Yora
Legend
All 800?
D&D 5E What Classes do you really want to see in D&D Next?
- Thread starter TrippyHippy
- Start date
All 800?
The Shadow
Hero
Wow. I'm finding it very hard to disagree with any of this. Honestly, the druid does seem more arcane than divine. And summoning *is* a drag. There's got to be a way to simulate it other than giving the summoned beings all initiative slots and their own attack rolls.
Shapechanging can perhaps find a middle ground between purely cosmetic and broken, but 3e Wild Shape is right out, yes. Honestly, as I far as I can recall, 1e Wild Shape wasn't so bad. It wasn't the heart of the class, either.
This I disagree with. They have plenty of roleplaying potential.
Frostmarrow
First Post
Apparently wild shape could be exploited. The shifter race was an attempt to create an opportunity to play a character with limited shapeshifting.
It didn't fly, and lacked enough bite. :||
My own feelings about the role-playing potential of druids are not of any concern, really.
Druids could stock up on soothsaying and astral projection instead of summoning and shapechanging, perhaps.
Pour
First Post
Cleric, with a huge amount of domains and specialties to achieve everything from a traveling warrior-friar to a cannibalistic maenad. I demand more domains at launch than sun, war, and storm. I'm so freaking tired of those three. Give me lies, Hell, fatherhood, fertility, forests, hatred, thieves, prophecy, etc.
Paladin, given some mechanical mix between domains and warlock patrons encompassing specific kinds of knightly or religious orders in which the paladin was trained. Make a paladin's access to divine power different than the cleric's, maybe something like the sorcerer and magic, except instead of willpower, it's more tied to vanquishing enemies. Nothing like solving the 5mwd like replenishing resources through besting/slaughtering opponents (which could be done in very chivalric ways, or through blood for the blood god, as the need calls for). And don't even think of bringing back alignment requirements.
Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock: I think they're on the right track with these guys. I want different approaches to magic, and they're in the process of giving them to us. And despite any similarities, their differences are both awesome and class-defining. Study, innate, and pact magic using Vancian, AERU, and spell points each bring something exciting to the table and account for an insane range of caster concepts. However, I think certain spells have always been problematic, and instead of rehashing the too-much too-little, beef and nerf cycle, I would dedicate magical classes to them, namely conjuration (Summoner) and polymorphing (Druid).
Summoner would encapsulate calling entities from any number of different places, and through specialties could range from prophet-like figures calling angels from Heaven, alienists tearing breaches into the Far Realm and unleashing shoggoth or Xothians, to planeswalker-like characters making pacts with creatures across different worlds to come and fight (kind of a reverse warlock, where you are the patron) or even enslaving them. If a class can be geared to calling other creatures to fight, it could also be specialized to allow for permanent golems and companion creatures/mounts, I imagine. And again, I feel it needs to be its own class because conjuration can become suspect, overpowered (or else so nerfed it's a kind of boring or lackluster option when included in normal spell lists), and kind of a DM hassle very quickly. Dedicate a class to it, playtest it extensively, and I think we could see it really open up.
Druid, with a long list of specialties serving everything from spirit-calling shaman, skin-changer, to hexing witch doctor. Launch also has to account for lots of wild shape forms, not just the typical wolf and bear. Like with the Summoner, I feel shape-changing and polymorphing magic deserves a class to get right. I don't want something broken or nerfed in a regular spell list, I want a legitimate treatment. Plus I am firmly in the camp that there is a 'primal power source' that is tied to primal and ancestral spirits, decidedly different than the sorcerer's penchant for elemental magics (though there is some overlap).
I'm kind of on the fence whether we need a primal gish like paladin is for divine and sorcerer seems to be for arcane. I loved Wardens, but not sure if they can't be served through specialties.
Rogue (with Bard and Assassin specialties), Fighter (with Monk-like unarmed potential and specialties to serve more Wuxia interests if desired), and Ranger, because bread-and-butter martial options deserve as much consideration as magic. These are all flavorful options that encompass a huge swath of character concepts, all of which I find interesting.
Warlord, because I do believe in non-magical healing in conjunction with grit, tactics, leadership, and maybe some sort of late-level mass-combat incentives. Look, it exists, and there's a portion that wants it. Don't include them if you don't want to, I mean there's always the Leader specialty.
