D&D 5E Should 5e have more classes (Poll and Discussion)?

[FrogReaver]

Not enough classes. Consider this. What if eldritch knight was its own class what if wildshape was its own class. What if a hex blade was its own class. What if a horizon Walker was its own class. What if Monster hunter was its own class. What if alchemist was its own class. What If beastmaster was its own class.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Not enough classes. Consider this. What if eldritch knight was its own class what if wildshape was its own class. What if a hex blade was its own class. What if a horizon Walker was its own class. What if Monster hunter was its own class. What if alchemist was its own class. What If beastmaster was its own class.

That would be class bloat. I don't want that. I want the niches that should be filled by classes to be filled, and those that don't need full classes to become subclasses.

 

[FrogReaver]

That would be class bloat. I don't want that. I want the niches that should be filled by classes to be filled, and those that don't need full classes to become subclasses.

Shoehorning things that shouldn't be subclasses into being subclasses is by far a bigger problem IMO.

 

[Mecheon]

One more, a dedicated Summoner class?

While a design space I def think we have room in, I haven't seen a homebrew that's just sort of stuck with me as the 'This is it' for summoner, which is a bit unfortunate. But, given what summoners do, also understandable

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Shoehorning things that shouldn't be subclasses into being subclasses is by far a bigger problem IMO.

Well, I disagree about some of those things you listed as subclasses that should be classes. You should have classes span the major themes that need filling (ranger, cleric, artificer, fighter), and the subclasses fill the cracks (monster hunter, forge cleric, alchemist, eldritch knight). That is not to say that if a theme exists (eldritch knight, forge cleric) that a class version of that which is larger and spans a more general theme can't coexist with it (swordmage/magus, artificer).

There's a balance between "everything is a class" and "everything is a subclass".

 

[Maxperson]

Where there are two or more equally valid methods of representing a character concept, the choice of which method to use becomes more important than the character being represented. It shifts the focus of the game away from the actual table, and toward character creation.

Removing redundant options would allow us to shift the focus back toward the table.

Who are you to tell us that they are equally valid, though. You can feel that they are equally valid for you, but I guarantee you that no two classes in the PHB are equally valid for any concept of mine. They all have differences, which automatically makes them unequal when it comes to achieving a concept, and right now 5e is woefully deficient at achieving concepts. I don't like having to kludge classes that just don't fit right into concepts, so I can't play a lot of ideas I have.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

These are the main classes I want officially, in no particular order:

• Occultist (Witch class)
• Magus/Swordmage (Arcane Martial Half-Caster, similar to paladin, with spell-striking abilities)
• Runemage
• Shaman
• Blood Hunter
• Psion

Other than this, I don't want a lot more classes. These are some niches of play that need filling, and cannot be filled in a satisfactory way as a subclass.

 

[J-H]

I think the Ranger and Eldritch Knight provide enough chassis for a Gish... the problem is the Ranger is all over the place, and the EK's choices of schools are not very good. A good Gish option is a subclass and spell list revision away. We also have Hexblade & Paladin in the "melee caster" role.

Classes that I think would bring something unique to the table:
1) Psion
2) Name uncertain - a "Transformation" based class... not wildshape, but something to support concepts like lycanthropes, self-modifiers like Crawler from Worm, fleshcrafting, self-transmutation, alterations by Staring Too Far Into the Outer Planes, and the like. This is a tough ask and may not fit in a balanced fashion.


Blood Hunter is popular, but every time I read it looks like a Warlock with too many fiddly bits.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

If WotC doesn't publish new classes these will be created by 3PPs.

I think there is enough space for classes with special game mechanics, as the psionic powers, but also the martial adepts (Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords), with martial maneuvers, powers in the middle between at-will and once-encounter, the vestige binder, and the incarnum totemist shaman, with incarnum soulmelds as added monster traits (natural weapons, breath attack..). Maybe the rune scribe would be a incarnum soulmelder class, with powers on runes in the chakras (body slots for magic item).

Only one class, the artificer, has been added. After the psionic mystic and the martial adepts (crusader, warblade and swordsage) WotC can allow itself some pieces more of crunch in a far future. And the last years of an edition are perfect to test new ideas without worrying too much if fandom likes it or doesn't.

 

[glass]

Classes as they currently exist are very inconsistent in terms of conceptual specificity. You’ve got “guy who fights” sitting in the same character building and conceptual space as “guy who made a pact with a powerful and potentially sinister otherworldly entity for magic power.” The ranger struggles to find a niche somewhere between the broad conceptual spaces filled by the fighter, the rogue, and the druid. Paladins and Clerics compete for being “the holy warrior.” It’s a huge mess. Pairing down to a small number of very broad character archetypes and allowing them to be further refined by subclasses and kits would address this problem.

You haven't actually explained why it is a problem though. Yes, some classes are more specific in their flavour than others. IMNSO, that is a feature not a bug.

_
glass.