What classes SHOULD appear?

[Inevitability]

So, what classes would you like to see simply must appear, because otherwise this isn't D&D but a watery imitation?

I myself'd like to see Warlords (and no, that fighter variant does not count, we need a real class), Artificers (magitech!) and Dragonfire Adepts (you get a breath weapon at level one, need I say more?)

[akaddk]

So, what classes would you like to see simply must appear, because otherwise this isn't D&D but a watery imitation?

Cleric, Fighter & Magic-User. All other classes are superfluous and water down D&D.

[linklele]

you get a breath weapon at level one, need I say more?

Yes. Dragonborn.

Jokes aside i feel most of the iconic clesses are well covered by subspecialization.
Pheraphs Mistic theurge (altough being a hig lv wizard and dipping in cleric cover some of it as spell slot are shared.) and i'd like the Factotum (but the bard goes pretty close to this one).

[hymer]

I feel pretty covered on the iconic angle. In fact, I think the barbarian, bard, monk, warlock and sorcerer are superfluous (though I don't mind their inclusion as such).
I think I'd like to see a real arcane gish class, if classes are to be added.

[Aricandor]

Being very fond of things psionic, the psion and psychic warrior are things I'd very much like to see. If the wilder and soulknife can both be made not-terrible by comparison to those, there's enough potentially interesting ideas that could be put into both of those to make a nice compliment of psionic classes (CPsi classes I can very much live without :smalltongue:). This is something I'd call core enough to dare call the game a "watery imitation" if we don't eventually see it done.

I also loved the ideas of the shadowcaster, poor-to-terrible as it was in name and execution, even though I suppose the SU/SP/spell division is probably borderline meaningless under 5E design philosophy. I suppose the warlock inherited some of its shtick now, what with the mysic arcanum structure, just as it ate much of the hexblade with the blade pact boon, so maybe we won't see it return, though I'd rather enjoy to see it thought through again and proper. This one is more personal taste though and hardly something I'd think mandatory to make the edition "proper D&D".

[Yorrin]

Aside from Eberron material (Artificer, Warforged, Changelings, Shifters) I think they've covered all the necessary material already. Sure there's room for more, and we've already been promised a Psionics book, but I feel satisfied with the breadth of the PHB.

[Theodoxus]

Hate to say it, but I agree with Akaddk... Going with modular and granular, there is nothing more of either than the 3.5 Unearthed Arcana basic classes - Spellcaster, Warrior, Expert. I hope the DMG offers them as an option. Much like weapons can be described in simple modular terms, classes can too.

The only other thing I want, is the ability to truly multiclass, and not this dual class crap. They already de-emphasize dipping by slowing all level based gains, which are all class based, not character based. Granting true multiclassing - I guess one could call it gestalt; would alleviate that problem.

[Keko]

I think I'd like to see a real arcane gish class, if classes are to be added.

This ^.

Agree also on factotum/savant/whatever, a concept I really love.


Being very fond of things psionic, the psion and psychic warrior are things I'd very much like to see. If the wilder and soulknife can both be made not-terrible by comparison to those, there's enough potentially interesting ideas that could be put into both of those to make a nice compliment of psionic classes (CPsi classes I can very much live without :smalltongue:). This is something I'd call core enough to dare call the game a "watery imitation" if we don't eventually see it done.

I also loved the ideas of the shadowcaster, poor-to-terrible as it was in name and execution, even though I suppose the SU/SP/spell division is probably borderline meaningless under 5E design philosophy. I suppose the warlock inherited some of its shtick now, what with the mysic arcanum structure, just as it ate much of the hexblade with the blade pact boon, so maybe we won't see it return, though I'd rather enjoy to see it thought through again and proper. This one is more personal taste though and hardly something I'd think mandatory to make the edition "proper D&D".

Also, totally agree with Aricandor, I would like to see some love for the soulknife and shadowcaster, even if could become a warlock pack.

P.S. Don't underestimate the power of the Divine Mind :smallamused:

Edit: I'm aware however that these class are not really "mandatory" apart factotum maybe. Also something swashbucklery is iconic enough I suppose, even if can be achieved via other means (dex fighter, bard or assassin rogue)

[linklele]

The only other thing I want, is the ability to truly multiclass, and not this dual class crap. They already de-emphasize dipping by slowing all level based gains, which are all class based, not character based. Granting true multiclassing - I guess one could call it gestalt; would alleviate that problem.

