For 5.5/6.0 Edition, what Missing Class would you like to see in the Core?

[Justin Sane]

First, a version of the Warlord that allows for the Dragon Shaman as a subclass.

Second, the Swordmage. Bonus points if the class abilities wind up not being actual spells, so there's enough conceptual space left over for a Duskblade subclass.

Third, everyone's favourite at-will "spell"caster, the Psion.

[Kane0]

Hmm.

One class that fights, one that has skills and one that has magic.

Then one class that is a fighting/skill blend, one that is a skill/magic blend and one a fighting/magic blend.

So six classes. Deepen the subclass concept to flesh out all the different flavors. Hopefully that will finally put a nail in the ‘rangers shouldnt be their own class’ argument.

[anthon]

Enchanter, but maybe not called that... More like enchanting from elder scrolls than d&d.

Imagine a character with a set of wands, each holding a different enchantment to cast various spells, but without spell slots. Instead, each item has a charge system (as is common today), but you can recharge them with energy from the souls of those you destroy. You have proficiency with enchanter tools, that include soul gems to hold charges and apply to your items. You make your own enchanted items with these soul gems, determining their strength (equivalent spell slot level) by the CR of the creature's soul you use to make them.

It would be a lot like an artificer with infusions to make these magical trinkets, but each level you gain a known enchantment that follows the full caster spell level progression.

Some class abilities might be siphoning charges between items, right off enemies mid-fight, and enchanting "constant" effects on worn items (+1 ac, resistance to an element, etc).

i agree PLAYER based CORE RULES for PLAYERS making magic items should be right there in the rule books. In AD&D we had Enchant an Item, Enchanted Weapon, and Permanency, right in the PHB, plus notes in the classes on when they got to make potions, scrolls, and holy water, so the notion of a magic item creation class was, at least for a few editions, part of the CORE rules (wizards and clerics)

[Millstone85]

One class that fights, one that has skills and one that has magic.

Then one class that is a fighting/skill blend, one that is a skill/magic blend and one a fighting/magic blend.

AKA the Triforce:

		fighter
	ranger		cleric
rogue		bard		wizard

Though I would expand it:

			fighter
		warlord		cleric
	ranger		artificer		hexblade
rogue		monk		bard		wizard

[ezekielraiden]

At what point have I directly classified all warlords as being lazy?

Honestly, if all you took out of that was the single sentence where I weakly implied that's what you were saying, I'm pretty frustrated that you got so little out of what I said. But, fine. You aren't saying that. But I absolutely think you're blowing a problem out of proportion. Further, I would be extremely shocked if you haven't seen the trend of anyone who wants to crap on Warlords immediately leaping to "but lazylord is the WORST THING EVER." To very nearly say exactly the same things, without (initially) stating that you're merely cautioning against a potential pitfall rather than decrying the class as a whole, does little to make me feel that my response was unjustified.

Shared point on the RP concepts, however again note it is an RP concept driving the choice and not a matter of optimization. I will note it is a niche pairing of concept and implementation that is more likely to prove sour when it stands up as the front runner, which is where my critique was focused.

Except that it's not the front-runner. Choosing to be a purely lazy Warlord is worse than choosing to have moderately competent personal damage. Exclusive specialization in attack-granting has far too many weaknesses and situations where it's not actually capable of helping out--and, importantly, if all you ever do is grant others attacks, you're presuming a lot about what your fellow players are going to play. That's why I said what I said; the "lazy" playstyle is always put front and center, as though it is the most important, most powerful, most perfect Warlord and nobody plays anything else. Even if you didn't say that, the excessive attention paid to a niche playstyle that makes a lot of (often false!) presumptions and sacrifices is, simply, silly.

Brushing aside the matter of higher optimization and tactics, the baseline functionality was exceptional from the start at PHB where the strike+rider you granted was on par with encounter powers.

