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

[doctorbadwolf]

So where do you draw the line, then? I mean, monks are already borderline-inappropriate for a fantasy setting, but should it also include a specific class for gunslingers? Can we really fault D&D for not including a computer-hacker, or giant-robot-pilot class?

D&D isn't generic fantasy. While there are an infinite number of campaign worlds that can be described under the D&D ruleset, that infinity is still a tiny subset of fantasy worlds, which is itself a tiny subset of fictional worlds.

Sidenote question: how are monks borderline innapropriate for a fantasy setting?



edit; I don't think I ever gave my answer to the OP.

Captain (warlord, but with an influence of Noble, as well)

Shaman

Binder or other dedicated summoner. A class whose primary focus is summoning. Don't care if it's one thing at a time, or a final fantasy style "summon this thing, and it wrecks stuff, then disappears" Schlick, or some combination thereof.

Swordmage. The various subclasses do ok at it, but they also show why a full class dedicated to it, from the ground up, would be great. I'd prefer full caster, perhaps warlock style, with ranger HP and proficiencies, and limited spell list, or something like an arcane monk, with spell points instead of Ki, Int based, magical wards based "armor", etc.
could include a second take on Arcane Archer

Assassin. It's been a PHB class, and the rogue subclass is a poor substituted for past incarnations.

Runepriest. Or not a priest, bc why does it need to be holy? Runesage? I'd accept this as part of a Sage class.


Thinga the game needs that needn't be a class:

an even more Shamanistic Barbarian

a more Barbarian-like Ranger

a Shamanistic/totem ranger

Nature/Primal Spirits warlock

urban ranger

Probably more, but it is late.

 

[Garresh]

Here's my challenge - respond to this question with an archetype, character from a book/movie, etc. Do not respond to it with a D&D class. Because we all have classes with fond memories, but often it's really the mechanics or that-particular-character we miss, when the concept could be done with reskinning or perhaps with non-intrusive changes. (Example of non-intrusive change: paladin with Int instead of Chr and perhaps updated spell lsit would make a great gish.)

I think we'll find the list is a lot different.

The pure of heart who can call out to the good in even the most evil of creatures. Examples are Luke Skywalker vs Darth Vader, and Frisk in Undertale.

The healer who draws the wounds and pain of others into themselves. Examples are in various folklore, Lost Years of Merlin, Wizard's First Rule, and all sorts of fantasy stories.

The demonologist who deals with forces beyond his or her control, only barely maintaining a safe handle on the magic and threatened by utter annihilation if they fail to maintain their stability. Examples are pretty much *any* story where a deal with the devil is struck, and any fantasy setting where evil spirits and devils can be conjured and bound to the caster's will.

The pure-hearted friend who bears the burdens of others, not so much magical as much as simply wise beyond their years. Their mere presence seems to keep others from straying from the path of good, and though they are not masters of blade or combat, they somehow make those around them stronger. Example would be Samwise from Lord of the Rings, whose combat abilities were pretty piss poor, but somehow he made Frodo infinitely stronger against the temptation of the ring, and was incredibly wise and kept others stable when the weight of their burdens wore them down. Without using magic or incantations.

The fool who is unpredictable and seemingly chaotic, but has a method to its madness. Examples are widely varied, but can include the Drunken Masters from that old Jackie Chan movie, the Jester from Devil May Cry 3, The Joker from Batman, Deadpool, the Comedian, and pretty much any "Mad" character who has survived well beyond their life expectancy.

None of these archetypes are easily realized in 5e without massive amounts of work and an absolute ton of reflavoring. I think any one of these could become their own class and would be unique enough to stand apart from the existing lineup.

 

[AgentMaine]

Psion, Gunslinger, and a real Alchemist. Not the half-alchemist the Artificer is.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

 

[Barolo]

Sidenote question: how are monks borderline innapropriate for a fantasy setting?

(...)

My 2 cents on that. I wouldn't go as far as claiming them almost inappropriate for any fantasy setting, and from a mechanical perspective I really enjoy the class, but I don't feel comfortable with them in every scenario I DM/play. In some fictional settings I just expect that equipment matters, armored warriors are better protected and armed people are more dangerous, period. And if some hero is not equipping themselves the best they can it is not because they have better options by means of unarmored defenses and such, it is just because they can't. In some others, I just don't like the inclusion of "ki" as a power source. As a side note, I am not the most enthusiastic about lightly armored people benefiting of almost the same defense values as heavily armored ones on some scenarios either.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

None of these archetypes are easily realized in 5e without massive amounts of work and an absolute ton of reflavoring. I think any one of these could become their own class and would be unique enough to stand apart from the existing lineup.