Actually it is quite the opposite. The proficency philosophy help stay on your character level, and not on the class one. And dipping even just 1 level let you pick up all kind of useful skills, armor, weapon, and save proficencies. In 3.5 dipping in another class would have given me +0/1 BAB and save throws.

[Yorrin]

Actually it is quite the opposite. The proficency philosophy help stay on your character level, and not on the class one. And dipping even just 1 level let you pick up all kind of useful skills, armor, weapon, and save proficencies. In 3.5 dipping in another class would have given me +0/1 BAB and save throws.

Almost, not quite. Multiclassing does not grant save proficiencies and usually doesn't grant skills.
And multiclassing in 3.5 got you MUCH more than 5e, so don't even go there.

[Naanomi]

The Psion, plus some psionic subclasses; and The Artificer. Maybe a small set of NPC classes akin to Commoner and Expert. Everything else can be handled in subclasses.

[Socko525]

I was always a fan of the expanded 3.5 classes, and some of the not so popular ones. I'd love to see:

Dragon Shaman
Duskblade
Hexblade
Swashbuckler
Scout

I feel like Swashbuckler could be an additional choice for fighter as an archetype and perhaps Scout could be a new path for the Ranger? (seeing as how there's the back and forth on viability of the Ranger in general, perhaps a third option might help round it out).

As far as Dragon Shaman, I loved to hate this class in 3.5. I tried it out, but it was outclassed by the Dragonfire Adept in so many ways. Still, with the dragon related themes of 5th edition so far I feel it would fit. They had auras, so perhaps a variant paladin or maybe use paladin as a basis and adapt it to be a new class?

And I always loved Hexblade and the concept of it, but it was always outclassed by Duskblade (which had the benefit of being created later when WotC realized a martial/caster class didn't have to be as weak).

Perhaps a new martial/caster class (rather than just a subclass like the Eldritch Knight), and Duskblade and Hexblade are two of the subclass options?

[JamesT]

Do we have any actual information on what classes will appear and when? Hints?

[Caelic]

If Artificer appears, I hope they seriously retool it. "I'm an Artificer. I can do everything better than everyone" was amusing as a thought exercise, but got old really fast. Heck, the 2.5e Artificer wasn't much better. "Hi. I quickly bang out magic items with limited duration and uses. Here's your quiverful of Arrows of Slaying. Let's go hunt us a dragon."

[Yorrin]

Do we have any actual information on what classes will appear and when? Hints?

We've got some hints, but they're vague enough that I wouldn't be willing to lay down any solid predictions. For example Psionics was hinted to possibly be one of the next major non-campaign books released. Maybe. We also know that the next campaign arc after Tyranny of Dragons will feature some elemental lords as villains, and is rumored to have backgrounds and races to match (genasi?), but nothing has been mentioned about classes there yet.

[Socko525]

We've got some hints, but they're vague enough that I wouldn't be willing to lay down any solid predictions. For example Psionics was hinted to possibly be one of the next major non-campaign books released. Maybe. We also know that the next campaign arc after Tyranny of Dragons will feature some elemental lords as villains, and is rumored to have backgrounds and races to match (genasi?), but nothing has been mentioned about classes there yet.

The Oathbreaker Paladin (Blackguard) was confirmed to be in the DMG.

[Theodoxus]

Actually it is quite the opposite. The proficency philosophy help stay on your character level, and not on the class one. And dipping even just 1 level let you pick up all kind of useful skills, armor, weapon, and save proficencies. In 3.5 dipping in another class would have given me +0/1 BAB and save throws.

Proficiency and spell slots are it. I love the whole 'I'm gonna be a fighter 3/Paladin 3/Bard 2/Warlock 12 discussion. Unless you're going Warlock first, you're not getting your first attribute increase or feat until level 12. That's seriously gimping your class.

Even the popular Fighter 2/X18 builds are delaying a AI/F by 2 levels. Some builds, especially based on variant humans, can work with 1 feat - if they're using the 4d6-low die method. But point buy is gonna hurt without those increases. The straight fighter will pull ahead because either their stats will improve faster, or they'll get useful feats to further differentiation.

Honestly, I think multiclassing is the one option I won't allow, at least without a compelling argument. A bare minimum of system mastery should be shown, or else the less knowledgeable will take trap options.

