D&D 5E What Classes do you really want to see in D&D Next?

[TrippyHippy]

It is a pretty core question that keeps on revolving, but it's worth thrashing out here now for a bit.

People may vary in their views, but honestly the min/max limit for Classes in my view is somewhere between 8-15. Fewer than that, and players don't feel they have enough choice, and for me, I just don't want to see a never-ending list of Classes that get increasingly weaker in archetypal theme.

So what Classes should exist, and what specifications, if any would you have for them? For me (currently), I'd like to see:

5 'Martial' Classes - Fighter, Rogue, Ranger, Paladin, Monk*,
5 'Magic-Using' Classes - Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer**, Warlock***
1 Jack-of-all-Trades Class - Bard.

The Classes I am not particularly enamoured by are the Assassin, Barbarian and Warlord, essentially because I think they could be handled better by Speciality and Background. Persuade me otherwise....

The other specifications I have would be:

* The Monk would need to be de-Orientalised, to the extent they represent all forms of cultural mysticism and asceticism.
** The Sorcerer would have some genuine thematic difference to Wizards, that doesn't just provide a set of different casting mechanics.
*** The Warlock get's to be callled a Witch, and again is significantly different to a Wizard.

 

[MortalPlague]

This seems like a bit of a moot point, since they've said every class ever given the write-up in a PHB 1 will get the full class treatment. So Assassin, Barbarian, and Warlord will all definitely get the class treatment.

Also, we'll be seeing Warlock and Sorcerer very soon.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Well, the Sorcerer and Warlock are already written up now in fact. Check the new playtest version.

However, all of this is still in playtest stage, so it's worth getting a discussion on the matter going I think. I'm quite happy to argue why I wouldn't want an Assassin Class for example....

 

[GX.Sigma]

All of them.

 

[Yora]

We already got fighter, rogue, and sorcerer, that covers the most basic needs.

I hope to see a decent ranger soon and maybe barbarian, bard, and druid turn out interesting as well. But that would really cover pretty much anything I could want for.

 

[The Shadow]

I'm quite happy to argue why I wouldn't want an Assassin Class for example....

Ditto. I'm just not seeing it.

I *would* kind of like an Illusionist. But if it ends up as a specialty as interesting as Necromancer, I could live with it.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

They've said that they're shooting for all the PHB1 classes ever, but they're in flux as some might not make the final cut. (For an obvious example, "Magic-User" and "Slayer" already got redefined as specialties.)

Classes we've already seen:
Fighter
Rogue
Cleric
Wizard
Warlock
Sorcerer

Classes that IMO are almost sure to be there (and should):
Ranger
Paladin
Bard

Classes that I expect to see, and really hope make the cut (as classes):
Monk
Barbarian

Classes that I don't expect to see but would be a pleasant surprise:
Psion (it's almost a D&D tradition NOT to put them in the first PHB)
Warlord? (would also be a kickass specialty)
Some kind of non-Vancian divine caster (preferably with an entirely unique spell system, not just "cleric spells with spellpoints")

Classes I only expect to see as specialties/arcane traditions/etc:
Illusionist (pretty clearly a wizard "arcane tradition" IMO)
Assassin (either a rogue scheme or a specialty)

 

[gyor]

I like Assassins, Barbarians, and Warlords. I'm looking forward to seeing all three. I also hope Paladin's have no alignment restrictions, if so I'm looking forward to them too.

 

[Moon_Goddess]

I want to see
Psion
Warlord
Druid

In that order

 

[Frostmarrow]

I want

Cleric Fighter Rogue Wizard
Paladin Ranger Bard

I don't know why exactly but this captures D&D for me. Any more classes and classes become redundant. Fewer classes and it's not D&D.

D&D is not logical or rational. D&D is not about symmetry and formula. It's just D&D and those seven classes corner the experience.

 

[The Shadow]

Classes that IMO are almost sure to be there (and should):
Ranger
Paladin
Bard

You forgot the Druid. But yes, I expect to see all of those.

Classes that I expect to see, and really hope make the cut (as classes):
Monk
Barbarian

I have to say that I just don't 'get' the Barbarian as a 5e class. Berserking strikes me as a specialty (and possibly a fighting style) much more than a class, and if you take that out, what are you left with? A fighter with a certain cultural background. Oh look, we have backgrounds already.

The monk is just plain strange in many respects. I expect it will probably be in, for tradition's sake, but it really is the odd man out among classes.