I'm gonna need actual numbers on that one. That doesn't reflect my experience with the class in play, nor my experience discussing it with other players. Commander's Strike is literally just an ally's MBA plus your Intelligence modifier. That's not at all bad, but unless you've got allies optimizing their MBAs, it's not "on par with encounter powers."

[Morty]

Hmm.

One class that fights, one that has skills and one that has magic.

Then one class that is a fighting/skill blend, one that is a skill/magic blend and one a fighting/magic blend.

So six classes. Deepen the subclass concept to flesh out all the different flavors. Hopefully that will finally put a nail in the ‘rangers shouldnt be their own class’ argument.

This is brought up a lot, but it has never worked and is not likely to. There are two major problems with it.

1) "Fighting" skills and "other" skills is an utterly arbitrary distinction. Unless we want "fighting" characters to be completely inept at anything except hitting things repeatedly, they'll need skills too. And in a game like D&D, you're not going to play someone who has a wide range of skills but can't do anything in a fight. So what's the line between a fighting character, a skilled character and a mixed character?

2) Magic can cover everything in the two other categories or overshadow them and then some. So it's not really useful as a category, because a magic-using character is going to have to be defined further anyway. Besides, magic-using characters being inept at everything that doesn't involve magic isn't something we want either.

[Eldan]

Seconding Binder. That class came far too late in 3.5, it should have a lot more support. I'd love to see it in core. With subclasses, too. Vestige Binder, Spirit Binder, Divine binder...

[Amnestic]

Seconding Binder. That class came far too late in 3.5, it should have a lot more support. I'd love to see it in core. With subclasses, too. Vestige Binder, Spirit Binder, Divine binder...

I do like Binder, I do want it in current+future editions, but I'm not sure it should be core.

The reason being that it operates on an entirely separate pretty extensive subsystem. Only warlock with its invocations really breaks the mold for subsystems and invocations are generally pretty simple and straightforward. A full set of vestiges with all its binding rules may be too much to put in the PHB, if only because of pages required. Most classes in the PHB average around ~5 pages, some more, some less, but a lot of their details can be shunted off to the Spell List section in the back, which works fine because it crosses over for a bunch of classes. Binder's standalone, and could take potentially dozens of pages all on its own for fully detailed vestiges.

Put another way, I fear that if they made Binder core they'd end up having to water it down to not bloat page length on a single class, and I'd rather have a non-core fully realised binder than a watered down core version.

[Aett_Thorn]

I know that this would be asking for a LOT, but I'd prefer that they throw out all of the classes and start from scratch to give us something new.

D&D I know was steeped in middle ages Europe-type settings, and the class design kind of reflected that. But I wouldn't mind a system that is a bit broader, and allows for a wider range of themes.

Take the Druid, for example. It's pretty focused on northern European tropes of what they are. And while you can certainly fluff them as being other things, most of the literature and art for the editions paints them as fitting this stereotype. But imagine if we created more of a "Shaman" base class. Druid could certainly be a subclass of that, but wouldn't need to be, even if they fit the same basic roles. You could have a primal shaman that gets wildshape, but you could also have subclasses that fit more of the shaman tropes of different regions, such as a northern Native American theme (such as a weather manipulator), an African shaman trope (such as a trickster shaman), and a South/Central American trope (such as a subclass focused on dealing with the souls of friends and allies).

Similarly, the Rogue is based highly on the image we have of a middle-ages European city-dwelling rapscallion. But what if we divorced the concepts of sneaking and being good at dealing with traps from the base class? Certainly, that could be one subclass (and in my perfect world, more classes would have options that are good at dealing with traps to make up for the loss of a whole class that is supposed to deal with them), but others could really be focused on being a socialite rogue (great at pulling off in-combat bluffs and deceptions), a seafaring rogue (great at knots and maneuverability), and a Ranger (great at tracking and nature skills, and setting traps of their own).


