D&D 5E New class concepts

[Mistwell]

There are several threads on new classes or character archetypes.

I'd say the WotC design team seems hung up on two things:
1) try to shoehorn everything into the existing classes. They have this weird idea it is somehow better if a concept doesn't add a new class, but instead becomes a subclass of one of the PHB classes.

It's not a weird idea, it's a good idea. I agree with that idea. I suspect a whole lot of people agree with that idea. But I could be wrong on that count.

 

[jgsugden]

There are lots of ways to skin a cat.

This is the way they should approach class design:

1.) Come up with a concept. Play with the concept in your mind so that you know the story of the idea before you even consider the mechanics of the idea.
2.) Look to see if the mechanics of any existing class service the idea. If so, make it a subclass of that class.
3.) If there is no single class that services the idea, evaluate if you can service it mostly in one class with a bit of a multi-class from another class. If so, it should still be a subclass. Perhaps consider taking an existing class element and make it "replaceable" with another option.
4.) If you can't fit it into the class, make it a new class.

I feel like they're doing a good job of this with current builds.

 

[Rossbert]

I find class/subclass/background can cover a lot of concepts very well.

The only reason I am even trying to design a whole new class is that the base class it is closest to (ranger) has too many base features that don't fit with the concept, and removing them as part of a subclass is not a thing. The intention in this case is to waaaay pump up the beastmaster subclass but take out most of the base class's combat ability. If the ranger had a less durable frame it could have been a subclass, and bard or sorcerer have too strong casting.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I think their idea that a class should be able to allow for a large quantity of archetypes is deceptive when you look at some iconic class they put in the PHB.

I'm about to join a new game and I want to play a druid because I love the theme of the class and they have access to my favorite spells list. The thing is: I probably wont play one in the end because the archetypes in the PHB inspire me nothing and WotC had a hard time coming with new compelling archetypes since then because, to be honest, the Druid class is a niche that doesnt allow for a lot of variation (even more when you force wildshaping in the core class).

So, if they are ok with the idea of a druid with 4 barely distinct archetypes with weak flavor differentiation between them, I dont think they should care if a new class can support 2 or 20 new archetypes, as long as the player base is interesting at playing the class.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think their idea that a class should be able to allow for a large quantity of archetypes is deceptive when you look at some iconic class they put in the PHB.

Well, sure, if you try to walk all the PH1 classes past any sensible-sounding bar to new classes that would actually exclude the classes people keep asking for (check out the poll, they include, in descending order: Artificer, Warlord, Psion(icist)'Mystic,' & Shaman.)

I'm about to join a new game and I want to play a druid because I love the theme of the class and they have access to my favorite spells list. The thing is: I probably wont play one in the end because the archetypes in the PHB inspire me nothing and WotC had a hard time coming with new compelling archetypes since then because, to be honest, the Druid class is a niche that doesnt allow for a lot of variation (even more when you force wildshaping in the core class).

So, if they are ok with the idea of a druid with 4 barely distinct archetypes with weak flavor differentiation between them, I dont think they should care if a new class can support 2 or 20 new archetypes, as long as the player base is interesting at playing the class.

Of the 5e implementations of classic classes, I have to admit, I like the Druid best. So you just had to go there. ;(

Considering the other bars proposed to new classes, the Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian, Monk, Druid, Cleric, Sorcerer, Warlock, and Bard would all run aground on any number of them. We'd be down to Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, prettymuch. Or 'Adventurer.'

Adventurer
...
The pyramid goes on and on.

The fact of the matter is... none of us need any of this stuff. When it comes to classes (and subclasses)... the only reason to make more is to placate the people who for whatever reason have to have a unique game mechanic attached to any and all story concept for what a PC is and does.

....Please. It was ridiculous then, and its ridiculous now. People multiclassing paladins, sorcerers and warlocks together for no other reason than uber-mechanical efficiency with Eldritch Blasts... character concept-driven reasons be damned.

If there is a STORY reason why a new concept needs to be a full class...If it CAN'T? Then there's no reason to make it a class other than a few people just wanting some brand new game mechanics to screw around with and graft onto other classes for MOAR POWER!

