D&D 5E What classes do you want added to 5e?

[Bluenose]

Like what? The Elf as a class or something else from BECMI?
Every class and sub-class from 0D&D and/or the 1e PH is in 5e, most of the sub-classes as full classes. Every race is in. Are there some spells or magic items or monsters you're missing?

I miss weapon mastery from BECMI, and the domain game in a different way, and the limited spell lists, and although it's not specifically BECM I miss Mystara too.

Seriously? You can't find these blatantly obvious archetypes outside of D&D?! You need to read more...but not wanting to upset Tony Vargas any more while he enjoys his personal crusade, I'm outie.

So, the heavily armoured guy whacking enemies with a mace, smiting them with fire from the heavens, and casting healing and buffing spells is common everywhere and I've just missed it. The "master of the arcane" can normally switch the spells they cast every day and forgets them once memorised, while also never making errors in casting spells.

I really don't think so.

 

[Greg K]

heh. The Warlord is the last full class from a previous-edition PH1 to still be excluded from 5e.

You are forgetting the 2e priests of specific mythoi. The 5e cleric does not do it.

 

[Jessica]

You are misreading what I said.

Side A Wants: The developers not to spend their limited time on things which Side A isn't going to use, and Side B might decide they don't like the actual implementation of that the developers choose to go with (see: any complaints about the ranger class; people that insist that the characters which can be built with 5th edition that have great similarity to characters built with 4e's warlord class aren't warlord enough)

Side B Wants: The developers to make what they want, how they want it made, even if that means asking for a re-do because the prior effort wasn't deemed satisfactory.

I'm pretty sure the majority of people are asking for tweaks to the Ranger. Not a brand new re-do of the Ranger class. I could just as easily re-characterize group A as being a bunch of grognards who only ever want APs to be published and want no new crunch whatsoever.

Side A says to Side B: Make it yourself, that's the only way to be sure it comes out exactly how you want it to - and it frees up the developers to spend their limited time on something that maybe we will both use.

Like what?

Side B says to Side A: No, the developers should make it, and remake it, until I'm satisfied and you can just ignore it if don't like it - and says nothing of how dev-time spent on something one side might like and use, but the other side definitely won't like or use, is failing to be compared to dev-time spent on something both sides might like and use.

Like what?

No one is saying "No, you don't actually want that" to you, certainly not me at least. Though I did say "Yeah, you want that... but that doesn't mean that WotC making it is going to result in their "that" being the "that" that you wanted."

I don't let perfect be the enemy of good. If a version of a class is pretty crappy then it still gives something to work with and change.

Get better DMs, have higher standards for who you will allow to be your DM - accepting a game you aren't satisfied with is entirely on you.

If I had to wait for a good DM to play 5e D&D then I would probably never be able to play 5e D&D. DMs are a relatively rare resource and most of the time the options aren't between an upscale steakhouse and McDonalds, but rather between McDonald's and starvation.

The exact reason why WotC doing it is even less likely to result in what you want - if the people you actually share a table with can't agree on what is the "right" way to do it, how are people that have never met you expected to manage?

Because unlike us, WotC is supposed to be full of professional game designers who do this sort of thing.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You are forgetting the 2e priests of specific mythoi. The 5e cleric does not do it.

I am not forgetting the one and only such priest in the 2e PH: The Druid. It is in 5e, as a full class.

Whether Domains cut it for customizing a Cleric to a specific mythos is another question, and a fair one. The method suggested in 2e was comparable to the UA article about changing up classes to get the spell-less Ranger and Favored Soul. It could even be compared to simply creating new classes, outright, for different flavors of Cleric (as the Druid is distinct from a Cleric with a Nature Domain, these classes would be distinct from mere Domain choices). That sort of thing could be done, deity-by-deity, in setting materials and even adventures, if a preisthood played some part in them, for instance. OTOH, the Complete Priest Handbook gave a more systematic method that might be adapted to a more-customizeable divine caster than the Cleric - presumably called the Priest - that might range from something much less militant than the typical cleric (more like a wizard in terms of hp and mundane combat training), to something with a few specific proficiencies like the Druid, to a full warrior-priest (with MC'ing being a way of going further). It'd be a new sort of class design for 5e, where classes aren't customized in detail, instead the player is given more packaged/complete choices like Background, Sub-Class, and 5e's 'bigger' Feats.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I'm pretty sure the majority of people are asking for tweaks to the Ranger. Not a brand new re-do of the Ranger class. I could just as easily re-characterize group A as being a bunch of grognards who only ever want APs to be published and want no new crunch whatsoever.[/quote[That is a bit of a separate issue, since what the "majority" (in quotes because I can't be sure of what is or isn't the majority opinion with the information I have) seem to be asking for is the one thing that WotC has already specifically stated that they aren't doing - which is making "tweaks" to the existing Ranger, rather than inventing brand new options that can be used by whoever wants them without the "tweaks" some player wants ever changing the Ranger I'm perfectly happy to use as-is.

