The classes you would actually want to play poll

[Viktyr Gehrig]

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)

Honestly, I think these ought to be class features of the Wizard and Cleric. Wizards should automatically have a specialty school, and every Cleric should be a 'specialty priest' of their chosen deity.

I'm waffling about whether Rogue should be a separate class from Assassin. It seems like there's too much overlap between them, and rather than two classes-- a Thief and a Ninja-- I would rather have one Rogue class that I can customize myself the degree to which it is a martial striker, shadow assassin, or skillmonkey.

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'm hoping they take the Marshal and Warlord classes and blend them thoroughly with the 3.X Knight class. I want that to be a separate class with the Fighter being the master of weapons and tactics and the Cavalier the master of leadership. The Sergeant and the Captain.

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).

I don't want much. I just want an INT-focused arcane caster with a specialization in Transmutation and Necromancy and the ability to cast all of the major healing spells. Call it a Biomancer, call it a Witch, call it whatever you want, as long as I can slap it on a Thri-Kreen, call myself a Xixchil, and creep the Hell out of my party.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Honestly, I think these ought to be class features of the Wizard and Cleric. Wizards should automatically have a specialty school, and every Cleric should be a 'specialty priest' of their chosen deity.

Both of those sound right to me.

I'm waffling about whether Rogue should be a separate class from Assassin. It seems like there's too much overlap between them, and rather than two classes-- a Thief and a Ninja-- I would rather have one Rogue class that I can customize myself the degree to which it is a martial striker, shadow assassin, or skillmonkey.

The essentials assassin wound up my favourite class of that edition, so I don't mean it without proper consideration when I say I think it would probably work out fine as a scheme and theme combination. As long as you can build a really good stealthy killer. If the theme's good enough, you could make some pretty cool assassin-y fighters or warlocks or whatever.

I'm hoping they take the Marshal and Warlord classes and blend them thoroughly with the 3.X Knight class. I want that to be a separate class with the Fighter being the master of weapons and tactics and the Cavalier the master of leadership. The Sergeant and the Captain.

The officers and the enlisted fighting-men. I like it.

I don't want much. I just want an INT-focused arcane caster with a specialization in Transmutation and Necromancy and the ability to cast all of the major healing spells. Call it a Biomancer, call it a Witch, call it whatever you want, as long as I can slap it on a Thri-Kreen, call myself a Xixchil, and creep the Hell out of my party.

Sounds fun.

 

[technoextreme]

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*

Yeah the justification is that ability scores are a .... stupid idea with which any example that one can come up with is completely wrong.

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.

It does though. As much as your mind probably can't comprehend it the act of swinging a sword requires a lot of thought to it probably to the same point of a wizard casting a spell. Mind you that depends on the sword but the cases where that isn't true are the exception more than the rule.

Mod Note: Folks, we ask you to keep your language clean, and to not get personally insulting. Keep it within the rules, please. Thanks. ~Umbran

 

[TerraDave]

More from reddit

We definitely want to trim back the number of classes. The further you get from the PH, the more likely a class becomes a theme.


The warlord is tricky, because I think a theme might work pretty well for it. I can see wizards or fighters or rangers as warlords. That said, we're not wedded to that. It'll depend on what we see as the key features of a warlord and the best way to express them.

So all classes from the PHBs except assassin and warlord, and not much beyond those?

 

[Dragoslav]

The warlord is tricky, because I think a theme might work pretty well for it. I can see wizards or fighters or rangers as warlords.

???

I"m a bit baffled by this. A wizard or ranger as a warlord... I'm not seeing it. Unless he's somehow thinking that wizard/ranger magic could stand in for a warlord's healing/(de)buffs.

If you have a rogue, give him a "silent killer" scheme, and takes feats to further specialize in stealthy kills and devastating one-on-one combat, you have an assassin, because you are taking what the rogue already has and make him even better at it.

If you have a wizard, ranger, or even a fighter with a couple of feats to heal/buff allies, you don't have a warlord. You have a wizard/ranger/fighter who, incidentally, can maybe give you temporary hit points or combat advantage once in a while.

That said, Mearls and the rest of the team could have big plans for redesigning feats and the individual classes, but with what we know about how themes work now, I'm not seeing how it could work adequately.

 

[Fifth Element]

Yet all the postings that it shouldn't be its own class...

My contribution to those discussions is that if they're going to make it a class, it had better deserve the distinction. That is, if it's a fighter with some woodsy skills and two-weapon fighting, that's not enough to deserve a class to itself.

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).

Hey, that's what a lot of people are posting about rangers and paladins...

But they're just silly, right?

Voted none.

D&D should finally modernize and switch over to a classless system.

Class vs. classless has nothing to do with modernity. There are very good design reasons to use a class system. Just because it's the oldest system does not mean it's outmoded. This "modernization" claim goes back as far as I can remember, reading letters to Dragon magazine in the late 80s.

 

[TerraDave]

???

I"m a bit baffled by this. A wizard or ranger as a warlord... I'm not seeing it. Unless he's somehow thinking that wizard/ranger magic could stand in for a warlord's healing/(de)buffs.

....

I guess any of them could be someone that helps others by "leading" them, without using divine magic. But as he notes in the reddit, themes only do so much, so he may have a more limited view of the warlord in mind (ie not a primary healer).

 

[Yora]

I am suprised how all the 3rd Edition core classes (and only them) got over 50% in the votes (and monks almost got there), except barbarians.

Monks doing bad doesn't suprise me as the class was terrible in that edition. But what's wrong with barbarians that people don't like them anymore? I heard in 4th Edition they are quite good as well.

 

[Kavon]

I am suprised how all the 3rd Edition core classes (and only them) got over 50% in the votes (and monks almost got there), except barbarians.

Monks doing bad doesn't suprise me as the class was terrible in that edition. But what's wrong with barbarians that people don't like them anymore? I heard in 4th Edition they are quite good as well.

I can't really say with any certainty, but I would guess it has to do with that people would prefer the barbarian to be a background (you come from a barbaric origin) and theme (you have berserker rage abilities).

One problem with this is that it leaves the people that don't want to use backgrounds or themes in the dirt when they would like to play the 'berserker' type class.

 

[jadrax]

I am suprised how all the 3rd Edition core classes (and only them) got over 50% in the votes (and monks almost got there), except barbarians.

Monks doing bad doesn't suprise me as the class was terrible in that edition. But what's wrong with barbarians that people don't like them anymore? I heard in 4th Edition they are quite good as well.

It seems to be purely the name tbh, if it was pitched as a 'Berserker Class' rather than a 'Barbarian Class' I think there would be more buy in.

A lot of people seem to want to see 'Barbarian' as a background, with is inappropriate both in terms of what a Background is in 5th edition and is also inappropriate as a social commentary.