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

[MechaPilot]

It's hard for me to participate in a thread like this because I don't know the 4e classes and it seems like a lot of people have very specific associations between evocative words and 4e class design. (E.g., the sentiment I heard during Next playtesting that a Warlock without "Eldritch Blast" is not a Warlock. Left me scratching my head.)

Don't let that stand in your way. The title is about classes in general, not just updating 4e classes.

That said, the archetypes that I would like to see are:

A primal/spirit-based caster. E.g. Shaman, Witch-doctor, etc.

A storybook Witch. Potions, charms, curses, and polymorphs (maybe even a lesser polymorph that allows a save every round). No blasting/nuking spells, but maybe one evocation cantrip.

The Witch could be a new sub-class of Wizard with school restrictions (e.g., Disadvantage on attack rolls, Advantage on saving throws, for Evocation spells.) Alternately, it could be a Warlock subclass (Patron = "The Sisters")

I think a well-done witch class/subclass would actually be quite beneficial in my favorite setting Ravenloft.

And other than that everything I'd like to see could be a sub-class: Some new Monk options. A Blood Sorcerer. A tree/plant Druid. (And maybe an Underdark druid?) An armor-less Cleric support/healer.

I'd like to propose a new option: a kit or theme. Part of the problem for me with making some of the things I want as subclasses is that a subclass doesn't modify other parts of the class. For example, a subclass isn't going to remove Ki from a monk or grant unarmored defense and unarmed strike to a fighter to make a mundane martial artist. So I propose something that will. Call it a kit or theme, whatever fits your liking, but the premise is that it layers on top of a class and changes features that would otherwise not be altered by your selection of subclass.

 

[Jester David]

Unique Stories? Check
Unique Mechanics? Check (The flaw with truenaming was with 3rd mechanics for skills and CRs. 5e has proficiency. Fixes most of that)
Unique Concepts? Check
Unique Subclass? Check
Doesn't stretch the core settings? Check. D&D has truenames as core flavor. They just don't do anything until DM fiat.
Fan Favorite? Many 3e fans loved the idea of the truenamer. The mechanics just didn't work in the edition it debuted and 4e died before it got through much of the backlog.

Truenaming is weird.
It's a neat magic system and one found in some of my favourite fantasy worlds (Earthsea and the Kingkiller Chronicles) but it's very different than the magic of D&D, which is pulling spells from elsewhere. Tapping into the weave and such.

Narrative, there's very little difference between a truenamer and a wizard. They're both scholarly figures that use their esoteric knowledge to generate magical effects.
I think I'd rather see Naming as an alternate magic system that replaces the standard spells. A really hefty rules module. Like spell points only more robust. It'd likely swap out some spells and tweak effects. But the classes themselves wouldn't change, so bards, sorcerers, wizards, and maybe even warlorks would use truename magic.

 

[MechaPilot]

Some things are D&D, some things aren't, and some things vary.

I still have to disagree with the "some things aren't D&D" part of that statement, but I'll hold off on elaborating because I think it fits best below.

D&D certainly has a core tone. If you got all players to describe the "tone" of what they thought D&D was and made an aggregate of that, the result would BE D&D in the purest sense.

It may not be 100% accurate, but it hits all the major beats and is recognizable if you squint.

Default D&D has a core tone, as represented by stuff like FR. However, that doesn't mean that things which don't fall into that tone aren't D&D. They are. They're just not the default. And neither is Eberron, Ravenloft, or Dark Sun, but they are D&D despite not fitting with the core tone.

However, there are also things that just do not *fit* D&D or require a little extra work. They *might* fit and a lot of times you can work them into a new campaign. It might fit individual campaigns just fine and dandy, but it won't work with the baseline, the average of all tables.

There are things that don't fit the default, but that's a far cry from saying they don't fit D&D. Now, maybe you're using some shorthand where D&D is being defined by the most common denominator instead of being the infinite multiverse of options and worlds that the game encourages us to make it. I have a very broad definition for what D&D is, and that difference could certainly interfere with us understanding each other if you are using that shorthand.

 

[Minigiant]

Truenaming is weird.
It's a neat magic system and one found in some of my favourite fantasy worlds (Earthsea and the Kingkiller Chronicles) but it's very different than the magic of D&D, which is pulling spells from elsewhere. Tapping into the weave and such.

Narrative, there's very little difference between a truenamer and a wizard. They're both scholarly figures that use their esoteric knowledge to generate magical effects.
I think I'd rather see Naming as an alternate magic system that replaces the standard spells. A really hefty rules module. Like spell points only more robust. It'd likely swap out some spells and tweak effects. But the classes themselves wouldn't change, so bards, sorcerers, wizards, and maybe even warlorks would use truename magic.

Truenaming is weird but many people like it and many stories use it.

