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

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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

MortalPlague

Adventurer
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. :)
 
Last edited:

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....
 


Yora

Legend
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.
 


ZombieRoboNinja

First Post
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

Legend
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.
 


Frostmarrow

First Post
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.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top