D&D 5E What Would Your Perfect 50th PHB Class List Be?

[Urriak Uruk]

I'd rather the thread fade away quickly than be derailed re-litigating arguments that don't matter about a class that will never not be in the PHB.

Plenty of discussion has happened in this thread that isn't what you're trying to do with this. Please stop derailing the thread.

Cool.

I stated my opinion, someone else responded to it, I respond back. This is a forum, nothing off-side there (it's kind of the whole point of a forum), especially since the topic is directly related to the thread topic (what classes should be in the PHB).

If you don't want the thread to be about that topic... don't respond to me!

 

[Minigiant]

I never said the ranger was just a fighter... I just think it's a badly designed class. I've never had a player run a ranger, and I've had numerous 5E games over several years. Their reputation is that they're the weakest class, true or not.

Makes more sense to me to gut the class, take the best bits and give them to other classes.

Or they could design a functioning ranger at a start.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Or they could design a functioning ranger at a start.

that would assume they know what it should be, which given its grab bag nature I fundamentally doubt that.

 

[Scribe]

that would assume they know what it should be, which given its grab bag nature I fundamentally doubt that.

I don't think it's a grab bag at all, but perhaps another thread.

 

[Minigiant]

that would assume they know what it should be, which given its grab bag nature I fundamentally doubt that.

They wrote what it is in the description.

I am assuming these class lists are based on the designers knowing what each class is and doing at least an above average job designing them.

I don't think anyone writing Monk is expecting yet another poorly designed monk.

 

[Mind of tempest]

I think I am just having a bad couple of weeks most be why I am so negative.

personally, I hope we get an arcane gish if only so people stop homebrewing them

 

[Jack Daniel]

Fighter (sub-classes: Warrior, Paladin, Ranger, Berserker)
Mage (sub-classes: Wizard, Illusionist, Necromancer, Summoner)
Cleric (sub-classes: Templar, Druid, Monk, Scholar)
Rogue (sub-classes: Burglar, Assassin, Diplomat, Artificer)
Mystic (sub-classes: Telepath, Kineticist, Warlock, Sorcerer)

 

[Minigiant]

After another day on it I've changed my thoughts

Artificer (half expert/half arcane caster)
Bard
Berserker (alternate warrior- Rage based)
Champion (alternate warrior- Stat based)
Cleric
Druid
Elementalist (alt monk- Element based)
Fighter
Monk
Paladin
Psion (alt caster- Mind based)
Ranger
Rogue
Scholar (half expert/half warrior)
Sorcerer
Swordmage (half warrior/half arcane caster)
Warlock
Wizard

 

[Frozen_Heart]

My ideal list for a 5.5e class list (different from what I'd have for my ideal 6e class list):

Artificer
Barbarian
Bard
Cleric
Druid
Fighter
Monk
Paladin
Ranger
Rogue
Sorcerer
Swordmage
Warlock
Warlord
Wizard

Swordmage and Warlord are the two I've added.

Though 5e has piles of gishes, every single one has managed to not be an arcane spellstriking gish like the ones in prior editions. Instead either lacking the mechanics (eldritch knight, bladsinger), or having tons of pre-existing thematic baggage like patrons, robot dogs, swearing oaths, being musical, etc. Which also comes with a spell list which doesn't suit an arcane/elemental character. (bladehexlock, artificer, paladin, ranger, bards). 5e has yet to have a gish which behaves anything like their 3e, 4e, or pathfinder counterparts.

Warlord as martials are quite frankly an afterthought in 5e. 11 spellcasting classes vs 4 pure martials. And none of those martials is a support type martial. Warlord provides the martial equivalent of a caster, without having to have awkward reflavouring. "my spells as just me shouting orders".... which are somehow counterpspelled and don't work in an antimagic field. Battlemaster fighter provides some of the warlord traits, but in an extremely watered down way. A warlord never had to swing its weapon at all with many builds.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

Does not matter, as long as they keep multiclassing intact.

I want multiclassing to stay, but honestly it's awfully done in 5e. It feels like something they threw out in the last hour of a Friday afternoon before releasing the edition.

It completely wrecks tiers of play and ASI increases. And certain things like multiattack just don't work properly with multiclassing. A barbarian 4, fighter, 4, paladin 4, monk 4, ranger 4 will be level 20, and every single one of those classes gets multiattack. But this abomination still only gets a single attack.