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

[Tony Vargas]

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.

Noble and Prince also denote social rank and leadership, and in a broader context, less evocative of the warlord's martial concept.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Most of the words associated with martial leadership also denote some kind of status, earned or by birthright. Perhaps the "Warlord" should be a build type...maybe Feat based and open to anyone who meets the prereqs.

 

[Hussar]

Most of the words associated with martial leadership also denote some kind of status, earned or by birthright. Perhaps the "Warlord" should be a build type...maybe Feat based and open to anyone who meets the prereqs.

Honestly, I think this is the best way to go. Make it a specialization or a background (probably background from my limited understanding of Next) that can be applied to any class.

So long as I can make a character that is mechanically supported when trying to organize the party tactics, I'm pretty content. It doesn't HAVE to be a specific class, although I do think there's enough room there to do so. The Combat Superiority dice pool for fighters I think has the right design space for making a warlord.

I mean, it's not too much of a stretch to think that a Warlord background gives you access to things like, "Spend one die, grant an ally a single attack that does your die in damage". So, I can forgo my attack to let someone else take a swipe, but, without their damage bonuses - just like the Jab (?) effect that we already have. Add in some stuff about blocking damage and maybe some movement effects and we're pretty much good to go.

 

[Texicles]

I'll toss in my support for the Druid class. I know 4e doesn't get a lot of love around these parts and that's fine, but I think that the 4e druid was pretty well executed, especially with regards to Wild Shape. Sure there were some exploits with feats and equipment that could get a little ridiculous, but things were (generally) balanced, (imo) compelling, and far from the state of things in 3.5. Thing is... it kinda took the AEDU system to make it happen. I've just never been in love with pre-4e rules around Wild Shape and inheriting animal attacks and the 4e toolkit made things fun (for me).

Summoning can also definitely be tedious, and I wouldn't be upset to see the extent of summoning be reasonably curtailed for all classes.

If 5e Druids can cast spells like 2e and melee like 4e, or at least do so the way I want them to when I play, while doing whatever others want them to elsewhere, I'd be pretty satisfied with that.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Noble and Prince also denote social rank and leadership, and in a broader context, less evocative of the warlord's martial concept.

'Noble' denotes social class as opposed to rank, which is halfway towards being a 'Class' in the first place.

And I'm actually considering that the Class has broader application than just a martial concept - literally being a 'professional' strategist as such - with the concept being linked to Machiavelli as much as Sun Tzu .

 

[Stacie GmrGrl]

I would hate to see a Noble class. That really makes no sense to me.

 

[Tony Vargas]

'Noble' denotes social class as opposed to rank, which is halfway towards being a 'Class' in the first place.

A social class seems much closer to a Background, given what we've seen of the 5e paradigm, than it would be to a PC class.

And I'm actually considering that the Class has broader application than just a martial concept - literally being a 'professional' strategist as such - with the concept being linked to Machiavelli as much as Sun Tzu.

So, they're in the nice white tent, on the top of the hill, sipping Sancerre and directing the battle?

 

[TrippyHippy]

A social class seems much closer to a Background, given what we've seen of the 5e paradigm, than it would be to a PC class.

Admittedly, this could be the case.

So, they're in the nice white tent, on the top of the hill, sipping Sancerre and directing the battle?

....or engaging in courtroom politics and power plays, or strategising on the next great campaign...

I mean, we have seen a 'Noble' style Class used in D20 games before - Dragonlance and Star wars.

 

[Blackwarder]

For the last time, barbarian is a background, berserker is a speciality, none of them should be a class.

Want to play the classic 3e and 4e barbarian? Take a fighter with a barbarian background and berserker speciality, want to play a noble elf bard who been cursed? Elven berserker noble bard is a viable option.

Same goes for the warlord, just take a leader speciality.

Warder

 

[Steely_Dan]

I would hate to see a Noble class. That really makes no sense to me.

Or a Barbarian or Samurai.