Psion closes out my 12 classes, as I do believe psionics have a place in fantasy. Not every fantasy, but they do exist in the genre and D&D. Telepathy, telekinetics, astral projection, force magic, mental constructs, crystals, metaphysics, mysticism, time travel, emotions, psychological Archetypes, perceptions and reality, sanity, Far Realm and aberrations, I think it all scrapes the surface of what psions could be.
Paladin, given some mechanical mix between domains and warlock patrons encompassing specific kinds of knightly or religious orders in which the paladin was trained. Make a paladin's access to divine power different than the cleric's, maybe something like the sorcerer and magic, except instead of willpower, it's more tied to vanquishing enemies. Nothing like solving the 5mwd like replenishing resources through besting/slaughtering opponents (which could be done in very chivalric ways, or through blood for the blood god, as the need calls for). And don't even think of bringing back alignment requirements.
Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock: I think they're on the right track with these guys. I want different approaches to magic, and they're in the process of giving them to us. And despite any similarities, their differences are both awesome and class-defining. Study, innate, and pact magic using Vancian, AERU, and spell points each bring something exciting to the table and account for an insane range of caster concepts. However, I think certain spells have always been problematic, and instead of rehashing the too-much too-little, beef and nerf cycle, I would dedicate magical classes to them, namely conjuration (Summoner) and polymorphing (Druid).
Summoner would encapsulate calling entities from any number of different places, and through specialties could range from prophet-like figures calling angels from Heaven, alienists tearing breaches into the Far Realm and unleashing shoggoth or Xothians, to planeswalker-like characters making pacts with creatures across different worlds to come and fight (kind of a reverse warlock, where you are the patron) or even enslaving them. If a class can be geared to calling other creatures to fight, it could also be specialized to allow for permanent golems and companion creatures/mounts, I imagine. And again, I feel it needs to be its own class because conjuration can become suspect, overpowered (or else so nerfed it's a kind of boring or lackluster option when included in normal spell lists), and kind of a DM hassle very quickly. Dedicate a class to it, playtest it extensively, and I think we could see it really open up.
Druid, with a long list of specialties serving everything from spirit-calling shaman, skin-changer, to hexing witch doctor. Launch also has to account for lots of wild shape forms, not just the typical wolf and bear. Like with the Summoner, I feel shape-changing and polymorphing magic deserves a class to get right. I don't want something broken or nerfed in a regular spell list, I want a legitimate treatment. Plus I am firmly in the camp that there is a 'primal power source' that is tied to primal and ancestral spirits, decidedly different than the sorcerer's penchant for elemental magics (though there is some overlap).
I'm kind of on the fence whether we need a primal gish like paladin is for divine and sorcerer seems to be for arcane. I loved Wardens, but not sure if they can't be served through specialties.
Rogue (with Bard and Assassin specialties), Fighter (with Monk-like unarmed potential and specialties to serve more Wuxia interests if desired), and Ranger, because bread-and-butter martial options deserve as much consideration as magic. These are all flavorful options that encompass a huge swath of character concepts, all of which I find interesting.
Warlord, because I do believe in non-magical healing in conjunction with grit, tactics, leadership, and maybe some sort of late-level mass-combat incentives. Look, it exists, and there's a portion that wants it. Don't include them if you don't want to, I mean there's always the Leader specialty.
Psion closes out my 12 classes, as I do believe psionics have a place in fantasy. Not every fantasy, but they do exist in the genre and D&D. Telepathy, telekinetics, astral projection, force magic, mental constructs, crystals, metaphysics, mysticism, time travel, emotions, psychological Archetypes, perceptions and reality, sanity, Far Realm and aberrations, I think it all scrapes the surface of what psions could be.
Last edited:
GX.Sigma
Adventurer
Let me rephrase. All of them, but not necessarily as classes.
Stacie GmrGrl
Adventurer
I hope they surprise us and put in the Duskblade. I always liked that class.
Dice4Hire
First Post
I really only want to see classes that cannot be done as multi-classes.
Something lie the Duskblade, can be a multi-class, if WOTC gets over casting in heavy armor.
But thinkgs like monks really do nto fit well and might jsutify their own class, though I would prefer to see it as a type of fighter.
Overall I would be happy with 4 basic classes and everything else being multi-class or thematic differences. And having the thematic differences alter or swap out class powers would be great.
Something lie the Duskblade, can be a multi-class, if WOTC gets over casting in heavy armor.
But thinkgs like monks really do nto fit well and might jsutify their own class, though I would prefer to see it as a type of fighter.
