D&D 5E Classes you're hoping WotC will create

[Tony Vargas]

The way it's been said to me is "I want to hide in a fight, and NOT feel like I'm cheating the other players. If I do it with a 3d6+1d4+3 attack sitting in my wheel well, then I am cheating them, and they are right to yell, just group with the fighter and stab the thing."

The trick here might be to make the class more of a helper in combat. So he hides and does something to distract an enemy or warn an ally. In 5e, you can generally use an action to somehow set up advantage or disadvantage, so the class might do that a lot - via an actual class feature, rather than improvisation as it's usually done. Imagine a Druid with Faerie Fire as his only combat spell, for instance (you don't have to imagine it, you could just prep your spells that way).

The character isn't 'useless' in combat, he just contributes in ways that aren't direct. Another, even more extreme, example might be the 'victim' character who's personally helpless in combat, but gives his allies bonuses and extra actions to come to his rescue. (Ironically, something you could do in 4e with, of all things, a Warlord build.)

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The trick here might be to make the class more of a helper in combat. So he hides and does something to distract an enemy or warn an ally. In 5e, you can generally use an action to somehow set up advantage or disadvantage, so the class might do that a lot - via an actual class feature, rather than improvisation as it's usually done. Imagine a Druid with Faerie Fire as his only combat spell, for instance (you don't have to imagine it, you could just prep your spells that way).

The character isn't 'useless' in combat, he just contributes in ways that aren't direct. Another, even more extreme, example might be the 'victim' character who's personally helpless in combat, but gives his allies bonuses and extra actions to come to his rescue. (Ironically, something you could do in 4e with, of all things, a Warlord build.)

I'm not 100% sure if those would be what they are looking for, but to be honest any alt sub class that stops the sneak attack die increasing could be used to model what they want...

 

[Tony Vargas]

So, really, is the pitch not so much 'don't want to be a badass in combat,' as 'want to unreasonably dominate in exploration/interaction in return for sitting out combats, entirely?'


(That's one reason I find balancing across pillars instead of within each to be problematic - because it leads to idiot-specialists who dominate in one pillar in exchange for being non-participants in another. Or, even worse, are adequate in one pillar in exchange for sucking at the other two...)

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

1) Psionics. No, a wizard/sorc subclass won't cut it. I would like to move away from the spell model, and back to more like the the 2E model. Ideally you'd just have 1-2 disciplines, but be able to do a lot within those. A psion should essentially be like a superhero, with at wills pumped up by resource based power stunts. So the body morphing psychometabolic psion should always be able to grow claws, stretch his arms, etc, but if he pushes himself, hulk out, flatten himself, fully shapechange etc.

2) Warlord - Sorry, the "battlemaster" doesn't cut it. Putting it on a chassis similar to the warlock would be ideal, where you pick some tactics (similar to invocations) that modify your attacks. Let you take the help action as a bonus action, use a react to a allow someone to disengage, etc. Have higher power abilities called stratagems that are flashy, and work off a short encounter recharge resource (similar to the warlock's spells).

3) I hadn't considered it, but Incarnum would be an interesting magical option to move away from quasi vancian spells and spell slots.

 

[bogmad]

I'm hoping WotC will create a middle class for those of us who <INSERT POLITICAL OPINION HERE>
; psionics isn't a class, it's an alternate magic system!; etc.), or are just a spell or two away (seriously, an EK is a swordmage, and if what you're missing is the mechanics of greenflame blade and swordburst, those are just spells). Classes aren't the appropriate container for a lot of these things in 5e, even if they were classes in the past.

If WotC is going to create any class, I hope they do not create a class based on weapon/armor/skill proficiencies, alternate spell lists, or narrow mechanical tricks, and stick to making classes with unique stories and character arcs.

The thing is, even if psionics are simply an alternate magic system, the way 5e is designed right now each alt magic system is separated into different classes. The Druid and Cleric, and some 1/2 casters may share a casting method, but no class so far has access to more than one magic system outside DM tinkering/houseruling. And the only way alternate spell lists are differentiated outside of classes so far are by adding one or two extra domain or patron spells. So it seems to me that if you have an archetype that 1.) needs a whole reworking of the spell mechanic and 2.) also a spell list that requires limiting spells from a current class list as well as adding extras, then the best way to do that is by creating a new class for that archetype.

I'm with you regarding EK, and weapon/armor/skill proficiencies though.

For psionics I'd say you create one full caster type class, and any psionic warriors or whatever would certainly be restricted to subclasses. That seems to fit with the 5e design framework best of all if you're making an official class for release and not adding it as "something you can build yourself with guidelines from the DMG".

 

[bogmad]

So it seems to me that if you have an archetype that 1.) needs a whole reworking of the spell mechanic and 2.) also a spell list that requires limiting spells from a current class list as well as adding extras, then the best way to do that is by creating a new class for that archetype.

Of course if you are working under the assumption that psionics is not an alternate magic system, then the place to start would be to create it as a sorcerer subclass (a move which would not placate those who disagree about what psionics are).

Of course then to do psionics "right" you'd need to expand the spell list and also limit it.

Of course you could just give it 2 to 4 subclass specific spells and then leave the limiting burden on the pc with his selection of spells to those with psionic flavor; that way you "leave it the most flexible to players to create the kind of character they want to create"
You do that though then you're going to have threads of people gnashing their teeth about how the psion gets walked all over since you can basically create a psion by spell selection alone without choosing the subclass that gives you one or two things extra.

And honestly, all the hystrionics about psions being weak in this edition would probably be a minority and overall they'd maybe even get good enough response on surveys to count psionics a success.