I already have a player in a game starting Wednesday who's never played a TTRPG, but whose brother is a big fan of 3rd Ed. His brother suggested a monk/druid multiclass - as they synergize fairly well... but I don't think either of them comprehends how multiclassing works in 5th, and how this will gimp the character. I'm just a player, but I'm going to sit down with the new guy and emphasize how going straight druid (which fortunately, is the class he's starting with) will be a much more viable option - if slightly less cool.

I won't push it though, if after he groks the pros and cons, he sticks with his plan. I'll just try to steer him clear of the pitfalls.

[Yorrin]

The Oathbreaker Paladin (Blackguard) was confirmed to be in the DMG.

As are Death Domain Clerics, but I thought we were talking about new classes, not new subclasses.

[EvilAnagram]

And I always loved Hexblade and the concept of it, but it was always outclassed by Duskblade (which had the benefit of being created later when WotC realized a martial/caster class didn't have to be as weak).

Perhaps a new martial/caster class (rather than just a subclass like the Eldritch Knight), and Duskblade and Hexblade are two of the subclass options?

The Hexblade was a (fantastic) class in 4e, essentially a Warlock whose pact came in the form of a blade and the powers that revolved around it. The Pact of the Blade option for the Warlock is basically meant to be a Hexblade.

[Chadamantium]

I'm hoping to see tome of magic classes. Maybe a Truenamer that works. I would be most excited for Binder to come back.

[JamesT]

As are Death Domain Clerics, but I thought we were talking about new classes, not new subclasses.

I haven't heard any of the rumors/spoilers on the DMG, so I'm happy to learn what we expect to see when it comes out. Any other subclasses?

[Yorrin]

I haven't heard any of the rumors/spoilers on the DMG, so I'm happy to learn what we expect to see when it comes out. Any other subclasses?

That's it for confirmed subclasses. This thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?365354-Leaks-from-the-DMG) covers a lot of other things that we're supposed to be getting.

[Broken Twin]

I think the classes we got in the PHB are the only necessary ones for me to feel like it's D&D. Having said that...

I would love to see the Binder and the Totemist getting a 5E rendition. I loved their mechanics, and would seriously enjoy seeing them remade in the new edition.

And, of course, we need psionics for when/if Dark Sun is released.

[Yorrin]

I think the classes we got in the PHB are the only necessary ones for me to feel like it's D&D. Having said that...

I would love to see the Binder and the Totemist getting a 5E rendition. I loved their mechanics, and would seriously enjoy seeing them remade in the new edition.

And, of course, we need psionics for when/if Dark Sun is released.

I agree 100% with this post. Binder and Totemist/Incarnate were the classes I was obsessed with right before I made the switch to 5e, so it would be amazing to see them port over.

Having said that, I think they'll take the route of turning binder into just another Warlock patron like they did in 4e. Depending on the execution I might even be okay with that. But incarnum just has no chance to make it into 5e in any meaningful form, sadly.

[SaintRidley]

Psionics, obviously. Give me the Psion, the Psychic Warrior as a Fighter archetype, maybe the Soulknife can be given as a Monk archetype?

[Broken Twin]

Having said that, I think they'll take the route of turning binder into just another Warlock patron like they did in 4e. Depending on the execution I might even be okay with that. But incarnum just has no chance to make it into 5e in any meaningful form, sadly.

I really hope they don't. Warlock-Binder hit none of the Binder notes for me. If you don't have multiple vestiges you can switch between on a day to day basis, it's just not going to feel like a Binder to me.

Although, I could honestly see them making both Binder and Totemist as subclasses to a new class. The overarching mechanics are similar enough (supernatural-class packages of abilities chosen at the start of the day) that it could conceivably work. The binder being the divine/arcane take, and the totemist being the primal take.

I do sadly agree that Incarnum probably won't be making a showing in 5E, with its focus on streamlining rules. I'm still going to miss the fiddliness of my incarnum allocation though.

[Surrealistik]

Artificer (I totally want to throw around antiquated flashbangs/smoke nades/autocrossbows/pilot magitek armour).

Battlemind with a mind spike feature that doesn't suck.

4e style Shadow themed Assassin that doesn't suck (Way of Shadow Monk doesn't count, nor does the Rogue Assassin).

Psion.

[MustacheFart]

Cavalier. Done.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m0j0mha2t11qac9iz.jpg

[Yorrin]

I really hope they don't. Warlock-Binder hit none of the Binder notes for me. If you don't have multiple vestiges you can switch between on a day to day basis, it's just not going to feel like a Binder to me.