Basically, get rid of the classes as we have them now that are largely a legacy of previous versions. Start over. Create broader themes of character classes that don't box you in as much. And allow roles to be better spread across different classes. I know it's a bit heady, and might not really work, but I think it would be great.

[Millstone85]

One class that fights, one that has skills and one that has magic.

This is brought up a lot, but it has never worked and is not likely to.

I will admit that I often imagine an all-gish D&D (Or would it still be D&D?) where every adventurer chooses a martial class, a magic class and a profession, like an archer/elementalist/tracker or a shielder/vitalist/apothecary.

[Catullus64]

Basically, get rid of the classes as we have them now that are largely a legacy of previous versions. Start over. Create broader themes of character classes that don't box you in as much. And allow roles to be better spread across different classes. I know it's a bit heady, and might not really work, but I think it would be great.

I think that a problem with this approach (and similar throw-it-all-out-and-start-over approaches that others have mentioned) is that a sense legacy is pretty important to this game. Guessing here, but I think that even with greater pop cultural awareness of the game, most people get introduced to Dungeons & Dragons by joining the games of more experienced friends and family. It's the balancing act that D&D has been attempting for a long time now: if an edition is too traditionalist it may hedge out new players, but if it is too radical a departure it will alienate the longtime players who are still the greatest asset the game has for bringing in new ones. That sense of participating in a tradition is what I think makes this silly hobby of ours just a tiny bit more meaningful than so much other contemporary popular culture. Sacred cows, like classes, have an important role to play, as long as you make sure they don't make up the whole herd.

[TigerT20]

Hmm.

One class that fights, one that has skills and one that has magic.

Then one class that is a fighting/skill blend, one that is a skill/magic blend and one a fighting/magic blend.

So six classes. Deepen the subclass concept to flesh out all the different flavors. Hopefully that will finally put a nail in the ‘rangers shouldnt be their own class’ argument.

Ah! So we have a class that's only useful in combat, one that's only useful in social and exploration encounters and one that's useful in all three. I don't see how this could be unbalanced or cause resentment whatsoever. After all, it's not like it's taking something that's already widely complained about and then turning it up to 11.

Edit: I do also find it somewhat ironic that there's a large sentiment in this thread to remove the ranger, but also a not-insignificant number who wish for a class that uses their knowledge of their foes to bring them down. As if this isn't exactly what the ranger is supposed to be - The Witcher is brought up in almost every single discussion about the ranger, and it's being used here to describe this "new" class.

[KorvinStarmast]

Like this

AKA the Triforce:

		fighter
	ranger		cleric
rogue		bard		wizard

Except dump bard and add Paladin unless paladin goes back to being a sub class of fighter.
Not this.

			fighter
		warlord		cleric
	ranger		artificer		hexblade
rogue		monk		bard		wizard

Beginning of clutter.

[Dienekes]

Like this
Except dump bard and add Paladin unless paladin goes back to being a sub class of fighter.
Not this.
Beginning of clutter.

Why would Paladin be the halfway point between skills and magic?

Though I would reiterate TigerT20s concern with such a system.

Being good at fighting often is shorthand for being good at hitting things and taking hits and literally nothing else.
Being good at skills is most of the ways things are handled out of combat, but are also almost always tied with additional abilities that make them do something in combat often damage, which makes the good at fighting guy only actually better than people at taking hits.
Being good at magic means they can do whatever the often extensive list of magical spells allow them to do. Many of which allows them to be excellent in combat or get around issues that would otherwise be handled with skills.

Honestly, I would gladly abandon the notion that these three categories are in any way equal to each other. And break down each class (or class/subclass combination) based on two categories: 1) Purpose in combat. 2) Purpose out of combat. And make certain the categories are roughly distinct and equal.

[Xervous]

Would it be better to look at power sources than class concepts first? Fighter and co. lapse into irrelevance because of their narrow power source while other class concepts aren’t inherently limited.

[KorvinStarmast]

Why would Paladin be the halfway point between skills and magic?

