New Classes

[carrdrivesyou]

So I have been doing some thinking and wondering. It's raised some questions about classes. By comparison, 5e is a fairly young edition when compared to its larger competitors of 3.5 and Pathfinder. That being said, there is a large amount of untapped potential for the edition as a whole. So here's my thoughts...

1. Will they ever add initiator classes such as the Warblade, Crusader, and Swordsage that we saw in 3.5? To me, they were fairly iconic and very flavorful.

2. Will they ever add in the odd classes we saw in 3.PF such as the Investigator, Dragon Shaman, Dragonfire Adept, Dread Necromancer, Binder, Alchemist, and such?

3. If they ever do add these, will they be their own stand alone classes or will they be relegated into substandard versions of themselves as subclasses?

4. Do you think they will ever expand the current "official" magic items list?

Let me know what you think Playgrounders!

Edit:

5. Will they ever add the other dragons such as Emerald, shadow, pyroclastic, fang, etc.?

[Darkbru]

While I know WoW and D&D aren’t the same thing, I played shaman main for YEARS and would love to be able to play one in D&D. I’d take a subclass if that’s all they offered, but I think there’s enough potential in a shaman class to make it it’s own thing. If WoTC ever puts a playable shaman class I’d be the first in line to order that book.

[Unoriginal]

So I have been doing some thinking and wondering. It's raised some questions about classes. By comparison, 5e is a fairly young edition when compared to its larger competitors of 3.5 and Pathfinder. That being said, there is a large amount of untapped potential for the edition as a whole.

5e is never going to have the tons of classes you see in 3.X or Pathfinder.

And 5e is using its potential very well.



1. Will they ever add initiator classes such as the Warblade, Crusader, and Swordsage that we saw in 3.5? To me, they were fairly iconic and very flavorful.

They're not really iconic, and there is plenty of ways to do gish already.




2. Will they ever add in the odd classes we saw in 3.PF such as the Investigator, Dragon Shaman, Dragonfire Adept, Dread Necromancer, Binder, Alchemist, and such?

Not likely. Most of those things are covered by subclasses, and Artificier will probably have an Alchemist subclass.

Binder might show up as a Warlock subclass down the line, but I wouldn't hold my breath.




3. If they ever do add these, will they be their own stand alone classes or will they be relegated into substandard versions of themselves as subclasses?


There is nothing "substandard" about subclasses.




4. Do you think they will ever expand the current "official" magic items list?

...they're already doing that with basically each new adventure, so yes, they're not likely to stop.



5. Will they ever add the other dragons such as Emerald, shadow, pyroclastic, fang, etc.?


Shadow Dragons are already in the game. For the rest, possible, but not likely before a long time.

[Naanomi]

Some of those may appear as subclasses, but I don’t foresee any being main classes... I could see a magic item compendium of some sort in a few years, and I’ll bet we will see the gemstone dragons when we get a psionics book (unless that book is a Darksun setting book also)

[Gryphonus]

Just a slight nitpick, but 5e does have shadow dragons. They're on page 84 of the MM, and can be applied as a template to any other dragon.

[Zejety]

While I know WoW and D&D aren’t the same thing, I played shaman main for YEARS and would love to be able to play one in D&D. I’d take a subclass if that’s all they offered, but I think there’s enough potential in a shaman class to make it it’s own thing. If WoTC ever puts a playable shaman class I’d be the first in line to order that book.

Isn't the Druid already pretty close to WoW shamans, minus enhancement? Circle of the Shepherd even has totems!

[ZorroGames]

I hope they Never come close to the subclass/class chaos that drove me out of D&D/2e when it became too complicated to have time to DM/play plus work a stressful job, be a good spouse, raise children...

[JackPhoenix]

Isn't the Druid already pretty close to WoW shamans, minus enhancement? Circle of the Shepherd even has totems!

I personally recommend taking tempest cleric and switching cleric spell list for druid's. You get weapons, you'll get metal armor (including plate for Thrall), you'll get pretty much the same feel from spells. Maybe nature cleric too.

[Zejety]

I personally recommend taking tempest cleric and switching cleric spell list for druid's. You get weapons, you'll get metal armor (including plate for Thrall), you'll get pretty much the same feel from spells. Maybe nature cleric too.

Oh, you're right. Tempest Cleric is a great fit. They even get a Lightning Shield equivalent at 1st level!

[Corpsecandle717]

Isn't the Druid already pretty close to WoW shamans, minus enhancement? Circle of the Shepherd even has totems!

Elemental and Reso are pretty well covered by druid, but Enhancement isn't. It's a bit more martial than any of the druid subclasses are currently capable of. Enhancement was mostly about blending spells and melee weapon attacks.

[Naanomi]

Elemental and Reso are pretty well covered by druid, but Enhancement isn't. It's a bit more martial than any of the druid subclasses are currently capable of. Enhancement was mostly about blending spells and melee weapon attacks.
Sounds like a Nature cleric

[Corpsecandle717]

Sounds like a Nature cleric

I was more thinking a Barb sublcass with EK spell progression and some special sauce.

