Which classes do you want to see in D&D Next?

Well well, I bet topics like that flood the boards, but it's a good time to ask for what we want and imagine what could happen. 
After 4E, may interesting classes and approaches to old ones appeared, some where good, others fun, others... simply bad.

With NEXT knocking on our wallets, minds and agendas this year, many of us have been dabbling into the classes the Playtests presents; this time, showing us the new, but ol? and reliable Barb. However, my experience in other games like Paizo's Pathfinder, has made me "addicted" to new classses. Some might say I should stick with another system, but just the tought of NEXT having some of said options with it's ruleset makes me tremble in excitement.

Some classes I would like to see are:

*SEEKER: This time, done well. the idea of a primal archer who controls spirits on its arrows is cool.
*SUMMONER; No, not a wizard with summoning school; a summoner like in Paizo's. A class which focus in the summon you create itself, having the character just as a support and a medium of your very own custom monster.
*ARTIFICER: I want this class... BADLY; not the 4e leaderich one, the old school one that could transform your whimpy blade into the most lethal weapon. 
Another vote on both Artificer (I actually enjoyed the leaderish one quite fondly BTW) and Pathfinder's Summoner.

But before those, I want the Warlord, but only if they're not watered (as certain other classes are) for any reason. If that can't work, give me a class that's functionally ToB's Warblade and justify it by giving 4E's Battlemind's psionic origin (and a couple of the latter's powers would be appreciated).

That, and adding any (or all) of the following classes would make me a loyal fanatic to 5E no matter what:

- a Shapechanger, specifically one that's not limited to animal forms nor loaded with other types of magic or features. Only shapechanging and as much as that could encompass.

- A Monster Catcher. Similar to the summoner, but instead of creating their own monsters, they capture existing ones to do their bidding. Assimilating monsters and then creating Astral or Phantom copies of them could also work.

- a Horde. In short, when a player chooses this class, they play as an entire group of weak characters instead of just one. Practically minions in player form.

I think all the PHB1 classes need to make their way in at some point. This would be the full list: bard, ranger, paladin, druid, sorcerer, warlock, warlord (hopefully renamed but also potentially mixed with cavalier/knight), assassin (possibly mixed with something like the ninja), psion, and artificer.

As for what next, I'd like to see some of the harder classes first. It's easier to make a paladin, artificer, ranger, and warlock and have them hit the mark. But finding the right tone for the sorcerer, bard, warlord, and druid might be harder. The last thing WotC should do is put off doing these classes because there might not be enough time to tweak and fix them before release. 
Bards don't get much love so making them fun and balanced yet still bards for those bard fans is a big job. They have some odd history in the game and the real world (ditto druids) so they might take some finessing to get right.
Druids are also tricky because they historically do so much. We have animal companions and spells and shapechanging. Losing any one element and the druid feels incomplete. 
And we've already seen how the sorcerer can fail. It walks the unenviable position of being the wizard with slightly different spellcasting. But in a game where you can drop in different spellcasting systems, the sorcerer loses much of its thunder. And 4e didn't do much to help it stand out either, just casting it in the role of blaster wizard. 
And the warlord has some really ardent fans, and failure to have it make an apperance or feel like a warlord will really alienate 4e fans.  

From there, once all those are set, they can work on new classes. The ones without baggage. 
Liberal use of multiclassing roles and diverse builds can handle most class ideas. Avengers/Inquisitors are really paladins mixed with rogues, alchemists are artificers focusing on potions, cavaliers are a mounted warlord build, witches are totally a warlock or wizard character mix, etc.  So it's harder to think of pure classes that cannot be easily managed through archetypes/builds. 
I'd like to see better a solid fighter/wizard class, taking the best parts of the half-dozen prior attempts. The gish is such a big character archetype and something hard to do at level 1 without missing half the point of the character, so it's acceptable as a class. Keeping the name "swordmage" would work I guess. But being able to branch out into different weapons (daggers, arrows for an arcane archer build, a quarterstaff, etc) would be nice. So dumping "sword" or "blade" from the name might be a good idea.
Likewise, a fighter/psion equivalent would also be nice. The battlemind was terrible and would not mesh with the design intent of 5e.

I agree that an arcane pet class ala Paizo's summoner would be nice. But this could be folded into the warlock (like Warcraft's warlocks). 

