D&D 5E New class concepts

[Zardnaar]

There were a lot of weak classes, PrCs, etc in 3E and 4E that did not really need to be a class. Scout, Berzerker, Avenger, Warmage, Healer, Ardent, Warden all come to mind. Even alchemist and artificer argueably are a mage subclass, the artificer was a mage subclass in 2E (it predates Eberron). You can also make a good argument for warlord as fighter (I think it can be its own thing its understandable).

A few AD&D classes do not need to exist (Samurai, Cavalier, Acrobat).

Psioincs need their own class, a dedicated arcane gish like the paladin is not that doable with a subclass, maybe alchemist and artificer and that is almost it really.

 

[Yaarel]

I agree, the Sorcerer works better as a Wizard archetype.

Heh, the 5e Sorcerer is a case where the class survived because of a good story − despite the fact that its mechanics are mostly redundant or trivial.

 

[Wiseblood]

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.
2) if a new class is to be added, it needs to accommodate lots of subclasses. That is, a concept that screams it's own class chassi still don't get any since they can't come up with 3 subclasses to begin with PLUS a boat load of subclasses for future expansion.

Bull, I say. How does it lessen my enjoyment of playing subclass X of class Y that there aren't half a dozen alternatives to X?

Instead they ought to spend much more time on 3)

3) the fact only PHB classes are historically supported by the vast majority of supplements. Regardless of edition, if you play a build choice from another source, you will always be a special snowflake that never meets any like-minded NPCs (of your own class/subclass).

To me, that's the problem they ought to fret over. Not ways to argue why NOT adding any new classes, and NOT ways to shoehorn concepts into ill-fitting subclasses.

Discuss.

I will comment on all three of your premises. Hopefully the answers wil be obvious.

1) Describe a new class but don't use the following words or any words that are synonymous in gaming jargon. Warrior, Spellcaster and Skill User.

2) If this were a premise it wouldn't appear counter itself.

3) This is not a question of classes but of settings and compatibility. If your campaign setting does not have "X" and I want to be "X". Why are there no organizations of "X" to join?

 

[TwoSix]

And that's really what seems to be the whole point of this thread. Complaining about the lack of more classes/options, or the focus not on the proper types of classes/options, when in truth those options always end up being nothing more than just game mechanics used to try and game the system for more powerful "builds". What these options actually are and how do they define a character doesn't matter... all that matters is new ways to build ubercrap.

You're sort of right. I want new classes because I want new mechanics to play with, because I love novelty. Sometimes I'll make them into something powerful, or something simply weird and different, depending on how I'm feeling.

I freely admit I care little about what the default book flavor of the class/subclass is. The default flavor of a Divine Soul/Hexblade is tough to work around, so I would simply liberally reskin it. Between the Charisma melee focus and the divine spells, I might go with a holy knight flavor.

 

[DEFCON 1]

You're sort of right. I want new classes because I want new mechanics to play with, because I love novelty. Sometimes I'll make them into something powerful, or something simply weird and different, depending on how I'm feeling.

I freely admit I care little about what the default book flavor of the class/subclass is. The default flavor of a Divine Soul/Hexblade is tough to work around, so I would simply liberally reskin it. Between the Charisma melee focus and the divine spells, I might go with a holy knight flavor.

The fact you had no need to add into your post that WotC is "ruining D&D" by not producing more content or that they should sell the game off to some other small independent company because the indy would "do right" by the game, is quire refreshing!

 

[TwoSix]

The fact you had no need to add into your post that WotC is "ruining D&D" by not producing more content or that they should sell the game off to some other small independent company because the indy would "do right" by the game, is quire refreshing!

That would be dumb. Games are what they are. Embrace what the game does well, don't get sucked into trying to fix the games pain points. For example, in 3.5, I noted that I thought that martials were woefully underpowered compared to casters. But I still had fun playing 3.5! I just played casters, because 3.5 casters were super versatile and enjoyable.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well, I'm not trying to convince you that the paladin and ranger should or shouldn't be full classes...

You said the Palladin's 'story' (concept, I'd call it) could be told without using 'warrior' or 'casts divine spells.' It seems 'holy knight' does both, at least in the context of D&D, where you can't be very holy without having good-aligned divine powers.

... I'm illustrating why an arcane warrior half-caster full class has never achieved that same level of ubiquity.

Seems to me the MC version, the classic elven Fighter/MU, had already achieved at least that level of ubiquity, whereas demi-human Fighter/Cleric wasn't a great option, and Fighter/Druids weren't even on the table.

The fact you had no need to add into your post that WotC is "ruining D&D"

"Is ruining?" as in a processes progressing from an ideal or functional state to a degenerate or dysfunctional one, that is still ongoing as we speak?

No, not at all. ;P

 

[guachi]

My major complaint is I think the subclasses don't have enough to do. I'd like fewer classes (or at least not more classes) and expand the abilities of subclasses to fit more ideas into the classes we have.

 

[DEFCON 1]

You said the Palladin's 'story' (concept, I'd call it) could be told without using 'warrior' or 'casts divine spells.' It seems 'holy knight' does both, at least in the context of D&D, where you can't be very holy without having good-aligned divine powers.

Seems to me the MC version, the classic elven Fighter/MU, had already achieved at least that level of ubiquity, whereas demi-human Fighter/Cleric wasn't a great option, and Fighter/Druids weren't even on the table.

Nevermind. You apparently are trying your level hardest to ignore my point.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Nevermind. You apparently are trying your level hardest to ignore my point.

I'm not ignoring it, I just don't find it very convincing. You think it's the story/concept of the Paladin & Ranger that make it rate a class, while the Fighter/MU lacks any such. I think it's another artifact of the early game's sketchy mechanics. There were prominently elven fighter/magic-users in the early game, there were not fighter/druids let alone human fighter/clerics, and that didn't much change for 25 years, so the ranger & paladin became well established as not using MC rules, while the Fighter/Wizard did. That's just inertia...