Although, I could honestly see them making both Binder and Totemist as subclasses to a new class. The overarching mechanics are similar enough (supernatural-class packages of abilities chosen at the start of the day) that it could conceivably work. The binder being the divine/arcane take, and the totemist being the primal take.

Yeah, there's a reason I said "depending on the execution." 4e had the wrong execution. If Binder is going to be a Warlock patron I'd want it to have some sort of "you can change out your spells known after a long rest" type ability at the very least.

Some sort of Binder-Totemist hybrid would be interesting though, since not only do they work together mechanically, but each one is based around the idea of "soul energy" more or less. Totemist is about acquiring more soul energy and Binder is about leasing out the soul power you have. The resultant class could break that down into totemist part=gaining physical abilities and binder part=gaining magical abilities, with each having a list that you could choose from each day. Sadly, this already sounds a bit too complex for 5e class design, but it would be easy enough to homebrew, if that was what you were into.

[EvilAnagram]

Yeah, there's a reason I said "depending on the execution." 4e had the wrong execution. If Binder is going to be a Warlock patron I'd want it to have some sort of "you can change out your spells known after a long rest" type ability at the very least.

Some sort of Binder-Totemist hybrid would be interesting though, since not only do they work together mechanically, but each one is based around the idea of "soul energy" more or less. Totemist is about acquiring more soul energy and Binder is about leasing out the soul power you have. The resultant class could break that down into totemist part=gaining physical abilities and binder part=gaining magical abilities, with each having a list that you could choose from each day. Sadly, this already sounds a bit too complex for 5e class design, but it would be easy enough to homebrew, if that was what you were into.

Now, I'm not familiar with the Totemist, but does the Totem Barbarian fit its niche at all?

[Totema]

It's been said before, but they had better make some psionic classes appear pretty soon.

[Yorrin]

Now, I'm not familiar with the Totemist, but does the Totem Barbarian fit its niche at all?

I can see why you might think that based on the name, but no, they're nothing alike. The totemist used the spiritual energy of magical beasts to create temporary magic items which enhances his skills and combat abilities, like making a Giant Eagle mask for a bonus to Perception or Sphinx Claws to have a weapon. These were bound to one of your body's "chakra" which further enhanced the bonuses you got from them.

Totem Barbarian, by contrast, channels the spirits of his patron animals to make him more dangerous. Which might be parallel conceptually, but is vastly different mechanically.

[T.G. Oskar]

I agree with the reappearance of Artificer (it's pretty unique in terms of execution) and Psion (Psionics have been a staple of D&D since 1st Edition, where they were optional features that could appear in any race). Artificer would have a unique way of handling infusions, sorta like the Warlock, though I fear the way Infusions work would make it the ultimate buffer (after all, Infusions are just placed on the item, whereas most buffs are Concentration-locked now). Psions would be the gateway to 5e Psionics, and judging how "slot-based Vancian" magic works in 5e, chances are Psionics will be somewhere between 3.5 and 5e magic (you have no daily spell slots, but power points, and augmentation will return as per 3.5; Psions would cast like Sorcerers, though).

As for the rest...Eldritch Knight is pretty awesome, but a proper Duskblade/Swordmage/Magus would be fun to see. Paladins and Rangers have 5th level spells, so it'd be fair for arcane casters to have it too. Sure, it will hinder the Eldritch Knight archetype after all, but the Fighter has some nifty boons to compensate (the higher amount of Ability Score Increases and Action Surge, for example). I also agree on the Warlord thing (Battle Master is closer to the Warblade than to the Warlord), though I'd invite for a less "compound" name and use a proper name for it (Commander? Marshal, as per 3.5?). I'd also love to see Incarnum once again, specifically how it'd work on this new format: the Soulborn could be a Sacred Oath for the Paladin, while the Totemist could be a sub-class for Barbarian. Truenaming needs some love as well, and they already have the Concentration thing tacked in; just less restrictive than on 3.5. Can't say much about purely 4e classes (Avenger, Runepriest), other that they seem fit for sub-classes (Avenger as a Roguish Archetype, for example). Runepriest *could* exist on its own, given that collapsing its potential on a Cleric Domain (Rune domain?) would be too limiting. Maybe the Runecaster could be this edition's native "Mystic Theurge". Binder is most likely to be tacked into the Warlock, Archivist *might* be a Wizard school (that grants some Cleric spells and knowledge of lore), Soulknife could be a Way of the Monk pretty easily, Psychic Warrior could be a Fighter Archetype as mentioned (and Divine Mind could be a Paladin Sacred Oath that allows the Paladin to use a limited amount of powers as spells, but using the native Paladin spellcasting potential), but there could easily be a "Battlemind" class (or something with a better name!) that could exist on its own just like the Eldritch Knight and the Duskblade/Swordmage/Magus could. Speaking of Duskblade/Swordmage/Magus, the Hexblade could fit right in. Swashbuckler definitely is a Roguish Archetype, one that could help the Rogue a lot in combat. And, a Mystic, Favored Soul or "divine Sorcerer" class just to fill slots.