5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

The compilation of my Worldbuilding blog series is now available: 

Jester David's How-To Guide to Fantasy Worldbuilding.

As core I would like to see;

Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Rogue, Sorcerer, Wizard , Warlock 

Down the line I would love to see;

Blackguard, Psion, Shaman, Warlord 
As core I would like to see;
Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Rogue, Sorcerer, Wizard , Warlock
Down the line I would love to see;
Blackguard, Psion, Shaman, Warlord 


I'm pretty sure that they've said that any class that's ever been in a core PHB would be in the D&D Next PHB, meaning that Warlord is going to be in there too.

After that, I am definitely interested in seeing what they do with the Psion. They have a good chance not to mess them up yet again, and I'd like to see them follow through this time.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
Beyond the "standard" classes, I'd like to see:



  • Psions (and psionics in general).  I just have a huge soft spot for it, and probably won't pick up the game until its available (because it'll be required to convert our current campaign over).

  • Artificers, but more like the 3e ones (sorry 4e artificer, I'm just really not a fan).  The Artificer is just such a great fit, and such a great concept.  I can't imagine playing D&D without it.

  • Warlords.  It's such a strong concept, I again can't imagine playing D&D without it.  (I'm one of the [seemingly few] people who wouldn't mind it blending with the Fighter somehow, if it were done incredibly well.)


Honorable mention should go to the Shaman, which I really like, but which I can't really imagine standing on its own as a class (when it could easily be rolled into a Druid option, or even Cleric or something).



I also am a huge fan of the soulknife, but I really don't care if it shows up as a full class or not, so long as the concept is playable from level 1.  If Themes Specialties were more like they were at the start, I would expect it there maybe.  It didn't show up as a class in 4e, and that was sad, but I homebrewed it out of 4e's (incredibly awesome and versatile) Monk class easily enough, and wouldn't mind seeing it handled like that in an official capacity this time around.

Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
Assassin, Avenger (can be one class if necessary) and something like the swordmage or hexblade, etc. A gish that uses weapon attacks and magic cohesively, not one and then the other.


If people are seriously going to crap themselves over a martail assassin as it's own class for whatever unfathomable reason, at least give me a damned shadow assassin class. And the avenger is too much to fit in a theme. Especially with how they're doing them now. It could be part of a class, but not a specialty. It needs to make attacks which are guided by faith, it needs to be a ferocious killer, and it needs to be tough and relentless. Basically, it needs to be the barbarian to the assassin's fighter.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
Warlord-- Master of tactics, teamwork, and inspiration.

Battlemind-- I would like my character able to  turn to Iron in next, please. Also, supernatural            mobility on a heavily armored class is fun.

Dragon Sorcerer-- Loved this in the previous playtest. Hoping they bring back this fire spitting, magic knowing, melee beast... under whatever name.

(Warden)Barbarian-- I'm waiting to see how this is developed.

And honorable mention to a Monk that chooses it's Maneuvers, Ki Abilities, mode of effective supernatural movement (I'd rather one that fly-jumps at-will than teleports), and miscellaneuos weirdness (things like turning insubstantial/phasing and speaking to plants should be strictly optional).
Honorable mention should go to the Shaman, which I really like, but which I can't really imagine standing on its own as a class (when it could easily be rolled into a Druid option, or even Cleric or something).

I would hate to see the Shaman rolled into these classes. These are classes that are already overloaded enough as it is. I mean, the Druid is the premier nature mage, the premier shape-shifting class, and the premier pet class. That's already enough material for at least two or three different classes, so, if anything, I'd actually like to see the Shaman steal some of the Druid's old toys.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!

- A Monster Catcher. Similar to the summoner, but instead of creating their own monsters, they capture existing ones to do their bidding. Assimilating monsters and then creating Astral or Phantom copies of them could also work.

 



Cool. We really need a Pokemon Trainer class. "Tarrasque I Choose You!!!". Just awesome.  

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/23.jpg)

Assassin, Avenger (can be one class if necessary) and something like the swordmage or hexblade, etc. A gish that uses weapon attacks and magic cohesively, not one and then the other.


If people are seriously going to crap themselves over a martail assassin as it's own class for whatever unfathomable reason, at least give me a damned shadow assassin class. And the avenger is too much to fit in a theme. Especially with how they're doing them now. It could be part of a class, but not a specialty. It needs to make attacks which are guided by faith, it needs to be a ferocious killer, and it needs to be tough and relentless. Basically, it needs to be the barbarian to the assassin's fighter.