Yeah, I see your point; would not the bard then be a half caster, not a full caster?

[Arkhios]

Yeah, I see your point; would not the bard then be a half caster, not a full caster?

Imho, bard should've been half caster, and looking back at 3.5, Paladin would've made more sense as a 1/3-caster.

[Morty]

I will admit that I often imagine an all-gish D&D (Or would it still be D&D?) where every adventurer chooses a martial class, a magic class and a profession, like an archer/elementalist/tracker or a shielder/vitalist/apothecary.

I think it'd be an entirely valid thing to say that adventurers such as D&D portrays them need to be proficient in all these fields. But in practice it would limit available characters a fair bit. And once again the fact remains that magic can apply to every aspect of the game in some way. Which, granted, is probably something that could stand to be cut down on severely.

[Bosh]

IMO the Bard is to spellcasters what the Rogue is to martial.
Both are "what if we took the fighter/wizard and give them more skills and RP-related abilities".
In the same way that you can "emulate" a bard through the other spellcasting classes by making a Bard-like spell selection, you can "emulate" the Rogue by making a Dex-based Fighter.

If anything, the Bard stand out to me much more than the Sorcerer does, and if I had to choose, I'd consider Sorcerer to be the one slowly running out of the inertia it has from tradition.



In other words, you're suggesting to only keep one class per ability score (ignoring constitution), and to reinforce how different ability score for spellcaster mean different ways of doing magic (Int -> Vancian, etc).

Yes, one class for each ability score except for con. Actually that came about by accident and I noticed it after I posted and thought it was a good thing to keep.

Have subclasses be powerful enough that they feel important and not a tacked on bit on the side. Also a lot of MADness would be added via the various sub-classes with different ones keying off various ability scores aside from the main ones of each class.

But what I do care about more than the exact class line up is having the different kinds of casting be less samey. I understand why people didn't like having EVERYONE be pure Vancian in TSR D&D but having EVERYONE except warlocks be a somewhat tweaked version of how 3.5ed sorcerers cast is just as aggravating. Pure Vancian is a really important part of a D&D wizard for me and it'd make me very happy if just one class was good old fashioned Vancian in 6e.

[Amechra]

I think it'd be an entirely valid thing to say that adventurers such as D&D portrays them need to be proficient in all these fields. But in practice it would limit available characters a fair bit. And once again the fact remains that magic can apply to every aspect of the game in some way. Which, granted, is probably something that could stand to be cut down on severely.

I mean, limiting the range of viable characters is the point of class-based systems.

Also, since you keep bringing up your disappointment with the fight/skill/spell triad, what would you build the classes around?

---

Personally, I kinda like the idea of having "mundane" classes:

- Soldier
- Sneak
- Speaker
- Scholar

Those four classes would give you a pretty solid base for a game that keeps the "three pillars" design (Soldier is going to be good at fighting, Sneak and Scholar are going to be good at different aspects of exploration, and Speaker and Scholar are going to be good at different aspects of social, though each class will dip its toes into the rest of the game). And then you'd have shared subclasses for stuff like "you live in the woods and like nature" or "you bother the gods enough that they give you stuff", which would give you spellcasting or maneuvers or whatever.

[carnomancy]

Definitively want a Psion in the 6th ed PHB. It'll head off the problems 5th ed play tests had with the home brewers and anti-psionic people trying to influence the direction WoTC would work the class.

The Psion should have at least 5 subclass options covering the first 5 disciplines that appeared in 2nd edition (Telepathy, Psychometabolism, Psychokinsis, Clairsentience and Psychoportation). 3e's Metacreativity would be a welcome addition provided it makes the astral construct it's focal point. Ardent could also be worked into a new discipline. Plenty of room to expand. Psionics in core would also allow for subclass options for other character classes.

Artificers another good core class. We've got all these magic items sitting around in the world. Golems guard tombs and treasure. Magical traps are everywhere. Who makes them. Just saying the Wizard does all of it gives them too much power like they had in 3e. Artificer feels like it should be there.

