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

[Mouseferatu]

Well, this was a fun thread while it lasted. Which was up to about ten pages ago.

Can someone start a new one? Something like, "What classes other than the warlord, which will not be discussed here either pro or con, would you like to see in 5E?"

 

[TwoSix]

A "game full of magic and fantasy" often leads people to two differing opinions about the nature of their ubiquity, and that rub of your point lies in how one reads "full of." I am increasingly coming of the opinion that a big part of this discussion entails these two diametrically opposed, but equally-supported and valid, approaches to playing D&D over the past five editions. Some people prefer one or the other. Some people are fine with both.
<snip>

Good summary of what's been discussed here, and in some other posts. I'm in agreement with the idea of the "semi-mystical" warlord. For those who accept and support hit points as basically morale and inspirational healing, he's just an effective mundane. For those who want healing to knit flesh wounds and don't want inspiring words to inspire them, simply flavor it as bardic magic lite.

 

[TwoSix]

Well, this was a fun thread while it lasted. Which was up to about ten pages ago.

Can someone start a new one? Something like, "What classes other than the warlord, which will not be discussed here either pro or con, would you like to see in 5E?"

Dude, I am having SO. MUCH. FUN. It's always fascinating to see what different mental frameworks people use when they roleplay.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Well, this was a fun thread while it lasted. Which was up to about ten pages ago.

Can someone start a new one? Something like, "What classes other than the warlord, which will not be discussed here either pro or con, would you like to see in 5E?"

if they did I bet it would get bogged down with "But why can't I talk about the warlord..." short of [MENTION=80342]morris[/MENTION] saying out right "No more warlord discussions" nothing is stopping this freight train... and even then I bet a few full out bans would come form this...

 

[Guest 6801328]

You know, I don't know about you, but what I do know is that when everything in the game is "full of magic and fantasy," sometimes people want to play as that non-magical fighter, rogue, ranger, barbarian, and, yes, warlord who persevere against the odds despite their lack of magic.

It's a great general play concept (and part of the reason I'm looking forward to the new Conan game) but I would argue that D&D is not the place to explore it. What I fear is D&D trying to be all things to all people in all genres all of the time.

 

[TwoSix]

if they did I bet it would get bogged down with "But why can't I talk about the warlord..."

"I think we need a swordsage class. Discuss."

 

[GMforPowergamers]

"I think we need a swordsage class. Discuss."

I would love the idea of merging the swordsage from 3.5 and the swordmage of 4e and making a mystic non spell casting arcane melee class...

things like holucost cloak as a reaction, and the swordmage one (forgot the name) where you throw your sword it explodes then you teleport to it and it reforms in your hand.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

"I think we need a swordsage class. Discuss."

What is it? What does it do?

 

[TwoSix]

What is it? What does it do?

Gah, it's not nearly as inflammatory if you don't know what it is.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I would love the idea of merging the swordsage from 3.5 and the swordmage of 4e and making a mystic non spell casting arcane melee class...

things like holucost cloak as a reaction, and the swordmage one (forgot the name) where you throw your sword it explodes then you teleport to it and it reforms in your hand.

I want a Witch. The fairy-tale sort. I think I might have said that in the early pages of this thread.

Yeah, I know, it's sort of a warlock, sort of a wizard, sort of a bard. But I'd love to have it be a distinct class.

Also a Jester/Fool sub-class of Bard. I envision him bending probability.