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

[Sacrosanct]

This thread is the unfortunate result of too many jrpg video games....

 

[Hussar]

If people have an issue with granting off turn attacks, how do you justify the battle master? Or is it the idea of granting extra attacks? Well, again, the battle master is doing that. How exactly do I give up one of my attacks to grant you an attack?

I see what people mean about back to square 1. We have to jump through these exact same hoops every single time we talk about warlords. EVERY single mechanic that we need for a warlord already exists in the game and IS NOT A PROBLEM.

Off turn action granting? Check - spells, battle master.
Granting bonuses to attacks? Check - Bard, spells, Mastermind Rogue, etc.
Non-magical healing? Check - fighters, Healer feat
Granting bonuses to checks? Check - Cleric, Warlock, Bard, Mastermind Rogue, etc.
Granting party bonuses to actions? Check - Ranger allows the party to travel faster, Druid can use Pass Without a Trace to allow entire party to stealth even in armor, etc.

On and on. EVERYTHING already exists in the game. We have all the pieces already. Folding them into one class will not change anything since the action economy will ensure that it doesn't become over powered. Which is what makes these conversations so frustrating. Endlessly having to defend points which are already part of the base game.

If you have a problem with warlords granting attacks, then why aren't you up in arms about battle masters DOING THE SAME THING?
If you have a problem with warlords helping other PC's do their thing, why aren't you up in arms about clerics, rogues and bards DOING THE SAME THING?

On and on, around and around we go. Why do we need to justify mechanics that already exist in the game?

 

[Aldarc]

I'll agree with the previous posters who said that too much of the Fighter is in the base class, not enough in the sub-classes, which limits the flexibility of the class. Some of the other classes are guilty of this, too, but the "generic" nature of the Fighter exacerbates the problem. I think this was one of the biggest mistakes of 5e.

But this is also one of the biggest reasons why proponents of a Warlord class in 5E have against making the Warlord a Fighter subclass as things stand. The base class Fighter excludes room for the playstyle that many Warlord fans want out of a Warlord. If a greater emphasis of the 5E Fighter was on the subclass rather than the current core chassis, then we may not be having so many discussions on a Warlord class in 5E, because the Fighter would have enough mechanical space to realize the conceptual fantasy of the D&D Warlord.

 

[mellored]

But this is also one of the biggest reasons why proponents of a Warlord class in 5E have against making the Warlord a Fighter subclass as things stand. The base class Fighter excludes room for the playstyle that many Warlord fans want out of a Warlord. If a greater emphasis of the 5E Fighter was on the subclass rather than the current core chassis, then we may not be having so many discussions on a Warlord class in 5E, because the Fighter would have enough mechanical space to realize the conceptual fantasy of the D&D Warlord.

To be fair, that applies to a lot of 5e classes. Like ranger. Beastmaster is crap because there isn't enough room for a full combat-capible beast as a sub-classes.

It's not specificly a fighter/warlord issue.

 

[Aldarc]

To be fair, that applies to a lot of 5e classes. Like ranger. Beastmaster is crap because there isn't enough room for a full combat-capible beast as a sub-classes.

It's not specificly a fighter/warlord issue.

Of course not. And I do think that while the subclass system of 5E is one of its greatest strengths, its uneven design across and within classes is also one of its greatest shortcomings.

 

[MichaelSomething]

This thread is the unfortunate result of too many jrpg video games....

Not until I see a mimic or blue mage class.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

 

[Guest 6801328]

If people have an issue with granting off turn attacks, how do you justify the battle master? Or is it the idea of granting extra attacks? Well, again, the battle master is doing that. How exactly do I give up one of my attacks to grant you an attack?

I've been wondering that since the PHB got published. I've always thought the Battlemaster was a little contrived and hard to explain.

I see what people mean about back to square 1. We have to jump through these exact same hoops every single time we talk about warlords. EVERY single mechanic that we need for a warlord already exists in the game and IS NOT A PROBLEM.

Off turn action granting? Check - spells, battle master.
Granting bonuses to attacks? Check - Bard, spells, Mastermind Rogue, etc.
Non-magical healing? Check - fighters, Healer feat
Granting bonuses to checks? Check - Cleric, Warlock, Bard, Mastermind Rogue, etc.
Granting party bonuses to actions? Check - Ranger allows the party to travel faster, Druid can use Pass Without a Trace to allow entire party to stealth even in armor, etc.

On and on. EVERYTHING already exists in the game. We have all the pieces already.

So you should be happy, right?

Or is it that you want an a la carte selection of abilities in one class, so that you get exactly everything you want without having to multiclass?

That would be great. I really like Shadow Monk/Rogue, except that there's no way to get all of the abilities in one character, so I guess I want a new class that lets me do that. And while we're at it, although I've never done the Warlock dip, I'll have some of that on my order, too, please.

EDIT: Jokes aside, I should add that although Warlord-like abilities are sprinkled here and there as abilities, feats, etc., and that individually I'm ok with them, it is exactly the concentration of all of them in one class that worries me. Not from a mechanical/balance point of view but as a concept.

Folding them into one class will not change anything since the action economy will ensure that it doesn't become over powered. Which is what makes these conversations so frustrating. Endlessly having to defend points which are already part of the base game.

If you have a problem with warlords granting attacks, then why aren't you up in arms about battle masters DOING THE SAME THING?
If you have a problem with warlords helping other PC's do their thing, why aren't you up in arms about clerics, rogues and bards DOING THE SAME THING?

On and on, around and around we go. Why do we need to justify mechanics that already exist in the game?

Wait...who is "up in arms"? (I'll point out that you are the one using lots of ALL CAPS). I'm not a fan of action-granting, but it's not as bad as rapiers. Or Drow. (Never mind rapier-wielding Drow.) Both of which are in the game.

No, my objections to Warlord are based on the concept, not the mechanics. I was just responding to the claim that there's nothing wrong with granting actions.

 

[Guest 6801328]

But this is also one of the biggest reasons why proponents of a Warlord class in 5E have against making the Warlord a Fighter subclass as things stand. The base class Fighter excludes room for the playstyle that many Warlord fans want out of a Warlord. If a greater emphasis of the 5E Fighter was on the subclass rather than the current core chassis, then we may not be having so many discussions on a Warlord class in 5E, because the Fighter would have enough mechanical space to realize the conceptual fantasy of the D&D Warlord.

Oh, I agree. Was my position misconstrued as suggesting that a Warlord could be a sub-class of Fighter? No, that's not it at all. I don't want it in the game anywhere, not even as a sub-class.

 

[cbwjm]

The more subclasses that come out with warlord-like abilities, the more I feel like we don't need a warlord class. I was never a huge proponent for it, though I was also never against its inclusion, but I like how players have a choice of classes that can provide warlord-like support. I think WotC dealing out warlord abilities to multiple classes is better than a dedicated warlord class.

 

[Monayuris]

I voted None.

I don't believe there are any options on that list that can't be done with the existing classes, current or new sub-classes, and a little imagination.