Overall I would be happy with 4 basic classes and everything else being multi-class or thematic differences. And having the thematic differences alter or swap out class powers would be great.
TrippyHippy
Hero
I'd like to see the Psion class held back for specific settings or a psionic sourcebook. I am not totally averse to them being in the game on some level, but they really don't firt in in a lot of people's vision of fantasy, and it therefore undermines D&D's appeal as a generic fantasy game.
Warlords are tricky for me, as I actually quite like the concept to play, but just feel it has been done in such a way that grates. Personally, I'd like to see Warlords as a Speciality of Fighter. That is, I don't see why Fighters can't specialise in tactics and leadership as an approach to fighting, rather than just a personal fighting style. Why can't Fighters be driven by intelligence and stategic thinking? Why can't Warlords be the products of Background and Speciality?
Barbarians too, seem to be too Specialised to me, and a bit of a cultural stereotype. Some people just like the idea of a Class for megadamage, but can't it be done another way?
Assassins are just a weak idea for an adventuring class, in my view. Why would an assassin decide to go for a dungeon crawl (unless they intend to kill another party member?)? None of the Assassin's abilities in 1st edition were particularly useful to an adventuring party (weaker in combat than a fighter; weaker than a Rogue as a scout).
It was also off putting to have a Class that was limited by playing an Evil alignment only - more an NPC Class than a playable one. Morever, ever since the original 'Thief' concept got broadened out to be a 'Rogue', the actual need for a seperate Assassin Class was reduced significantly. In any case, can't any Class potentially make a good Assassin? Surely it's a Speciality therefore, rather than a separate Class?
I'm not sure of the need for a seprate Summoner Class - I'd like to be able to play a Wizard who Specialises in Summoning, so like the Warlord, I feel a seperate Class would undermine this.
I'd like to ensure than neither Paladins or Rangers get spell casting abilities - with their abilities kept seperate from the spell lists used for other Wizards, Clerics and the like. But I'm happy to see them there. I am happy to see the Spell-casting Classes as being: Wizards, Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers, Witches (rather than Warlocks) and Bards.
If you have 6 spell casters, then maybe 6 warrior types seems sensible to balance it: Fighters, Rogues, Rangers, Paladins..Monks, I s'pose....but then we are left with Assassins, Warlords or Barbarians (none of which I like!).
Warlords are tricky for me, as I actually quite like the concept to play, but just feel it has been done in such a way that grates. Personally, I'd like to see Warlords as a Speciality of Fighter. That is, I don't see why Fighters can't specialise in tactics and leadership as an approach to fighting, rather than just a personal fighting style. Why can't Fighters be driven by intelligence and stategic thinking? Why can't Warlords be the products of Background and Speciality?
Barbarians too, seem to be too Specialised to me, and a bit of a cultural stereotype. Some people just like the idea of a Class for megadamage, but can't it be done another way?
Assassins are just a weak idea for an adventuring class, in my view. Why would an assassin decide to go for a dungeon crawl (unless they intend to kill another party member?)? None of the Assassin's abilities in 1st edition were particularly useful to an adventuring party (weaker in combat than a fighter; weaker than a Rogue as a scout).
It was also off putting to have a Class that was limited by playing an Evil alignment only - more an NPC Class than a playable one. Morever, ever since the original 'Thief' concept got broadened out to be a 'Rogue', the actual need for a seperate Assassin Class was reduced significantly. In any case, can't any Class potentially make a good Assassin? Surely it's a Speciality therefore, rather than a separate Class?
I'm not sure of the need for a seprate Summoner Class - I'd like to be able to play a Wizard who Specialises in Summoning, so like the Warlord, I feel a seperate Class would undermine this.
I'd like to ensure than neither Paladins or Rangers get spell casting abilities - with their abilities kept seperate from the spell lists used for other Wizards, Clerics and the like. But I'm happy to see them there. I am happy to see the Spell-casting Classes as being: Wizards, Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers, Witches (rather than Warlocks) and Bards.
If you have 6 spell casters, then maybe 6 warrior types seems sensible to balance it: Fighters, Rogues, Rangers, Paladins..Monks, I s'pose....but then we are left with Assassins, Warlords or Barbarians (none of which I like!).
