D&D 5E Whats in a Class?

[Zardnaar]

This thread is about what makes a class and what can be introduced into 5E as a new class. Other editions of D&D have often had a a lot of classes (30-60 of them in various splats, 200+ for 2E if you count speciality priests). With the 5E archetype system however it has obsoleted the need for a lot of them.

So what makes a good class? I think a good argument boils down to the name. Al of the 5E classes tend to give you a hint from earlier D&D or generic fantasy in regards to what the class does. A wizard is a spell caster, so is a warlock, a Paladin is a holy knight (or unholy these days). Assume that the name has to appeal to casuals or people whio have never played D&D before. What does a class do, well the name should be a major clue.

Good Class Names IMHO

Alchemist
Artificer
Psion/Psychic/Psyker
Marshall
Healer

OK names

Mageknight
Swordmage
Warden (at least implies something defensive)
Dragonshaman (magic related to dragons)
Hexblade (implies warrior with curses)

Bad Class Names

Ardent (whats an ardent)
Avenger (revenge related perahps but whats it do?)
Duskblade (something to do with weapons and shadow?)
Mystic (implies spellcaster or perhaps something religious)
Warlord (if you have not played D&D this name is very bad)

Not that the classes with good names do not imply the class is actually good, the healer for example was a bad class but it was themed around its name very well.

So what makes a weak class concept. Put simply if its a class variant it should probably be an archetype. For example 3.5 had a scout class which was very similar to the Rogue, in 5E its a Rogue archetype and that is a perfect place for it IMHO. Most of the 2E speciality priests, wizards and class variants can be an archetype. The 2E crusader for example can be a war cleric in 5E, elementalist and shadow wizards definitely an archetype. A gunslinger can easily be a fighter archetype.

Having a quick look at the A Touch of CLass book from EN5ider I will rate the class names. This is just an example and IMHO of course.

Good
Alchemist
Diabolist (the class is about fiends)

OK

Cardcaster
Morph ( may have been better off called shapeshifter or whatever)

Bad

Feywalker (whats a feywalker?)
Noble (title/job description)
Occultist (could almost be anything)

So for 5E what would I want from a new class? That is one that is exactly that and it is not an archetype.

1. It can't really be done with existing mechanics.
2. It has a strong concept/theme that exists in D&D or fantasy/sci fi in general.

Something that is niche (Vampire Hunter) should probably be an archetype or even feats.

So what would be the best candidates? A few of the leading ones IMHO.

The Psion

Psion may not be a great name but its better than the mystic which is terrible on all kinds of levels. There was a 2E mystic class, I think it was a priest that used candles. Yup they made a candle magic themed class. Anyway the Psion has been in 1E-4E, is key to one of the D&D setting (Darksun) and is important in another (Eberron). It can't really be replicated with the existing classes so needs its own book.

The Alchemist
Another archetype that seems popular, exists in Pathfinder (basically D&D) and exists in pop culture. Can't really be done in the 5E PHB rules.

Artificer.
This class existed in 2E as a wizard speciality but it has become associated with Eberron. Would be a good candidate in a new Eberron book which presumably would overhaul the magic item rules.

Fighter/Mage
Technically this has been done at least 3 times in the PHB, Xanathars has tried again (and mostly failed) and the designers can't get this one right since 1989 or so. The Valor Bard and pact blade warlock are to much spellcaster while the eldritch knight is to much fighter and this is before you factor in MAD, being proficient in con saves, armor proficinecy or casting spells with your hands full. The hexblade in Xanathars at least identified the MAD problem gish classes have. The archetype is strong both from previous editions of D&D and various fantasy work (Elric being the prime example). 5E also lacks an arcane half caster like the ranger/paladins. The concept has been done, just not well I would make it a half caster with fighter saving throws, proficient in all armor, and it has part of the warcaster feat in regards to somatic gestures built in or they use a single one handed weapon and get an AC bonus from a magical aegis. That fixes most of issues the concept has.

Shapeshifter
Yes 5E has the Moon Druid but people may want to play a shapeshifter. A certain popular fantasy based MMO has Druids as shapeshifters I believe. EN5ider has covered the concept and it may be the best designed of the EN5ider classes. A poll last year IIRC also had people associate the conscript with the Druid class more than spellcasting. I don't think they would be insane enough in 6E to replace the D&D Druid with a World of Warcraft druid but I think the concept is fine.

