D&D 5E Which classes would you like to see added to D&D 5e, if any? (check all that apply)
- Thread starter Slit518
- Start date
Hussar
Legend
Yknow what? This is the right response. I over reacted and thread crapped. Serves no function and only pisses people off.
Sorry about that.
Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app
mellored
Legend
Artificer: closer to the 3.x version, where you have a set number of crafting points. Includes golums, wands, potions, and enchanting weapons. All need to be prepared ahead of time (short/long rest), sort of like old school casters, where you have 3 potions of healing, 1 small golum, and a wand of magic missiles with 5 charges.
Alchemists: sub-class of the artificer. Extra potions. Including explosives.
Summoner/shaman/pokemon. Sacrifice HP to summon a creature/spirit. Also able to capture new creatures.
Warlord: martial support. Int primary, Cha secondary. Can use the help action for multiple people, use their reaction to let someone else disengage, and trick enemies to provoke an opportunity attack. Also has skill expertise.
Witch: sub-class of the artificer. Can make cursed items, potions, apples, etc...
Alchemists: sub-class of the artificer. Extra potions. Including explosives.
Summoner/shaman/pokemon. Sacrifice HP to summon a creature/spirit. Also able to capture new creatures.
Warlord: martial support. Int primary, Cha secondary. Can use the help action for multiple people, use their reaction to let someone else disengage, and trick enemies to provoke an opportunity attack. Also has skill expertise.
Witch: sub-class of the artificer. Can make cursed items, potions, apples, etc...
mellored
Legend
Agreed. Tactician is a more generic name that covers more tropes.
Warlord can be a sub-class that gets armor and weapons. Focusing on intimidation tactics.
Zardnaar
Legend
Most of those seem like sub options, a handful perhaps (Duskblade, Warlord, Artificer) could perhaps exist as independent classes due to existing classes not really covering the idea that well (arcane warrior is awkward in 5E). Warlord perhaps doesn't really fit into he 5E design paradigm though as its not a tactical based version like 4E so even if you designed it it probably would not work that well due to the way the other classes work and things like attack granting are kinda broken in 5E due to interaction with Rogues for example, such attack granting would have to be limited not at will. Similar issues crop up with healing.
mellored
Legend
there are already ways to grant attacks, such as command (flee) and haste. Letting someone take an extra attack on their turn as a bonus action works fine.
The rest can be on par with other buff spells. Like granting crits (hold person), advantage (greater invisibility), adding to saving throws (bless), skills (guidance), and some THP and healing. As well as a group bonus to initiative, and movement (disengage).
Not to mention trick to play on the enemy. Most likely with Int saves, and out of combat features, like faster marching.
All in all, there is enough for a full class and several sub-classes.
Sorcerers Apprentice
Hero
I voted Warlord and Artificer. The other's are mainly just twists on existing classes and can be represented well by existing builds.
TrippyHippy
Hero
It does seem like dragging up the past from a divisive edition war, that happened in the 5E playtest, so I'll try to tread lightly. The Warlord class had several problems:
1/ The name 'Warlord' is actually a pejorative title, in terms of it's origin. I guess you could argue that 'Barbarian' is too in a way, but Warlord also denotes a certain rank which, at Level 1, hasn't been earned yet. It's not as if a Level 1 character is talking his/her war-horde on adventures, and the other PCs should not be assumed to be the subjects of that character either. You could argue that the name is superficial and could be replaced - that is what the 'Battlemaster' tried to do in 5E. It is possibly a bit of a bland name too, but the concept is there at least.
2/ Having a distinct Class put aside for a Warlord is problematic as the actual reason for it's existence is mainly to fulfil a mechanical niche ("I want a non-casting healer" and so on), rather than a narrative one. People may suggest things like Alexander the Great (above), but he's a Fighter (who has obtained a certain high rank or Level, and accrued a leadership role accordingly). If you create a seperate Warlord Class, all you are doing in effect is stepping on the shoes of the Fighter Class. That's why they made Battlemaster a sub-class of Fighter - to give an option to build Fighters that weren't just one-trick-only meatheads.
3/ The rules to make a Warlord type of character are pretty much there if you want to, in 5E. I've had debates about this before with Warlord fans who have argued some very specific details about the previous 4E class that I'me not fully aware of (I didn't play 4E much, as it didn't suit my tastes at the time). However, in the context of 5E alone however, you can build a character that plays that role with a Fighter (BattleMaster), maybe a Noble or Soldier Background and a judicious use of Feats (Leadership or Healer, etc) or maybe even a level or two in multi classing (Bard: Skald) if you want. You probably want to put higher stats in Charisma or Intelligence than a stereotypical Champion style Fighter, but it's doable. You don't need to design an entire new Class to do it.
4/ As alluded to above, and like it or not, the Warlord Class is symbolically tied up in the issues people had with 4E. It became a focal point for conflict at the time. I'm pretty sure that WotC want to avoid that conflict again.
1/ The name 'Warlord' is actually a pejorative title, in terms of it's origin. I guess you could argue that 'Barbarian' is too in a way, but Warlord also denotes a certain rank which, at Level 1, hasn't been earned yet. It's not as if a Level 1 character is talking his/her war-horde on adventures, and the other PCs should not be assumed to be the subjects of that character either. You could argue that the name is superficial and could be replaced - that is what the 'Battlemaster' tried to do in 5E. It is possibly a bit of a bland name too, but the concept is there at least.
2/ Having a distinct Class put aside for a Warlord is problematic as the actual reason for it's existence is mainly to fulfil a mechanical niche ("I want a non-casting healer" and so on), rather than a narrative one. People may suggest things like Alexander the Great (above), but he's a Fighter (who has obtained a certain high rank or Level, and accrued a leadership role accordingly). If you create a seperate Warlord Class, all you are doing in effect is stepping on the shoes of the Fighter Class. That's why they made Battlemaster a sub-class of Fighter - to give an option to build Fighters that weren't just one-trick-only meatheads.
3/ The rules to make a Warlord type of character are pretty much there if you want to, in 5E. I've had debates about this before with Warlord fans who have argued some very specific details about the previous 4E class that I'me not fully aware of (I didn't play 4E much, as it didn't suit my tastes at the time). However, in the context of 5E alone however, you can build a character that plays that role with a Fighter (BattleMaster), maybe a Noble or Soldier Background and a judicious use of Feats (Leadership or Healer, etc) or maybe even a level or two in multi classing (Bard: Skald) if you want. You probably want to put higher stats in Charisma or Intelligence than a stereotypical Champion style Fighter, but it's doable. You don't need to design an entire new Class to do it.
4/ As alluded to above, and like it or not, the Warlord Class is symbolically tied up in the issues people had with 4E. It became a focal point for conflict at the time. I'm pretty sure that WotC want to avoid that conflict again.