We'll see a lot of subclasses, though. And maybe some that overlap with existing classes, actually (I can see the Battlerager Martial Archetype for the Fighter, for example, and the Fighter and Rogue sharing an archetype with Swashbuckler).

[DiBastet]

Artificer.

[AuraTwilight]

I agree with the reappearance of Artificer (it's pretty unique in terms of execution) and Psion (Psionics have been a staple of D&D since 1st Edition, where they were optional features that could appear in any race). Artificer would have a unique way of handling infusions, sorta like the Warlock, though I fear the way Infusions work would make it the ultimate buffer (after all, Infusions are just placed on the item, whereas most buffs are Concentration-locked now). Psions would be the gateway to 5e Psionics, and judging how "slot-based Vancian" magic works in 5e, chances are Psionics will be somewhere between 3.5 and 5e magic (you have no daily spell slots, but power points, and augmentation will return as per 3.5; Psions would cast like Sorcerers, though).

As for the rest...Eldritch Knight is pretty awesome, but a proper Duskblade/Swordmage/Magus would be fun to see. Paladins and Rangers have 5th level spells, so it'd be fair for arcane casters to have it too. Sure, it will hinder the Eldritch Knight archetype after all, but the Fighter has some nifty boons to compensate (the higher amount of Ability Score Increases and Action Surge, for example). I also agree on the Warlord thing (Battle Master is closer to the Warblade than to the Warlord), though I'd invite for a less "compound" name and use a proper name for it (Commander? Marshal, as per 3.5?). I'd also love to see Incarnum once again, specifically how it'd work on this new format: the Soulborn could be a Sacred Oath for the Paladin, while the Totemist could be a sub-class for Barbarian. Truenaming needs some love as well, and they already have the Concentration thing tacked in; just less restrictive than on 3.5. Can't say much about purely 4e classes (Avenger, Runepriest), other that they seem fit for sub-classes (Avenger as a Roguish Archetype, for example). Runepriest *could* exist on its own, given that collapsing its potential on a Cleric Domain (Rune domain?) would be too limiting. Maybe the Runecaster could be this edition's native "Mystic Theurge". Binder is most likely to be tacked into the Warlock, Archivist *might* be a Wizard school (that grants some Cleric spells and knowledge of lore), Soulknife could be a Way of the Monk pretty easily, Psychic Warrior could be a Fighter Archetype as mentioned (and Divine Mind could be a Paladin Sacred Oath that allows the Paladin to use a limited amount of powers as spells, but using the native Paladin spellcasting potential), but there could easily be a "Battlemind" class (or something with a better name!) that could exist on its own just like the Eldritch Knight and the Duskblade/Swordmage/Magus could. Speaking of Duskblade/Swordmage/Magus, the Hexblade could fit right in. Swashbuckler definitely is a Roguish Archetype, one that could help the Rogue a lot in combat. And, a Mystic, Favored Soul or "divine Sorcerer" class just to fill slots.

We'll see a lot of subclasses, though. And maybe some that overlap with existing classes, actually (I can see the Battlerager Martial Archetype for the Fighter, for example, and the Fighter and Rogue sharing an archetype with Swashbuckler).

ALL of this. Like, holy damn, the subclass system is GREAT for these ideas.

[Eslin]

I'd like to see the warblade, totemist and warlord reappear. I loved the options of tome of battle and the whole 'martial leader' thing from 4E's warlord, and my major disappointment in 5E has been lack of in combat options for martials.

Artificer seems unlikely - it was an incredibly unique class in 3.5 because of how varied the items were, but that wouldn't translate to 4E.

[Yuki Akuma]

Artificer seems unlikely - it was an incredibly unique class in 3.5 because of how varied the items were, but that wouldn't translate to 4E.

If they're going to update Eberron to 5e - which is likely - they'll have to include the Artificer in some form. It's a major part of the setting.

