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

[Aldarc]

I voted Warlord, the usual naysayers be damned. (And the Mystic/Psion and Artificer.)

 

[Guest 6801328]

Heh. The funny thing is, all the mechanics for a warlord exist in 5e. All of them. Just not in a single class.

It’s all about the branding. All the strum und drang about warlords is just that. The mechanics are all right there.

But come hell or high water we absolutely must make sure that the name warlord never appears in 5e.

Funny how people hate warlords but have no problems with warlord mechanics appearing in the game. Almost like the whole warlord issue was just a stalking horse for edition warring.

It's equally funny how for some people it has to be exactly one set of abilities, all in exactly one class, with the name "Warlord".

FWIW, I skipped 3e and 4e and returned during Next, both to the game and to D&D forums. I'm one of those people who said "WTF is a Warlord?"

I still don't get it. I have zero baggage from this 'edition war' thing because I wasn't here for it. The idea of a class whose sole concept is that it gets to give orders, and/or that other characters naturally look up to it...and for which nobody can seem to come up with an accurate, obvious name...seems terrible. The requirement that it be 'non-magical' seems like a contrived demand in a game in which magic is omnipresent.

I don't really need to argue my side on this: it's pretty clear the Warlord is simply not going to happen. But if the proponents would be open to acknowledging that maybe some of the "hate" is valid, and isn't just edition war baggage, maybe y'all could rethink what it is you want and why and start asking for something that might have a chance of happening.

In all honestly I think the "baggage" is on the other side: the warlord proponents are feeling slighted about some of the things that changed in 5e and the Warlord is the rallying cry for all their disappointments.

 

[Zardnaar]

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.

Its still OP though, compare it to a clerics semi anemic efforts at making an attack which gets a whole 1d8 extra damage at level 8. A warlord granting at will attacks to a Rogue is bad enough but even Barbarians and Fighters let it deal a lot of damage (at will attacks as sharshooter, yes please) even using the bonus action/reaction.

I suppose it doesn't have to be as good a healer as a cleric but where do you draw the line to make up for its better attacks via a better class? And then to make an effective warlord you have to give it other powers as well so you end up with something that would be the best class in the game more or less (good healing and good damage at will sign me up). Life clerics for example really good at healing not so good at hitting or booming.

And that is before you think about things like square peg round hole (5E is designed as less complex non tactical game). So what happens is the designers water the concept down with the battlemaster and valor bard. Granting extra attacks would have to be a limited resource (see the war clerics ability, Monk Ki points, daily spells like haste).

TO have an effective warlord would require 5E to do things its not designed to do or what the players want. It would be like asking for a 3E Druid or Wizard or Cleric to exist in 5E. Sure you could maybe do it but why wreck the game? The 4E Warlord had around 13 pages a subclass requires around one while a full class gets a lot less pages than that. Yes I am aware that 5E has a lot of spells in it but that is more or a list for 30+/38 archetypes to us.

Put simply a 4E type WL would break 5E or you would have to design the classes around the warlord which 4E kind of did either by default or in other ways (and later 4E release kind of broke it anyway by buffing basic attacks).

You have to sell a game to the mass market, they had to redesign D&D to do that some things got left on the cutting room floor (a huge amount of 3E and 4E).

5E is basically B/X and AD&D play style with modern (read 4E) mechanics applied to concepts from all editions (smaller numbers from basic, pre 3E magic item distribution, 2E archetypes, 4E mechanics applied to pre 4E class concepts etc).

 

[Guest 6801328]

The Friar (a shout out to anyone who remembers the MMORPG Dark Age of Camelot):

Divine class; combination of striker and support (wields a stout staff with lots of tricks and can bless and heal a little). Wears cloth and relies on dodging.

This is similar to the "Priest" concept I mentioned. I'd also like to see something like this. I mean, you can build this with a Cleric/Monk multiclass, but 1 + 1 < 2; you end up 'wasting' some of the Cleric proficiencies.

 

[Zardnaar]

This is similar to the "Priest" concept I mentioned. I'd also like to see something like this. I mean, you can build this with a Cleric/Monk multiclass, but 1 + 1 < 2; you end up 'wasting' some of the Cleric proficiencies.

