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

[Andor]

Don't want any more classes as such.

I'd like to see Avenger as a Monk subclass wielding big two-handed swords.
Warlord as a Fighter subclass.
A couple decent non-spellcasting Ranger subclasses.
A non-spellcasting Paladin subclass.
Possibly a non-casty Bard subclass like the one in C&C, not sure if this is doable in 5e given they made a Bard full-progression Sorcerer type.

I see these ideas a lot, but I don't quite get them. In 5e, if you are sufficiently devoted to the ideals of a ranger or paladin, you get gifted with mojo. If your character wasn't that devoted, or for some reason didn't get gifted to me those ideas seem like "Fighter with the Acolyte/Outlander background."

If that doesn't seem mechanically sufficient to you, why do you prefer the solution of a subclass which strips primary features from the base class, rather than adding a "rangery" or "paladiny" subclass to the Fighter or Rogue or Barbarian?

I mean if you encountered druid with a bodyguard dressed in light armour who declared himself a protector of the wild, wielding a spear and dressed in camoflaged light armour, what class would he be? In 5e he could plausibly be a ranger, oath of ancients paladin, fighter, or barbarian. My point, such as it is, is that I don't see much value on getting hung on on class name vs archtype or role.

 

[Minigiant]

Might I ask (without setting off a firestorm) where is this concept of the Avenger must wield two-handed weapons?

I mean, the only thing that comes to my mind (and I don't even PLAY video games) is the Assassin's Creed guy...a "holy/religiously sanctioned assassin", effectively. He's going on the missions to "avenge/deliver justice against" something[-one] for/from the church/religion/cause/what have you. He's the stick to the shadows, track you down wherever you're hiding, acrobatic flippy, who's going to sneak attack stab you in the neck when you're not looking guy...with, in D&D terms, the added benefit of some divine magicky powers and/or spells stuff. A "divine rogue" for lack of more concise way of putting it. Two-handed weapons as "necessary" doesn't really play into it at all...and would, seemingly, be a hindrance for speed, maneuverability, and remaining inconspicuous.

Why do we think, for a 5e Avenger (especially basing off of Monk, which I think makes total sense), two-handed weapons need to be part of the core subclass?

Avenger and GWF is just a mechanical fix in 4e.

Weapon Strikers either had:
Weapon bigger Ws (Barbarian, blackguard)- Two Handed weapons
Powers with a lot of Ws (rogue, assassin)- One handed weapon
Lots of Weapon attacks (ranger, monk)- Dual wield or archery

Avenger was given two handed so it wouldn't look like a rogue clone.

In 5th, that isn't an issue. There isn't a fear or having all their powers like like rogue powers as there are no powers everyone who uses a weapon style plays the same. An avenger can be a stealthy divine rogue or monk or a high dex dual wieding paladin.

There is no way to balance a two handed weapon using light armored warrior with divine magic currently. There is too much MAD (Str, Dex, Con, and Casting stat). You gotta give in and take medium armor, dual wield, or drop magic.

Or invent a new class.

 

[steeldragons]

As for your question, @steeldragons...it's just the way the original class worked.

That's what I figured.

Since it seems like such a minimally-invasive detail to address, I feel it's reasonable to ask for something like it--even if it's changed in form.

"Changed in form"? How would you change the form of using two-ahnded weapons except for using two-handed weapons? Either people want them to have two-handed weapons because that is necessary, defining and/or "adds to" the archetype...or people are just after the extra damage...or, I suppose, "both" is also an option.

so it seems a small and reasonable extension of the currently-available tools.

"Small", yes. Many subclasses (Which is what I'm talking about here, the proposed Monk subclass, not yet another some full class all its special snowflakiness own.) add bonus proficiencies. It's trivially easy to do. That is not reason enough to do it, imho.

"Reasonable" is, of course and always, a matter for debate. One in which, this rainy Sunday, I'm not particularly interested.

May I ask--also, hoping it does not touch a nerve--why this is a problem?

"Where does this perception/idea come from?" is not a "problem." It's a question.

Frankly, I'm getting an impression of inherent opposition to even minor mechanical similarities to a 4e class, when someone mentions they'd like to see it.

Of course you are. It's your sole reaction in every thread to anything that questions anything about, originating in or tangentially related to 4e.

 

[Aldarc]

Might I ask (without setting off a firestorm) where is this concept of the Avenger must wield two-handed weapons?

I mean, the only thing that comes to my mind (and I don't even PLAY video games) is the Assassin's Creed guy...a "holy/religiously sanctioned assassin", effectively. He's going on the missions to "avenge/deliver justice against" something[-one] for/from the church/religion/cause/what have you. He's the stick to the shadows, track you down wherever you're hiding, acrobatic flippy, who's going to sneak attack stab you in the neck when you're not looking guy...with, in D&D terms, the added benefit of some divine magicky powers and/or spells stuff. A "divine rogue" for lack of more concise way of putting it. Two-handed weapons as "necessary" doesn't really play into it at all...and would, seemingly, be a hindrance for speed, maneuverability, and remaining inconspicuous.

Why do we think, for a 5e Avenger (especially basing off of Monk, which I think makes total sense), two-handed weapons need to be part of the core subclass?

To be fair, I think that the Pathfinder Inquisitor class also has something to do with this, perhaps even more so than the Avenger class itself, since the two-handed power-damage build was probably the most popular one (alongside the ranged build) for the Inquisitor.

 

[JediGamemaster]

isn't the avenging paliden supposed to be the 5e avenger?

 

[steeldragons]

isn't the avenging paliden supposed to be the 5e avenger?

It is. Yes.

 

[Eric V]

Might I ask (without setting off a firestorm) where is this concept of the Avenger must wield two-handed weapons?

Well, I can't speak for people thinking of making the Avenger a monk subclass, but since I see it as a Paladin subclass, it's already there, but needs a fix to address MAD.

 

[steeldragons]

Well, I can't speak for people thinking of making the Avenger a monk subclass, but since I see it as a Paladin subclass, it's already there, but needs a fix to address MAD.

Ok. Why? Why shouldn't a class that is multi-talented be required to have multiple abilities on which they depend? 5e even has ability boosts built right into every base class.

What's so "bad" about "MAD"? [heh heh. that rhymed.]

 

[Eric V]

Ok. Why? Why shouldn't a class that is multi-talented be required to have multiple abilities on which they depend? 5e even has ability boosts built right into every base class.

What's so "bad" about "MAD"? [heh heh. that rhymed.]

If the Avenger really had that much more in the way of talents, I'd agree with you. But even the bard doesn't suffer from MAD as much as the (theoretical) Avenger would. The subclass shouldn't drop substantially in effectiveness that much from the other subclasses.

 

[steeldragons]

Gotcha.