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

[Arilyn]

I voted None.

I don't believe there are any options on that list that can't be done with the existing classes,current or new sub-classes, and a little imagination.

How would you do mystic, which uses psionics, alchemist, jester, artificer, witch and summoner? I guess you could cobble something together, but full classes would be way more flavourful. And fun. I don't really get wanting to limit classes in a game that depends on classes for character creation.

 

[Guest 6801328]

How would you do mystic, which uses psionics, alchemist, jester, artificer, witch and summoner? I guess you could cobble something together, but full classes would be way more flavourful. And fun. I don't really get wanting to limit classes in a game that depends on classes for character creation.

You're not asking me, but I'll try to answer for a few of those:

Jester: Make a bard. Pick Tasha's Hideous Laughter and other flavorful spells. Crack jokes. (That said, a Bard sub-class would be cool.)

Summoner: Make a Wizard. Pick lots of summoning spells.

Witch: Fae Warlock. Hermit background. Avoid Eldritch Blast. Go Tome at 3rd level, pick some Witchy cantrips, then take Book of Ancient Secrets for Find Familiar. Get a black cat. Get other Witchy rituals.
Other invocations: Alter Self, Polymorph, Armor of Shadows
Suggested Spells: Sleep, Scrying, Dominate Person, Hex, Counterspell

 

[Al'Kelhar]

Only four classes have ever been necessary: cleric, fighting man, magic-user and thief. Then they added elf and halfling, and things have been going downhill ever since.

Cheers, Al-grognard-kelhar

 

[Monayuris]

How would you do mystic, which uses psionics, alchemist, jester, artificer, witch and summoner? I guess you could cobble something together, but full classes would be way more flavourful. And fun. I don't really get wanting to limit classes in a game that depends on classes for character creation.

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.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Artificer, Mystic, Duskblade, Warlord, Shaman, and Summoner, were my picks. I didn’t click Ninja, but only bc I’d want that to be a subclass of an Assassin base class.

Also, I’d be fine with Shaman as a sub of a Summoner class.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

That all sounds terrible, to me.

At best, it sounds like a kludge to make do with, not a genuine fix. I can agree on Jester, but that’s it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It's a favorite of pre-existing fans from prior editions. My suspicion is that 5e has brought in so many new players who never saw the "warlord" in those prior editions, and the concept has to be explained to them.

Just think about how this sounds to a new player: "First, conjure an image of a 'warlord'. This class has nothing to do with that. Second, it's a lot like a cleric or a bard, except that it's not magical, which is really important. Third, before this makes any sense we have to explain the concept of 'roles' such as 'support' from previous editions, even though 5e doesn't really have that..."

By then the new player has already checked the "not interested" box in the poll.

I mean, you can go out of your way to describe any concept in an intentionally terrible manner, and it will confuse noobs.

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.

 

[Parmandur]

Ninja is already in the PHB as the Way of the Shadow, Samurai is in XGtE, Witch is just an Outlander or Hermit background Wizard/Warlock/Sorcerer/Druid, Shaman is just a Druid (though I do recall a suggestion of a totemistic spirit Artificer being suggested by Mearls at some point), Knight is already in XGtE...

Only the Artificer, Alchemist, Mystic and Summoner seem to be really solid bets. Runepriest/Runemage isn't mentioned, but that could be a good Artificer subclass, too. The Summoner, while a cool concept, us a major potential problem: but I wouldn't be surprised to see them tackle that at some point.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

 

[Guest 6801328]

I mean, you can go out of your way to describe any concept in an intentionally terrible manner, and it will confuse noobs.

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.

Oh, yes. I agree that the Captain concept isn't confusing. But now we're talking about the Leader, the guy who gives orders, the Aragorn, the Hannibal Smith.

And when I express skepticism about the appropriateness of that, everybody pushes back saying "Oh, no, he's not giving orders!" And in attempting to explain how it's not really a captain, I get the incomprehensible explanation I paraphrased above.

That's where I get confused. Is he leading the party, or isn't he? If he's not, exactly what is he doing?

 

[Monayuris]

That all sounds terrible, to me.

At best, it sounds like a kludge to make do with, not a genuine fix. I can agree on Jester, but that’s it.

Fair enough. But, these all work perfectly fine for me.

I just think the Class/Sub-Class/Background system in 5E is flexible enough to handle nearly any character concept.

I change my thoughts on Mystic, because I do think there isn't a very good avenue to introduce psionics to 5E.