The Warlord Problem.

This class has multiple problems, he 1st one is the name. If you have never played D&D before you hear the name warlord what are you going to think? The next problem with the class is that it does not have a strong basis in D&D or fantasy literature to build off. Sure there have been leaders and generals but they did not have warlord like powers and anyone with charisma and/or intelligence could be a good leader, general, or officer. So even if you buy into the concept why should a warlord get the nod over the Marshall (a better name for the idea it implies military/officer/leadership), or even an AD&D fighter that attracted followers at name level? The AD&D fighter with followers is also the stronger archetype it existed in D&D for a lot longer (23 years), had support in books, and carving out a domain was a thing. Caesar, Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Rommel, all could be fighters/officers or even NPC nobles with no need to actually give them any powers (or class levels) whatsoever. And this is before you factor in any other problems the warlord has (mostly its hated). Outside of the 4E metragame the concept is weak overall and without having a game designed around it the mechanics are a problem as well.

 

[Alexemplar]

It does seem that this discussion is more about class names than about the actual contents of a class, and with that in mind...

D&D class names have always been a little crap.

As someone who came into D&D without a whole lot of background in fantasy novels/games, but lots of background in history/mythology, I found the class names pretty confusing. Bards can suddenly cast spells like a sorcerer of some kind? The Cleric was the Priest and wielded a mace and heavy armor? The Barbarian is actually a Berserker? The Paladin is basically a Fighter/Cleric? The Druid transforms into bears and has a pet wolf and summons spiders? There's a difference between Sorcerers and Wizards? The Warrior is called a "Fighter"? And suddenly there was a Monk, who wasn't based on any European monastic tradition, but instead based on a Shaolin Monk straight out of a Wuxia film. It all seemed so goofy. Who comes up with this stuff?

After my initial introduction to the PHB, D&D could never really come up with a class name that truly disappointed me. I realized from the get-go that I had to pretty much ignore most historical/mythological precedent when trying to figure out D&D classes based on the name name and instead look at the class's actual write up and abilities themselves.

 

[Krachek]

DnD has created its own mythology.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Interesting post. Disagree on some of the category choices, more often agree.

Alchemist: I want to like this as a class; I get the appeal. And yet...it just doesn't feel like the basis for a class. It feels like something you do in your downtime that might have some minor mechanical implications. In other words, it feels like an add-on to real classes.

Fighter/Mage: I think everybody should give up trying to make this a class. Just multiclass.

Mystic: I actually think this is a great class name, just not for a psionics-based class. (Could be the base class for Shaman, Witches, Witch-doctors, etc.)

Artificer: I do hope that if the class is formally introduced it is in an Eberron context.

Psion: terrible class name, and honestly I don't even psionics as a basis for a class. Definitely not the swiss-army-knife class that was the UA mystic. If it were restricted to a narrow niche of messing around in other people's minds...maybe. But even that feels like Sci-Fi not fantasy to me. Ugh. I wish we could drop this idea.

Warlord/Marshall: Agree with your comments about the Warlord, but not the name: I'm on a campaign to push the name Warden. If it weren't for baggage from previous editions it would be the perfect name: something everybody can recognize but can't quite put their finger on the meaning of (like "Paladin" would have been, pre-D&D). Game Warden? Prison Warden? One who...wards? See what I mean? This is our chance to hijack the word forever.

 

[Mecheon]

Warlord/Marshall: Agree with your comments about the Warlord, but not the name: I'm on a campaign to push the name Warden. If it weren't for baggage from previous editions it would be the perfect name: something everybody can recognize but can't quite put their finger on the meaning of (like "Paladin" would have been, pre-D&D). Game Warden? Prison Warden? One who...wards? See what I mean? This is our chance to hijack the word forever.

Won't have a chance. Most anyone who knows about RPGs probably knows about Warcraft, wherein the Wardens are the Night Elves' secret police force dedicated to eliminating every threat to the Night Elves by assassinating it, or, if they can't assassinate it, jailing it underground.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Won't have a chance. Most anyone who knows about RPGs probably knows about Warcraft, wherein the Wardens are the Night Elves' secret police force dedicated to eliminating every threat to the Night Elves by assassinating it, or, if they can't assassinate it, jailing it underground.

