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

[Blackwarder]

Or a Barbarian or Samurai.

Or a fire Mage class and a frost Mage class, or an archer class, or even a knight class, you know, with a horse.

And let's not forget the great baker class for the times we all want to flesh out our characters personal story, although a brick layer class is a bit too much, you have to lay your foot down somewhere and having a brick layer class is absolutely rediciluse...

Warder

 

[Stacie GmrGrl]

For the last time, barbarian is a background, berserker is a speciality, none of them should be a class.

Want to play the classic 3e and 4e barbarian? Take a fighter with a barbarian background and berserker speciality, want to play a noble elf bard who been cursed? Elven berserker noble bard is a viable option.

Same goes for the warlord, just take a leader speciality.

Warder

Ditto. Agreed on all points..

The Barbarian could be renamed Battlerager as a class... it would make sense.

But, anything that could be seen as either a Feat tree/Fighting Style system should be a part of the Fighter class.

----- (separate minor rant)
I wish WotC looked at FantasyCraft for ideas and inspiration. Instead of having 8 different magic using classes they have one, maybe two. The other 10 classes fill non-magical Archetypes but many are non-combat focused... the Courtier,Burglar, Explorer, Sage, and Keeper classes are amazing because of this. Instead of making every combat focused, they put many of the awesome combat stuff into Feat Trees.

and FC doesn't have the problem of Linear Fighters/Quadratic Wizards. They are all fairly well balanced, without trying to be balanced. It's awesome.

If WotC got the people over at Crafty to get on this and help we would see a truly amazing game.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I mean, we have seen a 'Noble' style Class used in D20 games before - Dragonlance and Star wars.

And the 3e 'Aristocrat' NPC class.

Noble is a background. For one thing, literally, for another, it's independent of class: you could be a noble who wears heavy armor and goes jousting, a noble who joins the clergy and smites the foes of god & mankind, a noble who dabbles in the arcane arts, even a noble who goes to all the best parties and steals jewels.

 

[Hussar]

I think you can get away with something like a "noble" or "barbarian" or "samurai" class in specific settings far better than in core books. In a specific setting, like Dragonlance or Kara Tur, these classes have a place and an actual function within that setting.

Outside of specific settings though, I think these kinds of classes are far better as backgrounds - something that you can certainly have in the game, but not quite so centrally defining and so broadly setting changing. In Dragonlance, I have the specific information in order to make a Noble class and know exactly what that means. In Generic Fantasy Setting #28 , a Noble class dumps a butt load of work onto the DM. Great if he wants to do it, but, still a PITA.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

For the core I'd like so see

Fighter
Magic-User
Cleric
Thief
Paladin
Ranger
Illusionist
Bard
Warlord

So yeah, I'm a traditionalist. With the exception of the warlord of course - I love the idea even if I don't care for 4E's implementation.

I'd also like the priest to be primarily a caster, or maybe a caster/social class with the paladin taking up the combat side of the cleric, but there's not much chance of that.