Yora
Legend
All 800?
D&D 5E What Classes do you really want to see in D&D Next?
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).
Moon_Goddess
Have I really been on this site for over 20 years!
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?
