D&D 5E New class concepts

[Tony Vargas]

My own experience is 180 degrees away from this.

In 5e, multiclassing isn't the "road to greatness" it was with some earlier editions.

Agreed.

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.

There is a simple solution to that problem as a DM, though. Don't opt into MCing, at all. Players with an 'MC concept' just have to pick one class and fill in the trappings of the rest with background - 'Soldier' or 'Criminal' for instance. In some cases, there's a sub-class ready made for faux-MCing.

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

OTOH, there's already more classes than you'd need if MCing were the standard. No need for Paladins or Rangers, for instance, Fighter/Caster MCs'd handle them seamlessly.

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.

Bloat's less of an issue the 'more optional' it is. If a player wants a specific concept that nothing in the PH covers, you can vette something from a supplement or UA and have him use it. You don't have to introduce everything else out there, just the one thing missing, worst case, each player has one thing like that. Still not bloat. And, if you don't turn on MCing, no cross-pollination, either.

 

[DEFCON 1]

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....

Nope, not what I mean at all.

Multiclassing on the face of it is fine. If people want to multiclass with what they current have access to, they're more than able to and it's for the most part no big deal (normally).

My point though is that people usually multiclass for the wrong reasons (in my opinion). They do it because of game mechanics, and NOT because the story their character has gone through inspires the multiclass. Which is why "coincidentally" almost every build you see people throw out there just happens to involve classes and subclasses that combine together just wonderfully in terms of mechanics. The paladin/sorcerer/warlock combos of the world. There's little to no thought to the story why a paladin with an Oath of Devotion has also made a pact with a GOO (especially at 2nd level)... but for some reason it always just seems to occur.

So I don't see any reason why WotC should or need to create more and more mechanics (over and above what they already trickle out) that will end up serving little purpose except for more ways for people to Frankenstein them together into multiclass cheese. People have already shown they are more than willing to throw away the stories that these classes have just to wring out every little drop of "efficiency" in the mechanics. So I don't see any real reason to go overboard and create so much more. Because while they'll claim that it's because " I can't create the vision of my character without it"... the truth of the matter tends to be, oh no, you certainly COULD and CAN create your character using the options already available and then just refluffing some things and then actually roleplaying on top of it. But a lot of those players don't want to do that because it isn't mechanically effective enough for them.

Am I being rather harsh on those players? Yep. Mea culpa. But you know what? It doesn't matter. I can sit here in my ivory tower saying that I find those actions rather ridiculous, but that means nothing-- WotC is going to do what they do regardless of how I feel. So at the end of the day, my opinion here means jack *and* ship. Which... I'm okay with. I just like getting it off my chest in occasional EN World rants that storyless multiclassing just to put min-maxed uber-characters together is in my opinion stupid.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

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.

We're on the same page. I love 5e, but sometime I find their obsession with balance paralyzes the creative part of their brain. Mike Mearls seems to have a lot of new cool ideas coming with MMHFH, so I count on him to bring us more creative content without necessarily crazy mechanical features. Flight-based acrobat? Giant-soul sorcerer? Kraken warlock? Pyroclastic barbarian? Now that sounds awesome! Which one made it to UA? ...the least (thematically) crazy one of the bunch, the cleric of order.

And I fear the next mechanical expansion will, again, features less than ambitious material.

 

[Tony Vargas]

We're on the same page. I love 5e, but sometime I find their obsession with balance paralyzes the creative part of their brain.

Obsession with balance?

Mike Mearls seems to have a lot of new cool ideas coming with MMHFH...

I only checked out the few that interested me, but in one I caught, he essentially said "F balance, let the player feel good about finding the combo..."

 

[Tony Vargas]

I get the distaste for MCing, but it is optional, and not opting into it removes the issue, entirely, so, 'nuff said.

.. the truth of the matter tends to be, oh no, you certainly COULD and CAN create your character using the options already available and then just refluffing some things and then actually roleplaying on top of it. But a lot of those players don't want to do that because it isn't mechanically effective enough for them.

Hypothetically, if the were nor Sorcerer or Warlock, you could play a wizard, 'roleplay' having magical powers from an ancestor or perilous pact with some being beyond mortal ken, and just keep the whole spellbook thing under your hat. You'd have created the concept you wanted, only had to ignore/re-fluff one thing, and been mechanically effective enough, into the bargain.

