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

[Mecheon]

Which is another reason why IMO the idea of the warlock could easily be a subclass of Cleric. The three pacts (chain, blade, and tome) could be akin to the different animals of the totem warrior for barbarian or the options for hunter for rangers.

While the Cleric and Warlock both have the shared things of "borrowed power-sources" and, domains/patrons, they do not mechanically merge together into a single class in the slightest. And as long as there's that mechanical distinction between classes, they'll remain distinct

Especially all this talk of wanting to merge druids. Thanks to Warcraft, we are in a time where the Cleric class is at more risk of being dropped than one of the Big Classes that people know and replicate elsewhere. Druids are not going to just be sub-classed into Cleric any time soon

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Which is code for "Mage will closely model the wizard to a T to the detriment of every other spellcasting concept"

uhhhh...no?

Look, I know you are quite the fan of the sorcerer. But having a main big-tent arcane casting class, with a few archetypes having innate casting +metamagic and other using spellbook + ritual and other having bonus known spell given by a patron would not be detrimental to anything if archetypes are chosen at 1st level.

For now, the Wizard subclasses are dull and uninspired. Why not remove the 8 schools archetypes, instead making only one archetypes called ''specialist'' that let you choose from a list of school features from a sub-sub-class (much like the Totem barb or Hunter ranger), then you could have the Draconic sorc, storm sorc, fey or fiend patrons etc be other subclasses choices that affect the playstyle of the Mage class much more than ''better with spell from X schools''.

We have a Wizard with a good base class, but crapy archetypes, and -
we have sorcerer/warlock with so-so base classes, but super flavorful and impactful archetypes.

Why not use a the Base Wizard class, add to that the Invocation rules from the Warlock with Metamagic and spellbooks being Invocation choices, and then use the flavorful achetypes of the sorcerer and warlock? Best of both world.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

While the Cleric and Warlock both have the shared things of "borrowed power-sources" and, domains/patrons, they do not mechanically merge together into a single class in the slightest. And as long as there's that mechanical distinction between classes, they'll remain distinct

Mechanics should reflect the themes. Having several different mechanics for basically the same in-universe thing is just confused and bad game design.

 

[Mecheon]

Why not use a the Base Wizard class, add to that the Invocation rules from the Warlock with Metamagic and spellbooks being Invocation choices, and then use the flavorful achetypes of the sorcerer and warlock? Best of both world.

Because wizards shouldn't get everything from every sub-class?

The sorcerer and warlock are completely different archetypes. Has WotC failed to make sorcerers distinctive enough from wizards this time around? Possibly. But "Give wizard all of the cool toys from the other classes and remove them" issn't a solution, its just pissing off people who like those.

Mechanics should reflect the themes. Having several different mechanics for basically the same in-universe thing is just confused and bad game design.

"Armor-wearer divine caster" and "Lightly armored Blaster arcane caster" do not merge into a single class. They both have completely different goals. At least sorcerer and warlock have the same goal in a class

 

[DND_Reborn]

While the Cleric and Warlock both have the shared things of "borrowed power-sources" and, domains/patrons, they do not mechanically merge together into a single class in the slightest. And as long as there's that mechanical distinction between classes, they'll remain distinct

But they easily could be "merged" so that warlock could be a subclass of cleric. If things make sense more for flavor (such as "the shared things of "borrowed power-sources" and, domains/patrons"), the mechanics are easy enough to accommodate.

At this point I know they won't be, but the point is they could, that's all.

 

[Maxperson]

My point was that the EK solved most appropriate problems with Fighter class features. The stance magic was a tweak and not the focus.

The magic of the Eldritch Knight is the primary focus of that character. The entire character is about using that magic while fighting.

My point is the relationship between fighters and the classes people what to put under it.

In the old days, those subclasses were straight upgrades of the fighter as a reward for rolling good and taking the restrictions. After a while it became a sidegrade.

Eventually the fighter was narrowed, focused, and given class features to represent this. Once this happened the Fighter stopped being the parent class. It became the brother.

The fighter has been defined into a certain type of warrior since 3e. It's less broad than it's 1e and 2e. Putting the cork back on the bottle is hard. It's not just a man who fights anymore.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Since 3e it has just been a man who fights really well, with the exception of the Eldritch Knight. That "really" doesn't change what the class is in my opinion.

 

[MoonSong]

How is wizard hyper-specific? It's problem it the opposite, it is so brad that it leaves very little design space for other casters.

Mechanically? It has basically all of the toys -sans stuff like metamagic or invocations-. But thematically, and archetypically, it can only depict a very narrow archetype. Why do sorcerer and warlock exist? because wizard is an extremely narrow archetype. Why are wizard archetypes so dry and lacking in flavor? because wizard is too specific and there's little room to explore more variations of it. Warlock? warlock can have as many archetypes as entries in the monster manual, Sorcerer? sorcerer can have as many themes as words in the dictionary....

Look, I know you are quite the fan of the sorcerer. But having a main big-tent arcane casting class, with a few archetypes having innate casting +metamagic and other using spellbook + ritual and other having bonus known spell given by a patron would not be detrimental to anything if archetypes are chosen at 1st level.

It would be basically the same? How is this different from the current setup except with more steps? if you can differentiate a wizard from a sorcerer with a subclass choice at first level (going as far as spellcasting ability), then you have essentially two separate classes, if you don't then you have one at the expense of the other. What is gained from this?

Why not use a the Base Wizard class, add to that the Invocation rules from the Warlock with Metamagic and spellbooks being Invocation choices, and then use the flavorful achetypes of the sorcerer and warlock? Best of both world.

Oh right, wizards getting all of the toys...

Edit; Don't get me wrong, it is certainly possible to have a big tent generic spellcaster class, but only if we let go of the D&Disms that have fostered the differences. If you want a huge Mage class that emcopasses everything, you need to denounce of the iconic wizard as it is. A truly generic spellcaster won't look anything like it. (And in turn anyhting like warlock or sorcerer)

 

[Minigiant]

Why the sarcasm? It is pretty much true. Or Paladin could be a subclass of cleric easy enough.

It's too late.

Ever since 3e, the paladin diverged from the cleric. WOTC added so much to many classes that they can't reform without stripping everything out of them.

If two classes share nothing, how can they be subclasses of the same class?

That's my main hangup.

 

[DND_Reborn]

It's too late.

Oh, I know. Too many people would whine and complain if WoTC tried to "go back". That is one of the problems that personally I have faced with D&D for many years now: the game has become much more about what your character can "get" in terms of features and less about what you actually do in the game... It has led to things like analysis paralysis by players, both in trying to decide what to do and how to develop their PCs.

As far as the two classes not sharing anything, the vast majority of paladin spells are cleric spells as well. Most of the paladin's core class features could translate into the cleric subclass's features. IMO it would be harder to represent a paladin as a cleric/fighter than just make them a cleric subclass.

But, as you say, alas... it's too late.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Ever since 3e, the paladin diverged from the cleric. WOTC added so much to many classes that they can't reform without stripping everything out of them.

If two classes share nothing, how can they be subclasses of the same class?

They wear heavy armor, smite with their melee attacks, and cure by touch. They have everything in common.