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

[Mouseferatu]

Well, that's directly counter to my own experiences, but whatever provides buoyancy to your hulled waterborne conveyance.

This. There's no such thing as an RPG in which you "can't" reflavor mechanics. Some may make it easier than others, but absolutely zero of them make it impossible.

Example character. Flavor: A monk, not in D&D or Wuxia terms, but by the Western European definition. Guy who lives an ascetic life in a monastery. He doesn't wear armor. He fights with a quarterstaff. When things get tough, through faith and prayer, he gains a certain degree of "divine" protection and skill--deals better damage, resists injuries, etc.

Mechanics: Barbarian class. The character has absolutely nothing in common, in terms of theme, feel, or flavor, with the barbarian. But mechanically? Perfect fit.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm probably conservative in 5e when it comes to classes (especially as compares with 3e and 4e). Part of the reason for this is that more classes means steeper barriers to entry for the game.

That's a valid reason, but, for 5e, I think it's already too late for that.

Adding a class that's very similar to other existing classes doesn't raise the barrier to entry or learning curve as much, though. For instance, the Wizard and Cleric are very similar, in that they're both neo-Vancian casters with similar sorts of spell progression, and both make a defining choice right at first level (Domain and School, respectively). While adding the Sorcerer, Warlock and Monk had more of an impact.

5e has decided to make classes distinct by giving them each more or less unique progressions and some unique mechanics, and that does mean a higher barrier to entry and steeper learning curve. But it also means that the relative impact of adding yet another new class is relatively small, especially if the class languishes in some obscure option ghetto rather than being 'core.'

Something like psionics, or an artificer, may or may not pass that important threshold, depending on your perspective, but a lot of proposed classes can't achieve that initial escape velocity.

Artificer could very well work as a 9th wizard sub-class (or a sub-class of one of the other 3 primary arcane casters already in 5e), and, it was never in a PH1, so it's always been a late add-on class - low priority. Also, it's at odds with 5e's low-magic-item default approach, so might be best reserved for inclusion in a 'high magic' setting.

Psionics, OTOH, are a very different form of magic, with a very different story even from the Sorcerer (who has innate magic, but /casts spells/ with traditional VSM components or implements & whatnot). Psionics aren't fireball & lightningbolt spells cast by old men with staffs mumbling arcane phrases. They're mental disciplines and sciences that require intense, quiet concentration, and draw upon limited reserves of mental power. Whether they're in-born like the Sorcerer or learned like the Wizard or both doesn't make them into arcane spells.

Similarly, the Warlord, the only PH1 class to be cut from 5e, has both a different set of abilities and different story from the regular fighter. Where the fighter uses main strength or speed and skill to launch large numbers of attacks, and maybe tack a little trick onto one or two of those attacks now and then - or, for some reason, casts spells - the Warlord is an interaction-based character who also fights, himself, but mostly coordinates the efforts of others. There's far too much to the class to relegate it to a background or sub-class - indeed, it should have several archetypes of its own.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

This. There's no such thing as an RPG in which you "can't" reflavor mechanics. Some may make it easier than others, but absolutely zero of them make it impossible.

Of course, the DM is always free to change anything, and a player can always suggest something new that the DM might want to include in the world. Many DMs are okay with this sort of thing, as long as you ask, since their main fear of homebrew anything is that it will be unbalanced.

What 5E distinctly lacks is the particular idea which 4E made clear, about how it's okay to change the description of anything as long as you keep all of the numbers the same. In 5E, flavor is baked in, and if that doesn't fit your concept, then too bad. Maybe talk to your DM, and see if you can house rule something that you like. By default, you get what you get and just deal with it.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I have no idea where you're getting that impression, since 5E emphasizes, time and again, that the rules are guidelines, that the DM and the individual campaign trump anything written in the books. They may not have specified, in so many words, that you can change flavor but keep the mechanics--but they don't need to, since they've already said you can change anything.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

They may not have specified, in so many words, that you can change flavor but keep the mechanics--but they don't need to, since they've already said you can change anything.

Exactly!

There's nothing sacred about the fluff or the mechanics. You can change the fluff. You can change the mechanics. Do whatever you want - it's your game! House rules are a good thing!

What I hate is the idea that mechanics must be rigidly followed, while fluff can be changed on a whim. There's nothing to support that position. Both mechanics and fluff have equal rigidity (which is to say, practically none).

 

[I'm A Banana]

Adding a class that's very similar to other existing classes doesn't raise the barrier to entry or learning curve as much, though. For instance, the Wizard and Cleric are very similar, in that they're both neo-Vancian casters with similar sorts of spell progression, and both make a defining choice right at first level (Domain and School, respectively). While adding the Sorcerer, Warlock and Monk had more of an impact.

I don't think the Wizard and the Cleric are any more similar than the Wizard and the Sorcerer or the Bard and the Sorcerer (or the Cleric and the Bard for that matter). That's probably a bit of a judgement call, though.

5e has decided to make classes distinct by giving them each more or less unique progressions and some unique mechanics, and that does mean a higher barrier to entry and steeper learning curve. But it also means that the relative impact of adding yet another new class is relatively small, especially if the class languishes in some obscure option ghetto rather than being 'core.'