Avenger and shadow assassin are high on my list.
Regarding the gish I'd like to see something like the Tome of Battle's Swordsage with a mixture of martial and supernatural maneuvers.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/23.jpg)

Assassin, Avenger (can be one class if necessary) and something like the swordmage or hexblade, etc. A gish that uses weapon attacks and magic cohesively, not one and then the other.


If people are seriously going to crap themselves over a martail assassin as it's own class for whatever unfathomable reason, at least give me a damned shadow assassin class. And the avenger is too much to fit in a theme. Especially with how they're doing them now. It could be part of a class, but not a specialty. It needs to make attacks which are guided by faith, it needs to be a ferocious killer, and it needs to be tough and relentless. Basically, it needs to be the barbarian to the assassin's fighter.



I'd agree with the Gish class - but include the Shadow Assassin (Dex/Cha) within it - as well as a few other builds (Arcane (Int), Infernal (Con), Draconic (Str), Fey (Cha), Elemental (Int/Wis) etc etc etc). You could even have these builds use different abilities - as mentioned with the suggestions.

Otherwise, the other classes I would like to see are the Arteficer and the Gunslinger, mainly because I am leading into a high technology world that I want to use 5e to run.
Armamancer (gish class)
Assassin
Barbarian
Bard 
Cleric
Druid
Fighter
Paladin
Priest
Ranger
Sorcerer
Warlock
Warlord
Wizard 
Commoner
Noble
Expert
Beholder Mage
Pirate King
Gladiator
Elf (as a class)
I'd like to see every class ever printed in a D&D book to be represented, and other races be given classes for default adventurers of that race.  There is no reason to exclude any class.  If DDN is going to be "big tent" D&D, it needs to include as many classes as physically possible.  Otherwise, it is just paying lip service to the goal of reunification through diversity snd gsme design as stated back in April of 2012.
We are way overdue for a true, core necromancer (like, halfway between a mage and a cleric)
Try radiance RPG. A complete D20 game that supports fantasy and steampunk. Download the FREE PDF here: http://www.radiancerpg.com
I would like to see the most classic classes in the PHB, and other relatively new ones and non-core in a suplement.

Fighters
Paladins
rangers
rogues
bards
cleric
druid
wizard
monk
barbarian
sorcerer


and in a suplement

Warlord
warlock
Psion
psichic warrior
Wilder
artificer
scout
Necromancer
Gish
Knight
Beguiler
Alchemist
Shaman 
Try radiance RPG. A complete D20 game that supports fantasy and steampunk. Download the FREE PDF here: http://www.radiancerpg.com
I see many people here like the Artificer and Shaman classes.

For the Artificer... I deffinitely want to see the arcane tinkerer it used to be. I've never played 3.5, but I know of people that have played artificers and say wonders about them.

About the Shaman... maybe they could turn him into a  more summoner-like (yeah yeah I know I'm obsessed with the class). The shaman concept was cool, and for those people who wanted a "pte using class", it was the closes thing... tough it lacked "pet" customization, and the spirit, more than a fierce companion that helped the casster ravage the battlefield, was just a floating damaging node without any kind of personality, only added by those at-will powers...
Not sure if this has been said, but I'd like to see a build for the Druid that's focused on swarms. One of my friends really like the idea of vomiting bees, and, on a more serious note, how awesome would it be to be able to turn into a giant pile of ants and literally drown a hill giant, or something?
Also, when I say Druid, I have these in mind for the focus of Shaman, Druid, and Ranger:

Shaman - focus on nature spirits and channeling them for nature-based magic - mostly ranged attacks (Weather, spirit-based, etc) 

Druid - focus on controlling, becoming, and working with nature - AoE physical attacks (vines bursting from from the ground, swarms of insects,, etc) turning into an animal (or swarm of natural insects).

Ranger - Classic focus on either bow or dual-wielding, small amount of nature-based magic as one build, animal companion as another.
Shamans are pretty cool, but I'd personally open their domain to include all types of spirits; natural, elemental, living, and dead.

In the playtest?

Before anything else?

The Warlord.

Then the Ranger and Paladin.

The former because I want to see it done justice, which will take time and the latter two because we again need to work on making them distinct from multiclass characters.