[Eslin]

Except that Eberron as a setting doesn't really make any sense with 5e's emphasis on magic item rarity.

[Lord Raziere]

Except that Eberron as a setting doesn't really make any sense with 5e's emphasis on magic item rarity.

the magic items will just be class features obviously, as part of the Artificer as his skills or his magic.

[Eslin]

Thus making it basically a 4e artificer, urgh. What I loved about 3.5's is it had a fundamentally different way of being powerful, it was amazing.

Plus I could make myself a magical gundam with wand turrets which was neat =P

[Yuki Akuma]

You think it's more likely for Wizards to completely abandon Eberron than to say 'oh, in this setting, magic items are more common'?

They printed a list of Eberron gods in the PHB. They aren't abandoning Eberron.

[ambartanen]

Except that Eberron as a setting doesn't really make any sense with 5e's emphasis on magic item rarity.

5e mostly tries to limit all the wearable magic gear adventurers used to get though. The important magic items in Eberron are trains, ships, dirigibles and robots which conveniently take a lot of power to run. Maybe making something as compact and lasting as a +1 longsword is difficult but a two-ton stationary cannon that shoots fireballs isn't, especially when you need a specialist controlling the fire elemental that supplies the energy.

On topic, I would very much like to see the Artificer make an appearance. Mechanics can be something quite similar to the Warlock but with very different fluff.

[CyberThread]

Screw classes. It is time eberon got a magical gun class. Elemental water pistols :)

[T.G. Oskar]

5e mostly tries to limit all the wearable magic gear adventurers used to get though. The important magic items in Eberron are trains, ships, dirigibles and robots which conveniently take a lot of power to run. Maybe making something as compact and lasting as a +1 longsword is difficult but a two-ton stationary cannon that shoots fireballs isn't, especially when you need a specialist controlling the fire elemental that supplies the energy.

Interesting tangent. I'd go even further: the way magic works in Eberron is almost fundamentally distinct from other games, in a meta sense and in a social sense. The Dragonmarked Houses are a great example.

Take House Jorasco, for once. In most worlds, even Dragonlance, healing has usually been the exclusive realm of the Divine. When the Gods are gone from the world, so does healing magic; it's only after the revolution of Mysticism and Sorcery (with Bards taking advantage of Sorcery) that healing magic spreads out from its locked roots. The Forgotten Realms has healing magic also pretty much locked in the realm of the divine. In Eberron, though, healing magic is accessible to those with the Dragonmark of Healing AND the Divine. Yet, you don't see the divine casters making much of a coin, since Jorasco pretty much strangles the market. There's few healing houses that aren't Jorasco-held, and those that do are either too far away from the large urban areas, are part of the Sovereign Host or Silver Flame faiths (arguably the two largest good-aligned faiths), or have managed to survive. Most likely, dragonmarked members of the House will have their selection of magic items, but raiding a house and taking away all the wands and stuff will be pointless, since the magic items that they use most likely have Dragonshards, which merely increase their power. You'd be lucky if the wand you have has an Eberron Dragonshard, and chances are it won't work unless you use the dragonmark. Tough luck if the item is built with a Siberys Dragonshard, because it's tied to the House Dragonmark.

What about Khyber Dragonshards, those that are a bit more commonplace? They require Elemental Binding, a skill that's not easy to master. You need to Conjure the elemental to bind, THEN bind it to the item to release its effect. It's most likely that all magic items you see that anyone can use will have Khyber dragonshards, and thus will be quite expensive (and thus, hard to get). Most of the magi-technological advancements will have Khyber dragonshards because it eases the process.

These two examples show things that will make Eberron, and how it ties to 5e, distinct. For starters, magic is a bit more commonplace, but powerful magic won't. You may see a Cleric with the Life domain who also happens to have the Mark of Healing, which will seem redundant until you see the powers it can manifest. You might see that +1 flaming longsword have a Khyber Dragonshard and the mark of House Cannith; that might make it easy to access to a point (you have a House whose effect is mostly to have the equivalent of a Magic-Mart, but in its "Artisan's Workshop" mode), but will also justify its huge price (the addition of a Dragonshard) or maybe make a reduction (the powers of the House can lead to a form of mass-production). Since magic items are not bound specifically to spellcasters (it still does, if you consider the Artificer one) but to houses of commerce (and the rare solo entrepreneur), it can allow for a difference in the assumed norm for the system. Magic items will be less rare, but those that every adventurer can use will be, as the process that makes them less rare also makes them more difficult, or different, to use. For one, the weapons and armor may require attunement as well, making the proliferation of magic items still restrained. For the other, you may need to attune to the elemental in the Khyber Dragonshard, which may restrain what powers you can use, but can allow you to keep that magic item and just switch to taste (something like the Weapon/Armor Augment Crystals in 3.5's Magic Item Compendium). And yet, you can still have your Giant/Dhakaani items be Legendary Magic Items or Artifacts, because of their unique designs.

