocolate and it is mostly the same. I think part of it is the long string of military dictatorships across the Hispanic world and the gun violence that makes it too close for comfort. Also that across Latin America most wars have been defensive wars against more technologically advanced countries so we tend to associate guns with the bad guys while the good guys fight with machetes, sickles, and forks.

(I'm not that displeased with a guns, but that is because, according to family legend, one of my ancestors was a good gunslinger; to date my great uncle still keeps his gun as a family treasure)

 

[Erechel]

Here from the birthplace of tunas, corn and chocolate and it is mostly the same. I think part of it is the long string of military dictatorships across the Hispanic world and the gun violence that makes it too close for comfort. Also that across Latin America most wars have been defensive wars against more technologically advanced countries so we tend to associate guns with the bad guys while the good guys fight with machetes, sickles, and forks.

(I'm not that displeased with a guns, but that is because, according to family legend, one of my ancestors was a good gunslinger; to date my great uncle still keeps his gun as a family treasure)

Asumo que sos mejicano, al menos por lo del chocolate, no sabía lo del atún . Sigo en inglés por el foro.

I think you hit the mark here, at least partially, linking recent and ancient history with likenesses. But I also believe that there is at least two more factors included:
The first one is that D&D is about heroic actions, and there is a serious lack of heroic archetypes that fight at gunpoint. Dragons were never beaten by pistols or arquebuses, and epic fights are at swordpoint. If we see also the national heroes, like San Martín and the Cid Campeador (in Spain), they all fought with swords, rather than guns. And, as you said, guns were the bad guys weapons (Spain and their muskets against the Heroes of Independence, with spear and horseback)

It also has something to do with the US fascination with guns. They gained their freedom with them, and created their own empire with them too. I still find hard to believe how easy it is for them to buy war weapons, even at the scope of mass shootings. They created also their own gun heroes, as their Western mythology needs.

With these in account, I believe that we could explain better the disparity we see: we have lack of heroic prototypes and a general distrust of firearms, and they have a very positive reaction and several mythos about them.

Enviado desde mi XT1063 mediante Tapatalk