I think the "story" distinction is a significant one that adds a lot of overhead. I also think that any class that gets added after the PHB is inherently a little marginalized, even if it meets all its design goals remarkably, but a large quantity of under-used classes just gives the impression of unused cruft and wasted design effort.

Psionics, OTOH, are a very different form of magic, with a very different story even from the Sorcerer (who has innate magic, but /casts spells/ with traditional VSM components or implements & whatnot). Psionics aren't fireball & lightningbolt spells cast by old men with staffs mumbling arcane phrases. They're mental disciplines and sciences that require intense, quiet concentration, and draw upon limited reserves of mental power. Whether they're in-born like the Sorcerer or learned like the Wizard or both doesn't make them into arcane spells.

This doesn't sound unlike the sorcerer except for terminology that is distinct without a difference. Cast a spell, manifest a power, there's not much distinction between the two in how that works in play.

Similarly, the Warlord, the only PH1 class to be cut from 5e, has both a different set of abilities and different story from the regular fighter. Where the fighter uses main strength or speed and skill to launch large numbers of attacks, and maybe tack a little trick onto one or two of those attacks now and then - or, for some reason, casts spells - the Warlord is an interaction-based character who also fights, himself, but mostly coordinates the efforts of others. There's far too much to the class to relegate it to a background or sub-class - indeed, it should have several archetypes of its own.

What got cut from 5e wasn't the concept of a warrior-leader, or the story that brings, but rather the specific mechanics of morale-based healing and fiddly movement and buffs. It's entirely possible to play an interaction-based character who fights and coordinates the efforts of others in 5e.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't think the Wizard and the Cleric are any more similar than the Wizard and the Sorcerer or the Bard and the Sorcerer (or the Cleric and the Bard for that matter).

The Cleric, Wizard, Druid and Bard (and the Ranger, Paladin, EK, and Arcane Trickster) are all neo-Vancian casters that use the same prepare from spells known/cast using slots system. The Sorcerer and Warlock deviate from those systems.

I think the "story" distinction is a significant one that adds a lot of overhead. I also think that any class that gets added after the PHB is inherently a little marginalized, even if it meets all its design goals remarkably, but a large quantity of under-used classes just gives the impression of unused cruft and wasted design effort.

Sure. Being left out of the PH is a major issues, in itself.

This doesn't sound unlike the sorcerer except for terminology that is distinct without a difference. Cast a spell, manifest a power, there's not much distinction between the two in how that works in play.

Fans of psionics wouldn't feel that way.

What got cut from 5e wasn't the concept of a warrior-leader, or the story that brings, but rather the specific mechanics of morale-based healing and fiddly movement and buffs. It's entirely possible to play an interaction-based character who fights and coordinates the efforts of others in 5e.

I have to disagree, you can't come close to the Warlord in 5e. You can have an interaction-based character who fights, heals and buffs his team - but doesn't really coordinate them or model tactics or much else the Warlord did beyond the most basic leader functions - but it will be a caster (a Cleric, or multiclass, or Valor Bard or whatever). The Fighter is just too locked into being a high-damage mutli-attacker to leave customization space enough to make it into even a bowdlerized imitation of the Warlord, Battlemaster 'maneuvers' notwithstanding.

What I hate is the idea that mechanics must be rigidly followed, while fluff can be changed on a whim. There's nothing to support that position. Both mechanics and fluff have equal rigidity (which is to say, practically none).

The stakes are just different. Worst-case, messing with fluff will make your campaign come off as a little silly or internally inconsistent. Screwing up mechanics can render the game unplayable.

 

[Mouseferatu]

The stakes are just different. Worst-case, messing with fluff will make your campaign come off as a little silly or internally inconsistent. Screwing up mechanics can render the game unplayable.

Again, this.

Of course you can change mechanics, too. But changing mechanics can have serious unseen repercussions. Changing flavor tends not to. You can change both, but one's a lot easier to change--well, no, a lot easier to change well--than the other.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The Cleric, Wizard, Druid and Bard (and the Ranger, Paladin, EK, and Arcane Trickster) are all neo-Vancian casters that use the same prepare from spells known/cast using slots system. The Sorcerer and Warlock deviate from those systems.

Right, but all are quite distinct in play experience, in narrative, in ways that a lot of suggested new classes struggle with.

Fans of psionics wouldn't feel that way.

And I'd challenge those fans to point out the mechanical distinction and -- the kicker for mechanically indistinct classes -- see if that distinction is enough to build a defining mechanic around. Presume the psion is essentially a full-caster a la wizards and sorcerers and bards and clerics, and give me what would define it as much as a spell book or sorcery points or bardic inspiration or domains define those other classes. Definitely not impossible, but if you can't do that, then, IMO, you're not earning your place in among the other classes. (Artificer, for what it's worth, suffers a similar problem with "using a magic item" and "casting a spell")

I have to disagree, you can't come close to the Warlord in 5e. You can have an interaction-based character who fights, heals and buffs his team - but doesn't really coordinate them or model tactics or much else the Warlord did beyond the most basic leader functions - but it will be a caster (a Cleric, or multiclass, or Valor Bard or whatever).

