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

[Ratskinner]

Personally, and I haven't read all the other responses yet, I don't care how many classes there are or aren't, or what is or isn't a class. The important thing to me is character concepts and being able to effectively reflect them in the game. Whether that means that the traditional paladin is some package of (multi)class-theme-bg or is its own class is irrelevant to me. They should do whatever works best to reflect the traditional roles, and maybe open up new ones. I know that they said you could make any class that appeared in a PHB1, but I would count that fulfilled if say Druid was a package of cleric-theme-bg. I feel like some of the traditional classes carry a lot of the RP weight that will/should be carried by BG and Specialty, so it would be sensible to split them off into combos.

I think this might help ease multiclassing headaches as well. If a Paladin is a Fighter+Priest+Crusader, then you could also have a "Pala-wizard" by doing Wizard+Priest+Crusader. So, from a story perspective, you have to ask "Does this traditional class have enough room for TC+Slayers and TC+Healers?"

Mechanically, I suspect that it will be fairly easy to crank out classes with unique mechanics, so I don't think that's going to be an issue. Making them fit the inherent story/vision of a traditional class might be harder, though. I still suspect that we will see (eventually) a splat-blizzard of new/recycled classes, backgrounds, and specialties.

 

[Ratskinner]

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.

I thought Trailblazer did a nice job fixing it up. I can't say that I've seen enough of it in play to know if it "de-fanged" the Druid enough, though.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Of course, 3E multi-classing is one of the worst systems, for all kinds of reasons. Taken to its logical conclusion, like it was with d20 Modern, it becomes a strange equivalent to a point-buy character creation system, and loses almost all of the strengths of a proper class system (ease of use, strong flavor, consistent mechanics, and so on). Such a system becomes a trap for game mastery which leads to countless situations where using the multi-classing rules is extremely likely to lead to a mechanically worthless character who fails to even embody the desired concept. Thus, it leads to both prestige classes built explicitly to patch the flaws in the system (like the Mystic Theurge) and classes whose existence prove the flaws of the system (like how the Duskblade exists because Fighter/Wizards aren't viable).

Clearly your milage differs from mine: 3Ed & 3.5Ed have my favorite form of multiclassing in D&D, bar none.

 

[Hussar]

The only one I'm really rooting for is the warlord. It's a concept - a character with the mechanical support to ACTUALLY be able to strongly influence the tactics of the group - that I've been trying to play in D&D for years and never really could. Bards didn't do it, even with some of the 2e kits and fighters were just never even close.

I want a character, and I don't care if it's a class, background or speciality, that will allow me to actively influence the round by round tactics of the group. Granting extra actions, out of turn maneuvering, buffing and whatnot. THAT'S what I want.

 

[Bow_Seat]

I like the idea of each class being a "best at" but I'm not sure if that would work for the three arcane spell casters that we currently have, despite the fact that I happen to think that they are all seeming very distinct and meaningful. Maybe I just don't have the imagination to come up with each of their "best at"s

On the matter of the barbarian. He is "best at accidentally killing the party"

But on the more serious note, I would say that the barbarian is "best at knocking heads and breaking stuff." I'd give the barbarian the highest hit dice (1d12), but no access to CS so he can't parry and only medium armor. I'd give him some rage induced damage (no more damage than the fighter deadly strike), and give him abilities that let him toss people around, use huge weapons, and break stuff all around him so long as he is in a rage. The barbarian is a whirlwind. That whirlwind may be less focally deadly like the fighter, but by pushing, grabbing, breaking, and manhandling like an angry god he could have a melee controller-esque feel (to bring back a 4e term)

I am envisioning this hulking half-orc with guards strewn around a room rolling on the floor because this half-orc just thew, pushed, tossed, punched, groped, and molested them. He doesn't necessary kill them efficiently like a fighter does, but he keeps them down for a little while.

I think that the warlord definitely has a role as "best at leadership." There is plenty to work with there for a fleshed out class.


