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

[The Human Target]

Bring em all on!

No need for the same old same old.

I'd be fine with many of them being subclasses, but they don't seem to be coming either.

 

[RexTry]

That can invent a warlord 5E, but only one. I miss you. His influence, but I want to explain a little! Dangnabbit!

 

[TrippyHippy]

With regards to the Warlord, I think that people are just going to keep obsessing about it regardless of arguments that a) it is catered for via feats and Fighter/Battlemaster options already, b) it lacks a genuine narrative archetype, while stepping on the shoes of a Fighter and c) it sucks more than sucking a sucky sweet on a sucky street on a sucky afternoon......so I'm just going to ignore any mention of it from now on.

With regards to the Psion and the Artificer as Classes, I think they both are pretty dependent on the premise of their respective settings (Dark Sun and Ebberon, respectively). I think introducing them generally is problematic as they are really introducing things that aren't part of traditional fantasy - more sci-fi and steampunk. Now I don't regard either setting as 'not D&D', but if they were to introduce them, I'd like them to be in the setting books only, with a clear statement that this is the setting they are made for. I'd say the same for Gunslingers or Space Marines too.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

While I agree that Eberron is probably the only setting that needs the artificer, I feel compelled to point out that Eberron can only leak into "vanilla" D&D if one lets it. No matter how much non-vanilla material is published, the DM doesn't have to allow any of it if she doesn't want to.

I'm well aware of that. Just the more Eberron stuff that leaks into core D&D the more work I have to do to run published materials and such things. Would be the same if kender and DL stuff come in. When I think D&D I'm not thinking artificers and warlords so I'm happy they aren't in the core rules. Just my view on things but I tend to view D&D in a BECMI and 1e influenced light.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[mellored]

They can simply make an artificer/mystic/ect... then people can decide weather they want it in their ravenloft game or not.

Don't want it, don't buy/use it. No reason to try and stop others from giving WotC their money.

 

[Jessica]

Why is it that the difficulty of telling players "no" or the difficulty of just ignoring something in a book is enough reason for people to rail against WotC releasing splats, but when someone wants their favorite class/race/whatever carried over to the new edition that they are expected to do the work to convert it? Isn't saying a two letter word or pretending something isn't there much easier than having to translate mechanics between drastically different systems?

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Why is it that the difficulty of telling players "no" or the difficulty of just ignoring something in a book is enough reason for people to rail against WotC releasing splats, but when someone wants their favorite class/race/whatever carried over to the new edition that they are expected to do the work to convert it? Isn't saying a two letter word or pretending something isn't there much easier than having to translate mechanics between drastically different systems?

That's not really even remotely equivalent.

Note that I am not on either side of any of the "yes it needs added officially" or "no it doesn't, do it yourself" arguments that are going on.

However, one side is not typically actually worried about having to say "No, that option doesn't exist in my campaigns," and ignoring material that made it into a book - they are worried that all the time it took for the developers to make that option that they don't want will take away from the time the developers have available to work on options that they do want, and might end up not actually satisfying the folks that wanted it, so the end result is just dev-time spent on effectively nothing.

So they encourage those folks that want X to do their own creation or conversion of it because then the devs won't spend time on something their side doesn't want, and the side that wants it has no risk of the end result not being how they wanted it done.

It is, in a view, the only way in which there is a "win win" conclusion to the scenario - and it has nothing at all to do with which is easier for which fan to do.

 

[Greg K]

Why is it that the difficulty of telling players "no" or the difficulty of just ignoring something in a book is enough reason for people to rail against WotC releasing splats, but when someone wants their favorite class/race/whatever carried over to the new edition that they are expected to do the work to convert it? Isn't saying a two letter word or pretending something isn't there much easier than having to translate mechanics between drastically different systems?

I agree. However, I want each new race and class to get its own dedicated book similar to 2e Complete Handbooks and Green Ronin's Master Class series for 3e. I'll even accept Kobold Press's Advanced Race series where each new race gets a separate pdf. The benefit is that each race or class gets a fuller treatment that explores variants, new options, and/or subclasses plus other related material while allowing people to avoid paying for a class or race that they do not want in their campaigns. Personally, there are a lot of PC races and classes published for D&D that I never want to include and I will avoid purchasing a product if it means having to pay for them just to get the one or two races/classes that interest me.

 

[Jessica]

That's not really even remotely equivalent.

Note that I am not on either side of any of the "yes it needs added officially" or "no it doesn't, do it yourself" arguments that are going on.

However, one side is not typically actually worried about having to say "No, that option doesn't exist in my campaigns," and ignoring material that made it into a book - they are worried that all the time it took for the developers to make that option that they don't want will take away from the time the developers have available to work on options that they do want, and might end up not actually satisfying the folks that wanted it, so the end result is just dev-time spent on effectively nothing.

So they encourage those folks that want X to do their own creation or conversion of it because then the devs won't spend time on something their side doesn't want, and the side that wants it has no risk of the end result not being how they wanted it done.

It is, in a view, the only way in which there is a "win win" conclusion to the scenario - and it has nothing at all to do with which is easier for which fan to do.

I've seen enough people on the forums/groups that I've been in say that they have problems telling players "no" that I know they actually exist as a group. Also, WTF are these people to tell me that I don't really want what I want? Do they know better than me what I really want? It seems really disingenuous that what side A wants is legitimately good for the game and what side B wants might be worthless because side B might not actually want it even though they think they do.

Also I want to point out, as someone who often plays with online DMs, that doing my own conversion is worthless. The vast majority of the games I've played in are generally official material only and even when with a group of friends and trying to do conversion material the arguments over minutia of a thing often make any attempts at a conversion into five or six different ideas of what a conversion should be and the other four or five conversions being wrong. Even 3PP material generally seems to warrant a lot of suspicion about quality and something created by some dude on the internet somewhere is generally right out. Conversions generally aren't worth the paper they are printed on.