Which less popular classes should come back

[hemera]

For me, it would be the scout for the non magical ranger, mobile skirmisher archetype, the swordmage or the bladesinger for the arcane fighter archetype, and the shadowcaster, 3.5 binder, and truenamer just because the tome of magic was just too darn awesome. Especially the shadowcaster, I loved their magic system. Kudos to whomever wrote that book!

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Now that I think about it there is likely a need for a really magical ranged weapon user that Ranger might not necessarily cover since I prefer them being not magical, Seeker would be a good place to start. Just not going the way that class was executed though. And since they really aren't going to call out classes completely using a power source, it doesn't have to be completely "primal".

 

[Wednesday Boy]

...and the shadowcaster, 3.5 binder, and truenamer just because the tome of magic was just too darn awesome. Especially the shadowcaster, I loved their magic system. Kudos to whomever wrote that book!

Indeed! That would be the brilliant [MENTION=1288]Mouseferatu[/MENTION]!

 

[Minigiant]

I kinda want to see the Dragonfire Adept come back.

There should be many ways to get "dragon breath" in a Dungeon and Dragons game. Race, theme, and class.

And breath weapon fights are cool.

 

[Boarstorm]

Hmm.

Avenger.
Soulknife.
Most Gish variants (Swordmage, Hexblade, Bladesinger, etc).

These appeal to me.

 

[Savage Wombat]

You used the "G"-word. Reject the "G"-word.

If you have to be a specialized class to be a fighter/magic-user, there's no reason for multi-classing to exist. Let's make multi-classing work and save classes for unique archetypes.

 

[Knight Templar]

Where is it said that every class ever included in a true Player's Handbook is in? If the warlock is in, I'm definitely out. I despise that class and not only don't want to play one, I don't want to sit at the same table as one. It's the perfect representative of what I DON"T want in my fantasy games.

The classes I'd like to see are:

Warriors
* Cavalier
* Fighter
* Paladin
* Ranger
Rogues
* Assassin (no spell-casting please)
* Bard
* Swashbuckler
* Thief
Wizards
* Elementalists
* Magi (Magic Users)
* Runecasters
* Sorcerers
Priests
* Cleric (militant priests)
* Druid
* Monk (spell-caster like the 2e version)
* Temple Priest (similar to the bard, but divine casting)

 

[drothgery]

Where is it said that every class ever included in a true Player's Handbook is in? If the warlock is in, I'm definitely out. I despise that class and not only don't want to play one, I don't want to sit at the same table as one. It's the perfect representative of what I DON"T want in my fantasy games.

They haven't said what will actually be in the first player's book for 5e (or whether it will be printed in the traditional PHB - DMG - MM format or something else). They have said the class list they started with was every class that had ever been in the first player's handbook of AD&D or WotC D&D, but that doesn't mean they will all actually make the cut (or that something that showed up in supplements -- like a swordmage / duskblade type! -- won't).