Ha. I suddenly hear Illidan saying, "Akama. Your duplicity is hardly surprising."

I played WoW heavily...for far too long...but that connotation doesn't bother me at all.

 

[Zardnaar]

Interesting post. Disagree on some of the category choices, more often agree.

Alchemist: I want to like this as a class; I get the appeal. And yet...it just doesn't feel like the basis for a class. It feels like something you do in your downtime that might have some minor mechanical implications. In other words, it feels like an add-on to real classes.

Fighter/Mage: I think everybody should give up trying to make this a class. Just multiclass.

Mystic: I actually think this is a great class name, just not for a psionics-based class. (Could be the base class for Shaman, Witches, Witch-doctors, etc.)

Artificer: I do hope that if the class is formally introduced it is in an Eberron context.

Psion: terrible class name, and honestly I don't even psionics as a basis for a class. Definitely not the swiss-army-knife class that was the UA mystic. If it were restricted to a narrow niche of messing around in other people's minds...maybe. But even that feels like Sci-Fi not fantasy to me. Ugh. I wish we could drop this idea.

Warlord/Marshall: Agree with your comments about the Warlord, but not the name: I'm on a campaign to push the name Warden. If it weren't for baggage from previous editions it would be the perfect name: something everybody can recognize but can't quite put their finger on the meaning of (like "Paladin" would have been, pre-D&D). Game Warden? Prison Warden? One who...wards? See what I mean? This is our chance to hijack the word forever.

Agree about the Mystic name, its just bad for the Psion. I'm not a big fan of psionics but even then a good take on the class I kind of like.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Classes in Dragon in 1e we’re not official classes, and almost all of them were NPC classes not intended for player use. So you can’t really count them. Even if they weren’t intended to be NPC classes, it would be the modern equivalent of a class on DTRPG or the DMsGuild since they were just fan creations. So when you’re looking at official classes per edition, you can only include official books. Still a decent amount, but not nearly as many as people think (and certainly not pushing 60)

As for 2e, I have no idea how you come up with 200 classes. And why in the world would you consider two specialty priests different classes? It says right there in the description they are both the same class.

And when people talk about older editions, why is it they ALWAYS ignore Basic? It was only the longest running and best selling edition to date. There weren’t many classes in that edition.

No, the number of official classes increased sharply when WoTC took over in 3e, where they introduced prestige classes and assumed almost every PC would be multiclassed, often into 3 or more classes for the same PC

 

[Zardnaar]

Classes in Dragon in 1e we’re not official classes, and almost all of them were NPC classes not intended for player use. So you can’t really count them. Even if they weren’t intended to be NPC classes, it would be the modern equivalent of a class on DTRPG or the DMsGuild since they were just fan creations. So when you’re looking at official classes per edition, you can only include official books. Still a decent amount, but not nearly as many as people think (and certainly not pushing 60)

As for 2e, I have no idea how you come up with 200 classes. And why in the world would you consider two specialty priests different classes? It says right there in the description they are both the same class.

And when people talk about older editions, why is it they ALWAYS ignore Basic? It was only the longest running and best selling edition to date. There weren’t many classes in that edition.

No, the number of official classes increased sharply when WoTC took over in 3e, where they introduced prestige classes and assumed almost every PC would be multiclassed, often into 3 or more classes for the same PC

The Faiths and Avatars trilogy along with the Greyhawk Gods alone add up to 100+ speciality priests.

3E had around 50 or 60, 4E something similar, 1E had a alot in Dragon but not to many were serious as you said.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

[MENTION=6716779]Zardnaar[/MENTION], you're spending a lot of time and effort the class names but you give us very, very little hint as to what your criteria are and why, and are sometimes outright confusing. You say the mystic "implies spellcaster or perhaps something religious" -- why is that a bad thing? You say of the warlord "if you have not played D&D this name is very bad" -- why? Noble: "title/job description" -- isn't that precisely what class names are supposed to be? Occultist: "could almost be anything" -- really? Mystic again: "terrible on all kinds of levels" -- what levels, and how? Warlord again: "you hear the name warlord what are you going to think?" -- what do you think we're going to think and why is it bad?

What are you trying to communicate to us? Can you give us any general advice that might let a hypothetical designer of some future class select a "good" name, or at least spell out the sorts of mistakes that make for a "bad" one so that they may be avoided?