But in Next at release?

Every class from every PHB 1.             
Honorable mention should go to the Shaman, which I really like, but which I can't really imagine standing on its own as a class (when it could easily be rolled into a Druid option, or even Cleric or something).

I would hate to see the Shaman rolled into these classes. These are classes that are already overloaded enough as it is. I mean, the Druid is the premier nature mage, the premier shape-shifting class, and the premier pet class. That's already enough material for at least two or three different classes, so, if anything, I'd actually like to see the Shaman steal some of the Druid's old toys.



This. Shaman can definately stand on it's own.



Avenger and shadow assassin are high on my list.
Regarding the gish I'd like to see something like the Tome of Battle's Swordsage with a mixture of martial and supernatural maneuvers.



I wonder if that and my prefered spell blade need be two classes, or if there could be some "spell" maneuvers, some martial, and some mixed, so you can just dial it either way when building/leveling the character.



I'd agree with the Gish class - but include the Shadow Assassin (Dex/Cha) within it - as well as a few other builds (Arcane (Int), Infernal (Con), Draconic (Str), Fey (Cha), Elemental (Int/Wis) etc etc etc). You could even have these builds use different abilities - as mentioned with the suggestions.

Otherwise, the other classes I would like to see are the Arteficer and the Gunslinger, mainly because I am leading into a high technology world that I want to use 5e to run.



Agreed on Artificer and Gunslinger. Disagree strongly on the rest. To me, that's too much that's too different for one class. And the shadow assassin just doesn't seem like it fits in with the rest at all. "It uses a type of magic and weapons" isn't a good enough reason to put it in the same class, IMO.


In fact, an "assassin" that's just a part of a gish class is something I've no interest in.

I see many people here like the Artificer and Shaman classes.

About the Shaman... maybe they could turn him into a  more summoner-like (yeah yeah I know I'm obsessed with the class). The shaman concept was cool, and for those people who wanted a "pte using class", it was the closes thing... tough it lacked "pet" customization, and the spirit, more than a fierce companion that helped the casster ravage the battlefield, was just a floating damaging node without any kind of personality, only added by those at-will powers...



The spirit companion basically is the 4e Shaman class. The class is all about the pet.



Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome

I'm pretty sure that they've said that any class that's ever been in a core PHB would be in the D&D Next PHB, meaning that Warlord is going to be in there too.

After that, I am definitely interested in seeing what they do with the Psion. They have a good chance not to mess them up yet again, and I'd like to see them follow through this time.




They said that a long time ago, I think it has changed, Assassin has been folded into Rogue (its a Scheme), and I doubt we will see Illusionist as a separate class.

As for the Psion, that has never been a class in a PHB 1, though I would love for it be in the PHB, right from the start, not tacked on. 

But, unfortunately, last thing I heard from the designers was "...the psion is currently crying in the corner...". 
My pick for PHB would be Barbarian, Cleric, Paladin, Blackguard, Fighter, Monk, Rogue, Bard, Druid, Ranger, Wizard, Sorcerer and Warlock.

Further on I'd hope for a whole book on Psionics definitely including the Soulknife and Psychic Warrior. Also, Artificer must be included at some point, especially if Eberron will be involved. Many great classes in 3.5's Complete Warrior such as the Hexblade should be included.

Assassin can be a base class again, why not?
Assassin, Barbarian, Cleric, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Warlock, Warlord, Sorcerer

Big Model: Creative Agenda
Reality Refracted: Social Contracts

My blog of Random Stuff 

Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl

"It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the publick to be the most anxious for its welfare." - Edmund Burke

Back to Product and General D&D Discussions -- because the mobile site is bad.

Battlemind
My favorite character in 4e was a battlemind. Being a supernatually tough, heavy armored badass that floats around the battlefield with unnatual speed, knocking everything back with telekinetic force was the most fun i've had with a melee class in any edition.

Totemist
My favorite melee character in 3.5 was a totemist. This class would be able to pick different parts of a selection of monsters/beast to draw energy from and become a sort of "human totem pole" amalgam of various monster abilities. There is easily enough design space here to make something so potentially complex that it can stand apart from the skinwalker barbarian or druid.

Artificer
The 3.5 artificer was broken to bits (cast any spell off of any class and one-shot anything while ignoring SR, yes please!) but its versatility and flavor was awesome. The 4e was less fun, IMO, since it seemed forced into AEDU format.

