D&D 5E What classes do you want added to 5e?

[Aldarc]

to be fair this is a thread about adding classes to the game, so isn't adding or not adding warlord on point?

This is a thread about classes we would like to see added and not classes whose addition we should obstruct. Why then must anti-warlord people pipe in to obstruct others' wishlists just because they want to see the warlord added?

 

[UnadvisedGoose445]

Actually no I haven't! Haha, that's not to say it isn't a thing that happens, but I'm not expressly familiar with anyone I know having these types of experiences. And I certainly have no frame of reference personally. But it's certainly not unbelievable.

I guess it just feels strange to me, but I'm totally willing to acknowledge that others are clamoring for this class and I'm not strictly opposed to its existence.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

This is a thread about classes we would like to see added and not classes whose addition we should obstruct. Why then must anti-warlord people pipe in to obstruct others' wishlists just because they want to see the warlord added?

because bullying fans of things others don't like is a hobby to some...

 

[Coronoides]

Like many I don't think many new classes *need* to exist in 5e. with the loosening of race/alignment restrictions, feats, and archetypes most near-human concepts can be covered. What's missing is core archetypes of fantasy literature especially giant, dragon, and talking animal PCs. This is something the mechanics of 5e are not well suited too.
As for what would be cool, well the old 1e Oriental Adventures classes especially the WuJen.

 

[Tony Vargas]

In order for that to be true, Warlord healing would have to include a rider that prevents it from working on dying targets.

Why?

Inspiring Word did not close wounds, it inspired. It was not magical. It's not like being KO'd makes you deaf, for instance, and people have reputedly been woken up even from comas by such things. It's entirely in keeping with genre - almost any more heroic or action genre, really, not even just fantasy.

A warlords inspiring word works just fine on a character at -20 hp, with two failed death saves, whose is also deaf, blind,

Deaf /and/ blind is getting to the point where I wouldn't object to a DM telling me, hey, you're just gonna hafta go over there and shake him or something... Didn't come up in 7 years of running & playing that ed, though, and it's not something I'd do as a DM (tending to prioritize fun/drama over realism), so a pretty trivial corner case. 4e was not so much closer to perfection than every other edition that it didn't have it's little inconsistencies, either, while Inspiring Word was just a Close Burst, the various Commanding Presences each had different requirements to function. Some the ally had to see or hear you, others you had to see them, and so forth. :shrug:

20' away, a different type of life (myconid or xorn) and shares no languages with the Warlord.

It's unlikely you'd have an ally with whom you'd share no languages and couldn't communicate with in any way (no PC race has those issues, for instance), so no, that'd never come up.

The 'type of life' doesn't matter though, you could inspire a Shardmind for instance, or a Shardmind could be a Warlord, for that matter I played a Shardmind Warlord|Shaman in Lair Assault one season.

You seem very caught up on the idea that tactics must apply meta-game knowledge, and that seems to me to be contrary to your goals.

There is an important distinction between the abilities of players and those of their characters. It's easiest to see with physical stats and actions, but it's equally valid with any character ability. We don't insist that only players who can bench-press a buick can play half-orc barbarians, nor that a player who wants his character to disarm a trap try to defuse an actual bomb (a bomb squad trainer, say, to take danger off the table), by the same token, the 'tactics' that players engage in - focus fire, moving around an imaginary grid, and so forth - are not the same thing as the 'tactics' that a character meant to model a 'tactical genius' would be employing.

I'm sorry, I don't follow this at all. To clarify, I have as little interest in a debate on the nature of HP as I do in an edition war,

Then it doubly shouldn't be an issue.

but I am not a fan of purely abstract hit points.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but there's no problem with them in 5e. 5e includes HD and overnight recovery of all hps, that precludes it modeling any extremely serious injury from mere hp loss. You can recover all your hps, even from the verge of death, even with no aid whatsoever (assuming moderately lucky death saves), in as little as 2 hrs (1 hr to wake up with 1 hp, 1 to take a short rest). No wound heals in 2hrs, so any wounds you've taken don't impede recovery to full hps. You might still have wounds, but they're not preventing you from avoiding new ones.

There's no problem with changing that, of course, and the DMG has modules to do just that. Once you make natural healing 'realistically' slow, for instance, you can more easily visualize being dropped to 0 hps as being a very serious wound. If you're going to use such modules, you're unlikely to want to use an optional class like the Warlord, anyway - even if you do, it should be possible to simply not choose (or ban) anything that conflicts with it.

Just not an issue.

If HP damage reflects physical or even psychic injury, what could be more on concept then to apply first aid with a healing kit?

Nothing wrong with it, and anyone can do it, it's just not part of the warlord concept.

Since my reading of 5e's hit point system makes them less abstract than those of 4e,

You are free to think that, and 5e makes it easy to adjust the game (as above) to make it work more consistently with that sort of visualization, if you like.

I don't think healing, particularly healing capable of rousing someone on the edge of death, should be doable at a distance without supernatural power.

