D&D 5E Which classes would you like to see added to D&D 5e, if any? (check all that apply)

[Arilyn]

I believe the flavor of any given class has more to do with how you role play the character than the mechanics of the class.

Alchemist - Wizard sub-class with a discount ability to brew potions and consumable items. (like each of the spell schools)
Jester - Bard or Rogue with Performer background.
Artificer - Wizard sub-class that grants crafting abilities - like the Forge Cleric.
Summoner - Wizard with more summoning spells. Sub-class that grants discount to learn summoning spells, feature that extends duration of summons or something.
Witch - Warlock

I think the only tough one is psionics. But, I'm not a fan of Psionics being 'just another magic type/class'. Historically, psionics was a bolt-on system that could manifest in any class. Maybe a Background or Feat.

But if the mechanics of a game doesn't help me create my character concept, it can get frustrating. In classless games, I can usually make whatever I want. In FATE, for example, I can build my character from ground up. In games like DnD, which have classes, I am dependent on pieces that are given to me by the designers, unless I want to do a lot of work designing my own. Therefore, I want that huge Lego box. I can do more with a full alchemist class, and feel more like an alchemist than I would with a wizard sub class that has a few alchemy bits added in, especially since subclasses don't have many entry points. As far as role playing? More options isn't going to dilute my imagination.

 

[cbwjm]

For some of the suggested classes though, alchemist is a good one, I want this available less as a class option for the game and more for a skill based crafting system. I want to have fighters, wizards, and rogues taking up alchemy as something based in skills and feats rather than something they have to multiclass into. It's why I'd prefer less full classes being added to the game. I don't want a player to feel like they have to take the pirate class to be a pirate.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

 

[Sacrosanct]

I’ve never met someone who was confused by the idea of a class that inspires, gives tactical leadership, fights a bit, etc. hell, I have just said “captain”, and people get it. My game has a captain class, and i have introduced several people to it with no confusion, not to mention similar classes in video games, etc.

It’s not at all a confusing concept. Literally at all.

None of those people must have been veterans. When we hear “captain”, we think of someone pretty useless who probably just made things worse for us

There are three things you never want to hear in the military:

A lieutenant saying “based on my experience”
A captain saying “I’ve made my decision”
And a warrant officer saying “watch this!”

 

[Aldarc]

Oh, I agree. Was my position misconstrued as suggesting that a Warlord could be a sub-class of Fighter? No, that's not it at all. I don't want it in the game anywhere, not even as a sub-class.

As some people argue that the Warlord is already present in 5E via the BattleMaster and Purple Dragon Knight, then you must be thoroughly disappointed in 5E.

 

[Greg K]

Shaman is just a Druid

Sure, if you you do the following:
a) remove several of the Druid spells
b) add several cleric spells dealing with blessing, cursing, removing curses, healing (including gentle repose), divination (including augury and speak w/Dead), astral projection (and, possibly etherealness)
c) add a handful of bard and warlock spells (and possibly a couple of wizard spells) to reflect entering dreams, legend lore (sending a totem or ancestral spirit to find answers), and additional spells for the darker aspects beyond clerical spells such as bestow curse spell and contagion that some shamans engage (e.g., the blindness/deafness spell)
d) add spells and abilities dealing with spirits.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Half of the problem with the poll and the ensuing discussion is that the classes aren't actually defined by anything other than name.

Several people might have voted that they want a "Witch" class, but each have a different concept as to what that might be. Someone looking at the poll, seeing demand for a witch and creating a class called 'Witch' may be disappointed at a poor reception because it doesn't match the concept that others had in their head when they think 'Witch'.

Likewise, some of the "Alchemist" voters might want a class based of alchemical concepts: transformation and purification. Others just want a potion and bomb merchant: "the pathfinder alchemist, but in 5e".

I'd like to see an Artificer class. But to me, the artificer means the Eberron Artificer: a magical artisan. To many others, an artificer is an inventor, or a mechanical tinkerer, or a mad scientist.

Should a "D&D Ninja" be the historical spy, the Hollywood martial-artist-in-black-pyjamas, or the fantasy shadow-themed magical assassin?

And as for the Warlord . . . Yeeaah. Don't want to touch that tin of wyrms with a 10ft glaive-guisarme-voulge.
There is a demand of sorts: Two players have asked to play that concept. For one, I hacked the Battlemaster, the other required pretty minimal adjustment to the Bard. Both seemed to satisfy their respective players. However I don't have the knowledge or inclination to try to replicate the 4e warlord in all its capabilities and maneuvers.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

Wait...who is "up in arms"? (I'll point out that you are the one using lots of ALL CAPS). I'm not a fan of action-granting, but it's not as bad as rapiers. Or Drow. (Never mind rapier-wielding Drow.) Both of which are in the game.

No, my objections to Warlord are based on the concept, not the mechanics. I was just responding to the claim that there's nothing wrong with granting actions.