You seem to have two very different positions, above.

1) The game doesn't need new classes because you should be able to just build any new character concept by mixing & matching the existing ones, along with backgrounds, feats, and 'role playing.' (There's no psionic class? Just RP being able to read minds! "I can totally read your mind!" "OK, what am I thinking?" "You're thinking 'no way he can read my mind, there's no psionicist class'" "Wow, you CAN read minds!")

2) The game shouldn't allow MC'ing because it's total powergaming catnip, and every valid concept should just have a sub-class cover it - plus a background and throw in the 'just role-play-it' panacea for anything that's missing.

Which doesn't add up. I don't suppose you're just taking the apologist tack of '5e is perfect, any fewer classes (no Barabarian? unthinkable!) would be too few, any more classes ('psionicist?' bah! humbug!) would be too many,' so I guess I'm just missing an actual point in there somewhere....


As I see it: Yes, you can design a game with few classes - or no classes - and have players 'build' just the character they want, more or less from scratch.
Alternately, you can design a game with many (sub)Classes, each of which neatly fills out a given archetype or character concept, while leaving others unavailable.

If you do the latter, people who can't just pick a (sub)Class that neatly fills out the character concept they have in mind are going to demand new classes.
Since D&D has always gone with more classes, people who don't get what they want out of the existing classes want even moar classes. :shrug:

Mearls and Company have realized that game mechanics for game mechanics sake is stupid.

Then why'd they design 5e that way? 5e doesn't just use unique mechanics to define/differentiate some classes, it has some /sub/-classes that have unique mechanics assigned to them. "Don't add game mechanics for game mechanics' sake" ends you up with an effects-based system like Hero - and no classes, at all.

 

[Blue]

2) The game shouldn't allow MC'ing because it's total powergaming catnip, and every valid concept should just have a sub-class cover it - plus a background and throw in the 'just role-play-it' panacea for anything that's missing.

My own experience is 180 degrees away from this.

In 5e, multiclassing isn't the "road to greatness" it was with some earlier editions. Just that all us old grognards think it is. And I tell you, every single one of my powergaming friends immediately went to multiclassing in 5e because of that ... and most of them ended up shooting themselves in the foot. So then they learned some lessons, and tried again, and found that earlier multiclassing misses the level 5 bump, so do it later, and lots of multiclassing usually wasn't worth it later since except for the few classes that didn't give out anything meaningful at high levels.

I have a big problem with 5e multiclassing - it's that people (not veteran players) can come up with cool concepts (or copy them from movies and novels) that scream multiclassing, and then the system makes them seriously sub-optimal and I have to encourage them to deviate from their concept and optimize some more just to get back to the power level of the other characters. Basically, in 5e it is much easier to unintentionally make poor characters through multiclassing than straight classing.

And it's not easier to make more powerful characters. Sure, if you're starting at 15th you can, since you can ignore that the character didn't come together until levels and levels behind everyone else. Once you get to double digits there are dips that can happen - usually because you don't get much at high level in your current class, aren't expecting the campaign to go to 20 for the capstone power, and because some classes are a bit easy to cherry dip into. But that's the smaller end of the problem with multiclassing.

However, for all of the problems with multiclassing, it fills a need of unimaginable system bloat without it.

"Well, I want to play a divinely powered rogue"
"We're got this trickster god class"
"No, I was thinking an investigator of the god of justice"

And then the answers are either:
"Great, we have that too" or "Oh, we don't have one"

And both are horribly wrong answers. One talks to so much bloat, while the other trades a moderate amount of bloat for the "privilege" of being able to satisfy less character concepts.

Both answers are so much worse than the minor problems of multiclassing in 5e.

 

[Parmandur]

My own experience is 180 degrees away from this.

In 5e, multiclassing isn't the "road to greatness" it was with some earlier editions. Just that all us old grognards think it is. And I tell you, every single one of my powergaming friends immediately went to multiclassing in 5e because of that ... and most of them ended up shooting themselves in the foot. So then they learned some lessons, and tried again, and found that earlier multiclassing misses the level 5 bump, so do it later, and lots of multiclassing usually wasn't worth it later since except for the few classes that didn't give out anything meaningful at high levels.