Last edited:
The thing is we've seen lots of attempts at a fighter/mage via multiclassing and none really worked (the closest anything came was elven fighter-mages in AD&D or 4e hybrids, both of which suffered from severe MAD). Whereas the duskblade works okay and the swordmage works well. And I think fantasy fiction says the arcane melee guy has at least as much right to being a core class as the divine melee guy (and the 4e hexblade as the warlock isn't really where I think I want the warlock to go, if you must have the warlock).
I honestly think Pathfinder has done a wonderful job of balancing shapechanging without making it completly cosmetic.
do you still find the pathfinder method OP?
Some of the new 4e classes have almost become good on thier own like the Avenger, Invoker, Warlord, and Warlock.
The current playtest incarnation of Warlock, in particular, is looking like a pretty good nod to 4e.
I am very interested in what they plan to do to the druid. Some of the players were really upset about 4e nerfing druids hard and turning them into more of a shape shift class. But then again, druids have always been a tough thing to get right. In 2e, you had the level limits based on world druid rank. In 3e, druids were unstoppable munchin monsters if min/maxed right. 4e, they were made more into WoW druids and lost a bit of summoning and a lot of healing.
The current playtest incarnation of Warlock, in particular, is looking like a pretty good nod to 4e.
I am very interested in what they plan to do to the druid. Some of the players were really upset about 4e nerfing druids hard and turning them into more of a shape shift class. But then again, druids have always been a tough thing to get right. In 2e, you had the level limits based on world druid rank. In 3e, druids were unstoppable munchin monsters if min/maxed right. 4e, they were made more into WoW druids and lost a bit of summoning and a lot of healing.
TwinBahamut
First Post
This thread reminds me that I've been meaning to revive the "D&D needs a hundred classes" movement. Maybe I'll get around to that sometime soon. Anyways, I certainly don't agree that 8-15 classes is sufficient. For quite some time now D&D has thrived on having far more options than that, and I prefer it that way.
Let's see here...
We need a few alternatives for each of the major D&D class concepts. A Fighter should be accompanied by a leadership-focused like the Warlord, and it would be nice to see a master of advanced fighting moves like a Warblade or Swordsage. Having a deadly Assassin or magical Ninja to complement the Rogue would be nice. The Sorcerer and Warlock are already a decent start for Wizard alternatives. Having a Runepriest or Invoker would create fun alternatives to the Cleric. Other classics like Paladins and Monks also need to return, of course.
On top of that, there needs to be a lot more classes that fill very different niches than those. I vastly prefer classes like the Duskblade over multiclass Fighter/Wizards (in no small part because multiclass characters can't channel a magic spell through a sword), and it is nice to have some different options for that role, as well. It might be nice to have both a Duskblade and a Swordmage, actually.
The Druid needs to be in, of course, though I'd like to see a continuation of the 4E split between the Druid who transforms and the Shaman that calls forth spirit companions. The Barbarian is a great iconic class as well, and I like having the Warden around as a more defensive variant of the idea. Bards are also nice, and I'd like to see the 4E Skald Bard in particular be built upon and implemented in 5E.
On top of all this, the thing I want to see most are classes that have not been seen before in D&D. I want to see totally new ideas that provide new options and expand the slice of fantasy that D&D supports. 3E and 4E both excelled at providing creative new options (even though the execution faltered quite often), and I'd like to see that continue in 5E.
Let's see here...
We need a few alternatives for each of the major D&D class concepts. A Fighter should be accompanied by a leadership-focused like the Warlord, and it would be nice to see a master of advanced fighting moves like a Warblade or Swordsage. Having a deadly Assassin or magical Ninja to complement the Rogue would be nice. The Sorcerer and Warlock are already a decent start for Wizard alternatives. Having a Runepriest or Invoker would create fun alternatives to the Cleric. Other classics like Paladins and Monks also need to return, of course.
On top of that, there needs to be a lot more classes that fill very different niches than those. I vastly prefer classes like the Duskblade over multiclass Fighter/Wizards (in no small part because multiclass characters can't channel a magic spell through a sword), and it is nice to have some different options for that role, as well. It might be nice to have both a Duskblade and a Swordmage, actually.
The Druid needs to be in, of course, though I'd like to see a continuation of the 4E split between the Druid who transforms and the Shaman that calls forth spirit companions. The Barbarian is a great iconic class as well, and I like having the Warden around as a more defensive variant of the idea. Bards are also nice, and I'd like to see the 4E Skald Bard in particular be built upon and implemented in 5E.
