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

[glass]

[Warlock]A fighter subclass.

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

"Why do we need roast lamb when we can just combine ice cream and custard?"

Seriously, do you have any idea what a Warlord actually is? I certainly cannot be accomodated in the tiny feature set of a Fighter subclass, and as for multiclassing Bard, the whole point of the Warlord is that it is Martial. It is not a spellcaster.

EDIT: Tyrion Lannister was a Warlord. He absolutely was not a Fighter.

_
glass.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Seriously, do you have any idea what a Warlord actually is?

Yes. But I'm not sure you do. Alexander, Caesar, Genhis Khan, Napoleon. These are warlords.

I certainly cannot be accomodated in the tiny feature set of a Fighter subclass,

Yes you can. Other fighter subclasses are you rank-and-file, or perhaps champions, the warlords are the generals. But they're all branches of the same overall profession. Warlord isn't and shouldn't be fundamentally different from other fighters and they should be able to go toe-to-toe with the enemy when needed.

and as for multiclassing Bard, the whole point of the Warlord is that it is Martial. It is not a spellcaster.

Certainly true.

EDIT: Tyrion Lannister was a Warlord. He

absolutely was not a Fighter.

He was some sort of a courtier. Tywin was a warlord.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

It's less about what they get and more how they play. That's why WOTC can't go back. The paladin and cleric diverged too much in playstyle in 3e and seperated completely in 4e then 5e.

WOTC turned the paladin into the Smite-Monster and the cleric into the White-Mage and that's how they are seen in popular fantasy culture. The Paladin plays nothing like a cleric now. The cleric blasts enemies and revives allies with spells. The paladin doesn't really. The paladin is now more like a divinely boosted fighter.

So unless you are saying paladins should get 9th level spells or clerics are fighters the damage is done. Them using the same spell list isn't enough to make them subclasses anymore. Clerics summon angels. Paladins become angels.

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

Clerics don't get heavy armor by default anymore.
Clerics don't smite with melee attacks anymore by default anymore.

The classes diverged in 3e and in 5e are 2 separate archetypes.

EDIT: Tyrion Lannister was a Warlord. He absolutely was not a Fighter.

Tyrion is of the nonexistent Scholar/Sage class that D&D has needed since AD&D 2e.


If ANY class that 5e should add it's That one.
A mental class that isn't magic based for Thor's sake.

 

[dave2008]

At this point your not really talking about just removing those classes though.

That is correct. However, in reality all my groups needs is fighter, rogue, and wizard, that is all they have played in 6 years of 5e!

 

[Stalker0]

So ultimately to me, there are two aspects that should align before a class is born.

1) Interesting Mechanical Design space.
2) Interesting Flavor archetype that meshes with number 1.

So for example, I actually think the Warlock makes sense as a class. The Warlock has a short rest spell recharge system unique from other casters, plus the at-will casting of "real magic" that no other spellcaster gets. That checks off box number 1. And then the Warlock does have interesting flavor, I've had several people in my group interested in the flavor of the class.

Now do I think the flavor required new mechanics? No I don't, and I think you could have just played a wizard with devil pact flavor and been good to go. But the class at least offers a truly different way to play compared to standard casters.

Now the sorc on the other hand I think is mostly a waste of space. Its a charisma wizard that gets the subclass of metamagic as its "specialty". You really could have done it as a wizard subclass instead of needing its own class....as other than the metamagics really the sorceror shares near the same spell list and casting mechanics as the wizard does. I do think you can make a sorceror truly different with metamagic, but I don't think WOTC push the mechanic strong enough to warrant the different class.

 

[Stalker0]

It's less about what they get and more how they play. That's why WOTC can't go back. The paladin and cleric diverged too much in playstyle in 3e and separated completely in 4e then 5e.