To rephrase it: the existence of House Cannith (or even the Dragonmarked Houses at all) will run entirely counter to the system's design of "reduced dependence on magic items through reducing their acquisition rate" (or its actual equivalent; that's my perception on the system). It may need a reconsideration, but it will make the setting distinguish even more. I still have my reserves on how the Dragonmarks will work (feats are rarer and don't exactly scale save for Tough), but once solved, chances are you'll see how their take on magic will make magic items less prolific, even if they're seen more and more.

In this regard, the Artificer works as a one-of-a-kind craftsman. The Artificer's greatest skill is its ability to craft magic items without (or despite) the restrictions of the technology present in the era: it may adventure to unearth new forms of crafting long-lost, that might not need the use of Dragonmarks or Dragonshards at all. However, their greatest value is how they can infuse items with temporary magic power, granting allies the benefits of magic items without actually accessing them. The class has potential to exist on its own: Infusions are their own way of using magic, and too distinct to make them a Cleric/Wizard subclass (certainly not a school of magic, and definitely not a domain). It has several subclasses, each one bound to a specific kind of magic item or process: High Elemental Binder (use Elemental Binding as magic), Alchemist Savant (potions), Unbound Scroll (scrolls), Effigy Master (constructs and homunculi), etc. They could be quite powerful (they were a sort of skill-monkey of their own, so chances are they'll have Expertise with skills and some artisan's tools), but they're still a possibility.

One final thing I will say, though: while the gods of Eberron were mentioned (yet not the Immortals of Mystara) and the setting was mentioned by name, there's very few, if ANY, references to the setting other than those. The fluff used takes from either Dragonlance or the Forgotten Realms, since the novels of both settings are more popular; Eberron has novels, but apparently they didn't produce names such as R.A. Salvatore to give them popularity. Most likely the setting will be the third most supported, since the focus of the company is to reinforce their image of the "premier roleplaying system", using what made them popular in first place (High Fantasy). Eberron is more "dungeonpunk", which runs counter to common perceptions about the system, so it'll be delayed; however, it will be released, as it's the most recent original setting and it represents an entirely different take on the game itself. As it stands, though, it'll be hard to play on Eberron until the issue of Dragonmarks are dealt with; expect to see this one or two years from now, as the hype of the Forgotten Realms-as-core setting dies down and WotC looks at its other settings for revenue.

[SaintRidley]

Oh, add Warmage - I'm working on a version of Warmage as a Sorcerous origin (one where it's something you learned, but have effectively had drilled into your head) with a variant, blast-heavy and fixed spell list.

Given the sorcerer's penchant for metamagic, that seems the best home for the Warmage.

[eastmabl]

Except that Eberron as a setting doesn't really make any sense with 5e's emphasis on magic item rarity.

I think you could bifurcate certain types of magical items from others within a setting.

For example, the steam punk lite magic items common to Eberron might be more common, while the adventuring items (+1 sword and armor, wondrous items) may retain their scarcity.

[Cambrian]

...Psionics was hinted to possibly be one of the next major non-campaign books released...Where did you hear this? Last I heard about psionics was Mike Mearls talking about how they didn't feel psionics were well understood (what is it besides "alternate casting"). The take away I had was psionics was not likely to see an early release but that if/when wizards releases it they'll be looking to differentiate it from traditional spellcasting.

[Yorrin]

Where did you hear this? Last I heard about psionics was Mike Mearls talking about how they didn't feel psionics were well understood (what is it besides "alternate casting"). The take away I had was psionics was not likely to see an early release but that if/when wizards releases it they'll be looking to differentiate it from traditional spellcasting.

I actually just heard that same interview late last night. So it seems that psionics isn't as far along in development as they'd hoped it would be at this point. But it also does confirm that it's on their radar as something they're thinking about.

