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

[Li Shenron]

Even artificer can be a wizard subclass (and it actually was pre Eberron in 2E).

It could, but the latest UA version convinced me that it can be so much more if it is made a non-spellcaster.

As a spellcaster, the Artificer always ends up being basically just a wizard with better items. If based on MAGIC items, then it also immediately becomed dependent on their availability, and so it won't work in every campaign.

I think it would be much more interesting if they set the Artificer base as non-magical, to be a more general "equipment expert" (something we entirely do not have yet). From that starting point, you can have an alchemist, a mechanical tinkerer, a gunsmith, a trapmaker, and of course why not also a spellcasting subclass

 

[TwoSix]

I already own good versions of several of those classes you listed, so I'm not sure what you mean by "missing from D&D".

Now, if you mean "missing from an official WotC product", that's fine, but that's a very different meaning.

 

[ArwensDaughter]

I voted for Artificer, Alchemist, and Mystic. The rest felt to me like they could work with existing subclasses. (Although I'm interested in hearing more about how shaman is distinct; I skipped 2e, 3e, and 4e, so I have no point of reference in D&D terms for Shaman)

I thought the UA artificer was interesting but problematic. I thought the mechanical "familiar" should have been a subclass feature. I think 3 subclasses would be better: gunsmith, alchemist, tinkerer. That would mean moving a lot of the base class features into subclasses and coming up with different base class features. But I think there is design space for those concepts and they might be best grouped together as "arcane inventer" or the like.

I thought the Mystic/Psionic systems was interesting but complicated. But I also saw how it filled a niche not otherwise filled. (If it ever comes to pass, I could see mystic/psionic subclasses for a lot of the base classes, too.) I know there's some conflict about the conflation of Mystic and Psionic, and I'm aware I don't know all the history there. Personally I'm not worried about what it is called, and not necessarily opposed to to different classes/systems if they are distinct enough.

 

[Einlanzer0]

I'm worried they're going down the path of shoehorning every concept into a subclass or a background, which is the wrong way to go. Some concepts are thematically broad/meaty, interesting, and iconic enough to be full classes that could have a ton of subclasses, and there's asymmetry in what we currently have (i.e. no arcane half-caster, very few d6 HD classes, etc.); WotC needs to get on this.

Warlord/Marshal (non-magical supportive/leader warrior; one of the most interesting and well designed 4e classes)
Witch (a mix of arcane and divine magic with a primal/mystic theme, very distinctive from wizards and warlords in terms of flavor)
Shaman (uses spirits and is very distinctive from druids in terms of flavor)
Gish (as an arcane half-caster)
Scholar - a knowledge/skill based with an academic rather than a punk flavor

Some classes that have historically been full classes I actually prefer a a subclass option, such as the artificer. That works perfectly well as a wizard subclass.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I'm worried they're going down the path of shoehorning every concept into a subclass or a background, which is the wrong way to go. Some concepts are meaty and interesting enough to be full classes, and we need to get some new full classes.

That's probably true, but it needs to be done deliberately. What are the design spaces that you think are "meaty" enough to warrant new classes?

I'll agree with the previous posters who said that too much of the Fighter is in the base class, not enough in the sub-classes, which limits the flexibility of the class. Some of the other classes are guilty of this, too, but the "generic" nature of the Fighter exacerbates the problem. I think this was one of the biggest mistakes of 5e.

 

[Einlanzer0]

That's probably true, but it needs to be done deliberately. What are the design spaces that you think are "meaty" enough to warrant new classes?

I'll agree with the previous posters who said that too much of the Fighter is in the base class, not enough in the sub-classes, which limits the flexibility of the class. Some of the other classes are guilty of this, too, but the "generic" nature of the Fighter exacerbates the problem. I think this was one of the biggest mistakes of 5e.

I listed them in my post, hahhahh. Not sure how you missed it =P

I actually think this is true of all classes to some extent (I can't stand how the cleric is automatically martially-oriented with no theming for robed non-fighter priests), but we also have a full roster of 12(?) playable classes with a lot of arbitrary specificity, which is why I dislike the idea of them never making new full classes.

I don't think all purely martial warrior archetypes should be shoehorned into the fighter class. For the fighter class to be broad enough to do what you're suggesting, we should only have a wizard class and not a sorcerer, a bard, and a warlock also.

 

[Einlanzer0]

edit: accidental dupe

 

[The Old Crow]

I'd like an Alchemist and Artificer, which could probably be subclasses of the same class.

I voted for Witch, simply because I like the idea.

I voted for Warlord. The name does suck. "Tactician" would cover more concepts, I think.

For "Other", I want a Shapeshifter class.

And I can get behind the suggestion that a differently designed warrior class could allow for stronger subclasses, thereby letting people cover their fighter concepts better.

 

[steeldragons]

The class structure of D&D, and every other fantasy -or any class-based, really- RPG, is such...

You have the most basic and broadly applicable archetypes: A, B,C, however many.

Then you have tiers of ever-more specific and/or narrow archetypes that fall within the basic/broader skillset. One of these tiers, the immediate "secondary" ones and several tertiary or farther ones are handled through the 5e structure of "Subclasses." In AD&D, they were also caleld "subclasses" but weren't specifically "built" within a mechanical framework...being more thematic and conceptual/metagame-ish in nature. The Illusionist was a "subclass" of the Magic-User, the Assassin a "subclass" of the Thief, etc...

In D&D, there are the Fighter, the Magic-User[Mage/Wizard], the Thief[Rogue], and the Cleric. Those are your core, "root" if you will, the "Big Four." Broadly defined, capable of being played in any number of ways with the features those classes represent.

Of the major archetypes that could be found within those four "columns/categories" the classes that have been most notably ABSENT from nearly every iteration of Dungeons & Dragons are the non-magical non-"divine/holy" Knight and one of the most basic and ancient of fantasy arcehtypes, a specifically dedicated defined _{class for a Witch.}

 

[Guest 6801328]

Of the major archetypes that could be found within those four "columns/categories" the classes that have been most notably ABSENT from nearly every iteration of Dungeons & Dragons are the non-magical non-"divine/holy" Knight and one of the most basic and ancient of fantasy arcehtypes, a specifically dedicated defined _{class for a Witch.}

<sub>Just out of curiosity, how do you distinguish the non-holy "Knight" from a Fighter, in both fluffy and crunchy ways?

How about Witch?

I (somewhat) agree with Witch...it is possible to build a decent Witch with existing classes. But the Knight thing really has me puzzled.</sub>