But it seems to me that they could make more people happy by creating a new mechanic that leaves the "is psionics magic" debate open to opinion entirely. Then with that new mechanic you create one new class with a mechanic and spell list that makes the psion advocates happy, and also makes people not even into psionics happy with one very carefully considered and implemented mechanic and class to tinker with. I think the minority of people who'd be upset the psion isn't a subclass is smaller than the majority of people who would prefer psionics as however they want to describe them plus the new mechanic/class to have fun with. Given WotC's stated intention to "do psionics right" I think that outweighs the fear of bloat they're being wise to pay attention to with 5e.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

So, really, is the pitch not so much 'don't want to be a badass in combat,' as 'want to unreasonably dominate in exploration/interaction in return for sitting out combats, entirely?'


(That's one reason I find balancing across pillars instead of within each to be problematic - because it leads to idiot-specialists who dominate in one pillar in exchange for being non-participants in another. Or, even worse, are adequate in one pillar in exchange for sucking at the other two...)

My problem is the same. I don't know even if it can be done... but I know that there is a demand. I also know (in my most recent run in with this) the concept was that the player was a lesser noble, he knew everyone and had made friends and done favors for the whole court, and is even very friendly with the princess (who when they were growing up everyone thought they would date). He is low enough on the noble line that he can also make friends out and about, and as a gambler he has contacts in the underworld as well, and with his money has bailed a few less then savery characters out of jams... his gambler skills make him a quick and dast bluffer, and someone who can read people, and in his passing with lesser ruffions has learned to pick both pockets and locks, but does so mostly to amuse himself. He took basic self defense with a duilist, but he was never good with the sword. what he did pick up on where a few little parlor tricks from the court sage/magican.

he mafe the character a 5th level human noble rogue (arcane trickster) and bought leather armor and a rapier and short bow... he put his high stat in cha, his second in dex, his third in int, and 4th in wisdom, he has an 11 con and an 8 str... but he still has +to hit equal to or better then most other players... and he throw 3d6 extra damage against anyone he has advantage on, or who has another pc in melee... that is crazy, he can't for the life of him come up with a reason for his dandy with a heart of gold who knows how to play the system to know 'where to hit' better then the fighter or bard or swordlock...

 

[I'm A Banana]

The thing is, even if psionics are simply an alternate magic system, the way 5e is designed right now each alt magic system is separated into different classes.

Spell Points don't need a different class, and all the classes with spellcasting largely share their mechanics.

The Druid and Cleric, and some 1/2 casters may share a casting method, but no class so far has access to more than one magic system outside DM tinkering/houseruling.

Psionics should probably be a module, too.

And the only way alternate spell lists are differentiated outside of classes so far are by adding one or two extra domain or patron spells.

The EK and the AT are a pretty good showcase for alt spell lists. It'd be pretty trivial to add tightly relevant spells to domains, schools, patrons, or other subclass mechanics.

So it seems to me that if you have an archetype that 1.) needs a whole reworking of the spell mechanic and 2.) also a spell list that requires limiting spells from a current class list as well as adding extras, then the best way to do that is by creating a new class for that archetype.

I don't really agree -- a "whole reworking of the spell mechanic" can sit at the same design level as Spell Points (which is that), and limiting spells from a current class while adding extras is within the realm of a subclass (instead of "add these spells to your spell list," we get "replace your spell list with this.")

For psionics I'd say you create one full caster type class, and any psionic warriors or whatever would certainly be restricted to subclasses. That seems to fit with the 5e design framework best of all if you're making an official class for release and not adding it as "something you can build yourself with guidelines from the DMG".

Depends on your goal. I don't think you need to create a new full caster class - you can turn wizards and clerics and sorcerers (and warlocks!) into psions by spell selection and using Spell Points pretty well as it is, if your goal is to mirror much of what previous-e psionics could do (point based effects + duplicate many spell effects).

 

[GMforPowergamers]

1) Psionics. No, a wizard/sorc subclass won't cut it. I would like to move away from the spell model, and back to more like the the 2E model. Ideally you'd just have 1-2 disciplines, but be able to do a lot within those. A psion should essentially be like a superhero, with at wills pumped up by resource based power stunts. So the body morphing psychometabolic psion should always be able to grow claws, stretch his arms, etc, but if he pushes himself, hulk out, flatten himself, fully shapechange etc.

3) I hadn't considered it, but Incarnum would be an interesting magical option to move away from quasi vancian spells and spell slots.

I think psiconics with 2e style powers would be great, but we need to rain them in a bit. level requirements on some a must (Disintagrate at 3rd level should be a no) but I also wish some or most had at will no cost. I think a bunch of at will powers that had augments that cost power points, and a few powers that just cost pts, but have both level and power prereqs...

for incarnum I would love to see a spell point system where you could cast some spells (like there own list, but spell levels like the arcane trickster and eldritch knight) but also can instead of spending can invest in melds...

 

[TwoSix]

1) An Int-based melee character, that roughly parallels a Swordmage with the Intelligent Blademaster feat. I agree this could be done as a variation on the EK chassis, but would need various class-specific cantrips that mimic some of the aegis powers, as well as iconic powers like swordburst, greenflame blade, and lightning lure.

2) A Wis-based melee character, like the Avenger. Thematically similar to the Vengenance Paladin, but with a greater focus on stealth, lighter armor, and a toolbag of tricks. I'm not sure if this is contra [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION], but I tend to believe thematically similar but mechanically different representations are an appropriate use for subclasses. Possibly a rogue subclass, as I believe it could be done without spell slots.

3) Some kind of "lazylord" like wizard subclass (since warlord/wizard hybrid was the most common chassis for Str dropping lazylords), swapping out a school for the ability to grant attacks and other buffs to the party.