Pick only one: What should the next class be?

What is the next class that needs to be released?

  • Warlord

    Votes: 19 15.8%
  • Psion

    Votes: 60 50.0%
  • Shaman

    Votes: 6 5.0%
  • Warden

    Votes: 7 5.8%
  • Rune priest

    Votes: 2 1.7%
  • Dedicated summoner

    Votes: 6 5.0%
  • other

    Votes: 20 16.7%

  • Total voters
    120

Parmandur

Legend
I don't think the kit was actually necessary. The original and 1e bard didn't need anything to play as a skald. The 2e kit offered a slight improvement in armor and inspiration iirc.
Similarly, the Skald is serviced in the 5E PHB already.
 

Undrave

Adventurer
I think if a person want the same ability as a past edition there are other classes that would need to start at a higher level. That's because of how 4e was implemented and how 5e is implemented.

It's hard to make a build focused on granting abilities to others in a system that deliberately removed strong granting of abilities to others. 5e doesn't actually support the playstyle that made warlords good, as I see it anyway, in respect to lazylords.

And commander's strike is very situational. It's good for handing out attacks to rogues or recklessly attacking GWM barbarians, or possibly a smite hungry paladin. It also benefits from granting a melee attack that would be from range for the fighter who might not be moving that far for whatever reason. I agree, it's not a replacement for the lazylord style. At all. But it does fit within 5e's approach.
Commander's Strike shouldn't be competing with other maneuvers for Superiority Dice. If it wasn't as much of an expense, its situational quality wouldn't be a problem because it costs nothing to take or use you know? If you could use it whenever the rare situation occurred, it'd be easier to use.

There's plenty of elements all around in 5e that could make an interesting Warlord build if gathered in the same character, but mashing them together via MCing is a terrible idea that would just give you a subpar mess of a character.
 

Ashrym

Hero
Commander's Strike shouldn't be competing with other maneuvers for Superiority Dice. If it wasn't as much of an expense, its situational quality wouldn't be a problem because it costs nothing to take or use you know? If you could use it whenever the rare situation occurred, it'd be easier to use.

There's plenty of elements all around in 5e that could make an interesting Warlord build if gathered in the same character, but mashing them together via MCing is a terrible idea that would just give you a subpar mess of a character.
I think commander's strike would be better if it didn't also cost the bonus action and the attack. It should just cost the bonus action to be in line with other class abilities that direct attacks (pet classes). Being limited in number of uses makes sense because PC attacks tend to be a lot better than pet attacks.

That's kind of what I mean by 5e's overall approach impacting what were considered good warlord abilities. Granting attacks is deliberately not a strong option in 5e.

Multiclassing is something I've seen forum posters claim to do in order to make a warlord. I haven't tried to make the build myself so I cannot say how well one might perform. I know WotC intended the battle master and valor bard options to cover warlord styles because it was a topic of discussion back on the next forums while the game was still in public playtesting. Fighters and bards are popular but I doubt it's because people are trying to be warlords with them; they are just fun classes to play.

The unfortunate part is that it did leave warlord fans wanting more.
 

Undrave

Adventurer
I think commander's strike would be better if it didn't also cost the bonus action and the attack. It should just cost the bonus action to be in line with other class abilities that direct attacks (pet classes). Being limited in number of uses makes sense because PC attacks tend to be a lot better than pet attacks.
I think giving up your own attack would be enough, even without a bonus to damage, and being once per turn. If they were to make it a core feature of the class they could have the subclass have features that stack on top of it for interesting effect, including a potential bonus to damage and a Arcane dabbler version that lets allies use Cantrips (I'd see such a subclass get Arcana training and Ritual Caster but no combat spells so as to not be TOO Bardic).
 

MockingBird

Explorer
I may be in the minority but I dont really see the need for new classes. Saying that, I voted for the Psion. I guess if we just had to have a new class this would be it just because it might need new mechanics for the abilities.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
Knowing what I know of what the scope is for 5e in regards to class design, this is what I’d do if I were on the team, and what I think they are doing:

archetypes should be handled as subclasses whenever possible. With how 5e is designed with subclasses, feats, and skills, this is largely entirely possible.

Outlier classes are generally tied to a setting, and when creating that setting, a new class can be created. See the artificer. First class in 5 years. Pretty much Eberron specific. I.e., hard to have an Eberron setting without it. What this does is allow tables that want the class to have it, but not force AL table DMs to accept it if they don’t want if they aren’t playing in Eberron.

I think the psion will see the same treatment with a dark sun setting. Hard to have a dark sun setting without a psion. But for those who don’t want the psion, they don’t have to unless they play in a dark sun campaign.

Crawford said they probably won’t create new mechanics for a psion because hardly anyone used them in the past, and it’s a design requirement to keep rule variations simpler, and available to the most players. So I can see them creating a new psion class for DS, but most likely would either be modeled after the warlock mechanic, or spell point sorcerer mechanic.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Looking at the poll again - I'm not familiar with what a 'Warden' is but it occurs to me the other five options are all spellcasters* of one sort of another. Aren't there enough caster options already?

* - the Psion, by the sound of it, will be a caster by a different name.
 

TiwazTyrsfist

Adventurer
So, what, your actions revolve more about supporting others to be more effective in combat? Similar to a bard or something?
The Warlord, mechanically, is a heavily armored Melee combatant that grants allies combat bonuses and tactical combat buffs.

A Fighter gets to make extra attacks. A Warlord creates an opening that grants an Ally an extra attack.
A Rogue gets a bonus for 'flanking' (yes I know flanking isn't a thing anymore), a Warlord grants their Allies a bonus by Flanking.