On top of all this, the thing I want to see most are classes that have not been seen before in D&D. I want to see totally new ideas that provide new options and expand the slice of fantasy that D&D supports. 3E and 4E both excelled at providing creative new options (even though the execution faltered quite often), and I'd like to see that continue in 5E.
Arcane "full casters": Wizard (including specialists), Sorcerers (various heritages), Warlocks (4ed style with a lot of available pacts); Shadowmage (possible Wizard or Warlock variant), Binder (possible Wizard or Warlock variant)
Divine "full casters": Cleric (including mechanical variations by specific divinity), Druid (could be a cleric variant), Totemist, Shaman (3.5Ed OA and 4Ed versions, maybe more)
Psionic "full manifesters": Psion (including subtypes), Wilder,
Warriors: Fighter, Ranger, Paladin (including holy warriors of various ethe), Rogue, Monk, Avenger (possibly as a Paladin or Monk variant), Soulknife (possibly as a PsyWar/Lurk/SK fusion), Duskblade, Battle-Sorcerer, Hexblade, Runecaster, PsyWar/Battlemind, Seeker
Skill focused classes: Rogue, Bard, Scout, Spellthief/Psithief, Lurk, Beguiler
Notes: some of these could disappear depending on 5Ed's multiclassing rules and which ones are done as variants or fusions of other classes.
Divine "full casters": Cleric (including mechanical variations by specific divinity), Druid (could be a cleric variant), Totemist, Shaman (3.5Ed OA and 4Ed versions, maybe more)
Psionic "full manifesters": Psion (including subtypes), Wilder,
Warriors: Fighter, Ranger, Paladin (including holy warriors of various ethe), Rogue, Monk, Avenger (possibly as a Paladin or Monk variant), Soulknife (possibly as a PsyWar/Lurk/SK fusion), Duskblade, Battle-Sorcerer, Hexblade, Runecaster, PsyWar/Battlemind, Seeker
Skill focused classes: Rogue, Bard, Scout, Spellthief/Psithief, Lurk, Beguiler
Notes: some of these could disappear depending on 5Ed's multiclassing rules and which ones are done as variants or fusions of other classes.
Last edited:
I think I read somewhere a while back that every class that was ever in a PHB 1 would make it in the 5e PHB1. Not sure if that is still in the plan.
Anyways, knowing WotC, we can be assured there will be at least 20 splatbooks with every imaginable class, background, specialty, or kit. Until it is time for 6e!
Anyways, knowing WotC, we can be assured there will be at least 20 splatbooks with every imaginable class, background, specialty, or kit. Until it is time for 6e!
TrippyHippy
Hero
I have to admit, the inclusion of such things as Duskblade and the like make me go yuk. would people be content to see these as Prestige Classes however?
Certainly!
My thing is that the character who mixes martial and magical might is pretty common in fantasy literature, and it simply isn't covered fully by the Bard. Classes like Hexblades, Duskblades and BattleSorcerers- not to mention classes from D&D cousins like AE's Mage Blade- fill that niche all in one base class.
But good prestige classes and/or multiclassing rules might also work.
My thing is that the character who mixes martial and magical might is pretty common in fantasy literature, and it simply isn't covered fully by the Bard. Classes like Hexblades, Duskblades and BattleSorcerers- not to mention classes from D&D cousins like AE's Mage Blade- fill that niche all in one base class.
But good prestige classes and/or multiclassing rules might also work.
Frostmarrow
First Post
Is the Pathfinder druid over powered? I can't say. We (my group) play Pathfinder but haven't had a druid yet. Maybe someone else care to chime in.
Frostmarrow
First Post
Th original gish was the Bladesinger. Maybe Bladesinger could be available to any race. Or, even better, the Bard could snuggle further down into the gish niche.
I'd really hate too much expansion of the Bard role.
The Hexblade, for one, has a very different flavor, in that the source of their arcane power is a ritual agreement. This works well for things like Adepts of the Blue Star (Thieves' World)- Bards would be a poor fit.
The Hexblade, for one, has a very different flavor, in that the source of their arcane power is a ritual agreement. This works well for things like Adepts of the Blue Star (Thieves' World)- Bards would be a poor fit.
Frostmarrow
First Post
I'm thinking Inspiring music should be a Specialty and Storyteller a Background. What is left of the Bard is longsword proficiency and ability to cast arcane spells.
It's been a long while since I last read Thieves' World.
Similar Threads
