The classes you would actually want to play poll

[TwoSix]

Yep, this is the real question: what is the difference between a Class and a Theme? Right now we have the Cleric of Moradin, who looks a lot like the Paladin class for all intent and purpose. Give him a Lay on Hands ability at 4th level and a special mount at 6th, and you've got a very serviceable paladin.

To my mind, the single biggest difference between TSR D&D and WotC D&D is that in the older versions, you created characters, but in the newer versions, you built them.

Themes (which are really parcels of feats) seem to reflect this difference, being something that you can make choices on as you level. The point of pre-packaging feats into Themes seems to be to turn a character-building option into a character-creating one, which seems to be more palatable to a larger section of the player base. After all, even Pathfinder's mechanical upgrade was granting more creation options to all the character classes, via alternate class features.

The question to my mind is, will 5e have any more character building options that feats? And if so, are they going to be embedded into classes, or into another subsystem altogether?

 

[CM]

Now with 220 votes

<snip>

Pretty much the same. Support for the Sorcerer is a little more, little less for Warlord and Barbarian.

As a Warlord fan, I am happy to see that the relatively new warlord/marshal is beating out long-running classes such as the assassin, barbarian, and psion.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

If you want "realism", a dumb fighter is a dead fighter. There's a lot more to being a swordsman than just trying to hack through something.

Not a big fan of Nine Swords, but I like the idea of the Warblade/Swordsage/Crusader split-- Fighters are smart, Monks are wise, and Cavaliers are compelling.

As a Warlord fan, I am happy to see that the relatively new warlord/marshal is beating out long-running classes such as the assassin, barbarian, and psion.

I prefer to see it as the Marshal and Warlord being continuations of the Cavalier.

 

[jadrax]

I am surprised that Warlock is doing so badly, that seemed to be really popular in both 3.x and 4th.

I am also surprised that at least Arcane Specialists is more popular that Illusionist. That suggests that some people want Specialist Classes, but not all 8 of them.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I'll play pretty much anything.

The only things that jumped out to me as a no were the racial classes (I'd rather play a halfling rogue than a halfling halfling, which is odd becauseI like the UA paragon classes), assassin (I'd rather play a rogue with an assassin theme/prestige classs/kit/etc., and marshal/warlord (character that shouts and makes other characters better, umm, no).

I am surprised that Warlock is doing so badly, that seemed to be really popular in both 3.x and 4th.

I think it's representative of most of the late 3e stuff and 4e stuff; that some people really like it and everyone else really hates it. Personally, I like the warlock, but I understand why others don't.

 

[Steely_Dan]

You're the one telling people that an intelligent fighter is "dumb".

Never said that; in the end it helps anybody to be intelligent, regardless of class (and you should do the stand up thing and apologise).

I don't think your IQ should determine when you smack things.

Do you think Einstein should have been a good melee combatant because he was bright?

Should all D&D characters be able to use their Int to hit? Yay, my 18 Int wizard is better than a 16 Str fighter in physical combat?

 

[TerraDave]

I am surprised that Warlock is doing so badly, that seemed to be really popular in both 3.x and 4th.

I am also surprised that at least Arcane Specialists is more popular that Illusionist. That suggests that some people want Specialist Classes, but not all 8 of them.

45% saying they would play one actually seems pretty high.

 

[jadrax]

45% saying they would play one actually seems pretty high.

True, I just thought it would be well into the 60s. I still think it deserves a place as a class.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I've been advocating for everything on this list to be its own class (other than the races, obviously, and I don't think there needs to be specialist wizards and priests)

But I'm starting to think that the Assassin could work as a scheme if it also has theme support, and the warlord's tactical leadership and "healing" ability would also work well as themes (everything else about them says fighter, after all)

I'd PLAY them if they make them a class, though.

I suspect that the Specialist Wizard beating the Illusionist is mostly votes for Necromancers (or perhaps Invokers, though I see not much difference between an invoker and most sorcerers, myself).

Speaking of Illusionists, if they make one, and make it cool, I would like to give it a try, but I somehow doubt they will bother making one.

 

[TerraDave]

Still reading through the excellent reddit AMA with Mearls.

He has this to say on class vs theme:

Right now, it's mainly a feel thing. We could easily change some classes to themes, but the key lies in what feels right for the game. Also, some classes have enough unique mechanics that we might be overloaded the theme system if we tried to make that work.
For instance, right now a theme gives you one thing at level 1. Would that feel correct for a paladin or monk? My sense is that it come across as a little too thin. OTOH, if a class feels like it could work in that way, we'll explore it. The assassin comes to mind - aside from poison use, a lot of the key assassin elements can be covered by the rogue.