D&D 3E/3.5 What D&D 3e/3.5e classes do you wish had become core in later editions?

[Cap'n Kobold]

Wot no Warblade?

Other than the Bo9S classes, I'd say artificer - but that was already implemented in 4e and 5e, so I'm good there.

 

[Weiley31]

Wot no Warblade?

Other than the Bo9S classes, I'd say artificer - but that was already implemented in 4e and 5e, so I'm good there.

Technically the Battlemaster IS the Warblade in a way. I even reflavored my very first DND character, a Battlemaster, as a Warblade. And I reflavored the Maneuvers as different techniques of The Iron Heart discipline. Just name changes.

Even the Critical Hit was reflavored as Strike of Perfect Clarity.

 

[Gladius Legis]

Wot no Warblade?

Other than the Bo9S classes, I'd say artificer - but that was already implemented in 4e and 5e, so I'm good there.

The Warblade, Crusader and Swordsage were corrected versions of the Fighter, Paladin and Monk, respectively.

5e doesn't need corrected versions of those classes.

 

[Weiley31]

The Warblade, Crusader and Swordsage were corrected versions of the Fighter, Paladin and Monk, respectively.

One of the reasons why, if I ever play 3.5, Im asking if these three are allowed.

 

[Shiroiken]

I honestly wish the Sorcerer wouldn't have made it, and maybe the Warlock. Most of the missing 3E and 4E classes are best handled as subclasses IMO. The only exceptions would be setting specific ones, like Artificer, which shouldn't be made core, and maybe the psion (but I'd rather that be non-core as well).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Several...especially the Psionic classes,

I also liked the Marshall & Duskblade, in large part beacuse I used those classes as part of an “Arcane Paladin“ build that was a lot of fun to play.

 

[Minigiant]

I would would like to add the Truenamer. I like the idea of skill check magic and true names.

The execution was just off.

 

[Helldritch]

I chose none. In 5ed most options are better as subclasses. Even the artificer could have been worked out as a subclass but they chose not. We can do pretty much anything now with a few name change.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I don't think the Marshal or the Noble was remotely as good a class as the 4e warlord but that's an important niche.

The Artificer should be in the game IMO - and should not be core as it's such a setting-warping thing.

 

[cbwjm]

That's quite the list but, looking at it, I don't really feel any need to be a core class since many of them you can create using the options in the core books or at least close approximations. Some of these I don't know enough about though.