D&D 5E What PHB class are you most anticipating?

[caudor]

I voted monk since I'm interested to see how they handle this one. The Druid is a close second.

 

[was]

I'd like to see the Ranger

 

[JEB]

Warlock, because I want to see how 5E handles a 4E core class. The paladin and sorcerer are runners-up.

I'm also interested in any and all sub-classes.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Warlock, because I want to see how 5E handles a 4E core class. The paladin and sorcerer are runners-up.

The Warlock was a 3.5 class - late 3.5, but a prominent, even arguably ground-breaking one. It received a treatment in 4e, but it's not anymore a 4e class than the Sorcerer or Fighter.

New-in-4e classes included the Warlord, Warden, Invoker and Avenger - and, I suppose the Seeker, RunePriest, Ardent and Battlemind - unless they were hidden among the hundreds of 3.x PrCs.

 

[Mouseferatu]

New-in-4e classes included the Warlord, Warden, Invoker and Avenger - and, I suppose the Seeker, RunePriest, Ardent and Battlemind - unless they were hidden among the hundreds of 3.x PrCs.

And I think one could argue that the warlord was at least a close cousin of the marshal, who did exist in 3.5.

I am really curious, now, what a warden would look like in 5E.

 

[Li Shenron]

I am very tense about the Druid... it was so good in the latest form and the announced changes to wildshape were so interesting, that I'm almost expecting that whatever change/regression they did will seriously spoil it.

Overall I would be more interested in seeing what they came up with about subclasses, if I also didn't have the feeling that we won't get any more than those already seen in playtest (i.e. ~2 per class), with the exception of the additional domains (not enough anyway) and wizard schools.

 

[Raduin711]

Illusionist.

 

[gyor]

The Ardent was in 3.5, but it was a very different, class, it was Psionic and used Mantles, but its was very differenf in both fluff, and mechanics. The 3.5 Ardent was a Philospher, while the 4e Ardent was an empath and was primarily a weapon user, which the 3.5 Ardent wasn't.

The Battlemind is basically the Pysch Warrior from 3.5.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The Battlemind is basically the Pysch Warrior from 3.5.

That's like saying a 4E Swordmage is "basically a Fighter/Mage from 3.5".

It's severely misleading!

The Psychic Warrior was basically a sub-par melee combatant (3/4 BAB, d8hp), with a few extra feats, and some psionic powers on the side (surprisingly few/weak ones, given, y'know, Clerics, who got the same BAB, HP, similar proficiencies, and full spell progression AND special abilities AND more skill points).

The Battlemind is a fully-formed ass-kicking terror of a class (albeit easier than most to "build wrong") with a ton of totally badass powers which it does not share with any other class, and which further, the Psychic Warrior also did not have. The Battlemind constantly uses low-mid-powered psionic effects like hyper-speed/Jedi speed, fear, weak mind-control.

I say this having played and enjoyed both Psychic Warriors and Battleminds! They are not similar in actual play, or in terms of actual abilities. It's pretty silly, imo, to point out the big differences in Ardents (correctly) then claim those two were "basically the same"!

Personally I voted for Barbarian, because in the last two playtests, it was an awesome class. Well-designed, diverse, conceptually AND mechanically interesting, and most importantly ALLOWING FOR "NAKED" BARBARIANS!

So I'm really worried that WotC have nerfed it into the ground in some way, because they clipped the wings of Fighters fairly significantly (for no apparent reason - they actually added complexity to the most simple Fighter, in doing so), and narrowed down how Rogues can operate (though we can hope that is merely a product of Basic-ness), and Barbarian is another martial-damage-oriented class. Thus I'm very keen to see what has happened.

After that, Bard and Druid are next on my list. I'm praying that Bard has LOST 3E-style idiocy like "Sneak, sneak, sneak!" (to quote a certain webcomic) and is no longer required to gain proficiency in a zillion musical instruments (when other classes are proficient in dozens of weapons or the like...), or forced to use musical instruments under any circumstance, actually (Skalds don't play your dirty lutes and bongos!). Druid was looking really good too, and could so easily go so wrong.

Ranger is at the opposite end - I want to see it, but it was basically a rolling disaster through the entire Playtest, without any sort of consistent or working concept beyond "Er... he has Cheesy Detective Show-style Tracking I guess?". In October he was one of the weakest combatants, particularly the so-called Colossus Slayer, who was probably the weakest class at damaging a single, tough enemy! (iirc - maybe Clerics were behind him!), which isn't really appropriate. I expect that, as they upped the DPR of the Rogue a hell of a lot, they'll notice this. If they don't, oh boy.
[MENTION=1288]Mouseferatu[/MENTION] - Talking in extremely vague concepts, virtually every idea for a class has appeared in D&D at some point. The Marshall is, in it's very vague concept, similar to a Warlord. In terms of actual abilities, how it plays, and so on, the resemblance is basically nil. However it does have a real 3.5E precedessor, from the Book of 9 Swords or whatever it was called - a couple of the styles in there are clearly proto-Warlord (I want to say Something Wolf... or Wolf Something).

 

[TwoSix]

[MENTION=1288]Mouseferatu[/MENTION] - Talking in extremely vague concepts, virtually every idea for a class has appeared in D&D at some point. The Marshall is, in it's very vague concept, similar to a Warlord. In terms of actual abilities, how it plays, and so on, the resemblance is basically nil. However it does have a real 3.5E precedessor, from the Book of 9 Swords or whatever it was called - a couple of the styles in there are clearly proto-Warlord (I want to say Something Wolf... or Wolf Something).

White Raven was the Bo9S school with the warlord-esque "leader of men" powers.