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

[LordEntrails]

Psionic is pretty much the only one of those that could support enough sub classes to justify a whole class. But since I dont like psions I went with other. Because I feel we have just the right number of classes and to me most of those could be sub classes.

 

[Kurotowa]

Yeah, that's my thing. It would be a serious pain to balance, would introduce a bunch of extra mechanics, and would prolly be some flavor of complete mess.

Maybe, and I certainly don't have my heart set on it ever happening. But aren't new mechanics pretty much required, if a new class is going to do new things and not just be a slight variation on an existing class? The Artificer introduced Infusions and took a lot of work to get the pets and constructs working okay. If we're speculating about something that can't be done as a reflavor or a new subclass, it has to be something as far out there as a Summoner.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

Except Bards are explicitly arcane, and clerics explicitly divine, while Shamans can gain their supernatural powers from secret knowledge, service to a higher power, negotiated pacts with familiar spirits, nature in the abstract, or some form of Animism - mostly that last, which is not well-represented by any of the three classes you mention.

Though the Druid is the closest - if you discount it's overlap with the cleric and history as a cleric sub-class - it'd arguably make more sense for the culture-specific Druid to be a sub-class of a broader 'Old-religion'/Primal/Animistic Shaman class.

Psionic is pretty much the only one of those that could support enough sub classes to justify a whole class.

Well, psionics has had multiple incarnations in past editions and accumulated not just sub-classes but full classes:

Psion
Psionicist
Psychic Warrior
Soul Knife
Ardent
Battlemind
etc..
(even Monk in one ed).

Add to that PrCs and Paragon Path concepts, and that should be a reasonable number of sub-classes.

But, it's not alone.

The Warlord had 6 builds, plus archery, plus the unofficial lazy-lord fan-build that eventually got some official support, plus paragon paths and concepts that it's Leader role prevented developing, thus:

Warlord
Inspiring
Tactical
Bravura
Resourceful
Skirmishing
Insightful
Archery
'Lazy'
'Hector'
etc..

The Shaman has in some form or another, been in most past editions, and got multiple builds in 4e:

Shaman
Humanoid Shaman (TSR era)
Shukenja (OA)
Spirit Shaman
Dragon Shaman
Animist Shaman
Bear Shaman
Eagle Shaman
Panther Shaman
World Speaker Shaman

The Warden was a PH2 class that received zero post-E support, but, even so, had 4 builds...

Warden
Earth
Life
Storm
Wild
(If one still found the shaman wanting, the warden could be folded into it, I suppose.)

The Rune Priest, likewise:

RunePriest
Defiant
Wrathful
Rune Master
Rune of Mending
Runic Artistry

"Dedicated" Summoner doesn't ring a bell, but off the top of my head, you could give it sub-classes based on what it summons with no less validity than a Wizard's schools:

Summoner
Demon
Devil
Celestial
Shadow
Fey
Animal
Elemental
Djinn (Sha'ir?)

 

[Retreater]

Voted for Psion. Even though I loved the Warlord, there's just too much healing already in 5e.

 

[LordEntrails]

@tonysure, lots of those have previous things that could be considered sub classes, but I dont think those really fit anything close to the 5E concept of class and subclass.

Remember, 5E takes a broader approach to things and if fluff and flavor can handle it, then no need to make it unique in 5E. A big part of the success of 5E is its lack of proliferation of options. One of the complaints on another thread yesterday was about too many options for character development.

"We" are actually the minority of the market and customer base for 5E. What we want can be handled by homebrew and distribution on places like here and the Guild. A glut of options may make us happy, but in the long run I think it's pretty safe to say such would hurt D&D.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Voted for Psion. Even though I loved the Warlord, there's just too much healing already in 5e.

With the Bard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin and Ranger all able to do at least some healing, and HD, and healers kits & whatnot, there is rather a lot of healing in the game, already.

OTOH, with Bard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Ranger, Wizard, Warlock, Sorcerer, Monk, EK, AT, & Totem Barbarian all wielding supernatural powers (mostly as spells), there's a lot more supernatural powers, just in the PH, already, too.
A third* class with multiple non-casting sub-classes would not be amiss.
An additional class with supernatural power not strictly spellcasting also wouldn't be so bad, either - though there are actually a lot of such powers spread out over a lot of classes, they almost all come with actual spellcasting, as well.

sure, lots of those have previous things that could be considered sub classes, but I dont think those really fit anything close to the 5E concept of class and subclass.

No? Because the 5e concept of class & subclass seems very flexible, if we're to go by the PH classes.

The Rogue & Fighter have de-facto multi-class magic-users as sub-classes, for instance.

The Wizard's 'traditions' are just the old schools, which merely group magic spells roughly by what they do, and, while former ed specialists were actually focused on their school to the exclusion of at least one other, every 5e wizard can use any spell of any school, they're barely differentiated from eachother, and they're all the exact same bookish concept.

The Clerics' Domains are also pretty utilitarian, that way, just what is your god a god /of/, you're still just a worshipper thereof. No big differences.

A Psion could, without even getting into the range of concepts in past editions, just divvy up psionics functionally into disciplines and sciences by similar criteria and have 9 or more of sub-classes at least as valid as the Cleric's & Wizard's.

Remember, 5E takes a broader approach to things and if fluff and flavor can handle it, then no need to make it unique in 5E.

That can't be true, or we wouldn't have separate Druid, Sorcerer, Bard & Warlock (and Paladin & Ranger, and Barbarian and Monk) classes. The Big 4 could handle everything that way.

A big part of the success of 5E is its lack of proliferation of options

I don't think it's any one thing - or anything, at all, to be found between the covers of the PH - that can be tagged as a major part of D&D's revival, at this point. IMHO, it's a cultural phenom, just like last time, and most of the factors - the big parts of that success - have virtually nothing to do with the game. 5e could be a re-print of the 2e core books or the Red Box & the Rules Cyclopaedia, and it'd be doing just as well.

What we want can be handled by homebrew and distribution on places like here and the Guild. A glut of options may make us happy, but in the long run I think it's pretty safe to say such would hurt D&D.

What class is next isn't a glut of options - the plethora of extreme tenuous-concept, niche sub-classes and oddball races we've been seeing, maybe. But psionics is not just more fiddly choices sub-dividing the same things, it's something outright missing from the game. Same for the Warlord. Arguably the same for the Shaman and even some of the others.





* after fighter and rogue - a class with no spellcasting, even a sub-class, is clearly too much to ask of 5e.