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

[Hussar]

Yes because the concept of a sergeant is such a bizarre archetype.

But, [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION], thank you for providing exactly the example of what I’m talking about. Bring up warlord and people come out of the woodwork as to why it shouldn’t be done.

If people can grok warlocks, clerics and why we have sorcerers and wizards, I’m pretty sure they can figure out what a warlord is.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World

 

[Guest 6801328]

Yes because the concept of a sergeant is such a bizarre archetype.

Oh, so it's the guy who gets to order around the other characters.

Yeah, that should help sell it.

EDIT: And FWIW, when I think of the "sergeant" archetype it bears very little resemblance to the description offered on the previous page. I picture somebody who is tougher and better at fighting than everybody else, not somebody supporting and healing.

In fact, the specific image I get is from a book on guns I had in the late 70's (one of those coffee table type books that is always in the sale rack at bookstores). It had a picture of a sergeant firing a .45 Thompson in full auto with the stock braced against his chin.

I don't think that's the class you're talking about.

 

[5ekyu]

Other - two reasons

1 - Disgust for uncalled for baggage added to none option "perfect as is". No need for that nonsense.

2 - Most of these to me look like sub-classes not classes.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Other - two reasons

1 - Disgust for uncalled for baggage added to none option "perfect as is". No need for that nonsense.

2 - Most of these to me look like sub-classes not classes.

Yes and yes.

I would have chosen "None" except for that snide aside. "Imperfect in many ways, none of which have to do with too few classes."

 

[Mort]

Other - two reasons

1 - Disgust for uncalled for baggage added to none option "perfect as is". No need for that nonsense.

2 - Most of these to me look like sub-classes not classes.

^^This.

I too would have chosen none instead of other, but for the snide add-on.

Edit: Well, actually I would have chosen warlord, but it's late and my reading comprehension has apparently suffered. It's the only one on the list I feel can't easily be done as a subclass plus feats.

 

[bedir than]

I really want to know how to make a Pirate as a distinct class.

 

[Volund]

I could potentially...maybe...see a Lycanthrope "class", where each sub-class was for a specific form.

This was my first thought as well. The MM says that lycanthropes that accept their curse learn to master their shapechanging ability and can assume beast or hybrid form at will. There is a class in there somewhere. Might look like a cross between Totem Barbarian and Moon Druid.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Having been a sergeant in real life, all a SGT is, is a more experienced person in the job that everyone else works in that job.* It’s not a stand alone class with unique abilities, it’s a natural advancement of an existing class. So a SGT could be a 6th level fighter or cleric or whatever. In fact, how easy it is to become a SGT is dependent on your core job*. So the idea that we should have a warlord because of the concept of a sergeant just means that person doesn’t understand what a sergeant is or does.

*well, technically, all one needs to do to become a SGT in the military is have enough promotion points accrued, which are acquired by your PT score, promotion board score, and you could get a bunch from college classes. You do have to go through PLDC, which teaches basic leadership and focuses on land Nav and Drill&Ceremony (marching). Each job sets its own cutoff for points needed. I was a helicopter crew chief, which required 710 points at the time. Infantry only required 520. So the role of “sergeant” concept is very much tied to your existing class, and not a new unique class of its own.

 

[Mort]

I could potentially...maybe...see a Lycanthrope "class", where each sub-class was for a specific form.

It raises a host of problems and paradoxes, but the only other solution would be to make it a race, and racial benefits aren't strong enough to really make a great Were-something.

I really hope they don't ever make lycanthrope a class - just too much bad precedent.

First, in the great majority of campaigns, lycanthropy isn't something you choose, it's something that happens to you. If it's a class, then you're suddenly forced to Multiclass? Just seems way too complicated and fiddly.

Next, it just seems best as an add on template. You become a lycanthrope, you get a certain set of abilities based on which one you become. Control can be a mechanic of the template - just seens (IMO opinion of course) much easier.

Returning to precedent. Do we then have separate classes for undead and the like too? Again seems easier to just do it as a template add on.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

 

[ccs]

You realize that they’ve never actually included warlords as a polling option right? The 70% cutoff doesn’t really apply when they won’t even bring it up.

Mostly imo out of fear of reopening edition war era crap. Those that constantly decried the warlord should stand proud. They made good and sure that their tastes are the only ones that count.

Oh stop being melodramatic. Of course 4e fans tastes count. But the $ in everyone else's wallet just counts more.