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

[TrippyHippy]

The major issue with Swordmages, HexBlades, Duskblades, Soulknives and the like is that although they may be mechanically distinct, they are all pretty weak archetypes. That is, they seem contrived for tactical gamers, rather than fulfilling a narrative niche.

This may be just my view, and there is a good argument for inclusiveness in terms of letting fans play it in their own way, but it just seems to dilute the power of having a Class-based system when the Classes don't mean anything thematically.

In the case of the Warlock and the Warlord, I can get behind them were it not for their names. I prefer the more universal name of Witch partially because I feel it may encourage more female gamers actually. In the case of the Warlord, I can get behind the notion of a tactical, strategic leader type, but i don't like how it's name denotes Rank rather than Class. I'd actually like to see it called 'Noble' or some such. In fact, if it is modeled after a Machiavellian Prince then I'd quite like to play one.

 

[Jhaelen]

For me (currently), I'd like to see:

5 'Martial' Classes - Fighter, Rogue, Ranger, Paladin, Monk*,
5 'Magic-Using' Classes - Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer**, Warlock***
1 Jack-of-all-Trades Class - Bard.

The Classes I am not particularly enamoured by are the Assassin, Barbarian and Warlord, essentially because I think they could be handled better by Speciality and Background. Persuade me otherwise....

I think you can't have it both ways. Currently your list includes both extremely broad and quite narrow archetypes.

A better solution would be to either get rid of the broad archetypes (fighter, wizard, cleric) or offer _only_ these broad archetypes with a ton of customization options.

I think it's rather easy to see why having a 'fighter' class is a problem: What martial archetype could not be represented as a fighter? None. It's the very definition of a fighter class, that it can be anything as long as it's a martial archetype.

Get rid of the fighter and suddenly the warlord is a very viable, unique archetype that cannot be represented by another class.

Likewise you solve the problem of the extremely wide range of different cleric flavours: just create any number of focused classes to represent the different types of clerics.

If there's no common ground between two different clerics apart from worshipping some kind of concept or being and somehow receiving power from it you simply don't have enough for a good archetype.

Ditto the wizard vs. warlock, sorcerer, etc.: Having a one-size-fits-all class with a dozen different specializations is bad if you intend to introduce different classes sharing the same power source.

If you choose the reverse option, you've essentially created a new class-less variant of D&D. And I'm doubtful about a D&D without classes, there's other rpgs that went down that road and, imho, that just ain't D&D.

TL;DR: D&D Next should only have _focused_ archetypes.

 

[Grimmjow]

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.

TwinBuhamut had some good points there.

A wizard's hit die i dont think would cut it on the front lines either. If you want a class that fights with a sword on the front line of combat they need atleast a d6-d8

 

[steeldragons]

The Warrior Classes
Fighter
--Warlord is a specialty/fighting style
--Berserker is a specialty/fighting style

Paladin
--Warlord could be a potential specialty for them as well.
--other specialties that could allow for non-religious/alignment-based but still code following knightly types, a cavalier/horseback specialist, demon (or devil or undead)-hunter type perhaps.
--I very much hope for paladinic "divinely [or otherwise] gifted powers" but no direct/literal spell use.

Ranger
--Warlord and Berserker are also a relevant potential specialty here as well. --Specialties that could allow for variants with a animal companion (I DON'T want them default to the class)/Beastmaster type, a spell-caster type though something like an Acolyte (if you had a Nature Domain/based cantrips) or Magic-user specialty seems to give a little in this area already, and of course the archery and dual-weapon archetypes that will never be taken out of the game
--I also don't want the ranger default to be a spell-caster, but have no qualms about a theme/specialty that allows for it in either arcane or druidic directions.

Barbarian - make it a cultural background, not a class. The "raging damage guy" falls under the Berserker specialty.

Warlord - as stated, a theme/specialty available to any warrior class (or even any class at all...why couldn't you have a cleric of the war god or a power-hungry/would-be world conquering mage become a warlord?) Not a class in and of itself.

The Arcane Classes
Mage (a.k.a.Wizard)
--Illusionist, Necromancer, and it can be presumed other "specialist" mages as...well...specialties.
--Sorcerer as a specialty. The "magics iz in me bones" fluff just doesn't cut it for me as significantly different enough to be its own class. Any/all mages should, at some point of mastery, be able to cast spontaneously.

Warlock
--in contrast to the sorcerer, I think the "pact-bound/granted powers" fluff of the warlock IS significant enough [for me] to warrant its own class.
--while I personally view this as a strictly "dealing with devils or demons" kind of thing, I totally understand the room for specialties for people who want other "non-evil based" power sources. So, perhaps things I don't really know about like the "Binder", or even a summoner, diabolist and such could fall under specialties for this class, also.

Witch - I'd LOVE to see a Witch class. But for me, this would HAVE to be flavored as kind of a mage/druid hybrid, possibly with a bit of spirit shaman or the like thrown in, and have none of the fluff of the Warlock. Simply renaming "Warlocks" to "Witches" without totally overhauling the fluff and crunch of the class is NOT something I want to see.