If that's what you choose to believe, then you simply don't do it. Seriously, there's no need for a 5e Warlord to have something like Inspiring Word hard-coded. Just as you could choose never to prepare Healing Word as a cleric or the DM could ban it, you could never pick Inspiring Word as a player or ban it as a DM. It's clearly not necessary to your vision of the class, unlike mine, so that's no issue for you. Similarly, I would be free to use it, since I don't have a problem with the commonplace genre trope it models working in D&D.

I admit I'm intrigued. While we seem to have differing approaches to the game, I would be very interested to see what you consider to be a good 5e take on the warlord class.

We can only hope something comes down the line. I look forward to analyzing it some day.

Are you familiar with the Hunter class and the Tactics feats chains from Iron Heroes?

Nope. Heard good things about Iron Heroes, but only in general terms. Like it's more 'low fantasy' and 'swords & sorcery' with a preponderance of non-magic-using PC classes.

Feat chains, though sure - in 5e, a chain tend to get bundled into a single feat. And, it wouldn't exactly be shocking to see some future material for 5e call back Iron Heroes.

Saying "I want a warlord" is on point. Getting into a multi-page back and forth over whether it should be there, or whether the concepts it represents should be there, isn't.

So folks should refrain from jumping in and challenging you wanting a warlord? That'd be a nice change.

 

[Aldarc]

These are true statements, but I think you will find the Warlord is also a D&Dism. Yelling exhausted soldiers back onto their feet is soundly in genre. Yelling stab wounds closed or the comatose back into fighting trim is purely a D&D thing, and a 4e thing at that.

Certainly no more far-fetched than "resting" to have your stab wounds close automatically. HP are an abstract. Is it that when you gain HP from warlord shouting that you are "yelling stab wounds close," or does the HP come from hidden reserves that exist beside those lost stab wound HP? If HP is an abstract of "flesh, exhaustion, morale, and luck," then regaining HP does not necessarily need to be narrated as 'your wounds heal up.' Those may very well still exist. Just as having 'stab wounds' that take you from 100 to 80 HP allows you to go around as if nothing had happened. This is, of course, a D&Dism, but it's one in which the Warlord's abilities are consistent within the framework of prior D&Disms.

Out of curiosity, if the Battlemaster has been called the Warlord, would you feel it was an insult to Warlord fans, or merely an inadequate interpretation?

Why can't the answer be both?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

A full Assassin.
Captain (warlord/noble)
Some manner of scholar.
Artificer
Alchemist, depending on if arti can or can't hold it
A summoner. Only way, iMovie to do it right is to balance summoning as the primary class feature. Use it to flesh out binder, sha'ir, maybe shaman, etc
True hexblade, not just warlock with sword. Primary features center on magical weapon attack hexes, Merle debuffer.

Maybe a Gish class, with hexblade, arcane archer, etc subclasses. Maybe. Mostly because I want a good arcane archer.

A tinkerer type class, again if artificer doesn't work for it. Make traps, scavenge parts, hack constructs, maybe be able to upgrade crossbows with da Vinci esque gadgetry, etc.

My main thing is, don't let ppl who don't like the concepts anywhere near the classes until they are in later phase of play testing.

 

[Tony Vargas]

A full Assassin.

Regular or extra-shadowy?

Some manner of scholar.

Obviously you mean more than a Sage background, what would that consist of? Would it be an outre exposition character unable to contribute much else, or would it be parlayed into a viable support role? Would it cast? Perform rituals but not cast?

Maybe a Gish class, with hexblade, arcane archer, etc subclasses. Maybe. Mostly because I want a good arcane archer.

A dex-based EK with archer style falls short, I'm sure, because of the enchant-an-arrow-with-a-spell tricks the AA (npi) would do.

There were so many PrCs like that in 3.x, in spite of it's modular MCing, and there's already multiple examples in 5e, and feats, and modular MCing (that handles casters better). I enjoyed the old fighter/magic-user as much as the next guy, but I wonder what made these builds and PrCs fall so far short that we were constantly seeing new ones?

How might 5e finally deliver?

(Oh, hey, and I never liked that 'Gish' was derived from the lingo of an Evil race. I should really demand they not exist. :shrug: Nah. )

My main thing is, don't let ppl who don't like the concepts anywhere near the classes until they are in later phase of play testing.

Yes. There's no point in designing an optional class to please those who hate it.

 

[Edwin Suijkerbuijk]

from a mechanical standpoint there is a class mecanic i have been thinking about.

Where you have a caster that only knows low level spells, but can cast them as if cast with a higer level spell slot.
the mecanic that many spells have greater efect when cast with a higer level spell slot is something that isebn't used often in my experiance, usualy it is more efective to just cast a higer level spell.

 

[MechaPilot]

from a mechanical standpoint there is a class mecanic i have been thinking about.

Where you have a caster that only knows low level spells, but can cast them as if cast with a higer level spell slot.
the mecanic that many spells have greater efect when cast with a higer level spell slot is something that isebn't used often in my experiance, usualy it is more efective to just cast a higer level spell.

I think one example of something 5e whiffed on is the lack of implementation of augmenting spells by casting them in higher level slots. Sure, some spells do more damage or affect more targets when you use a higher level slot, but just about every spell should allow for extended range, additional targets, or longer durations when using a higher level slot. A module to allow this, or a class to take advantage of this gap for a unique mechanic could be interesting.