Does that mean there 'shouldn't' have been a Sorcerer or Warlock?

Because, if it /does/ mean that, fine, I get what you're saying. I don't think it's a very helpful point, and that we're still going to need new classes like the Artificer, Warlord, Mystic & Shaman down the road, 'cause people want 'em, and they have at least as much justifying them as the Sorcerer or Warlock or Bard or Druid (and more than the Barbarian, Ranger or Paladin), but it'd at least make sense to me.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I get the distaste for MCing, but it is optional, and not opting into it removes the issue, entirely, so, 'nuff said.

Hypothetically, if the were nor Sorcerer or Warlock, you could play a wizard, 'roleplay' having magical powers from an ancestor or perilous pact with some being beyond mortal ken, and just keep the whole spellbook thing under your hat. You'd have created the concept you wanted, only had to ignore/re-fluff one thing, and been mechanically effective enough, into the bargain.

Does that mean there 'shouldn't' have been a Sorcerer or Warlock?

Because, if it /does/ mean that, fine, I get what you're saying. I don't think it's a very helpful point, and that we're still going to need new classes like the Artificer, Warlord, Mystic & Shaman down the road, 'cause people want 'em, and they have at least as much justifying them as the Sorcerer or Warlock or Bard or Druid (and more than the Barbarian, Ranger or Paladin), but it'd at least make sense to me.

Had there not been a Sorcerer or Warlock it wouldn't have bothered me overmuch. In fact, had Mike & Co. decided that 5E was to have been only the Basic Rules, that probably wouldn't have bothered me overmuch either. What I'd probably end having done is played the Basic Rules, and then if I felt my game could use a little more, I'd probably have just created my own additional races, backgrounds, and/or subclasses myself.

Because I don't need a paladin (for example). When people say they'd want the paladin removed because "you can just play a fighter/cleric multiclass"... I don't necessarily disagree. But the reason to have a paladin class is because it gives new and different mechanics than what you get as a fighter/cleric. Which is fine. Having some additional mechanics beyond the Basic Rules doesn't bother me, so the fact they went up to twelve classes in the PH doesn't bother me either. And if/when they decide to add one or two more-- the mystic, the artificer-- that's cool. At least those two have a legitimate story to them and their stories are grand enough than they CAN support multiple sub-classes (so in that regard, I think them being full classes are fine.) But I just don't want to see a proliferation a la 3E (especially when you bring prestige classes into the picture) because they don't tend to be used because their stories warrant it. So if there's no story reason for them to exist... I don't think they should be made just because, and they usually don't get supported in the long run.

There's a reason why the "arcane warrior" half-caster has never gained much traction like the divine half-caster (paladin) and primal half-caster (ranger) have. Despite the dozens of attempts people have made to create one. Because none of them have a compelling story reason for who they are, what they do, and their reason for existence. If you try and create a arcane half-caster, you need to give a raison d'etre for what it is that doesn't include the phrase "a warrior who casts wizard spells". That's not a story. That's game mechanics. And thus no one has any reason to care about it in the long run. The paladin? You can explain what a paladin is and what they do without making reference to being a warrior and that it casts divine spells. Same thing with the ranger and being a warrior that casts "nature magic". But no arcane half-caster story has ever been compelling enough on its own that one has ever caught on. Even the swordmages, bladesingers, and eldritch knights of the world have to use "warrior who supplements their skill with magical spells" as their story, and that's why they are just minor sub-classes (or no longer even exist in 5E.)

So from the very beginning I've never had issue with WotC only releasing books every six months, and the player-option ones even less frequently. And why I just rolled my eyes whenever anyone would say they "had" to have more options, and that some would even go so far as to threaten to stop playing D&D if WotC didn't speed up their process. Because that was such a lame threat that no one would or should care to take it seriously, and if that person even did cut off their nose to spite their face... too bad, so sad, bye bye. LOL!