"Coordinate Them" = every time you spend a superiority die as a battle master, you are coordinating your party's movement (especially as higher-level battle masters hit more often on a turn and spend superioirty dice on more party members at once, getting more than just one other party member on board).

"Model Tactics" = I don't know what this means mechanically if it doesn't mean "move allies around the battlefield," which the Battle Master does.

That's the challenge, of course - we need to get very specific about why "I grant an ally the ability to move" is not "modeling tactics" or "coordination", or why "I cast charm person" is not "I am a telepath who manipulates them into liking me with my brain." That's a challenge that most discussions I've had sort of peter out on. It's easy to say "using a magic item is not the same as casting a spell!" but it's harder to articulate really how or why, or when it's possible, it so far has wound up being something too small and fiddly to really build a whole class around like "well, the rest of my party members could use it, too."

I find a lot of the time it rests on particular prejudices -- so far, about what something like a wizard or a sorcerer or a fighter "can be." The idea that a Wizard MUST BE a shy, retreating, bookish academic who faints at the sight of blood (and so cannot wear medium armor or carry a hammer or learn how to do manual labor like an artificer!) or that a Fighter CAN'T BE a charismatic, persuasive leader of troops, or that a Monk is NEVER a contemplative, introspective, transcendent magus. I'd challenge those prejudices before I rolled out a brand new class.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Right, but all are quite distinct in play experience, in narrative, in ways that a lot of suggested new classes struggle with.

The Sorcerer & Warlock? Not by half. They're arbitrarily-different mechanics for the same basic arcane-caster concept. Archetypes could have as easily separated the Wizard into book-learner arcanist, innate sorcerer, and pact-learned warlock.

Psionics, in stark contrast, have an entirely different source to justify different mechanics, and a list of wild talents, disciplines and sciences instead of re-cycling the same spells.

That's the challenge, of course - we need to get very specific about why "I grant an ally the ability to move" is not "modeling tactics" or "coordination",
why "I cast charm person" is not "I am a telepath who manipulates them into liking me with my brain." That's a challenge that most discussions I've had sort of peter out on. It's easy to say "using a magic item is not the same as casting a spell!" but it's harder to articulate really how or why, or when it's possible, it so far has wound up being something too small and fiddly to really build a whole class around like "well, the rest of my party members could use it, too."

The main reason is that the game has already gone there. It's already used arbitrary mechanical distinctions to differentiate existing classes. It's not an effects-based system where what you accomplish determines the mechanics, and how you do it is just fluff.

Another reason is that they're often far too little. There are mind-affecting spells, for instance, but there's nothing like 1e/2e psionic combat, which goes far beyond trading Charm or Dominate person spells, in both scope and detail. The things the battlemaster does with it's maneuvers /are/ like a few of the things the Warlord does - maybe 3 out of the hundreds of things the Warlord did in 4e. Say that means you don't need a Walord is like trying to say that having a Rogue with Expertise in Arcana and a Feat that gives him some cantrips means you don't really need the Wizard, Warlock, or Sorcerer (and, really, if you have one of the three, you don't /need/ the other two, but we've got 'em anyway).

And I'd challenge those fans to point out the mechanical distinction and -- the kicker for mechanically indistinct classes -- see if that distinction is enough to build a defining mechanic around.

Obviously, a system of attack & defense modes, disciplines and sciences all powered from a pool of psionic strength points would more than adequately meet that challenge. And has been doing so since 1978. Psionics has been different enough to rate mechanical distinctions in every other edition, as well - even 4e, which, until psionics came out, kept everyone on AEDU.

The idea that a Wizard MUST BE a shy, retreating, bookish academic who faints at the sight of blood (and so cannot wear medium armor or carry a hammer or learn how to do manual labor like an artificer!) or that a Fighter CAN'T BE a charismatic, persuasive leader of troops, or that a Monk is NEVER a contemplative, introspective, transcendent magus. I'd challenge those prejudices before I rolled out a brand new class.

The Sorcerer and Warlock would fail that challenge hands-down. Get over the idea the Wizard must be bookish, and a 'wizard' with inborn power or a pact is no problem.

The Monk would seem to have already met that challenge, since we have elemental and shadow monks tossing spells, or at least spell-equivalents around.

But, no matter how thoroughly you try to open up the /concept/ of the fighter, the design is too inflexible for it to be anything but a high-damage multi-attacker. That vision of 'best at fighting,' just leaves too little juice left over to do anything else well. Either that or you'd have to re-examine the whole paradigm of what the combat pillar is worth, and admit the fighter is egregiously under-powered (under-versatile or under-competent, perhaps) in the grander scheme of things, no matter how much DPR he theoretically has over the course of a day.

I find a lot of the time it rests on particular prejudices

Sorry for taking you out of context, here, but the exclusion of the Warlord could certainly be attributable to anti-4e and anti-martial prejudices, yes.