[carrdrivesyou]

Just a slight nitpick, but 5e does have shadow dragons. They're on page 84 of the MM, and can be applied as a template to any other dragon.

Huh. Must have missed that bit. Thanks!

[Magic Myrmidon]

I loved the ToB classes, but I'm pretty sure the Battlemaster is kinda their lip service to that style of fighter.

They've made it pretty clear that they want to be very careful with introducing new mechanics in general, especially classes. As fun as the weird niche classes were in 3.5, I doubt they'll be doing those for a long time, if at all.

[Corsair14]

I wouldn't rate any of your listed classes as iconic after having played the older editions for years and never heard of them. You might see an archetype you can call one of them whatever they were.

As far as gem dragons go or any other old edition monsters including shadow dragons( they are their own unique race of underground dwelling dragon not whatever crap the new MM makes them out to be), go look at the second edition stats and bump up the HP a little. I have found 2nd translates over to 5th extremely easily. I ran Undermountain straight out of the old books with no prep, just use some common sense.

[Kane0]

It is extremely unlikely that you will see more than a handful of new base classes in 5e’s entire lifespan. Brew like MFoV might be a good start if this is what youre looking.

There will be many new subclasses, monsters and items however, just not the sheer magnitude of what is available in 3.5/PF

[Fire Tarrasque]

Well, 5e has already added Artificer and Mystic, and we will be getting a Psion class. It's not that bad.

[ZorroGames]

Well, 5e has already added Artificer and Mystic, and we will be getting a Psion class. It's not that bad.

When did I miss they became official? Or are we speaking UA?

[PhantomSoul]

When did I miss they became official? Or are we speaking UA?

You haven't missed anything official!

[ZorroGames]

You haven't missed anything official!

Whew! Thanks for the clarification.

[Eric Diaz]

How's the investigator different than rogue inquisitive? How is a crusader thematically different to a paladin?

Or, in short, what ARCHETYPES are you looking for?

(honestly - I don't play PF).

I'd like a warlord myself, and things such as alchemist/artificer make sense.

[Knaight]

Well, 5e has already added Artificer and Mystic, and we will be getting a Psion class. It's not that bad.

If we get a Psion it's a renaming of the Mystic, so that's two total classes, not three. That's two new classes in four years, which definitely supports the handful of new classes total hypothesis.

[Phoenix042]

So I have been doing some thinking and wondering. It's raised some questions about classes. By comparison, 5e is a fairly young edition when compared to its larger competitors of 3.5 and Pathfinder. That being said, there is a large amount of untapped potential for the edition as a whole. So here's my thoughts...

1. Will they ever add initiator classes such as the Warblade, Crusader, and Swordsage that we saw in 3.5? To me, they were fairly iconic and very flavorful.

In 3.5, these were more combat-capable attempts to sort of "fix" the fighter, rogue / monk, and paladin types of character.

In 5E, the initiator class is wrapped up into a fighter subclass, and is called battle master.

Our group converted a single-classed 10th level warblade into 5e, and while picking up the maneuverability and jump-related moves required a bit of creativity on our part (we ended up with a monk dip), we were able to seamlessly recreate the most impressive parts of the kit and pick up additional, thematic resources and features.

Time stands still is now a core second level fighter feature. Sudden leap, the ability to move swiftly and still attack, is now rolled into the base combat mechanics everyone has access to. Strike maneuvers still exist, in a much more user-friendly character, and you can even be a ranged Warblade or a Bloodstorm blade using the features available to you from level one.


2. Will they ever add in the odd classes we saw in 3.PF such as the Investigator, Dragon Shaman, Dragonfire Adept, Dread Necromancer, Binder, Alchemist, and such?

The philosophy of creating a class with a narrow, focused scope and a single potential playstyle is dead and gone in 5E. Now, classes are typically meant to be broad suites of abilities and features that each cover many possible related archetypes, not just one.

Dread Necromancer, for example, does not fit 5E design at all, at least not as a base class. If they ever do introduce a focused necromancer into the game, it'll have to be a subclass. It SHOULD be a subclass; the dread necromancer has a very narrowly defined scope into which a character concept might fit.


3. If they ever do add these, will they be their own stand alone classes or will they be relegated into substandard versions of themselves as subclasses?

Many of the concepts you listed do not fit as full classes, but sound more like characters to me. "I'm Zarick, dragonfire adept, wielder of the ancient fires belched forth by my ancestors!"

He's a 6th level draconic sorcerer.

Investigator is a job title, not really a class. You can take rogue or bard or something similar, and grab expertise in investigation, pick up insight and perception, and lots of other in and out of combat features.


4. Do you think they will ever expand the current "official" magic items list?

They're gradually growing the list. I do hope they eventually put a bunch of them together into a book for us, and I also hope they explore alternative philosophies and types for magic items.

I'm not as interested in seeing a huge list of "this weapon does 1d6 elemental damage of a LESS common type than you're used to!" and more interested in cool special features and ideas for how to make items unique and interesting.

[SiCK_Boy]

Regarding magic items, the 5th edition designers are in a weird spot, because of the claim that magic items are not needed (the monster statistics and other mechanical components of game balance do not presume that characters have access to magic items - although the number of monsters having resistance to non-magic damage later on indicates it may not be such a clean-cut assumption).