If we need space to put new options in, then the Sorcerer can be placed on the chopping block. In 3e they were just wizards without spell books and more spells per day. Used the same spell list and everything. I also feel that they weaken the flavor of arcane casting by making it a possible inborn trait. I feel they struggled trying to provide subclass options for the sorcerer too, where the other casting classes seemed to expand more naturally. They also were part of the charisma caster glut and were like the 4th arcane caster in the 5e PHB.

In short; Bring in Psionics and Artificers and dump the sorcerer if need be.

[KorvinStarmast]

Artificers another good core class.

It's a sub class of wizard, all that's needful is to build it the same way that transmuter was built, or, maybe overhaul transmuter to improve its 'artificer' potential (which means a rescrub of the crafting rules in general)

[Dragonsonthemap]

If I were to just pick one class on the basis of what I, personally, would like to be able to play, it'd be the non-armored-divine-caster that was mentioned here earlier. That's the single, D&D-functional archetype I'd like to play the most, and it takes work to finagle as things currently stand (currently building a Divine Soul/Celestial Patron Sorlock to kinda get there).

If it was based on what I think would serve the wider interests of the player base, it'd either be a Witcher-esque class or warlord in 5.5 (personally I'd prefer warlord, but I was one of 4e's five or six fans), but probably a psion in 6e, because I think that at this point psionics needs to be in there from the get-go to avoid becoming a problem yet again, and that if you initially try to just avoid doing psionics in D&D while keeping settings that have historically had it alive, you will still wind up with psionics that is a problem.

[Morty]

I mean, limiting the range of viable characters is the point of class-based systems.

And this would limit them more than even D&D's existing list does, which is already considerable.

Also, since you keep bringing up your disappointment with the fight/skill/spell triad, what would you build the classes around?

Do they need to be based around anything in particular? I prefer to approach it from the perspective of having up to twelve slots to fill and then thinking about which concepts deserve to occupy one of them and which can be handled using subclasses or something else? How can we use them to cover all the things we think the system needs covering? I might not be the right person to ask, because I generally don't like D&D classes, for the exact reason that they're more trouble than they're worth. Any attempt at mechanical "classes" I'd make would need to begin from seriously loosening how much a class defines and restricts your character. But I do have a theoretical model:

- "Soldier", styled after the 4E fighter but without being inept when it comes to anything that's not breaking things.
- "Vanguard", for more aggressive and mobile warrior-types. Barbarians, monks, or just people who pick up a sharp implement or ranged weapon and prefer to be quick.
- "Tactician", for warrior-types who use tactics, the environment and their allies. Could I fit both rangers and warlords in this one? Hard to say unless I put it to work.
- "Rogue", that is to say the D&D rogue without the baggage of being the "skill" class. A canny opportunist class for thieves, burglars, assassins, etc. Not sure if such a class can exist without pigeon-holing it into being stealthy or making other classes feel like they can't sneak around properly.
- "Investigator", for brainy adventurers who rely on information and analysis. Could also be a generic grab-bag for Indiana Jones types. Might be redundant with some others.
- "Loremaster", for bards and scholars who don't cast spells as such. Mostly because I think that the idea of a character whose knowledge, music or rituals invoke magic without spells is a worthwhile one, but D&D bards as they exist are too narrow.
- "Sage", for people who acquire magic through study, regardless of its source.
- "Conduit", for people who get it from an external source - be they warlocks or priests.
- "Savant", for naturally-talented spellcasters, likewise.
- "Wilder", for beastmasters, shapeshifters and the more supernatural kinds of barbarian.
- "Paladin", doesn't really need explaining.

I've got one slot left, if I do stick to 12. Not sure how I'd fill it, if at all. As you've no doubt noticed, there is a distinct warrior/skill/magic theme nonetheless. But there are also classes that don't fit it and I don't think these are wrong as emergent categories - they're just bad places to start with and sure as heck don't work if we make them the only classes.

