Which less popular classes should come back
- Thread starter Kobold Avenger
- Start date
Steely_Dan
First Post
It would seem some are uncomfortable with three-dimensional movement.
Stormonu
NeoGrognard
Well, in that case, I guess we better drop everything that can fly from the game as well.
Steely_Dan
First Post
It would seem they wanted to.
TarionzCousin
Second Most Angelic Devil Ever
I thought the monk was a comedy class.
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
Warden and Shaman in 4e are quite cool. Avenger seems to have proven to be a reasonably popular concept, though I wasn't that excited by it personally. Invoker was kind of cool, but might not really warrant a full class. Runepriest and Seeker were both cool concepts. Honestly I wasn't that thrilled with any of the psionic classes, though the concepts of a telempath and a body-control expert are fairly solid. Hexblade worked out pretty nicely too.
I'm not entirely sure which of these really need to be full classes, but I'm sure SOME of them should be. Kind of depends on how classes are structured in 5e. Some sort of 'gish' seems like maybe a possibility too, but is more marginal from the standpoint of class vs some sort of MC of fighter/wizard.
Honestly I thought most of the later 3e classes were kind of marginal as full classes. Still, some sort of 'spellthief' type concept would be worth a look. Beyond that there are others that are marginally possible as full class concepts, depending. I'd put necromancers in that category, artificers, maybe a couple others I haven't thought of. In general though I'm more in favor of sub-classes for most variants of that ilk. Again, we'll have to see at least the core rules before it is possible to tell just how broad a class can be.
I'm not entirely sure which of these really need to be full classes, but I'm sure SOME of them should be. Kind of depends on how classes are structured in 5e. Some sort of 'gish' seems like maybe a possibility too, but is more marginal from the standpoint of class vs some sort of MC of fighter/wizard.
Honestly I thought most of the later 3e classes were kind of marginal as full classes. Still, some sort of 'spellthief' type concept would be worth a look. Beyond that there are others that are marginally possible as full class concepts, depending. I'd put necromancers in that category, artificers, maybe a couple others I haven't thought of. In general though I'm more in favor of sub-classes for most variants of that ilk. Again, we'll have to see at least the core rules before it is possible to tell just how broad a class can be.
Wednesday Boy
The Nerd WhoFell to Earth
I'd love to see a 5e version of the Binder. It was a beautifully flavorful class in 3.5 that wasn't done justice in 4E. While I only got to play one at first level for a few sessions, my gut feeling was that in play they would be able to do a lot of things but would do them all poorly. So a tighter redesign to make them versatile and adept would be a good thing.
steeldragons
Steeliest of the dragons
There are a couple of archetypes that I think are long overdue for their time as a "core" class. They've pretty much all been mentioned already:
The Warrior-who-does-magic-too (Swordmage, Bladesinger, Spellsword, whatever) based off of the "Ftr/MU" seems to have the longest history (going back to the "elf" in B/X-BECM) with the game. So, if I got to pick ONE, as the OP asks, in the interest of "fairness" (to a fictional fantasy archetypal concept with no actual feelings
) and seniority, this would seem to be the winner.
The other "long overdo" archetype I would like seeing would be the "divine-arcane caster", Thaumaturgist/Thuerge/whatever they get called. A "Cle/MU" base class with access to Arcane and Divine magic lists, skilled with ritual magic, tons of knowledge skills, though I would keep the armor and weapons light if not non-existant. Cover the "holy-minded/spiritiually-devout wizard" and/or the "occult-delving clergyman/cleric."
Also, I do think Shaman (in the archetypal sense of one who deals with totems, speaking to and traveling in the Spirit world) fills a nice opening. I've never considered Druid's to be very "spirit world dealing guys."
Personal favorite would be a decent flavorful archetypal Witch class.
But I can also get totally behind Yora's suggestion that it could/should be something "non-magic-castery." I think the more limiting the spell-caster classes are at "core" the better, and sets a nice (unspoken) tone for the game as a whole.
In this case, the Scout is good, but I think a bit tooooo close to Rangery for me to justify a whole separate archetype (which is something I think something that is going to be a Class, in and of itself, needs). I'd probably vote for the "non-magical/non-paladiny" cavelier/knight type.
--SD
The Warrior-who-does-magic-too (Swordmage, Bladesinger, Spellsword, whatever) based off of the "Ftr/MU" seems to have the longest history (going back to the "elf" in B/X-BECM) with the game. So, if I got to pick ONE, as the OP asks, in the interest of "fairness" (to a fictional fantasy archetypal concept with no actual feelings
) and seniority, this would seem to be the winner.The other "long overdo" archetype I would like seeing would be the "divine-arcane caster", Thaumaturgist/Thuerge/whatever they get called. A "Cle/MU" base class with access to Arcane and Divine magic lists, skilled with ritual magic, tons of knowledge skills, though I would keep the armor and weapons light if not non-existant. Cover the "holy-minded/spiritiually-devout wizard" and/or the "occult-delving clergyman/cleric."
Also, I do think Shaman (in the archetypal sense of one who deals with totems, speaking to and traveling in the Spirit world) fills a nice opening. I've never considered Druid's to be very "spirit world dealing guys."
Personal favorite would be a decent flavorful archetypal Witch class.
But I can also get totally behind Yora's suggestion that it could/should be something "non-magic-castery." I think the more limiting the spell-caster classes are at "core" the better, and sets a nice (unspoken) tone for the game as a whole.
In this case, the Scout is good, but I think a bit tooooo close to Rangery for me to justify a whole separate archetype (which is something I think something that is going to be a Class, in and of itself, needs). I'd probably vote for the "non-magical/non-paladiny" cavelier/knight type.
--SD
