Do You Want 9 New D&D Classes?

jgsugden said:

For typical 3PP, that is entirely true. However, there is some Critical Role material present, including a class.

If there were a route for a 3PP to code, review and submit for approval classes - to Beyond - and then get them approved for inclusion on the site, that 3PP might have a signifiant advantage in selling their materials (both physical and perhaps on Beyond). I'm imagining Beyond charging a fee for the review and approval process and then taking a cut of digital sales, so it would likely end up having a barrier to entry that would preclude small folks from submitting, but it would be interesting to see some of the more significant 3PP materials included.

Click to expand...

Seramus said:

Thread is really disappointing.

Click to expand...

FXR said:

I'll answer by the negative.

None of these classes seem to add something to the game.

A noble class is completely useless. If a player wants his character to be a noble, he can simply chose the appropriate background and have decent social skills.

A beast tamer can be a druid or a ranger. This class seems to step on the toes of existing archetypes, which is very wrong.

Click to expand...

DESIGN HURDLE: “This should be a fighter archetype.”

The biggest obstacle with the gemini class is one that people really like to kick up whenever a new class is being considered: that it should be an archetype. In the case of the gemini it’s not too much of a hurdle fortunately, but it certainly felt like it was going to be impossible until a) I thought of the semi-real duplicates Multiply feature as a replacement for Extra Attack, and b) realized the potential for blazingly cool subclasses with Gemini Balances, intertwining roleplaying aspects into the class’ fundamental traits.

Click to expand...

#1 - "THAT SHOULD BE A SUBCLASS"

This is far and away the most common remark on new classes but before addressing it I want to clarify something that I constantly see people get wrong: Wizards of the Coast did not invent archetypes/subclasses, the golems at Paizo Publishing did that in the first edition of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. Please give credit where it is due.
So why isn't everything in ATMC a subclass or series of archetypes? As a handy rule if you've only got one or two original mechanics and central aspects to the class you're building, you probably are building an archetype. There are other considerations (see below) but that should be in the fore of your mind.
That's not a hard and fast rule however, and if you're only introducing one unique and central mechanical concept--like bloodweavers manipulating their hit points to eke out more magic use or the tempo of lodestars in combat--that might fit the bill.
Consider this: almost every core class has at least one main mechanic that influences how it is played which is shared across all of its subclasses. Fluid spell resources Sorcerer Points and Metamagic, Sneak Attack and Uncanny Dodge, Divine Smite, Rage, and so on. These are so focused so that in subclasses players can choose to keep the simplicity and main essence of the class (see Champion or Thief), or they can dip their toes into something more complex (like spellcasting with Arcane Tricksters or Eldritch Knight). If you're building a new class its shtick needs to complement the existing central mechanics of the core classes and work with them, not copy or interfere with them.

Click to expand...

Morrus said:

Post is fairly disappointing, too.

Click to expand...