Shaman
I imagine the shaman working like the 4e version steroids. THe wizard's weapons are various spells, the fighters are various weapons and the shaman's a powerful spirits that he can summon at will. Its a sort of "pet" class, but the pets are variable and more powerful. Sort of a summoner with more direct control of the summons instead of sitting back.
Another vote on both Artificer (I actually enjoyed the leaderish one quite fondly BTW) and Pathfinder's Summoner.

But before those, I want the Warlord, but only if they're not watered (as certain other classes are) for any reason. If that can't work, give me a class that's functionally ToB's Warblade and justify it by giving 4E's Battlemind's psionic origin (and a couple of the latter's powers would be appreciated).

That, and adding any (or all) of the following classes would make me a loyal fanatic to 5E no matter what:

- a Shapechanger, specifically one that's not limited to animal forms nor loaded with other types of magic or features. Only shapechanging and as much as that could encompass.

- A Monster Catcher. Similar to the summoner, but instead of creating their own monsters, they capture existing ones to do their bidding. Assimilating monsters and then creating Astral or Phantom copies of them could also work.

- a Horde. In short, when a player chooses this class, they play as an entire group of weak characters instead of just one. Practically minions in player form.


My friend is creating a druid re-write for PF in which you will be able to enhance your animal form by spending points from a pool so you make your beast magical from it if you choose. Personally, this makes me want to play it as I've always found the standard druid to be difficult since you have to search the beastiary or whatever for whatever animal/beast you want to be....
IMAGE(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/RockNrollBabe20/Charmed-supernatural-and-charmed_zps8bd4125f.jpg)
I'm sad to see no love for my favorite 4e class, the Invoker.  I understand it is probably too close to the cleric to make an appearance for D&Dnext.  But I would like to see a cleric build option that ignores healing for hindering effects.


I would also like to see the seeker reimagined.  I think one reason they didn't work in 4e is that the game designers worried that they would be too powerful. If they had an area of effect at-will, they would do up to 1d12+Wis. to each target while a wizard does 1d6+Int. I would redesign the seeker to use 'spirit' weapons which would do lower damage but have cool effects attached.

If I were desiging D&Dnext,  I would build advanced classes off of a few base classes.  For example, you can play a cleric that eschews spells for maneuvers and constant advantage against enemies (making an Avenger).  You could play a fighter which gets special healing and buff powers to create a warlord.   
Honestly? All of of them.

As long as they don't overlap to much in abilities like they did in 3.5

But the more classes the better... I just don't want the classes dispersed throughout 15 different books like they did in 3.5
Well, PHB1 for 4th launched with eight classes.  We know that we will have Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric, Monk, and Barbarian.  That's six.  We saw the Sorceror and Warlock before, so I think it's fair to assume we'll get at least one of those.  Paladin is pretty core to the game for lots of people I play with, and the Warlord seems to be a well-loved addition.  That brings us to, at a minimum, nine classes without any new concepts.

I've got to imagine they'd like to move forward on at least one completely new idea, and we know that there is a concept that was previously used in a prior playtest and will likely be recycled as a new class.  I feel like I've read somewhere it could end up as a summoner-type class but can't substantiate it.  That's ten. 

I make that: Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric, Monk, Barbarian, Warlock, Warlord, Paladin, (Summoner).  There were eight classes in PHB for 4th, and eleven in 3rd.  That leaves us, perhaps, with one remaining slot with many candidates.  Ranger?  Bard?  Sorceror?  Druid?  Psion?  Assassin?  I think I'd prefer the final slot to be filled by a Bard or Psion, as the rule-set has little carryover from any other class.  A druid is kind of like a Cleric, a Ranger is kind of like a fighter who uses bows, a Sorceror is kind of like a Wizard, and an Assassin is kind of like a rogue, or a rogue/wizard.  I bet we'll see them sooner or later, but perhaps not in the first book.

I think the more interesting question, though, is are we goin to see any completely NEW class?  As I understand it, Warlock and Warlord were basically new in 4th Edition.  What are we going to see that's brand new?
I want to see a sorceror, warlock, witch, ranger, and druid. I really want to see something like PF's magus. That class is so much fun and perfect for someone who wants a wizard that also attacks with a weapon! 
IMAGE(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/RockNrollBabe20/Charmed-supernatural-and-charmed_zps8bd4125f.jpg)
Hmm...