[ImperiousLeader]

1. Psion. The other psionic classes can and probably should work as new subclass options, the psychic warrior can be a fighter subclass, for example. But I definitely want a Psion. And I'm not sure yet how psionics should work in 5e, but I do want to get away from the idea that psionics is just another type of spellcasting.

2. Artificer. I'm chomping at the bit for 5e Eberron, which means Artificers and Dragonmarks (and Shifters, Changelings and Warforged (though the Warforged are apparently in the DMG)). I'm waiting for the DMG before I start seriously thinking about how the class should be designed. IIRC, Magic Item creation rules are planned for the DMG, and that's a major part of the Artificer's shtick. That said, I kinda expect them to go with the Bard and become full 9th level casters.

3. Warlord. Yeah, this class was too awesome in 4e not to be brought back. The Bard and Battlemaster Fighter steal some of the Warlord's ideas, but I think it's still worthy of a full class.

Outside of these three, I might like some of the wackier options to return, the Tome of Magic, Tome of Battle, or Magic of Incarnum classes ... but first I'd want to see if they warrant a full class or should become new subclasses. The Warblade, Crusader and Swordsage are already so close to the Fighter, Paladin and Monk anyway, why not just roll them into the preexisting classes? Can the 3.5 Binder exist as a new Warlock Patron option? You might be able to express most vestiges as a collection of invocations and Patron benefits.

[EvilAnagram]

Oh, add Warmage - I'm working on a version of Warmage as a Sorcerous origin (one where it's something you learned, but have effectively had drilled into your head) with a variant, blast-heavy and fixed spell list.

Given the sorcerer's penchant for metamagic, that seems the best home for the Warmage.

How does a Warmage differ from an Eldritch Knight?

[Arzanyos]

WIZARD/fighter as opposed to wizard/FIGHTER.

[Beneath]

Binder's the big one I want.

It's unlikely, though, given the Warlock's fluff and everything.

Maybe I could homebrew an adaptation.

[bulbaquil]

Beguiler. Although I guess the Arcane Trickster track sort of fills their niche, so...

Also, Dragon Shaman and Swashbuckler.

[Soras Teva Gee]

WIZARD/fighter as opposed to wizard/FIGHTER.

Wizard class + Elf/Dwarf + Feats for weapon/armor + Universal proficiency bonus = The most wizard-y sword wielder you can be because full casting and weapons.

[vasharanpaladin]

Wizard class + Elf/Dwarf + Feats for weapon/armor + Universal proficiency bonus = The most wizard-y sword wielder you can be because full casting and weapons.

Except the warmage is more about tactical application of magic than being a spellcaster who happens to be able to use weapons and armor.

[Arzanyos]

Well, the Warmage is basically the 5e Evoker Subclass with armor and a more focused spell list.

[Naanomi]

Except the warmage is more about tactical application of magic than being a spellcaster who happens to be able to use weapons and armor.
I think Warmage would make an acceptable subclass, probably of Sorcerer. Many of the alternative classes are 'like class X but can do Y/use Z', which feed well into the subclass system.

[MeeposFire]

The warmage is an example of something that should not be its own class IMO. It could easily be a wizard subclass option instead of taking a more standard school option. The reason for that IMO is that the warmage really isn't much of a concept that needs to be a unique cocnept as a full class should be. It can be represented either by the wizard class or the sorcerer and then you give them features that relate to what a warmage should be able to do. For instance extra damage with combat spells, quick casting attack spells, armor+weapon proficiencies, and the ability to take attack spells off of other class lists could be good things for the warmage subclass to gain.

On the other hand I do think that some other classes could be much harder to emulate as a subclass such as the artificer. While you might be able to make a class work for it I think it would require such an extensive change in the basic class's abilities that I think it would be better as an additional class.

A totemist could be done as a druid though it could also be a new base class. As a druid sublass I think you could do it by using your wild shape ability to shape yourself beast oriented items on your body to attack (example claws+bites, etc) and then have a separate ability that can grant you things like the eyes of the celestial giant owl or whatever.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Well, the Warmage is basically the 5e Evoker Subclass with armor and a more focused spell list.

Agreed I think. A "warmage" is a caster concept without much if any actual martial classes in the build.

And if I'm being really honest making it truely live up to the name probably wouldn't make for the best adventuring build because it would need like supersized fireballs you'd never have a map big enough to not roast the party on. So in lieu of that any wizard with a focus on damage and destruction with a side of control.

Now without truly wonky requirements to wear armor all the better.