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

[Parmandur]

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]

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.

 

[DND_Reborn]

It was a Kit in the Complete Bard.

 

[Ashrym]

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]

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).

 

[Lanefan]

Other - Knight or Cavalier as its own standalone class.

 

[MockingBird]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Sacrosanct]

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.

A warlord isn’t a caster. They are a shouter