D&D 5E Pick only one: What should the next class be?

[Aldarc]

As much as I love the Warlord, the Psion has a longer tradition and place in D&D.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Since all of the above bring different gameplay elements to the table, I'd only want classes that could yield a decent handful of subclasses. I voted Psion since I know generally what psionic subclasses would look like, but struggle for the rest. I suppose Summoners could focus on specific creatures? But what would Warlord subclasses be, or Shamans?

As someone who wishes there were a shaman class, I can see at least two subclasses: totem and spirit. The totem shaman uses totems to call forth powers. totems could even be like tattoos (like that one villain from the Elektra movie). Spirit on the other hand summons various spirits to assist, which can be intelligent spirits. Benefits can be predictive bonuses (like portent), or scrying benefits.

 

[Umbran]

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

Descriptively - a fighter is about hitting things with weapons. A warlord is about commanding on a battlefield.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Warlord. I’m still miffed that despite claiming during the D&D Next playtest that they planned to include in the 5e PHB all races and classes that have appeared in a previous edition’s first PHB, they left Warlord out in the cold.

That's not what they said. They said only classes that were in at least one PH1 were 'on the table' for inclusion in the 5e PH.

That's arguably why psionics were left out, they existed in a PH1 only in 1e, and not as a class, only as a random add-on special ability based on stats in an appendix.

Still, even if the Warlord had to be cut as a compromise to appease the h4ters and avoid an Edition War II, it should have been first in line to see print as an optional class.

 

[Umbran]

Looking at the list... I don't really care. None of those options make me sit up and go, "Hey, that's a concept I need to play right now!"

I also note - all those options are "What old class concept to they replicate next?" I'd be happy if they didn't replicate something old, and instead found some fertile new ground.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Descriptively - a fighter is about hitting things with weapons. A warlord is about commanding on a battlefield.

So, what, your actions revolve more about supporting others to be more effective in combat? Similar to a bard or something?

 

[Mister-Kent]

So, what, your actions revolve more about supporting others to be more effective in combat? Similar to a bard or something?

The way I look at them is like a hybrid fighter-bard.

I was thinking on possible subclasses and think you could vary your Warlords by how they affect their allies - Charlemagne vs R. Lee Ermey came to mind The nobly inspiring soldier-king or the drill sergeant from Hell are just two possibilities...

 

[Sacrosanct]

The warlord was them finally admitting "we never should have had the bard, we should have just started with the warlord because everyone was playing the bard like how a warlord is described anyway:

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

The shaman is an interest concept, but its gameplay was practically a clone of the druid. It needs its own style in the gameplay, for example summoning totems with a game mechanic like the vestige pact magic, or acting like the lighter brother of necromancer, summoning feys and deathless (undeads healed by positive energy and hurt by necrotic damage, "controlled" by good clerics and turned by evil ones). Have you seen the manga-anime "shaman-king"?

Shaman King Wiki

shamanking.fandom.com

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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

A warlord is a cleric who casts spells without using magic.