 

[Tony Vargas]

Because I don't need a paladin (for example). When people say they'd want the paladin removed because "you can just play a fighter/cleric multiclass"... I don't necessarily disagree. But the reason to have a paladin class is because it gives new and different mechanics than what you get as a fighter/cleric. Which is fine. Having some additional mechanics beyond the Basic Rules doesn't bother me, so the fact they went up to twelve classes in the PH doesn't bother me either. And if/when they decide to add one or two more-- the mystic, the artificer-- that's cool.

So, "this far, but no further?"

I'm dubious.

At least those two have a legitimate story to them and their stories are grand enough than they CAN support multiple sub-classes (so in that regard, I think them being full classes are fine.)

Actually I doubt the artificer could fill out a whole lotta sub-classes, even the gunman one seems a tad forced. They Mystic, OTOH, is going to be combining a half-dozen or so psionic classes from several past editions, so should have plenty to work with; the Warlord had 8 de-facto builds & 28 Paragon Paths; the Shaman 5 & 17 ... the Artificer was in Eberron in 3e & 4e, the 4e version with only 3 builds & 3 Paragon Paths, for comparison. Not that the Artificer shouldn't be a class, just that filling out a lot of sub-classes may not be its strongest suit.

And, has been pointed out, some extant 5e PH classes have a paucity of plausible/distinctive (let alone 'grand') sub-class 'stories.'

But I just don't want to see a proliferation a la 3E (especially when you bring prestige classes into the picture) because they don't tend to be used because their stories warrant it. So if there's no story reason for them to exist...

PrCs - OK, the 'better' ones, IMHO - certainly had story reasons to exist (unlike the MC-kludge PrCs, like the Mystic Theurge). The Purple Dragon Knight, for instance, was a position of renown linked to a specific part of the world, it'd've made a much better PrC than a sub-class, in 5e.

But, PrCs'd've been best used in products like SCAG, that were setting-specific, and offered players tie-ins to said setting. Campaign doesn't have anything to do with Cormyr, no worries someone'd play a PDK just to freak the guy who can't grok martial healing.

There's a reason why the "arcane warrior" half-caster has never gained much traction like the divine half-caster (paladin) and primal half-caster (ranger) have.

You mean much tractions as a full class. The classic elven fighter/magic-user has tremendous traction, it's present in 5e as not one but 2 sub-classes, and via MCing, and several feats and could be managed, nominally, by appending the soldier background to a wizard. It's pretty heavily supported.

As for the poster boys for superfluous classes that could be better done via MCing, the Pally & Ranger, they don't have traction, they have innertia. They'be been around since 0D&D.

The paladin? You can explain what a paladin is and what they do without making reference to being a warrior and that it casts divine spells.

Go for it.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Obsession with balance?

I only checked out the few that interested me, but in one I caught, he essentially said "F balance, let the player feel good about finding the combo..."

Yes, I think they focus overly on balance before fun, not that they are mutually exclusive. Think of the Exhaustion penalty for the berserker barb: it add an unfun mechanic to a thematic ability because they feared (some would say this fear was unfounded) the ability would unbalance something. So they end up with a subclass that many people are reluctant to use because of a balancing mechanic that hurts the fun of playing the archetype for this particular ability. Same with beastmaster: the balancing mechanics hurt the narrative of the subclass.

Balance is important, but should not hurt the fun of playing a class. Many classes have one unbalanced mechanic for its level, and its not the end of the world. Look at the moon druid powerspikes or the paladin's nova: there's some ''whoaaa'' moments at first, then it comes down after a time.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yes, I think they focus overly on balance before fun, not that they are mutually exclusive. Think of the Exhaustion penalty for the berserker barb: it add an unfun mechanic to a thematic ability because they feared (some would say this fear was unfounded) the ability would unbalance something.

I rather doubt that was a reason. A berserker being wrung out (with a mechanic as brutal and slightly out of place as Exhaustion), after going all, well, berserk, without recourse to magic, sounds more like a detail added to shore up the 'verisimilitude' of a non-magical daily resource.

 

[Rossbert]

I would just comment that the need for many archetypes in the form of subclasses may not be THAT crucial as long as
A. There are at least two
B. The base class has a specific niche or mechanic that can't be easily replicated already

After all, the barbarian, bard, druid, ranger, and sorcerer just had two at launch.

(I am also on the fence about sorcerer needing to be a class, wizard with metamagic and maybe sub subclass choices might have done it.)