Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Orzel Oct 06, 2014 4:02:31	With the greater seperation of skills and classes because of backgrounds, the doubling down of underhandedness and agility on the rogue class, the heightening of the bard's magic, and the emphasis on the short and long rest system....   ...is 5th edition in a good position to add one or two new rogue-like class for future books?   It seems to be great for adding new classes with aren't masters of weapons or magic but not saddled with evasion/thieve's cant/uncany dodge/elusive of the rogue?   An aristocrat class for more political games with either duelist skill or a bodyguard henchman. A Tinker or engineer for settings with stronger nonmagical science aspects someplace in it. A full shapeshifter class that can thranform individual body parts. An expert class who is a bit tougher that the rogue and relys or creating advantages rather than just exploiting them.   Personally I think 5th edition is in the perfect position after the "required books" are released to add a lot to the game because of the way it is set up. The lower tone of magic and the lower need of piles of powers would allow more class ideas without the burden of the system requirements.
#2 mellored Oct 06, 2014 6:08:24	-1 for aristocrat.  They really don't have any fun powers or abilities.  Beyond expertise in dimplomacy.  Unless your picking up the warlord features.  The +1.   +1 for an engineer class who can make a war golems.  With iron man (you can wear your war golem), nano-bots (swarm golems), and enchanter (1/3 caster) sub-classes.   +1 for partial shape shifter.  I think there was a class that did that already, being able to equip monster powers.   As for expert, that doesn't seem any different from a fighter to me.
#3 Hebitsuikaza Oct 06, 2014 6:15:49	I really think the only way an Aristocrat class would be fun is if it is also the Tactician class and picks up the pieces of the Warlord-- maybe even does it better.   Expert... so... a thief that can't fight well. I don't know. All classes sort of get roughly the same amount of skills, so I think that idea would be right out.   I am sure there will be a tinker/engineer class eventually. Maybe the abilities of the Rock Gnome are hints towards how it might function.
#4 Orzel Oct 06, 2014 6:20:05	I would personally do an expert class with an aristocrat subclass. Instead of Reliable Talent, they can call a roll X/short rest. Like a lesser Ace in the Hole. "You can spend a (insert resource) to make your roll a 15."
(Reply to #3) Orzel	Hebitsuikaza wrote:
#6 Gnarl Oct 06, 2014 7:19:02	I don't think the game should include 100% non-combat classes. Half the rules are about killing stuff after all. But classes that are intentionally less combat focused could be fun. I think they did the best they could in the PHB because you have a significant portion of the D&D crowd that doesn't like cross-pillar balance. We've had a few rogues and rangers are underpowered threads because of this. But pushing it one step further in splat books would make me very happy. I'd love to see a class similar to the AD&D thief. I think splat books or magazine articles are the proper place to put these kinds of extended options for those that want to use them.
#7 Theros Oct 06, 2014 9:35:52	Agreed
(Reply to #6) Orzel	Gnarl wrote:
#9 lawrencehoy Oct 06, 2014 23:34:34	The title of this thread had me scratching my head, thinking: "Isn't 5th Edition the only chance, at present, for another anything?"   That aside, I think the answer is a resounding Yes!   I think the sub-class system is the perfect method for supplemental additions to the existing class structure; although, there is still at least one base class that needs to be designed: the Psionicist. Speaking of psionics, I think a metabolic focused psionic user has always been the best fit for a partial shapeshifter or skin grafter.   I like the Aristocrat concept as a Background; which can be applied to any class.   A tinker class, that expands upon the gnome traits, would be an interesting addition though.
#10 Orzel Oct 07, 2014 1:42:43	lawrencehoy wrote:
#11 Uchawi Oct 07, 2014 2:57:44	I do not think 5E will have any barriers to create those classes but those classes will not have any mechanism to maintain parity because there is no underlying mechanic, beyond spells, within the class to do it. So it will end up being another sub-system added to the game for skills or non-magic (non-spells).
(Reply to #11) Orzel	Uchawi wrote:
#13 Mechatarrasque Oct 07, 2014 13:39:59	lawrencehoy wrote: