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

[TwoSix]

1) Psionics. No, a wizard/sorc subclass won't cut it. I would like to move away from the spell model, and back to more like the the 2E model. Ideally you'd just have 1-2 disciplines, but be able to do a lot within those. A psion should essentially be like a superhero, with at wills pumped up by resource based power stunts. So the body morphing psychometabolic psion should always be able to grow claws, stretch his arms, etc, but if he pushes himself, hulk out, flatten himself, fully shapechange etc.

I have no idea if you're a 3.X player, but there's a book Spheres of Power that does pretty much this exact concept for Pathfinder, and it's really good. Enough that I've poked around at converting it to 5e.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Actually, sneak attack is either, or both, or however else you want to describe it. The mechanics can easily work with multiple flavor descriptions.

One of the things about 5E is that it is not free reign on fluff, in direct contrast with the 4E philosophy. You can't describe it however you want. If you try to describe something too differently, then there's a good chance that it would require different mechanics to represent that.

Most of the time, at least. You can have multiple descriptions that all have similar mechanical representation, if those things are similar enough. I'm fairly confident that the fighter who studies an opponent and patiently waits for an opening to make one strike for massive damage would be represented the same way as the rogue who fights by patiently waiting for an opening to make one strike for massive damage. Perhaps you can take an action to study your opponent, thus giving yourself Advantage on the next attack, so you can get your Sneak Attack damage that way.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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. It's splat-bait, it's easy to add choices without adding substance and relevance. The more classes there are, the less chance any one of 'em sees actual use at the table, and a class that doesn't appear at the table is a lot of wasted time, effort, development dollars, and page count. In my mind, a class needs to pass a pretty high barrier to be "worthy" of its mental and physical and temporal space.

One of the most important barriers is that each new class needs a unique "story." That is, there's a unique place it gets power from, a unique use it puts that power to, and a unique goal that is part of the class's DNA. The current crop of 5e classes does that pretty well. You can put a Sorcerer next to a Wizard next to a Bard and they all have different stories to tell - stories about magic woven into your being, stories about knowledge conquering the unknown darkness, stories about brave, heroic, charismatic wanderers with a knack for spellcraft. That's all "just fluff," but a lot of proposed classes fail on that fluff requirement. When someone proposes a Swordmage as a unique class, for instance, I'm like, "Wait. I get that 4e swordmages had some fun powers, but did they have a fun story? Were they unique in where they came from? Were they unique in what they did or what they sought out?" Not really, IMXP. For the swordmages I saw, the main appeal was not the story of being a swordmage and what that represented in the world, but rather than mechanical delight of "heavy armor + arcane magic."

That mechanical delight is nice, but it isn't big enough in my mind to be a class. It'd go good as a subclass - like, the EK subclass. The "cool powers" are nice, and they can be spells. And no class was needed.

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.

There's other important points too (psionics and artificers specifically, even if they achieve story distinction, struggle with being mechanically separate and having similar play experiences to other classes), but story is probably the first and most important.

 

[neobolts]

As a standalone class, psion with both a "pure psion" and psychic warrior path makes sense.

Favored soul could also work as a class or possibly a cleric path with a unique flavor.

But what I'd like most to see is the wuxia/Oriental Adventures classes (or class paths):
- Samurai
- Ninja
- Eastern casters of some sort (taiost/onmyoji/shugenja/miko)

 

[AverageCitizen]

I miss the Avenger.

I know, I know: Paladins can take an oath of vengeance, but the similarities end there.

Did you notice that also their Channel Divinity is pretty much the twin attack roll thing from Oath of Enmity? I think the best avenger in 5e is an Oath Of Vengeance/Assassin. It works super well.

I miss the Warlord. Battlemaster doesn't quite do it for me; I'd sacrifice more personal attack power for more enabling and healing of allies.

I'd say a judcious dabble into Bard would not be off-theme, but I know sometimes self-imposing limits on spell selection to keep the right flavor is not very satisfying.

Anyway, I hear ya. I just think 5e has a mindset that if it is possible to create a concept character within the existing rules (including multi-classing) they aren't going to make a class for it.

 

[DMZ2112]

I think the only classes the game needs are Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Psion, Rogue, Wizard, and Summoner. Everything else would be better served as a class archetype or feat.

So that leaves Psion and Summoner undetailed.

I sincerely hope that D&D5 inundates us with class archetypes, backgrounds, subraces, and even (good) feats. But as far as classes are concerned I'm pretty well done.

One of the things about 5E is that it is not free reign on fluff, in direct contrast with the 4E philosophy. You can't describe it however you want. If you try to describe something too differently, then there's a good chance that it would require different mechanics to represent that.

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

 

[bogmad]

Psionics should probably be a module, too.


Depends on your goal. I don't think you need to create a new full caster class - you can turn wizards and clerics and sorcerers (and warlocks!) into psions by spell selection and using Spell Points pretty well as it is, if your goal is to mirror much of what previous-e psionics could do (point based effects + duplicate many spell effects).

I won't go into every one of your points because I think you make good points. I think your last part gets at the crux of our disagreement. "Depends on your goal"
Do you:
A. Create a module to convert existing classes and subclasses to psionics, OR
B. Create one of very few splatbooks with new options, released as one of only perhaps two releases for the year.

Would a module constitute enough material to put out as something other than a pdf like the EE player options? If the edition is doing well enough and/or you don't see a need for much psionics support go that route.
But,
If you want to go with B I say the better implementation is to release A New Class, with new subclasses for other classes. First because a new class after possibly a year or two with none released would probably generate a lot more excitement/sales; and secondly, for the reasons I've rambled about in previous posts.

Also, my hope is that "doing psionics right" doesn't equal just calling them a spell point system and instead means creating a new mechanic. Some people really like 3e psionics, but there's some disagreement over whether any previous edition has "gotten it right" yet.

We haven't even seen any official new subclass options, so it's a little to early to say definitively what their approach to new fluff will be and how much the fluff for a subclass will diverge from the base class, but so far there's a pretty cohesive link between fluff and mechanics that would require calling psionics a form of magic, perhaps with a sidebar saying "Maybe NOT!" like you had in 3e. I guess that could work as the default option for an optional system, but it would feel a little lame to me.

 

[Mizariz]

I know it is not a base class in 3.5, however i am hoping they are bringing the Mystic Theurge back in all its glory.
I love the idea of a mage just looking for magi for the magi sake.
Don't care about wealth, power, politics nor deity's. The only focus are more magic.

Yeah you could make a normal mage with this focus, however the "i don't care if its divine or arcane", it is just magic.
Yeah dunno, i just miss it...

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Mystic Theurge is already in essentially, with the muticlassing rules. It's easier to run than before, since it works from level 2 on. There's no arcane/divine split in spells anymore, so no armor failure. Wizard and cleric levels stack for spells per day. But you aren't going to get double spell slots.

 

[Minigiant]

Really the main two class archetypes not represented in 3.5 at the moment are:

A full shapershifter
A full pet/companion class

They only exist as subclasses and thus lack full power in these elements.