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

[Minigiant]

I AM American. The difference is, I am from upstate, not the city.

Well they could make an entertainer class and subclass for whatever y'all do up there for fun.

As an obnoxious citygoer, I brought my own entertainment upstate when I went instead of adopting local customs.

 

[rgoodbb]

So, from the responses of those who would like a few more options, the main ones I am seeing are a Gish of some sort, Psion, Shaman and Warlord.

If those four were offered up as solid choices, I wouldn't be unhappy at all.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So, from the responses of those who would like a few more options, the main ones I am seeing are a Gish of some sort,

A wizard sublaclass.

Psion,

A sorcerer subclass. Though a monk subclass could also work.

Shaman

Most definitely a druid subclass.

and Warlord.

A fighter subclass.

 

[Scott Christian]

I think we have too many classes, making the theme behind them too thin.
I'd be ok with Warrior, Bard, Mage, Cleric and Rogue.

• Rogue are exploration/social focused. Ranger can fall in this category.
• Warrior is your usual bruiser but also includes the light-armored skirmisher usually given to the rogue. Paladin and Barbarian can be subclasses of warrior.
• Bards cover non-divine druidic and fey magic, with a good side of status effect and time magic. These are you FF's Red Mage.
• Cleric are the sacred caster, covering the FF's white mage trope, with some domains giving access to more martial proficiency. The more divine druid stuff falls under the more primal domains (nature, storms, moon etc)
• Mage covers arcane casters, both learned and innate: school specialist, dragon-mage, demonologist, star-seer etc

Heck, I'd be okay with warrior, troubadour, and magic-user.
The warrior sub-classes could house things from barbarians to monks to paladins.
The troubadour could house sub-classes from bards to scouts to thieves.
The magic user could house sub-classes from clerics to wizards to sorcerers.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Heck, I'd be okay with warrior, troubadour, and magic-user.
The warrior sub-classes could house things from barbarians to monks to paladins.
The troubadour could house sub-classes from bards to scouts to thieves.
The magic user could house sub-classes from clerics to wizards to sorcerers.

Excellent. Because wilderness explorers and larcenists definitely scream 12th century romantic French poet. That, sir, is an insult to explorers and larcenists.

 

[Scott Christian]

Excellent. Because wilderness explorers and larcenists definitely scream 12th century romantic French poet. That, sir, is an insult to explorers and larcenists.

Fair enough. But couldn't come up with a catch-all name at the time of writing. And to be fair, blame Robert Jordan if you want to blame the troubadours altering definition.

 

[rgoodbb]

A wizard sublaclass.


A sorcerer subclass. Though a monk subclass could also work.


Most definitely a druid subclass.


A fighter subclass.

Your preferences maybe, but not the preferences of those I was seeing. Nor my own.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Fair enough. But couldn't come up with a catch-all name at the time of writing. And to be fair, blame Robert Jordan if you want to blame the troubadours altering definition.

Adventurer, perhaps?

 

[Minigiant]

Know what would be cool for 5e?

A full on no spellcasting, shapeshifter class. Beast, Humanoid, "Outsider", and Monster shapes as subclasses.

"Yes I know Count Marcos. He is Me." then I turn my hand into a blade and stab him.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Why do we need Warlords when you can just multi class Fighter\Bard?