Like what?

Like anything but this divisive thing. I can't say specifically because I have no idea what you are into so I can't compare why own likes and pick something from both lists. Do you like more monsters? I like more monsters. What about Mystara? I'm interested in seeing an official update to one of D&D's oldest campaign settings.

I don't let perfect be the enemy of good. If a version of a class is pretty crappy then it still gives something to work with and change.

You might not be letting perfect be the enemy of good, but I've seen plenty of folks who are - because 5th edition is already good at doing something they claim to want, but it isn't doing it the right way so they are demanding perfection: what they want, how they want it.

If I had to wait for a good DM to play 5e D&D then I would probably never be able to play 5e D&D. DMs are a relatively rare resource and most of the time the options aren't between an upscale steakhouse and McDonalds, but rather between McDonald's and starvation.

DMs are not rare. At least, they wouldn't be if gamers in general would simply choose to stop believing that being a DM requires something not present in literally every single gamer. So your choices are not between McDonald's or starvation, but rather between eating the bountifully available foods that could nourish you for a lifetime, or declaring none of that acceptable as food and starving as a result.

Because unlike us, WotC is supposed to be full of professional game designers who do this sort of thing.

"Professional" means getting paid to do a thing. It does not carry with it the quality of being inherently better than an amateur.

And no amount of skill at designing game elements that I enjoy using, my present group enjoys using, and everyone I've ever had at my table enjoyed using gives me a better chance to design a game element that you or anyone else I've never met enjoys using. You know what you like, and that makes you the one most likely to make the version of a thing that you like - unless you refuse to try, of course.

 

[Jester David]

Dragon.

Can you be more specific? There's a lot of Dragon out there and searching the WotC website is not exactly easy.

Even if you count sub-classes, there's no Warlord and no Psionics in the PH, both appeared in prior edition PH1s. If you look /only/ at full classes in past PH1's being represented in the 5e PH, you could excuse the lack of Psionics (and the Illusionist & Assassin appearing only as sub-classes, since their only appearance in a PH1 was technically as sub-classes0, but the Warlord is still an issue.

The warlord is there, it's just folded into the battlemaster. Far more than the 3e knight.

Psionics in 1e wasn't a class. It was just a group of optional powers you could give to existing classes. And if you include the Unearthed Arcana articles, 5e produced a psionic class faster than any other edition (excluding 3.5e which just updated & reprinted).

20 months for the PH3. I doubt we'll see psionics in print in less than 6 months, let alone the Warlord.

And, it's not like waiting on the Monk was creating an appearance of taking sides in the edition war.

Sure, and I'm not saying a promise was broken, just that stuff is missing and some of it still not yet on the horizon.

There was no promise at all that any specific class would be in the 4e PH, and the side-bar on Sources made it abundantly clear that 'missing' classes would be quickly forthcoming (and they were), but the nerdrage from the most vocal segments of the player base was overwhelming and hystrionic. The call for Psionics, the Warlord, and other missing classes in 5e has been positively polite by comparison.

So…. they should put a class into the game they're not excited about and many people don't want just so they don't *appear* to be taking a side on a fan-centric war they're not involved in?

Realistically speaking, all the 5e staff worked on 4e. And many were involved in its creation. Mearls was brought into WotC to help work on 4e. He just wasn't the lead, but as his first official work at WotC, so much of it probably has a huge soft spot in his heart.

The Assassin and Illusionist are present as sub-classes, as they were in their only prior PH1 appearance, and the Assassin retains it's "inflammatory" murder-for-hire name. They are both at least as capable as they were in their original appearance, arguably much more so.

"Subclass" meant something very different in 1e. It was more narrative. Pretty much for the attack and saving throw tables IIRC. They received full write-ups in the PHB.

There's no need for a 'less inflammatory' name. Heroes can have edgy career paths. James Bond is an Assassin, John Carter is a Warlord.