Artificer, Assassin, Bard, Druid, Paladin, Psion, Ranger, Sorcerer, Swordmage, Warlock, Warlord (renamed "Marshal"). That's the main cast I'd like to see return.

There's some oddballs that I wanna see given another go.
Archivist - The divine scholar is a seldom-tapped archetype in D&D, and this class did a good job at presenting it without stepping on the wizard's toes.
Dread Necromancer - Because a class about the darkest aspects of necromancy and the ultimate culmination in becoming a Lich is awesome.

Otherwise, it's not classes that I seek from the next edition, it's adaptations of past ideas into a better form (which will likely include classes). Truenaming, for instance, is a kind of magic I'd like to see in D&D Next (and I expect to, given we're seeing truename text in the playtest as it is). Incarnum from 3.5 was quite interesting as a blend of Buddhism and druidic culture -- adding in a touch of 4e's Primal power source could be interesting. Runepriests from 4e also had an interesting concept that I think could be connected to divine magic as well as truenaming in a unique way, so I'd like to see that join the fold of D&D Next in the future. Plus there's the Tome of Battle stuff, and featuring that kind of magical martial ability seems really fun too.
I don't use emoticons, and I'm also pretty pleasant. So if I say something that's rude or insulting, it's probably a joke.
No Warlord, no purchase.
CORE MORE, NOT CORE BORE!
Obviously excluding the current classes I'd love to see:

- Engineer/Gadgeteer/Mechanic (something like that)
- Gish Type Class (Eldritch Knight, Bladesinger, etc.)
- A Bard class that doesnt suck
- A Pet type class (summoner,etc.)
Basic - Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue

Standard -
Monk and Ranger should be subclasses of Fighter
Sorcerer and Warlock should be subclasses of Wizard
Assassin and Bard should be subclasses of Rogue
Druid and Paladin should be subclasses of Cleric
Multiclass options presented

Advanced -
Here is where all hell should break loose.  Players should be able to have substantial freedom in designing every possible class that they can imagine.  Every past class from any edition should be capable of being designed.
one of the benefits of the old magic school and priest sphere system was if you wanted to play a shaman or other sub type of magic user or priest you could just pick a specialist priest or mage and make one without the need for a new class. now i also understand that lack of spells in those schools made them not all as good as others so i think if you used 2nd edtition specilization rules with an expanded spell list that would make alot of the fluff classes unnessary and still allow them to be created
No Warlord, no purchase.



Well put.
Everything I need to run Planescape, Ravenloft, Eberron, and Dark Sun.
 
No Warlord, no purchase.



Well put.


Yeah, for as much as people claim it would be easy to build into the Fighter, I sure haven't seen anything worthwhile from WotC on that.  Warlord is infinitely more differentiated from the Fighter than the Sorcerer is from the Wizard, both in concept and in mechanics, yet we already saw the Sorcerer.  And if they are going to snub it purely because it is an artifact of 4E, again, no purchase.
CORE MORE, NOT CORE BORE!
Can I vote for "none"?

I want to be able to build a character as I see fit, not have to choose from someone else's idea of what I should be playing. It's just a step above playing pregens.

Classes are an outdated, moribund idea that should have ended with the 70s.
The core classes and the races are onelis o Tef my favorite partsT of D&D. My list is long.

The classic ones and..

samurai, furtive/ninja, (Dark Sun) gladiator, (Dragonlance) knight, assasin, nahual (tomemist fighter fighter, the remake of warden), venator (=hunter, the seeker), (psionic) ardent, sha´ir (summoner),  (Red Steel & Spelljammer) Swashbuckler, inquisitor/avenger/witch hunter, bustuarius (tomb fighter, like death´s chosen or blackguard), paegniarius (like battle dancer, a joker swordman), necromancer and elementalist like core classes, kathithi (witch doctor, like shaman and druid).

The idea of monster trainer is interesting but it would need a exclusive module about monsters like allies. If its gameplay design were good, it could be really popular, because the subgenre of magic pets (pokemon, digimon, bakugan, huntik, defenders of di-Gata, medabots, ..) is being very popular now.  

"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)

 

Book 13 Anaclet 23 Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"

 

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius 

Sign In to post comments