The difference between normal magic and truenaming in most stories is that truenaming is straight up overpowered. It was at will repeatable effects that was hard or impossible to resist until the target's truename changed. So authors couldn't hand it out often as it was a win button. So the difference between wizard and truenamer was the one use very hard to use or learn, powerful magic and one use ever harder to use or learn, even more powerful magic.

D&D nerfed it because it is a game. Media truenaming was broken so WotC nerfed it and accidentally overdid it.

The issue is implementation and that's what makes a variant or subclass hard. The listed magic classes were design for weak at will magic and strong long rest or short rest magic. None were written with strong at will magic in mind. And usage limitations on truenaming makes no sense as it is activated by just talking.

Tricky stuff.

 

[Eric V]

Just add another school to the spells like back in 2e. They had the schools of philosophy (the classic schools now listed in 5e) and then they had schools of effect (Pretty sure this would include time wizard, elementalists, etc.)

I also think that not all wizard subclasses need to be an individual school, it can just be a method of casting like the artificer subclass that was released a while back.

I actually really liked the dimensionalist, Shadow mage, geometer, etc. Wouldn't mind seeing them back.

 

[Jessica]

Vampire, Psion, Vampire, Invoker, Vampire, Avenger, Vampire, 2e style specialty Priests, Vampire, Urban Druids, Vampires, those blight Druids from 3.5, Vampires, and Vampires.

 

[Jester David]

Default D&D has a core tone, as represented by stuff like FR. However, that doesn't mean that things which don't fall into that tone aren't D&D. They are. They're just not the default. And neither is Eberron, Ravenloft, or Dark Sun, but they are D&D despite not fitting with the core tone.

And that's the catch. Those things aren't D&D. They're Eberron, Ravenloft, or Dark Sun. Now, I love me some Ravenloft, but that doesn't mean I want to see some Ravenloft classes and content in a generic book. And that goes double for Dark Sun. A mul and thri-kreen race write-up would be neat, but not in a D&D book. That belongs in a Dark Sun book.

Of course, a race is small. You can fit one in a two-page spread (less if you dump the lore) so including a few offbeat races isn't a big deal. You can get more experimental with races and backgrounds and rules module.
But a class? That's different. Because if the space it takes up and the work required. Unless it's in a setting book, that content should be something everyone can benefit from.

 

[MechaPilot]

And that's the catch. Those things aren't D&D.

If you believe that Eberron, Ravenloft and Dark Sun are not D&D, then I think it's fair to say that you are using a most common denominator shorthand for your definition of D&D. I have a broader definition, and I see those settings as existing within the identity of D&D and not outside of it. With our differing definitions, the only agreement we'll ever really come to about the identity or definition of D&D is that you and I agree to disagree about it.

Of course, a race is small. You can fit one in a two-page spread (less if you dump the lore) so including a few offbeat races isn't a big deal. You can get more experimental with races and backgrounds and rules module.
But a class? That's different. Because if the space it takes up and the work required. Unless it's in a setting book, that content should be something everyone can benefit from.

I'm perfectly willing to say that some classes should be in certain setting books. In particular, the Artificer should be in the Eberron book because the setting really demands the presence of artificers in that world. However, when it comes to classes that are not explicitly required for a given setting, I don't think a setting book is appropriate.

For example, just for the sake of discussion pretend that you want to see a witch class (I was going to say warlord, but I think you'd have a harder time imagining that than you would imagining that you want a witch class). Although I feel that Ravenloft could benefit from one, there is no setting that I'm aware of that demands a witch class. Pretending that you want to see a witch class and that no setting demands one, in what product does the class go?

 

[Jester David]

If you believe that Eberron, Ravenloft and Dark Sun are not D&D, then I think it's fair to say that you are using a most common denominator shorthand for your definition of D&D. I have a broader definition, and I see those settings as existing within the identity of D&D and not outside of it. With our differing definitions, the only agreement we'll ever really come to about the identity or definition of D&D is that you and I agree to disagree about it.

Dark Sun is D&D for people who hated everything about D&D but the rules. It's pretty far from what most people would consider D&D.

I mean, D&D is more than just the d20 rules. Otherwise, Star Wars would be D&D.
D&D is also more than just fantasy worlds with elves and dwarves. Otherwise a LOT of other things would be D&D.

 

[MechaPilot]

Dark Sun is D&D for people who hated everything about D&D but the rules. It's pretty far from what most people would consider D&D.

I mean, D&D is more than just the d20 rules. Otherwise, Star Wars would be D&D.
D&D is also more than just fantasy worlds with elves and dwarves. Otherwise a LOT of other things would be D&D.

I agree that D&D is more than just the D20 rules, and is more than just a fantasy world with elves and dwarves (to be clear, I never said that those things were the only requirements for something to be D&D, and you didn't explicitly say that I said that. Although, it does feel implied, but that might just be the lack of visual and audible cues that makes internet communication so iffy). My definition is broad, but it's not so broad that just any fantasy setting qualifies.