I have a big problem with 5e multiclassing - it's that people (not veteran players) can come up with cool concepts (or copy them from movies and novels) that scream multiclassing, and then the system makes them seriously sub-optimal and I have to encourage them to deviate from their concept and optimize some more just to get back to the power level of the other characters. Basically, in 5e it is much easier to unintentionally make poor characters through multiclassing than straight classing.

And it's not easier to make more powerful characters. Sure, if you're starting at 15th you can, since you can ignore that the character didn't come together until levels and levels behind everyone else. Once you get to double digits there are dips that can happen - usually because you don't get much at high level in your current class, aren't expecting the campaign to go to 20 for the capstone power, and because some classes are a bit easy to cherry dip into. But that's the smaller end of the problem with multiclassing.

However, for all of the problems with multiclassing, it fills a need of unimaginable system bloat without it.

"Well, I want to play a divinely powered rogue"
"We're got this trickster god class"
"No, I was thinking an investigator of the god of justice"

And then the answers are either:
"Great, we have that too" or "Oh, we don't have one"

And both are horribly wrong answers. One talks to so much bloat, while the other trades a moderate amount of bloat for the "privilege" of being able to satisfy less character concepts.

Both answers are so much worse than the minor problems of multiclassing in 5e.

Well, yeah, multiclassing is a broken trap, and not in a favorable way. Avoiding the variant rules is a good start for 5E system mastery, such as it is. A multiclassing character will still contribute, but it is not a path to greatness by and large.

 

[Blue]

I'm about to join a new game and I want to play a druid because I love the theme of the class and they have access to my favorite spells list. The thing is: I probably wont play one in the end because the archetypes in the PHB inspire me nothing and WotC had a hard time coming with new compelling archetypes since then because, to be honest, the Druid class is a niche that doesnt allow for a lot of variation (even more when you force wildshaping in the core class).

So, if they are ok with the idea of a druid with 4 barely distinct archetypes with weak flavor differentiation between them, I dont think they should care if a new class can support 2 or 20 new archetypes, as long as the player base is interesting at playing the class.

I agree with this sentiment. There was a ranger UA that had them changing into giant trees and fighting and I loved it - because it was something big and different. When you have subclasses that give different mechanical expression to mostly the same broad concept, I'd rather subtract out the subclass. I don't need a brute and a champion. I don't need two archers who shoot a lot and are durable (fighter and ranger), but I can do with an archer who shoots slowly with the best possible shot and is hard to pin down but more fragile than either of them (rogue).

I've been disappointed in a lot of the UA subclasses, what we've seen in SCAG & XGtE, and even some in the PHB -- not because they aren't well executed mechanically, but because they describe the same broad concept and so are redundant.

 

[Blue]

Well, yeah, multiclassing is a broken trap, and not in a favorable way. Avoiding the variant rules is a good start for 5E system mastery, such as it is. A multiclassing character will still contribute, but it is not a path to greatness by and large.

I disagree with this end of the spectrum as well. As I mentioned, there are time multiclassing characters can fulfill their concepts while not falling behind.

Some guidelines (not hard and fast rules) would be wait until after 5th, if you're near an ASI, take another level and get it, and have an eye on what you're giving up - but for some classes at higher levels that's not much as long as you never expect to hit 20th so you can ignore the capstone.

System mastery isn't ignoring options out of hand, it's knowing when to dismiss them and when to use them.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Of the 5e implementations of classic classes, I have to admit, I like the Druid best. So you just had to go there. ;(

The class itsef is quite good, but it doest allow for a lot of design space and its thematic niche is rather small when you want to create no archetypes. Even I who would like new different archetype have a hard time finding something original within the limited space I have.

I blame part of it on the disappearance of 4e Primal power source in 5e. That unifying theme would help a lot in creating original archetype for the druid. But that's off topic, sorry for my rant about your favorite class

What I meant is that having the capacity to support 10 archetypes is a false bar to attain, even for ''supplemental'' classes.