Classes that I don't expect to see but would be a pleasant surprise:
Psion (it's almost a D&D tradition NOT to put them in the first PHB)
Warlord? (would also be a kickass specialty)
Some kind of non-Vancian divine caster (preferably with an entirely unique spell system, not just "cleric spells with spellpoints")

I really don't expect to see the Psion. It's traditional, as you say, and there's only so much page count to go around.

I think Warlord could indeed make a great specialty. I think it 'feels' more like that than a 5e class.

Non-Vancian divine: Yes please. I really like the 5e cleric thus far, but some options in the divine realm would be nice. A divine version of the sorcerer is very easy to imagine - instead of a bloodline, they start to resemble their god. A divine warlock is a little harder to picture, but perhaps a shaman?

Classes I only expect to see as specialties/arcane traditions/etc:
Illusionist (pretty clearly a wizard "arcane tradition" IMO)
Assassin (either a rogue scheme or a specialty)

Definitely agreed about the assassin. I'm thinking it could be both a specialty AND a rogue scheme. Add in the Spy background for additional fun!

I'm very eager to find out how wizard traditions work. Depending on how sweeping they are, the Illusionist might well fit in there. But what I do not want to see is a retread of 2e and 3e specialists, who merely get a bonus with one school of spells and bar others. The 1e Illusionist was much more interesting than that!

Something like a cleric Domain could maybe work. Though I think even Domains could be made a bit more sweeping - I wouldn't mind making them more like 2e Spheres.

 

[Li Shenron]

Not too many in the core:

- Fighter
- Paladin
- Ranger
- Rogue
- Bard
- Cleric
- Druid
- Wizard

Everything else for me can go to supplements. Those 8 classes are more than enough to cover all the most common archetypes (there is even already some overlap, but at least these are the most traditional D&D classes IMHO).

Well, the Sorcerer and Warlock are already written up now in fact.

Don't need to be in the first PHB, although it's now probable.

 

[Frostmarrow]

Non-vancian divine? That is the paladin to me. Well, I really do feel paladin is the lawful good holy avenger but since I can't have that exclusively then the paladin fits the niche of a divine-spellcaster-by-talent-rather-than-training. Maybe the paladin is not necessarily a master of arms (although he can be) but is always a person with divine gifts and a larger than life calling.

Given that fighters now have combat superiority it would be sheer vanity for the paladin to try and compete in melee. And when one door shuts another door usually opens up.

 

[Frostmarrow]

Not too many in the core:

- Fighter
- Paladin
- Ranger
- Rogue
- Bard
- Cleric
- Druid
- Wizard

Everything else for me can go to supplements. Those 8 classes are more than enough to cover all the most common archetypes (there is even already some overlap, but at least these are the most traditional D&D classes IMHO).



Don't need to be in the first PHB, although it's now probable.

I dig your selection. But why druid? (Shapechangers won't work*).

* From experience we now know polymorph is broken on a concept level and all attempts to nerf it really does nerf it.

 

[Li Shenron]

I dig your selection. But why druid?

Yeah but I told you there was already some overlap...

 

[Moon_Goddess]

I want

Cleric Fighter Rogue Wizard
Paladin Ranger Bard

I don't know why exactly but this captures D&D for me. Any more classes and classes become redundant. Fewer classes and it's not D&D.

D&D is not logical or rational. D&D is not about symmetry and formula. It's just D&D and those seven classes corner the experience.

I grok your reasoning behind your choices behind your seven. But no druid (1e, 2e, 3e, PHB 1) when Bard can't even claim the same?

 

[JamesonCourage]

Paladin. I mean, I want more than that, but that's the biggest one to me. We'll see what they do with it.

 

[Frostmarrow]

I grok your reasoning behind your choices behind your seven. But no druid (1e, 2e, 3e, PHB 1) when Bard can't even claim the same?

A druid is a wilderness themed wizard with summoning and shapechanging. Summoning is a complete drag for everybody but the druid player. Shapechanging is broken or purely cosmetic, there is no middle-ground. Role-playwise druids are so boring you don't even notice they're there until they put the brakes on every single combat. (They make for great low-level villains, though).

A bard is spread pretty thin, being a jack of all trades, but bard players always inject fun into D&D. Bard is in. Bard is the crazy choice. We need some humour in the game. Most of the other classes take themselves far too seriously. Even rogues do.

 

[Remathilis]

Assassin, Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Warlock, Warlord, & Wizard in the PHB.

If space is a premium, save Assassin and Warlord for another book.

 

[Li Shenron]

All of them.

Outside of core (PHB, DMG) there will be no limit, so if the edition lasts long enough we might pretty much get all we've seen before.