Edit: On the multi-classing department I'd like to see the 2e multi-classing applied to all pc's not just sub-humans. The problem with the multi-classing in 2e was that the xp growth rates meant that at certain levels the multi-classers would be 1 level or even at level with the full class heroes, which was silly. I think that the entire mechanic can probably be fixed just by taking a long hard look at the xp-to-level charts. If they scale up too quickly then the old multi-classing system won't work.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I wanted to clarify and expand:

Divine "full casters": ...Shaman (3.5Ed OA and 4Ed versions, maybe more)

Warriors: ...Monk, Avenger (possibly as a Paladin or Monk variant), Soulknife (possibly as a PsyWar/Lurk/SK fusion), Duskblade, Battle-Sorcerer, Hexblade...PsyWar/Battlemind,

(edited for brevity)

The Monk: perhaps, more aptly named the Martial Artist- should be capable of supporting builds that mimic a variety of RW & fantasy martial arts traditions. Unarmored or only lightly armored; a wide variety of weapon packages and fighting styles/powers (capoierists and Kung fu masters have wildly different training); use of weapons should not be a suboptimal option, nor should they lose thë use of special weapon properties such as reach.

With that in mind, Avengers could easily be a monk build.

Soulknife: I think it would be really good if this class returned and combined aspects of the Lurk and PsyWar/Battlemind to create a flavorful, flexible Psionic warrior & skirmisher...maybe even one that actually lives up to its "Mage-killer" press releases.

The Duskblade, Battle Sorcerer and Hexblade could all be distinct classes, or they could be differing builds within a single class.

And in addition, I'd like to see some of the (3.5Ed updated) OA/"Asian" classes like the Sohei, the Wu Jen, the Samurai, and the Ninja as well as other cultural variants, like Totemic Barbarians, return as alternate builds within the base classes as they will be made. Maybe not in the first release, but pretty soon after.

Barring that, I'd like to see Designers notes & tips on how to customize classes (without screwing up their balance) for such variations in the first book.

 

[Grimmjow]

Give me swordmage or give me death

 

[Bow_Seat]

Give me swordmage or give me death

I'm not sure whether I would like to see this as an independent class or as a wizarding tradition, like wild mage, trasmographer, etc.

what do you think makes it worthy of being a base class? I don't mean to attack your choice, I'd just like to brainstorm ideas of how we can make it unique and meaningful to be a swordmage.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I'm not sure whether I would like to see this as an independent class or as a wizarding tradition, like wild mage, trasmographer, etc.

what do you think makes it worthy of being a base class? I don't mean to attack your choice, I'd just like to brainstorm ideas of how we can make it unique and meaningful to be a swordmage.

I'm not Grimmjow, but I can see many reasons to make a swordmage its own class.

The first and by far most important is that it needs a different set of basic capabilities, stats, and proficiencies than a basic wizard-type character. Unlike a wizard, a swordmage needs to be good with a sword, and tough enough to fight on the front lines, even if that toughness is less than a pure fighter-type. That alone mandates a different class, given the way D&D classes tend to work.

Also, I think it is worth mentioning that there are countless ways to make a swordmage-type character. There are as many or more ways to build a swordmage than there are ways to build a straight wizard. There can be characters who use magic to transform (as in the new 5E sorcerer), characters who fill their weapons with magic and strike with them (like the 3E Duskblade and Arcane Archer), characters who use traditional styles of magic like teleporting to support their swordplay (like the 4E Swordmage), and so on. I've seen class-based games that feature many different classes that combined magic and swordplay that were quite distinct from the game's pure caster classes.

It is easily worthy of a class for any system that doesn't presuppose an extremely limited number of classes. As long as D&D is not limited to Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard, there is plenty of room for a swordmage-type class or three.

 

[Greg K]

Arcane Warrior: not anything else that channels spells through a sword (save that for a feat or option). I want something closer to what they are trying to with the dragon heritage sorcerer as a martial caster or the Myrmidon from AEG's Mercenaries

Barbarian

Bard

Cleric: I am,disappointed with the cleric as it, currently, stands. Disappointed with Channel Divinity and spells not based entirely on domains

Drid

Fighter

Monk: I want something closer to the Oriental Adventures Shaman as the basis. Have the spirit companion as one option. Have another option that is is a little more priestly to replace the companion.

Paladin:
Ranger
Rogue
Shaman: I want totems more in line with Green Ronin's Shaman as to the abilities associated with a totem rather than 4e's take on the benefits provided by a totem.

Sorcerer: I don't like the draconic heritage transformation or dual soul thing. I would rather see these handled similar to 3e heritage feats rather than hard coded into the heritage. I also don't like the additional armor and weapon proficiencies of the heritage

Warlock
Warlord
Witch
Wizard