If we had Tactical feats like Pathfinder, a Warlord would grant their allies the benefits of the Warlords tactical feats...
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
If they are doing Darksun it should be the Psionicist (there could even be a reason to put the Warlord in there) I seem to remember Mike Mearles in his Warlord videos mentioning adding them in to an expansion and not sure why but I think it was Darksun, I think Birthright would be even better.

So, what is the difference between a Fighter and a "Warlord"?

I've never played or even seen the class, so I am honestly curious...
For me the Warlord is a specialist in what a certain type of Battlemaster fighter is a dabbler, he is the party wide enhancer everybody gets their initiative boosted (and maybe the Warlord can do some swapping around initiative tricks) because of her prompting, everyone gets more out of action points they spend. Many of his abilities affect all allies enabling a charge (or theoretically a retreat) in theory he should also have abilities that mess up the enemy in mass a bit more than the 4e warlord did (but that was perhaps a function of the leader role not also manipulating the enemy so much). the Battlemaster is like a subset of Warlord who is focused in on one enemy or helping one allie not bad but also not quite the whole enchilada. The Warlord is often the smart analytic and strategic type. I think the feat in 5e that gives everyone temp hit points is actually evocative of the Warlord. I have a number of threads on here that describe different flavors for the Warlord some are even pretty ironically magical (in a bloodline style evocative of Birthright). The Warlord might make a super awesome strike but its often timed to make sure an ally sees it and gets an awesome opening.
a single d20! On top of that, the class was much more fun to play (IMO and IMX) than the Cleric even though it didn't heal quite as well (though it could come very close). Like with most of the martial classes in 4e, the game did a good job of making you feel like Dolemite and The Avengers.
Very fun
 

Aldarc

Adventurer
Mearles identified the Warlord as Odysseus.... his build is pretty evocative I would like to see it finished.
That is the same character I have cited as a great inspiration for the Warlord. Odysseus is the Warlord to Ajax's Barbarian and Achilles's Fighter.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
There's plenty of elements all around in 5e that could make an interesting Warlord build if gathered in the same character, but mashing them together via MCing is a terrible idea that would just give you a subpar mess of a character.
Yup .... and multiclassing is a trap.
 

Undrave

Adventurer
Looking at the poll again - I'm not familiar with what a 'Warden' is but it occurs to me the other five options are all spellcasters* of one sort of another. Aren't there enough caster options already?

* - the Psion, by the sound of it, will be a caster by a different name.
The Warden was the Primal Defender in 4e. It let primal spirits into its body and transformed in all sorts of ways, not just animalistic.

The Warden was 'sticky' by making the space around them difficult terrain, they basically WERE difficult terrain you wanted to avoid.

They could sprout vines and slide people around, and their dailies were powerful forms that granted them buffs and a one time special move. You had forms with evocative names like "Form of the Mauntain's Thunder", "Form of the Dread Serpent", "Form of the Walking Conflagration", "Form of Winter's Herald", "Form of PAradise's Bounty", "Form of the Oak Sentinel" and so forth.

The Warden used either WIS or CON for his AC instead of DEX or INT (as was the default in 4e). 4e also had a ton of conditions that had the mention 'save ends' and basically would keep going until you rolled a 10 or higher on a d20 at the end of your turn. The Warden had an extra roll at the START of his turn, making it FAR more likely to shake off debilitating effects than other classes.

Basically, If I was to make it in 5e I think a subclass of Barbarian COULD do it, provided it was capable of protecting allies and its rage would transform them like Forms.

But a full class could also be possible with the subclass giving access to specific forms and general bonuses.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
The Warden was the Primal Defender in 4e. It let primal spirits into its body and transformed in all sorts of ways, not just animalistic.

The Warden was 'sticky' by making the space around them difficult terrain, they basically WERE difficult terrain you wanted to avoid.

They could sprout vines and slide people around, and their dailies were powerful forms that granted them buffs and a one time special move. You had forms with evocative names like "Form of the Mauntain's Thunder", "Form of the Dread Serpent", "Form of the Walking Conflagration", "Form of Winter's Herald", "Form of PAradise's Bounty", "Form of the Oak Sentinel" and so forth.

The Warden used either WIS or CON for his AC instead of DEX or INT (as was the default in 4e). 4e also had a ton of conditions that had the mention 'save ends' and basically would keep going until you rolled a 10 or higher on a d20 at the end of your turn. The Warden had an extra roll at the START of his turn, making it FAR more likely to shake off debilitating effects than other classes.

Basically, If I was to make it in 5e I think a subclass of Barbarian COULD do it, provided it was capable of protecting allies and its rage would transform them like Forms.

But a full class could also be possible with the subclass giving access to specific forms and general bonuses.
Thanks for the write-up.

You suggest this might be a sub-class of Barbarian but this write-up makes me think more of some sort of cross between Ranger (as in the 1e version that was more Fighter than Rogue) and [Druid or Nature Cleric]. It'd get the fighting (Defender) prowess from the Ranger side and the transformations as a variant on Druid wildshape.

Or, it could end up as a variant of Shaman which is another option in the poll.
 

Ashrym

Hero
Thanks for the write-up.

You suggest this might be a sub-class of Barbarian but this write-up makes me think more of some sort of cross between Ranger (as in the 1e version that was more Fighter than Rogue) and [Druid or Nature Cleric]. It'd get the fighting (Defender) prowess from the Ranger side and the transformations as a variant on Druid wildshape.

Or, it could end up as a variant of Shaman which is another option in the poll.
Traditional shaman concepts are pretty much covered in bards, druids, and clerics. I would expect the warden to fall under the druid subclasses but I'm intrigued by the barbarian concept and can see it.
 

Advertisement

Top