The classes you would actually want to play poll

[Blood & Bones]

I tend to go for stealthy/tricky characters, so Assassins, Rogues, Rangers, Monks, and Bards are good. I like a good bashing like anyone else, so Fighters and Barbarians are cool. I like Psions and Divine casters... for some reason they appeal to me much more than Arcane casters. *shrugs* I'm just weird like that. I'm not opposed to racial classes... as long as they are optional.

 

[Ranganathan]

The most fun 4E class I ever played was a swordmage. I'd like that too.

 

[Herschel]

Thanks the gods, should not be in any PHB, IMO, total waste of a full class, let it be what it should, IMO (kit, PrC, PP, etc, etc).

Intelligence for hitting with s sword...really...

...oh, the justifications for this one should be marvellous...*in the voice of Stewie-Family Guy*

Thsan don't play one if your imagination is too limited to grasp them but a lot of people really like them.

 

[Kurtomatic]

Intelligence for hitting with s sword...really...

It's pretty off-topic, but since you asked...

There's two usual approaches to this:

1. Swordy as a Chessmaster--always thinking several moves ahead of the opponent; see the Robert Downey, Jr. Sherlock Holmes vehicles.
   
2. Swordy as a Jedi Nerd--instead of hitting with WIS ('use the force'), hits with INT (arcane divination/evocation, etc). I mean, what can't magic do, really?

So there ya go. There are definitely a number of folk who are okay with those concepts.

 

[Pheonix0114]

Out of the normal classes the one I didn't include was the Paladin, but only because I personally am not interested in playing it. I also picked other with my others being:

A class that uses martial skill and arcana training together. I really like both 4e's Swordmage and PF's Magus (though the name is horrible.)

And a class that is the person sent against enemies of their religion, the person that has to do the dirty work a Paladin or Cleric would find distasteful, to say the least. Once again I like 4e's Avenger for this, but even more so PF's Inquisitor.

 

[drothgery]

Thsan don't play one if your imagination is too limited to grasp them but a lot of people really like them.

... and just because the 4e swordmage used INT to attack doesn't mean its 5e counterpart would; the Duskblade (which was the best 3.x expression of the arcetype) didn't work like that.

 

[TerraDave]

With about 160 votes....

Wizard 123 77.36%
Fighter 119 74.84%
Rogue/Thief 112 70.44%
Ranger 105 66.04%
Cleric 100 62.89%
Paladin 94 59.12%
Sorcerer 94 59.12%
Druid 90 56.60%
Bard 89 55.97%
Monk 83 52.20%
Warlord/Marshal 80 50.31%
Warlock 76 47.80%
Assassin 70 44.03%
Barbarian/Berserker 66 41.51%
Psion 53 33.33%
(other) Arcane specialist 48 30.19%
Illusionist 47 29.56%
Cavalier/Knight 43 27.04%
(other) Priest 41 25.79%
Other (please note) 29 18.24%
Elf 28 17.61%
Dwarf 19 11.95%
Halfling 13 8.18%

While my whole hypothesis was based on "signficant minority" if we used the 50% cut off, getting the warlord, monk, bard, sorcerer and the rest in there, I would be pretty happy with that, though I wouldn't mind the barbarian, assassin and warlock as well.

On the sorcerer in particular, I see this as a clear call for a non-vancian (or semi vancian? flex-vancian) core caster...could be interesting to see what they do with it. (some kind of bloodlines/power origin?).

As for the psion and the others...they might come latter. And for the other "others" which people have posted on....I am not seeing a swordmage/bladesinger or artificer in the core, (though I could see options for that sort of character) but thats what supplements are for.

 

[Kurtomatic]

I agree that anything within spitting distance of 50% (and the warlock is definitely in this range) would make a fine class list. I'd really like to see the barbarian split into a Background (Barbarian) and a Theme (Berzerker).

 

[Pickles JG]

Anything but the Halfling (& Gnome).

Really any class could be potentially fun for me (like 4e non strikers or 3e casters) or not (like 3e martial classes or 4e strikers).

 

[Kavon]

The model that I would prefer would be four classes, followed by dozens of different themes.

Fighter + Theme = Barbarian, Ranger, Monk, Cavalier, Paladin, etc.
Cleric + Theme = Druid, Priest, Paladin, etc.
Thief + Theme = Assassin, Monk, Bard, etc.
Mage + Theme = Psion, Illusionist, Sorcerer, Warlock, etc.

But this probably won't happen. *Sigh*

It will not happen, because people that will not be using Themes might want to have access to those classes as well.

Disappointed the new-in-4e classes aren't listed.

I'd add Swordmage Shaman and Avenger as my favorites.

I definately see room for these as well.

Armored melee casters have a very different focus compared to non-armored ranged casters, and their spells and abilities should reflect this.
Not too sold on the sword-specific name, though (didn't like that in 4e either).

Shaman are the spirit (of the wild/of their ancestors/both) channelers. This is not something done by any other class and is a welcome addition in my eyes (and I prefer the 'primal' classes, like druid and such).

Avenger is the only one I'm not completely sold on.. It might be better to have the Assassin class murder it and take its stuff and have options for using either shadow or radiant powers, whichever way it works.
On the other hand, I suppose they're just as distinct (or maybe more so) than the Cleric and the Paladin.


I voted for almost all of them, btw (all except some of the generic ones and the race classes).
I wasn't sure on whether to pick Wizard or the specialists. It might be a good idea to silo the spells into seperate classes (and let multiclassing settle the rest), or to have all of it in one class, risking it being too versatile.