The fact that they also stayed away from magic item shops in the base rules further complicates their position (they did add a few options with XGtE, acknowledging that people want to be able to buy more than just basic Potions of Healing).

It would be weird to, all of a sudden, come up with a complete book of magic items.

I could see it happening if they wanted to build such a book around the rules and formulas to make magic items, but that remains a very narrow topic that may not interest a large public.

[Arkhios]

Regarding magic items, the 5th edition designers are in a weird spot, because of the claim that magic items are not needed (the monster statistics and other mechanical components of game balance do not presume that characters have access to magic items - although the number of monsters having resistance to non-magic damage later on indicates it may not be such a clean-cut assumption).

The fact that they also stayed away from magic item shops in the base rules further complicates their position (they did add a few options with XGtE, acknowledging that people want to be able to buy more than just basic Potions of Healing).

It would be weird to, all of a sudden, come up with a complete book of magic items.

I could see it happening if they wanted to build such a book around the rules and formulas to make magic items, but that remains a very narrow topic that may not interest a large public.

It's all quite easily managed: There are many spells for just about every spellcasting class that make your weapon magical for a while.

[MeeposFire]

Frankly most of the many additional classes did not really need to exist. Many classes were either the same class with variant mechanics (spirit shaman for example is essentially divine caster using a new way to determine spells or the favored soul being the divine sorcerer, heck even the original is this where it really only exists to do a new mechanic) or mostly the same class with different flavor and sometimes mechanics (ninja, scout, etc). Then you had classes built around a truly new mechanic which is probably the best of the bunch but some of those were really retreads with a slightly new mechanic (soulborns are a good example, while the other incarnum classes were pretty unique this class was just paladin with spells replaced with soul melds it would have been better as an alternate class feature).

The reason you saw so many classes back then was because that was the selling mentality back then. The idea was to have continuous flow of books for people to buy but eventually that sort of crashed under its own weight.

[Laughingdagger]

So I have been doing some thinking and wondering. It's raised some questions about classes. By comparison, 5e is a fairly young edition when compared to its larger competitors of 3.5 and Pathfinder. That being said, there is a large amount of untapped potential for the edition as a whole. So here's my thoughts...

1. Will they ever add initiator classes such as the Warblade, Crusader, and Swordsage that we saw in 3.5? To me, they were fairly iconic and very flavorful.

2. Will they ever add in the odd classes we saw in 3.PF such as the Investigator, Dragon Shaman, Dragonfire Adept, Dread Necromancer, Binder, Alchemist, and such?

3. If they ever do add these, will they be their own stand alone classes or will they be relegated into substandard versions of themselves as subclasses?

4. Do you think they will ever expand the current "official" magic items list?

Let me know what you think Playgrounders!

Edit:

5. Will they ever add the other dragons such as Emerald, shadow, pyroclastic, fang, etc.?


Alright, aside from the TOB classes like warblade, swordsage, and crusader, which are literally covered by main classes and archetypes now, dragonfire adept and those others were only iconic and well known for being banned from a lot of tables at high level because munchkins easily made them break the game, so I'll disagree in the same way I disagree that it was a bad idea to remove windfury's ability to proc OFF OF windfury an unlimited number of times during vanilla wow.

The TOB classes listed weren't very flavourful or iconic to be quite honest. You had a fighter who could do more than "attack, grapple, or charge," you had a caster that held a sword for tertiary benefits and some fighting ability, and you had basically a half battlemaster-fighter and half-paladin.

New resource mechanics aside they weren't any more interesting to play aside from telling you what your attacks looked like with descriptors and style names rather than the blank slate of attack.

[EvilAnagram]

While I know WoW and D&D aren’t the same thing, I played shaman main for YEARS and would love to be able to play one in D&D. I’d take a subclass if that’s all they offered, but I think there’s enough potential in a shaman class to make it it’s own thing. If WoTC ever puts a playable shaman class I’d be the first in line to order that book.

I think they were trying to bring a shaman feel to their last couple druid offerings. Whether they hit the mark or not is kind of up to you.

[Naanomi]

I think Shaman (not WoW Shaman maybe, but the concept) would be a great Druid-y Warlock Patron

[Fire Tarrasque]

When did I miss they became official? Or are we speaking UA?

They haven't been released in a book but they were officialized in DM's Guild as a final draft.

[Kuu Lightwing]

I kinda disagree with people on ToB classes. I find them rather flavorful and interesting, even though their flavor isn't typical to common DnD setting.

I also don't agree that Battlemaster covers that niche. Battlemaster maneuvers are all pretty basic and generally are just "extra die of damage + rider", while ToB maneuvers covered much more than that. Surely, a version of Time Stands Still is fighter class feature, but it was pretty much a capstone (well 9th level equivalent), so it's probably not the most iconic one out there. The concept of Single Strong Blow was implemented well with ToB, while 5e fighter is a gatling smack machine instead. Many of the stances were also interesting and flavorful.

So, I'd actually like to see an initiator reincarnation for 5e. Probably not gonna happen, though, which makes me sad.