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

[Aldarc]

I just came up with a theory for why the Warlord wasn't in the PHB. It's because the Ardent is a really obvious subclass of warlord, but they didn't have the psionics rules in place yet, so they decided to wait.

And with that thought, any ideas for other Warlord sub-classes?

That would be nice. One can hope that is the case.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

hopefully in a councle of wyrms setting due out soon...

But we need it NOW! Where is it? WotC is clearly slighting a contingent of players by blatantly choosing not to support their preferred playstyle. It's an outrage.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Mostly in 4e, with the Demigod and Prince of Hell epic destinies. There were some dragon-related epic destinies, as well, I believe. The 2e setting Council of Wyrms had rules for playing dragons, and 3.5 had a Draconomicon with similar rules, I believe. And the 3.5 MMs had Level Adjustments for most of the dragons, I believe, which would render them as character options.

Hopefully with the introduction of Prestige Class rules, we can foresee the introduction of higher-level Prestige Classes that do something similar to 4e epic destinies. I, for one, am 100% on board.

something like the darksun "I become a dragon" would make a cool prestige class...

 

[Guest 6801328]

so you hate not being given the choice of if my character is inspireing or not, and you hate being given a choice to except it or not... I'm lost now

Ah, now I understand. The statement-posing-as-a-question was an attempt to force me into an answer that you could misinterpret as a contradiction. Got it.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I wouldn't minds a new Cavalier. Don't need it to be a class unto itself, but a subclass might be night. Of Paladin, Fighter, or Ranger. I can see it fitting into any of those. I see a couple people took a stab at a homebrew version, here and here.

I keep hoping for a swordmage/swordsage type class/subclass that has cool magical and supernatural powers that aren't spells per say... green flame blade cantrip is leaning that way at least...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Ah, now I understand. The statement-posing-as-a-question was an attempt to force me into an answer that you could misinterpret as a contradiction. Got it.

so how about this... you don't want a team dynamic forced on you, why is it being an option bad... after the first time you refuse the healing the warlord won't keep trying...

the only contradiction is you... "I don't want X forced on me"

"Ok what if it was a choice"

I don't want choice either...

I don't understand you...

 

[TwoSix]

I wouldn't minds a new Cavalier. Don't need it to be a class unto itself, but a subclass might be night. Of Paladin, Fighter, or Ranger. I can see it fitting into any of those. I see a couple people took a stab at a homebrew version, here and here.

Cavalier makes a lot of sense. Considering Pathfinder cavaliers have like 25 orders, 15 archetypes, and a whole alternate class (Samurai), I would think there's probably enough thematic material for a whole class with 3 subclasses. But a Fighter or Paladin with a subclass works as well.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

What should really be sought here is NOT a houserule, but actual rules from wotc... now if they added a bunch of rules including a warlord I doubt many warlord fans would complain...

If WotC published "D&D: Romantic Fantasy" as a rules module with support for inspiration tropes, and then made a Warlord which fit with those tropes, that would be fine. There are already existing rules modules in 5E for resting variants, spell points vs. slots, combat options, initiative systems, etc. This would be the first rules module that had a full class designed specifically to interact with the rules module, but that isn't terrible.

Those who don't want the rules module could just not use it. That's a big improvement over having a class in the core game which relies on implicit optional rules--the optional rules are instead made explicit first, in the rules module, and the class leverages them. E.g. "The Warlord can Exhort as a bonus action." "The Warlord adds his proficiency bonus when Inspiring, and can Inspire two targets simultaneously when he reaches sixth level." Etc.

 

[JediGamemaster]

so how about this... you don't want a team dynamic forced on you, why is it being an option bad... after the first time you refuse the healing the warlord won't keep trying...

the only contradiction is you... "I don't want X forced on me"

"Ok what if it was a choice"

I don't want choice either...

I don't understand you...

you understand perfectly well... he, like I DON"T WANT A WARLORD AT ALL... we are winning, but had to put up with some compramises (hit dice, second wind, inspire feat, long/short rest) so we are far from a perfect game for us too, I have to put up with what I don't like and so do you...

 

[JediGamemaster]

If WotC published "D&D: Romantic Fantasy" as a rules module with support for inspiration tropes, and then made a Warlord which fit with those tropes, that would be fine. There are already existing rules modules in 5E for resting variants, spell points vs. slots, combat options, initiative systems, etc. This would be the first rules module that had a full class designed specifically to interact with the rules module, but that isn't terrible.

Those who don't want the rules module could just not use it. That's a big improvement over having a class in the core game which relies on implicit optional rules--the optional rules are instead made explicit first, in the rules module, and the class leverages them. E.g. "The Warlord can Exhort as a bonus action." "The Warlord adds his proficiency bonus when Inspiring, and can Inspire two targets simultaneously when he reaches sixth level." Etc.

I think even going that far is too far (I would prefer steps back to be honest)