[Telwar]

Heh. And this is why they keep going back to the same classes... nobody can agree on what they want.

[Dragonsonthemap]

Heh. And this is why they keep going back to the same classes... nobody can agree on what they want.

On the one hand, you're not entirely wrong, but on the other hand, going through this you can find some pretty strong trends (such as warlord and psion) that there's clearly a lot of demand for.

[Dienekes]

I'd be interested in trying to divide classes into roles both in and out of combat.

So, for example.

Meathead: In combat they are Tanks and Damage. Through the subclasses you can choose to be like a Knight giving you Face abilities. Or Ruffian giving you Stealth abilities.
Pompous Mage: In combat focus on Damage and Control. The Illusionist gives Stealth. The Archivist gives Researcher.
Holier Than Thou: In combat they Support and Control. The Priest subclass makes them the Face. While the Monastic would make them Researchers.
Deranged Survivalist: In combat they Damage and Support. Scout subclass could make them the Stealth. Witcher Knock Off could get them Researcher

And you wouldn't even need to divide it strictly by 2 combat 1 non-combat. Take the
Untrustworthy Backstabber: All of them do Stealth, and in combat they do Damage. But from their subclasses they can choose to be Thugs to make them tanks, Tricksters to make them Control, or whatever else.

Mix and match a bit to whatever ends up working to make the classes feel fully developed. So long as the result ends with the players all getting roughly equal limelight and effectiveness in and out of combat throughout the gameplay.

[Luccan]

On the one hand, you're not entirely wrong, but on the other hand, going through this you can find some pretty strong trends (such as warlord and psion) that there's clearly a lot of demand for.

I didn't play 4e, but it seems Warlord was the best received class for the edition (I'm actually not sure if there were other new classes or not...) so it really is surprising they have done literally nothing to bring it back for 5e. I'd argue Battlemaster maneuvers and Banneret only kind of count, since it seems they don't hit on a lot of the class fantasy.

[PhoenixPhyre]

However, if we are talking 6.0, we are looking at an entirely new system, and if I had my way, things would be very different than they are now. Specifically, spellcasting classes would be totally torn apart. I think one of the biggest things I would love to change would be to have most casters be more specialized and not have the "do everything" generalist. And simply by forcing the spellcasters to be more specialized, I think it allows the classic non-magical classes to feel more equal without needing to add any new ones. So really, I guess my "new" class for 6.0 would be something like an Enchanter or Beguiler or Necromancer or whatever specialist caster you want. But it would be new because Wizard (and possibly Sorcerer) would be gone, and the new classes draw from its remnants.

I agree with this. Either break apart the "generalist" caster classes entirely or enforce thematics in spell choice.

I'd possibly solve it by shattering the "class spell list" concept. Instead, themes might have spell lists, and classes allow access to particular themes. So you might (as a cleric) have the theme "Holy Warrior" and "Purifier", granting you access to martial-enhancing and sunlight/purification-themed spells. A different cleric might have "Healer" and "Gardener", granting them the specialized healing/restoration spells and spells involving plants. Or a wizard might have "Pyromancer" and "Summoner", granting them fire and summoning spells. No flight, no opening locks, etc. While another wizard might have "Necromancer" and "Witch", giving them undead-control and spooky curses. And these would be from across the current spell lists. But wizards couldn't choose "Healer" or "Holy Warrior" and clerics of undead-hating gods can't take "Necromancer".

You're a cleric of the undead-hating sun god? Your spell choices should reflect that (at a minimum). Why is your god granting you animate dead? Why do all wizards basically have the same spell loadouts? "I'm a pyromancer sorcerer, which is why I have...checks...2 fire spells. The rest are all the meta spells like haste, hold person, etc."

[samcifer]

I'd like to see a proper Swordmage class as well as the Shaman class and maybe the Avenger class.