The Priest(ly) Classes
Cleric
--Specialties and Domains for a wide variety of deities and archetypes. They seem to be on a pretty good track with this thus far. I will reiterate someone's comment about wanting/needing more than just war/sun/storm as starter Domains. At the same time, you can make a domain for any god of any blessed thing you want...but I'd be satisfied with a simple list of, let's say 10 to really get across just how broad you can go: Sun/Day, Moon/Night, War, Life/Healing, Nature, Storm/Weather, Death/Spirit, Law/Order, Chaos, History/Knowledge...or something like that, just to get started.

Druid
--I'd like a default that's a bit more of its archetypal "nature priest" guy origins, with a more controlled/limited 1e-ish shapeshifting ability.
--Specialties allowing if you want to be a Beastmaster/animal summoner/companions, Shapeshifter/Wildshaper, one fpr more "wilderness warrior/defender" (like a druid that's a "ranger-lite" kinda thing), I dunno what else. But at least the Beastmaster and Shapeshifting ones.

Shaman
--a "primitive" spirit-talker/walker, light armor n weapons, lighter/limited spell-use that's a combo of some arcane/some divine stuff, poison making/use/neutralizing (so the Assassin is no longer with Poison as a class feature), and certain astral travel/dreamstate type powers.

The Rogue Classes
Thief
--the default rogue class. Standard, since Basic/1e, explorer/skill monkey guy. Your lock picker/trap finder and disabler/stealthy sneak attackin' guy.
As I understand it, this is now a "scheme" for a "Rogue class". And I think that makes lots of sense and works for me. I think they have a decent handle on the Thief so far.

Assassin
--the Thief/Fighter hybrid. Stealth, strength, and speed. More fighting ability and a bit lighter on the "skills" side of things. Some decent Poison use, Trap LAYING as well as finding/disabling, Sneak attack also, Disguise...standard "hunt you down and kill you" stuff.
--Present variants/specialties that allow for: the 4e shadow magic guy that some people seem to love (call it "Shadow-walker" or some such), a Bounty Hunter (alternately accomplished by doing an "Urban terrain" specialist Ranger), a "Spy" background or specialty for the James Bond wannabes.

Bard
--default the Jack-of-all-trades with decent armor/weapons abilities, decent stealth/roguey stuff, decent magical music/spellcasting (leaning more toward their druidic origins and more away from "arcane" magic).
--Specialties to provide variants for: Skald (more fighting/marital than skill or magic), Spellsinger (a heavier caster than fighting/thieving), and Loremaster (for a more knowledge skill-based rogue).

So...basically the list is 6 default non-casters, 6 default casters with 2 (paladins and bards) kinda straddling the line and variants that can step over on either side.

Fighter, Paladin, Ranger
Mage, Warlock, Witch
Cleric, Druid, Shaman
Thief, Assassin, Bard

Class variants thru "Specialties" could include (among many many others): ye olde "Barbarians", Cavaliers, Warlords, Swashbucklers, some kind "Swordmage/Spellblade" type guy, Bounty Hunters, any flavor of Specialist mage, "Scouts", "Wardens", spell-casting Rangers and Paladins, and many others to be sure.

EDIT: Then you can add in stuff like Monks, Psions and other more niche classes that are a little too elaborate to just do through backgrounds and themes (specialties is just a PITA to type out all of the the time!)

...yeah, this went longer than I expected. But there's my list.
--SD

 

[Stormonu]

I want my feats back, and specialties just be packages for those who want some quick character creation shortcuts.

As for classes:

Arcanist (special ability: Arcane spells)
- Mage (spell point/mana user)
- Sorcerer (spell stunt specialist)
- Truenamer (skill-based caster)
- Warlock (at-will/encounter caster)
- Wizard (classic vancian caster)

School specialties would, of course, be specialties - making them essentially feats.

Priest (special ability: channel divinity)
- Acolyte (Vancian divine caster)
- Cleric (divine warrior)
- Druid (nature/wilderness caster) [shifter, summoner, beast friend as specialties]
- Favored Soul (at-will/encounter caster)
- Monk (channel stunt specialist)
- Shaman (synergist - ala Dragon Shaman)

Rogue (special ability: skill powers/mastery)
- Assassin (combat skills)
- Bard (synergist)
- Explorer (skill specialist)
- Scout (skirmisher - mix of combat and skills)
- Spell thief (skill-based caster)
- Thief (skill stunt specialist)

Warrior (special ability: combat powers)
- Barbarian/Berserker (rage-based powers)
- Fighter (generalist) [non-supernatural unarmed warrior would fit here]
- Knight (equipment specialist) [Cavalier would be a mounted specialty]
- Paladin (divine warrior)
- Ranger (skirmisher - mix of combat and skills)
- Swashbuckler (combat stunt specialist)
- Warlord (synenergist)

 

[underfoot007ct]

The major issue with Swordmages, HexBlades, Duskblades, Soulknives and the like is that although they may be mechanically distinct, they are all pretty weak archetypes. That is, they seem contrived for tactical gamers, rather than fulfilling a narrative niche.