John Carter wasn't a real person who existed in the present day committing atrocities against civilians and children. Tell people of Afghanistan, Iraq, Burma, Libya, and Congo that "warlords" are just "edgy" and capable of being heroes.
You might as well call a class a "eugenicist". Or use the term "dictator" or "tyrant" because of the respective original Roman and Green meanings of the terms rather than the current usage.
Warlord is a hugely problematic name. It's "barbarian" but somehow worse and not grandfathered into acceptability.

Aside from the ugly modern implications, by definition a warlord has command over both a military and civilian populace. It implies authority. Like "president" or "general". That's not a great term for an independent adventurer who might be unaligned with any nation and only bosses around a group of two to five dudes.

In the context of the hobby, it'd be more inflammatory to exclude the warlord or put it under a different name than to include it, since doing so would create the appearance that WotC has, with an edition meant to bring fans of all prior editions together, instead, taken sides in the edition war.

Leaving the Warlord for the Advanced Game is a concession (and an very large one) to the contrary fear - that including it, and 'forcing' h4ters to 'opt-out' by banning it in their game - would create an appearance of 'excluding' taking the opposite side.

I don't need WotC to prove they're not taking a side on the edition wars. They don't owe me anything. I don't need them to bring back Prestige Classes or the dragon shaman to prove their allegiance to 3e fans.

Really, if anything, releasing a class for those reasons would feel more like pandering. It would seem like they're actually paying attention to edition warriors (the f4ns or 4vengers or whatever the eff they're called) calling for the warlord. Or ignoring the people who don't want said class. That would only cause more tension.
It's almost better to just ignore the whole drama.

Plus, I reject the whole "opposing the warlord equals edition warring" argument. I can separate my feelings and opinions for the warlord from my feelings and opinions of 4th Edition as a whole.
Any overlap comes from discussing 4e and the warlord at the same time. Which, during 4e, happened all the time. But now, it's very possible to discuss the warlord as a concept all its own without edition warring. Just like it's possible to discuss the sorcerer without criticising 3e or the assassin without hating on 1e.

The Battlemaster is the 'complex fighter' option, not an expression of the Warlord. Saying that the Battlemaster is the Warlord is like saying that the Arcane Trickster is the Wizard - if the Arcane Trickster only had 3 first-level wizard spells in it's entire list. The Battlemaster, Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knight all cast some wizard spells, and there are feats that nab bits of the Wizard's shtick, but that doesn't mean there's no need for a Wizard class. The same is true of several other classes and sub-classes.

Just because you don't like the implementation of a class does not mean it ceases to be the intended presentation of that class.

I'm not entirely sold on the 5e bard. The valour bard isn't much of a bard. The bard is a dabbler not a full caster. And the lore bard can do some interesting things with its free choice of spells, but - by its design - they're not bardic choices but options other classes. And bardic inspiration is a funky overly dissociative way of handling the bard's morale boost, and until it recharges on a short rest it's really not worthwhile.
But I'm not going to say that there's no bard in the PHB.

The battlemaster has several warlord-esque maneuvers. It fills the mechanical role. There's also the healer feat and the (shudder) valor bard. It killed the warlord and took its stuff.

Is there room for a manuever master class that doubles down on the battlemaster's schtick like the wizard to the EK? Sure. That might be cool. Other posters sold me on that class concept earlier and I'm not opposed to it. The warlord could totally work within the framework of that class.
But that might not necessarily *be* the warlord either.
That kind of class would be able to do all kinds of things, in the same way that the wizard can do so very much more than the EK. Taking that broad class and focusing on a single option of the battlemaster would be taking the class in the opposite direction in terms of flavour and flexibility.

 

[Greg K]

I don't need WotC to prove they're not taking a side on the edition wars. They don't owe me anything. I don't need them to bring back Prestige Classes or the dragon shaman to prove their allegiance to 3e fans.

3e is still my favorite edition (with certain caveats) and I will be happy to not see PrCs, Dragon Shamans and certain other 3e classes in 5e

 

[Jester David]

3e is still my favorite edition (with certain caveats) and I will be happy to not see PrCs, Dragon Shamans and certain other 3e classes in 5e

I chose a class I was sure was from PHB2. II couldn't describethe dragon shaman if my life depended on it.

I didn't like what prestige classes became with the endless prereqs that were otherwise bad choices and the power creep. But the concept is sound, especially when combining two multiclass options that are otherwise subpar or weird. Or for representing membership in elite orders that granted special knowledge. Like the knigthts of Solamnia. The problems came when everything under the sun became a PrC. But bloat can ruin any idea.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Can you be more specific? There's a lot of Dragon out there and searching the WotC website is not exactly easy.

