D&D 5E What Subclasses and races are still missing?

[Waterbizkit]

Woah, there's a lot of stuff mentioned in some of these posts I don't think I've ever heard of or if I had they've been long forgotten because they're options that didn't see a lot of play. None of that matters of course, this is basically a wish-list thread, so the more the merrier.

That said...

As far as races go I'd be happy as a pig in crap if I didn't see anymore for quite some time outside of those that are setting specific, like warforged, mul, etc. More and more I'm finding the character concepts I cook up in my head, but never get to play, use the "basic" races. The flashiest one I've thought up recently was an Aasimar, so I'm pretty happy with what we've got.

As far as classes or subclasses? Again, setting specific ones would be appreciated, like the Artificer for Eberron or the Mystic for Dark Sun. And before anyone says anything, no, psionics and the Mystic aren't necessarily specific to Dark Sun, but it'd be fitting class to release alongside the setting. Most other things I don't feel like I need, I've got plenty to work with. Of course new material can always spark new ideas, so I'm not opposed.

Personally, as long as they keep up this pace of release, I'm fine with them putting out whatever they fancy. The slow schedule is off-putting to some, and I get that, but I like it. I look at the amount of material I have sitting around from previous editions and, well, I'm just glad we're not in that boat again. Not yet anyway.

 

[CAFRedblade]

"Originally Posted by gyor

Military Surgeon Fighter"


Yeah, I think you're alone in wanting that one....

I'd probably just build that as Human Purple Dragon Knight with the Military service background and the Healer's Feat that allows hp recovery with a healers kit..
Field ops battle surgeon right there.

 

[Imaro]

Inclusiveness is not about including the majority, that's easy. Inclusiveness is about the ability to accept others who aren't comfortably just like you.

I'm sorry if that's not quite as simple a concept.

I'm not sure how this relates to my statement... again, A single exclusion does not speak to a things inclusiveness as a whole. I didn't make a statement about the definition of inclusiveness.

 

[Tony Vargas]

A single exclusion does not speak to a things inclusiveness as a whole. I didn't make a statement about the definition of inclusiveness.

What do you intend, by asserting that excluding one person is still inclusive, if not a making or assuming a definition of inclusiveness? And, would 2 be enough? 10? 1%? 10%? (Sounds like "The Gnome Problem" all over again.) How many people need to hold a minority opinion before you'd have qualms about excluding them, while still patting yourself on the back for being so inclusive?

Anyway, the point I was making about 'limiting bloat' being contrary to inclusiveness stands. You leave out things important to some of the folks who loved past editions (like 4e famously left the Gnome out of the PH - Mearls did a whole L&L about that), you risk making them feel excluded. You try to support everything past editions have in 'core books' (like 4e famously did with not one by THREE 'Player's Handbooks'), and you create a shelf-intimidation effect that makes the game less accessible to new players before they even try it.

Now, that dilemma shouldn't even be a concern in this case because 5e has not bloated it's Core, creating shelf-shock, and it has been steadily adding new semi-official content in UA, and thrown open unofficial content with an SRD and DMsGuild. In this very thread, the OP is not asking about what still needs to seen print, but what's still missing after all the UA content we've seen. UA 'bloat' doesn't make the game less accessible, not only is it opt-in optional, it's not part of the face of the game (the Core Three books).

So there's really no need for you to be shouting down folks who may want something they enjoyed in a past edition, but haven't seen in 5e, yet.

I'd probably just build that as Human Purple Dragon Knight with the Military service background and the Healer's Feat that allows hp recovery with a healers kit..
Field ops battle surgeon right there.

I suppose the idea is a non-magical 'healer,' that would be an adequate alternative to magical healing, for instance in a low-/no-magic game. The Healer Feat is really designed more for non-magical supplemental healing in an standard game, that won't overshadow magical healing or combine with it to be overpowering. For that matter, depending on how you prefer to visualize hps, dealing with serious wounds, broken bones, infections, etc (things a 'chiurgeon' might do, however badly by the standards of modern medicine) may be irrelevant to abilities that restore hps, since such injuries don't seem to be modeled, in the first place. :shrug:

 

[Imaro]

What do you intend, by asserting that excluding one person is still inclusive, if not a making or assuming a definition of inclusiveness? And, would 2 be enough? 10? 1%? 10%? (Sounds like "The Gnome Problem" all over again.) How many people need to hold a minority opinion before you'd have qualms about excluding them, while still patting yourself on the back for being so inclusive?

I'm showing how absurd your assertion that keeping bloat down must in and of itself be contrary to inclusiveness... I'll leave the definitions to the dictionaries.