Because it's been FIVE FREAKING YEARS of having the same conversation over and over and over again. Apologies for the frustration but good grief. Round and round we go and nothing ever happens. WotC completely ignores the existence of the Warlord and is slowing killing the concept with a death of a thousand cuts.

Like has been said, most of the warlord stuff has been spread out among other classes. As this continues, the odds of actually getting a warlord class gets smaller and smaller.

I mean, sheesh, every single poll I've seen on this puts the Warlord in the top three of classes people would like to see. Every time. Yet, the concept might as well not exist as far as Mike Mearls is concerned. And it's so bloody frustrating. Which, of course, spills out when I write in all caps.

 

[TiwazTyrsfist]

While I have no problem with Warlord (I thought it was one of the best additions in 4e) I really doubt we will ever get Warlord as a full class or even a subclass in 5e, since Battle Master Fighter is, essentially, a stripped down nerfed up Warlord.

Warlord:
Grant Attack to ally every round.
At-Will attacks that reposition enemies
At-Will powers that let allies move
Cleric level healing.

Battle Master:
Commanders Strike - Give ally attack, +superiority die to Dmg
Pushing Attack - Att W/ Superiority to Dmg, Str Sv push 15
Maneuvering Attack - Att w/ Superiority to Dmg, Ally can move 1/2 speed
Rally - Grant Ally Superiority + Cha Temp HP.
Do any or all of these a Total of 4-6 times between long rests...

So, clearly, they nerfed all of Warlord's things and then gave the battered remains to Battle Master. And it is STILL arguably the BEST Fighter Subclass.

I, personally, would love more versatile martial classes. I just lack the resolve to keep arguing with the people who are just absolutely adamant that Fireballs and Dragons and Dragon-Flesh-Golem-Mummies are fine and flavorful but non-magical healing or an archer who can shoot six arrows at once without magic are immersion killing and game breaking.



I would be willing to argue that if Monks over the top stuff is justified by Ki, then ALL MARTIAL CLASSES access their fighting spiritual energy just under different names, and just freaking give all of them the equivalent of a Ki pool to fuel their powers so we can tell the poo-poo-ers to shut their cake holes.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

I would like to see an alchemist class and/or a poisoner class like the 4E Executioner Assassin class. I appreciate the arguments that any character should be able to use potions, alchemical items, and poisons regardless of class or that this can already be achieved with the rules for buying items that are already in the game.

What I like about specific classes that generate their own stuff is that it lets me play a character concept that's self sufficient and doesn't require more bookkeeping or downtime effort to realize. I can fully appreciate that classes that generate their own items can break the verisimilitude for a character or the setting's economy. But it's more enjoyable for me to have a more or less arbitrary X number of interesting poisons per day so I spend more time interacting with the plot, than the bookkeeping of spending gold and downtime and keeping a tally of how many vials of poison X and poison Y. I'm cool with sacrificing some "realism" for a more enjoyable, less taxing gaming experience.

I'm also with people who would like to see a more dedicated shapeshifter class or druid subclass. I loved the 3.5 druid shapeshifter variant that could shapeshift an unlimited number of times. The more generic forms were well worth the ease of at-will shapeshifting in my book. One idea I had to make a more dedicated shapeshifter druid would be to let spells charge wild shape. Spend a spell slot to either gain extra uses of wild shape or to boost the max CR of creatures you can turn into.

 

[Sacrosanct]

As some people argue that the Warlord is already present in 5E via the BattleMaster and Purple Dragon Knight, then you must be thoroughly disappointed in 5E.

Not to speak for him/her, but why? The BM and PDK are nods to the warlord, but that doesn't mean they are warlords. They are more than just that. All dogs are mammals, but not all mammals are dogs.

Half of the problem with the poll and the ensuing discussion is that the classes aren't actually defined by anything other than name.

Several people might have voted that they want a "Witch" class, but each have a different concept as to what that might be. Someone looking at the poll, seeing demand for a witch and creating a class called 'Witch' may be disappointed at a poor reception because it doesn't match the concept that others had in their head when they think 'Witch'.

Likewise, some of the "Alchemist" voters might want a class based of alchemical concepts: transformation and purification. Others just want a potion and bomb merchant: "the pathfinder alchemist, but in 5e".

I'd like to see an Artificer class. But to me, the artificer means the Eberron Artificer: a magical artisan. To many others, an artificer is an inventor, or a mechanical tinkerer, or a mad scientist.

Should a "D&D Ninja" be the historical spy, the Hollywood martial-artist-in-black-pyjamas, or the fantasy shadow-themed magical assassin?

This is an excellent point, and why most of these discussions are and always will be just fan discussions. Literally, every time WotC has come out with a version of an archetype fans wanted, it's been met with a lot of complaining about how that concept isn't what that particular fan wants. You can hardly blame them for not making it a priority to keep doing so.