2E could do that lol. They had a fighting priest class in Faiths and Avatars IIRC. 5E is good in some ways it does not do certain things that well due to its design constraints.

 

[Aldarc]

It's equally funny how for some people it has to be exactly one set of abilities, all in exactly one class, with the name "Warlord".

FWIW, I skipped 3e and 4e and returned during Next, both to the game and to D&D forums. I'm one of those people who said "WTF is a Warlord?"

I still don't get it. I have zero baggage from this 'edition war' thing because I wasn't here for it. The idea of a class whose sole concept is that it gets to give orders, and/or that other characters naturally look up to it, seems terrible. The requirement that it be 'non-magical' seems like a contrived demand in a game in which magic is omnipresent.

And given all the discussion, this seems like willful ignorance on your part. There are many other classes that have been added in the time of 3e and 4e whose presence are seen in 5e, so it's not as if skipping 3e and 4e serves as a viable excuse for understanding the basic concept. And every time we get anywhere in the conversation about the Warlord, the thread eventually dies. Then the next time the Warlord gets mentioned, you go back to Square One and pretend that the entire progress of all the past conversations never happened. Sorry, but it's difficult to get the feeling that you have any intention to understand or discuss the Warlord with any degree of good faith. And shitting in this thread to naysay the Warlord is just you adding more poison to that well of good faith.

 

[Mecheon]

it's pretty clear the Warlord is simply not going to happen.

We got Flumphs in the Monster Manual. FLUMPHS.

"Not going to happen" is a very questionable thing in this edition

 

[Guest 6801328]

And given all the discussion, this seems like willful ignorance on your part. There are many other classes that have been added in the time of 3e and 4e whose presence are seen in 5e, so it's not as if skipping 3e and 4e serves as a viable excuse for understanding the basic concept.

It's not that I don't (finally) understand the concoction of abilities and requirements that constitutes "Warlord" for its adherents. It's that I still don't get it as a class concept. (Other, that is, than "Leader of the Group", and that's simply not acceptable to many as a class concept. You earn Leader, you don't choose it as a class.) The fact that it's so hard to name is a sign that it's not a clear concept.

Part of the problem is that, based on the requirements I see, what you all really mean is that it's the "Hero" class. Right? You want it to be Captain America and Odysseus and Hannibal Smith.

And who says some of the other "new" classes don't also lack a clear concept? Some do, some don't. The others just don't inspire the same level of fanaticism from their proponents, though, so they don't get discussed. ("Gish?" That's the whole point of multiclassing. I imagine that's why proponents prefer Gish over sensible alternatives like "Warmage", which are pretty much flashing neon signs that scream "I'm a multi-class!")

Anyway, like I said, I don't need to win this argument. Warlord ain't gonna happen. But if Warlord proponents want to get anywhere they're going to have to acknowledge the validity in some of the arguments against it, instead of just constantly saying there's absolutely no grounds to oppose it, and that it's just spite/edition warring/whatever.

But if you feel that strategy is working well for you, by all means continue.

 

[Guest 6801328]

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

Yeah, I really agree with this. It's part of what I was thinking when I said that it's problematic as a class.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, I would love to see "class" and "template" separated into two things. Or "backgrounds" beefed up. It would solve the Ranger conundrum: "Woodsman" could be a template you apply to Fighter, Rogue, Barbarian, etc. For that matter, Barbarian itself could be a template (or something that separates the uncivilized aspect of the class from the raging mechanic...no reason you shouldn't have rogues and clerics that come from barbarian cultures). Paladin, Shapeshifter, Vampire, Knight...etc. etc. etc.

 

[Aldarc]

It's not that I don't (finally) understand the concoction of abilities and requirements that constitutes "Warlord" for its adherents. It's that I still don't get it as a class concept. (Other, that is, than "Leader of the Group", and that's simply not acceptable to many as a class concept. You earn Leader, you don't choose it as a class.)

And... back to Square One... again. Even when people explain to you that the class concept entails something else you fall back to this strawman. Cool.