D&D 5E What new classes do you think we need?

[cmad1977]

None really. Any new classes are going to have tacked on mechanics that aren't necessary.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Yunru]

We already have all those, unless you don't consider third party sources to be "real". A collated list of the best 3rd party material is better crunch than anything in SCAG, VGtM, or the UA articles.

The problem with third party sources is that it doesn't have the same level of balance and quality reassurance that first party material (should) have.

 

[GlassJaw]

I also don't think 5E needs anything and overall, the core classes do a great job of providing a variety of archetypes. There are 2 "hybrid" classes I'd like to see though:

- Caster with druid spells and nature abilities but no wildshape (Shaman)
- Melee warrior with bardic-esque inspiration and tactical team-based abilities but no spellcasting (Warden)

 

[Gladius Legis]

A full-on 4e Warlord wouldn't fit in 5e's system. You certainly can't have it enabling the ton of free attacks in 5e that it did in 4e. They just need a more action economy-friendly maneuver than Commander's Strike for the Battle Master, and a better designed leader sub-class for the Fighter than the very flawed PDK.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[MechaTarrasque]

I also don't think 5E needs anything and overall, the core classes do a great job of providing a variety of archetypes. There are 2 "hybrid" classes I'd like to see though:

- Caster with druid spells and nature abilities but no wildshape (Shaman)
- Melee warrior with bardic-esque inspiration and tactical team-based abilities but no spellcasting (Warden)

Since there are UA's with wizard and sorcerer subclasses that can draw from the cleric's list, it seems like it wouldn't be too hard to make similar things that draw off the druid's list, which I am hoping WotC will do at some point.

 

[77IM]

I think any new classes they add should change the game in some fundamental way. It should not just be "more of the same." What would be the point? To be clear, something as substantial as a class should change both the game's story, and the game's mechanics.

Examples of game-changers:

• Psion should be its own class. However I think I'd be happier if Psychic Warrior and Soulknife were archetypes for Fighter and Rogue. I could MAYBE see a hybrid half-"caster" class that could cover Psychic Warrior and Soulknife and Ardent etc.
• Artificer, if it leans more towards gadgetry and implies gunpowder or steampunkishness, would be welcome. It could exist alongside a gunslinger fighter archetype, maybe some sort of rogue archetype with a utility belt or with a lot of weird drugs and poisons, etc.
• Pokemon Trainer: they have monster(s) that fight for them. The PC sits in the back row (or sits atop a monstrous mount) and minion monsters do most of their dirty work. You could go a lot of interesting directions with this, both story-wise and mechanically. It would be different than beastmaster ranger in that the PC would be weak (d6 hit dice, no martial weapons or Extra Attack, etc.). You could call this class "summoner" but that implies that the monsters are summoned which might not be the case; maybe summoner is just one of the subclasses.
• Monster Classes: Powerful monsters should be implemented as classes, not races. If you want to play a hobgoblin, sure, that's just a PC race. But playing a vampire, mind-flayer, or ogre? It should require many levels to get up to "full strength."
• Godling: Sort of a superhero, your ability scores just get better and better and better, and you get superhuman powers, and gradually at level 20 ascend to become a demigod. It would be hard to balance against the core classes but is probably doable.

Counter-examples: Warlord and Elementalist may offer novel mechanics, but it doesn't sound like they change the game's story very much. Samurai and Ninja may change the story, but aren't mechanically very distinct (or if they are mechanically distinct, it would feel artificial to me -- "Why not just use fighter and rogue?" is what I'd be thinking).

 

[TwoSix]

The problem with third party sources is that it doesn't have the same level of balance and quality reassurance that first party material (should) have.

Sure, but a quick purview of some of the more popular options will find plenty of stuff that's balanced enough. I can think of at least 10 classes I've looked at from a combination of DMs Guild, Reddit, and En5ider that are balanced at least as well as WotC material. The problem is we as a community aren't pushing this material to each other to make sure it's being recognized.

 

[bganon]

I'd like to see a "sneaky skill/utility caster" that's more magical than an Arcane Trickster, but not blasty in the way that the Warlock and Sorcerer classes encourage. Preferably Int-based, something like the 3.5 Lurk, but I don't really care whether it has psionic fluff.

I'd like to see a tanky, defenderish, unarmed strike-using class, and while this sounds like a monk I'm not sure 5e can really get all the way there as a subclass. The Mystic might satisfy me here, though.

The Artificer is pretty close to what I'd like it to be - if they add some homunculus-crafting I'd be all good.

As other people have mentioned, a true summoner would be nice.

 

[GlassJaw]

Since there are UA's with wizard and sorcerer subclasses that can draw from the cleric's list, it seems like it wouldn't be too hard to make similar things that draw off the druid's list, which I am hoping WotC will do at some point.

Ooh, a warlock with druid spell access would be neat!