A lot of those strike me as aspects of characters that could be any class: more to do with the way a character is roleplayed, their background and plot than their class.
I can see most of those examples being played as several different actual classes while still remaining true to the concept. If you're after mechanical support for playing a character like most of those examples, feats might be more appropriate.

Psion, Gunslinger, and a real Alchemist. Not the half-alchemist the Artificer is.

Isn't the existence of a gunslinger more to do with the setting? Any class that can get proficiency in guns could use them if they're common enough. Rogues, Rangers and Fighters could be pretty good gunslingers if guns are around.
How is the Alchemist Artificer a half-alchemist? What do you think is missing?
You might want to look at the Artificer Wizard tradition of you want an alchemist that produces more beneficial potions than the Alchemist Artificer archetype.

 

[Waterbizkit]

Sidenote question: how are monks borderline innapropriate for a fantasy setting?

I imagine most of the responses you'll get to that question will be that they dislike the idea of of "Asian" themed mystical martial artist in their pseudo-European medieval fantasy game. I'd also imagine the idea of an unarmed individual wearing no armor beating the snot out of shield-toting, plate mail wearing knight rubs them the wrong way. In that same vein, punching a dragon to death probably also bothers people, possibly. These seem to be the typical issues leveled at the monk by those who don't particularly care for them.

For the record, I have no issue with them myself, but I don't begrudge others their preferences, so to each his own on this matter.

As to the OP, I can't think of much that genuinely deserves it's own whole new class. The Mystic or other psionic classes perhaps since traditionally they've had their own unique systems in terms of how their powers function. As someone who like the 4e Warlord it might be nice, but I hardly as fervent about this one as others and would be just as content if it never appeared. Other than that I feel like there's a lot that can be accomplished with the archetype system we already have so I'm not clamoring for any new classes. All the same I'll happily take them if they ever show up.

 

[Afrodyte]

This! I would actually like if they gave us a UA article with three "new" classes: warrior, expert, spellcaster. Then give us the tools to build all the other classes from there. Something like True20, but with 5e mechanics. Geez, how much I want this!

Working on this now on my blog, although it's a heavily streamlined version of True20.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I imagine most of the responses you'll get to that question will be that they dislike the idea of of "Asian" themed mystical martial artist in their pseudo-European medieval fantasy game. I'd also imagine the idea of an unarmed individual wearing no armor beating the snot out of shield-toting, plate mail wearing knight rubs them the wrong way. In that same vein, punching a dragon to death probably also bothers people, possibly. These seem to be the typical issues leveled at the monk by those who don't particularly care for them.

For the record, I have no issue with them myself, but I don't begrudge others their preferences, so to each his own on this matter.

As to the OP, I can't think of much that genuinely deserves it's own whole new class. The Mystic or other psionic classes perhaps since traditionally they've had their own unique systems in terms of how their powers function. As someone who like the 4e Warlord it might be nice, but I hardly as fervent about this one as others and would be just as content if it never appeared. Other than that I feel like there's a lot that can be accomplished with the archetype system we already have so I'm not clamoring for any new classes. All the same I'll happily take them if they ever show up.

I like monks myself, but I sympathize with these sentiments.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Sidenote question: how are monks borderline innapropriate for a fantasy setting?

Monks aren't inappropriate to a traditional medieval fantasy setting. You need somewhere to put 3rd sons and foundlings, and someone to tend vineyards and illuminate manuscripts and the like.

Monks, like Barbarians, have always suffered from being defined by 'cultural baggage' (or, conflating cultural baggage and class function or whatever).
It's an old controversy.
5e provides both classes for those who want 'em.
Those who don't, don't have to use 'em.

Assassin. It's been a PHB class

It was a sub-class of the Thief in the 1e PH, and is again in 5e. In between, well, there was a full class called 'Assassin' in a 4e Dragon Mag - a nearly unrecognizeable shroud-tossing Shadow whatever it was. Then, in HoS, it was a sub-class again, the Executioner. I assume there was at least one Assassin PrC in 3.x.
But, nope, never a full class in a PH, not in any edition.

Same with the Illusionist.

:shrug:

 

[Immoralkickass]

A Bloodmage class, which uses hit points as a combat resource and spell casting.