Critical Failure! er... I mean, 395. Good luck digging it out of the mass of broken links on the WotC site. I never really paid the EK any attention, but I believe it was fairly well-received at the time.

The warlord is there, it's just folded into the battlemaster.

Saying the Battlemaster is a Warlord is like saying the Arcane Trickster is a Wizard - if it had only 3 wizard spells on it's list and they were all 1st level.

Far more than the 3e knight.

Not a PH1 class.

Psionics in 1e wasn't a class.

I know, it wasn't /technically/ a class or even a sub-class. You'd think it'd've rated at least a 'Wild Talent' feat or something in that case. It'd also be reasonable to think it'd get in the line for the Advanced Game behind the Warlord, which was.

Anyway, it's in the pipeline now, so that's a good thing for psionics fans.

So…. they should put a class into the game they're not excited about and many people don't want just so they don't *appear* to be taking a side on a fan-centric war they're not involved in?

No, they should put the Warlord in for that reason.

"Subclass" meant something very different in 1e.

A 'Class' was closer to Class Group in 2e or iconic class role in 3e or formal Role in 4e, yes. Call it a technicality like Psionics. In any case, the Assassin and Illusionist in 5e are, if anything, much more capable than their 1e versions. The Illusionist has a much larger spell list, including up to 9th level spells, for instance.

John Carter wasn't a real person who existed in the present day committing atrocities against civilians and children.

Neither was Camber of Culdi a religious fanatic calling for the murder of writers or other acts of terror against other civilians. But we can still play Clerics.

How the media chooses to translate the title of some lunatic has no bearing on what names we can use for classes in D&D.

by definition a warlord has command over both a military and civilian populace. It implies authority.

But, unlike alternatives, like Marshal, doesn't imply a rank in a military hierarchy, nor legitimate authority. Nor does D&D stick remotely to actual definitions of class names. The Sorcerer doesn't conjure up spirits for instance.

I don't need WotC to prove they're not taking a side on the edition wars.

If they're going to present 5e as being for everyone who's ever loved D&D, they need to avoid the appearance of taking sides.

Really, if anything, releasing a class for those reasons would feel more like pandering. It would seem like they're actually paying attention to edition warriors

Including it might seem like 'catering to 4vengers' excluding it does seem like 'catering to h4ters.' Thing is, is 5e supposed to be exclusionary or inclusive?

Including it as an optional class outside the Standard Game would seem a reasonable compromise.

I reject the whole "opposing the warlord equals edition warring" argument.

OK.

The appearance WotC should try to avoid is of WotC, itself taking sides, not of edition warring among folks posting on the forum today (also a bad thing, of course), which they can't control - and have, coincidentally, distanced themselves from by giving up their own forms.

The edition war already happened, the Warlord was a favorite target of h4ters. No matter how much or little we may raise the level of discourse, now, that's already happened. And WotC shouldn't go giving a big high-five to the h4ters of 2008-12 by pointedly excluding the Warlord they h4ted so much from 5e forever.

The battlemaster has several warlord-esque maneuvers.

2 or 3, yes, compared to over 300 for the Warlord.

So less than <1% of the Warlord was nicked by the Battlemaster. They could plausibly label it 'warlord free.'

But, if you're trying to imply that means the game doesn't need a warlord, then you'd also have to assert that the Paladin removes the need for the Cleric, the Eldritch Knight the need for the wizard, the Arcane Trickster the need for the Bard, and so forth. Because they all lift more than a few things from other classes. Really, to that standard, you'd be down to Fighter & Magic-User as the only legitimate classes.

Is there room for a maneuver master class that doubles down on the battlemaster's schtick like the wizard to the EK? Sure. That might be cool. Other posters sold me on that class concept earlier and I'm not opposed to it. The warlord could totally work within the framework of that class.
That kind of class would be able to do all kinds of things, in the same way that the wizard can do so very much more than the EK.

At least, here we can agree: a 5e Warlord would potentially have a lot /more/ to it than the original Warlord. It's the case with a lot of 5e classes (and even sub-classes), like the a fore-mentioned Illusionist & Assassin, for instance.

 

[Eric V]

I'm sure you can point to a huge number of archetypes that the D&D Cleric fits, that aren't the D&D Cleric itself. And a host of spellcasters that resembles the D&D Wizard. We can wait.

Well, to be honest Bluenose, some of us aren't immortal and we can't wait.

Zeuel is right to be concerned about self-appointed gatekeepers regarding "What is D&D?" It's really just an elitist way of saying badwrongfun.