Anyway, the point I was making about 'limiting bloat' being contrary to inclusiveness stands. You leave out things important to some of the folks who loved past editions (like 4e famously left the Gnome out of the PH - Mearls did a whole L&L about that), you risk making them feel excluded. You try to support everything past editions have in 'core books' (like 4e famously did with not one by THREE 'Player's Handbooks'), and you create a shelf-intimidation effect that makes the game less accessible to new players before they even try it.

Of course if you including those things means a larger percentage of your player base drops off because they want easily identifiable entry points, less books and rules to keep track of, or a myriad of other things... well your bloat just made you less inclusive... that's my point. A blanket statement that keeping bloat down is contrary to inclusiveness is silly and not always true...

Now, that dilemma shouldn't even be a concern in this case because 5e has not bloated it's Core, creating shelf-shock, and it has been steadily adding new semi-official content in UA, and thrown open unofficial content with an SRD and DMsGuild. In this very thread, the OP is not asking about what still needs to seen print, but what's still missing after all the UA content we've seen. UA 'bloat' doesn't make the game less accessible, not only is it opt-in optional, it's not part of the face of the game (the Core Three books).

So there's really no need for you to be shouting down folks who may want something they enjoyed in a past edition, but haven't seen in 5e, yet.

Who did I shout down?? In fact I even gave my own wants for future races and classes... maybe you should go back and read how this tangent started... I asked a question of another poster that you, apparently without context, decided to jump in and take up the cause for. Got called to task on the fact that avoiding bloat does not necessarily mean one is non-inclusive (along with edition war baiting) and now are trying to ascribe to me a position I never took of shouting people down in the thread...

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm showing how absurd your assertion that keeping bloat down must in and of itself be contrary to inclusiveness...

It's not just my assertion. Remember Mike Mearls's 'Gnome Problem' article?

The game has long-time fans, it leaves out something they loved, they can feel excluded. There's a lot back there spread out over 4 (officially numbered) editions + OD&D and BECMI/RC, to potentially leave out.

I'll leave the definitions to the dictionaries.

When you insist that exclusion is inclusive, you challenge the definition of at least one of those words.

Of course if you including those things means a larger percentage of your player base drops off because they want easily identifiable entry points, less books and rules to keep track of, or a myriad of other things... well your bloat just made you less inclusive...

Entry points & fewer books &c does speak to accessibility, and 5e has addressed that neatly by keeping the Core to three books, and, even within core, making some sub-system explicitly optional. SCAG, Volo's and the forthcoming XGtE are all non-core supplements and even more optional. UA lets WotC slide in support to include fans pining for this or that in a semi-official way.
That shouldn't add to the perception of bloat the way having Three PHs on the shelf (plus 10 'Essential' products!) did.

Those seem like ways in which the game can 'bloat' without risking becoming inaccessible (new players won't be intimidated by content not clearly aimed at them the way the two entry-points, the PH and starter set, are) and while continuing to include those who want only a "simple" core game (they can limit themselves to the three core books, or even to the basic pdf).

But even if there were a risk of becoming less accessible, excluding content established fans want can end up excluding those fans, and there's so much content - from three iconically 'bloated' prior editions - that they might want, that just going "we're going to avoid bloat" and locking swaths of it away in a vault, never to be released again, is going to exclude them.

Good thing 5e's not been doing a whole lot of that, and can afford to continue using UA and oddball supplements to channel 'missing' content to those fans pining for it.

 

[Coroc]

I mean haven't been even covered by an UA even.

Yuan Ti Sorceror Origin.
Trapper Rogue
Urban Druid
Oath of Liberation Paladin
Slaadi Pact Warlock
Beauty Domain Cleric
Shia'ar Wizard
Military Surgeon Fighter
Mists Ranger
Tattooed Barbarian
Sacred Fist Monk
College of Theology Bard

Ahm the urban druid meets up at his hallowed subway station with the tattooed barbarian a beauty priest and a communist oath of liberation paladin, now that sounds like shadowrun!

 

[gyor]

Remember back when this thread used to be about what subclasses and races you'd like to see in the future, just a fun bit of harmless imagination, before it got derailed by a battle over bloat?

I miss that.

 

[Satyrn]

Races I'm waiting for...

Thri-KreenKalashtar
Githyanki & Githerazi
Satyrs
Centaurs
Janni

Booyah!

 

[gyor]

Back on topic:

Primus Pact (Modrons)
Lycantrope Barbarian
College of the Coin Lass
Nishruu Origin Sorceror
Swarm Circle Druid
Succubus Origin Sorceror (mostly Enchantment Focused Sorceror)
Grappler Fighter
Implement Tradition Wizard (4e Wizard)
Kraken Pact Warlock
Batrachi Sorceror Origin
College of Chameleon Bard
Sarrukh Sorceror Origin
Aerrie Sorceror Origin


Races:

Wemics
Nymphs
Alu-Fiends
Dampyrs
Warforged
Vishyanka

Shardminds, yeah that's, right I said Shardminds!
Foulborn