If you narrate a fighter but not a swordmage, you just need to try harder.
Contrived for tactical gamers. what? How? Why? Explain please.

This may be just my view, and there is a good argument for inclusiveness in terms of letting fans play it in their own way, but it just seems to dilute the power of having a Class-based system when the Classes don't mean anything thematically.

Since the major design goal of 5eNext is untie ALL the editions, not force many to a play-style that do not want. So you admits it is a 'good argument' which it indeed is, then stop, done.

What should classes 'mean' other than just what they intrinsically are? Does a coke taste any different from one of the new 100+ flavor soda machines. Freedom of choice is always good, IMHO.

In the case of the Warlock and the Warlord, I can get behind them were it not for their names. I prefer the more universal name of Witch partially because I feel it may encourage more female gamers actually. In the case of the Warlord, I can get behind the notion of a tactical, strategic leader type, but i don't like how it's name denotes Rank rather than Class. I'd actually like to see it called 'Noble' or some such. In fact, if it is modeled after a Machiavellian Prince then I'd quite like to play one.

So a 'Noble' is something other than a person of Noble birth, of parents which have land or royal titles? a Noble is a better name than 'Warlord' for a warrior class? I just don't understand that at all. Calling a fighter a 'warrior' or 'fighting man' doesn't change the class at all. Call them what you want at your own home table.

 

[TrippyHippy]

If you narrate a fighter but not a swordmage, you just need to try harder.
Contrived for tactical gamers. what? How? Why? Explain please.

Contrived insofar that these classes do not represent a fantasy icon in any way, but merely provide a Class centered around a particular combination of powers and abilities that tickle some gamers preferences.

Since the major design goal of 5eNext is untie ALL the editions, not force many to a play-style that do not want. So you admits it is a 'good argument' which it indeed is, then stop, done.

Admittedly, you could just keep producing splatbook after splatbook with more and more classes, but it somewhat dilutes the power of a class based system if the Classes themselves become increasingly obscure and over-specified. Sure you say that this would provide a 'unifying' aspect, but some gamers became very critical of 3E doing precisely this.

What should classes 'mean' other than just what they intrinsically are? Does a coke taste any different from one of the new 100+ flavor soda machines. Freedom of choice is always good, IMHO.

Classes should be iconic and archetypal - instantly recognisable within the fantasy genre. They should also be flexible and adaptable, to a degree, but getting the balance right is obviously the trick.

So a 'Noble' is something other than a person of Noble birth, of parents which have land or royal titles? a Noble is a better name than 'Warlord' for a warrior class? I just don't understand that at all. Calling a fighter a 'warrior' or 'fighting man' doesn't change the class at all. Call them what you want at your own home table.

Well obviously the name does have an impact, because we wouldn't be debating this in the first place if it didn't. Nobles have been used before, although I agree it's not perfect. The issue with Warlord, as stated, is that it denotes a rank above other classes - notably Fighters. Some players find this objectionable, particularly if they see their Fighters as Warlords in the making.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The major issue with Swordmages, HexBlades, Duskblades, Soulknives and the like is that although they may be mechanically distinct, they are all pretty weak archetypes. That is, they seem contrived for tactical gamers, rather than fulfilling a narrative niche.

If you narrate a fighter but not a swordmage, you just need to try harder.
Contrived for tactical gamers. what? How? Why? Explain please.

Contrived insofar that these classes do not represent a fantasy icon in any way, but merely provide a Class centered around a particular combination of powers and abilities that tickle some gamers preferences.

There are a good number of pretty famous characters in fantasy & mythology who mix martial prowess & arcane magical might- Lythande, Grey Mouser, Elric, Hiawatha, Hanuman, Cú Chulainn...

The only thing that those classes do is eliminate the need for multiclassing to represent a fairly well established heroic type...much like the Sohei, Favored Soul, Paladin, etc. make for nice single-class representations of those who mix martial prowess and divine magical ability.

And it isn't just a mechanical force behind those classes- a Fighter/Cleric is a very different beast, narratively, than a Paladin.

 

[TrippyHippy]

There are a good number of pretty famous characters in fantasy & mythology who mix martial prowess & arcane magical might- Lythande, Grey Mouser, Elric, Hiawatha, Hanuman, Cú Chulainn...

I would describe none of these as Hexblades, SwordMages or SoulKnives.

I would be happy to see the Sorcerer represented like Elric - with access to weapons and armor, but I'd still be calling him a Sorcerer. 'Sorcerer' is an archetypal name and concept, that anybody can understand. 'Hexblade' (etc) is not.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

While those D&D classes may not map directly to all of them, I could easily see Lythande as a 4Ed Hexblade (Blue Star adepts derive their powers from a mystical ritual that necessitates they obey certain self-selected taboos).

And just because I didn't list a character that resembles a Swordsage (or one of the "etc.") doesn't mean there isn't one- I may be well read, but I am under no illusion that I've read every myth or fantasy story.

(FWIW, I agree that Elric would be most like a BattleSorc than most of the other since class martial arcanists.)