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

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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Li Shenron

Legend
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

First Post
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

First Post
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.
 


Moon_Goddess

Have I really been on this site for over 20 years!
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?
 


Frostmarrow

First Post
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.
 
Last edited:

Remathilis

Legend
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.
 


Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top