WOTC turned the paladin into the Smite-Monster and the cleric into the White-Mage and that's how they are seen in popular fantasy culture. The Paladin plays nothing like a cleric now. The cleric blasts enemies and revives allies with spells. The paladin doesn't really. The paladin is now more like a divinely boosted fighter.

I disagree that the paladin could not be assumed into the Fighter / Cleric hybrid, I think that is absolutely possible even in the design space of 5e. Heck just add the smite spells to the cleric list and your already mostly there.

That said, I do agree with you that we have gone too far to go back. The classes have been seperate for two long, and the paladin is a popular enough class that I don't think people would tolerate the pullback.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

To say "we have enough classes" is as saying "my wife, you have got enough dresses, why to buy more clothing?", or saying "My Little Pony" had got enough characters, why to add more in the last seasons?"

And if WotC introduce the idea of class features to be replaced with options, the classes can change radically, for example the warlock using a new game mechanic as the vestige pact magic.

Maybe the hexblade and the duskblade are recycled as martial adept classes, with martial maneuvers, the middle step between at will and once encounter power, but with a simple game mechanic to can be used with nPCs, for example samurai hobgoblins as boss bodyguards.

Some new classes could be hybrid by other two.

I imagine the warlord to be played in Birthright, or miniature wargames, or at least leading a skirmishes gang, at least in a videogame.

What if Paizo chooses to adapt to 5th Ed. its own new base classes (inquisitor, oracle, gunslinger, cavalier, alchemist, shifter..)?

 

[Minigiant]

I disagree that the paladin could not be assumed into the Fighter / Cleric hybrid, I think that is absolutely possible even in the design space of 5e. Heck just add the smite spells to the cleric list and your already mostly there.

Just to be clear. I'mnot saying that you couldn't make a Paladin with a Fighter/Cleric multiclass with custom feats and adding smite spells to the cleric class.

I'm saying

• You really can't make the modern Paladin as a Fighter subclass
• You really can't make the modern Paladin as a Cleric subclass
• I don't think editing the cleric orfighter to include the paladin and adding paladin feats is a better solution than having a paladin class by itself.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So ultimately to me, there are two aspects that should align before a class is born.

1) Interesting Mechanical Design space.
2) Interesting Flavor archetype that meshes with number 1.

So for example, I actually think the Warlock makes sense as a class. The Warlock has a short rest spell recharge system unique from other casters, plus the at-will casting of "real magic" that no other spellcaster gets. That checks off box number 1. And then the Warlock does have interesting flavor, I've had several people in my group interested in the flavor of the class.

Now do I think the flavor required new mechanics? No I don't, and I think you could have just played a wizard with devil pact flavor and been good to go. But the class at least offers a truly different way to play compared to standard casters.

Now the sorc on the other hand I think is mostly a waste of space. Its a charisma wizard that gets the subclass of metamagic as its "specialty". You really could have done it as a wizard subclass instead of needing its own class....as other than the metamagics really the sorceror shares near the same spell list and casting mechanics as the wizard does. I do think you can make a sorceror truly different with metamagic, but I don't think WOTC push the mechanic strong enough to warrant the different class.

Yeah, good analysis.

But I feel that thematically sorcerer resembles warlock more than it does a wizard. They both have magical power due some link to a magical being. One just gains that due birth and another intentionally but as both happen before the game starts it doesn't really matter much. Like perhaps you have fae magic because of your fae ancestry instead of making a deal with arch fey and perhaps you have dragon magic due making a pact with a powerful dragon instead of having dragon blood. These distinctions are just fluff and could easily vary from setting to setting and making a separate sublass for both warlock and sorcerer for every entity one could make pact with/be descended from is an utter waste of time. Getting rid of sorcerer and converting the existing sorcerer subclasses into warlock subclasses would result a better sorcerer.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Just to be clear. I'mnot saying that you couldn't make a Paladin with a Fighter/Cleric multiclass with custom feats and adding smite spells to the cleric class.

I'm saying

• You really can't make the modern Paladin as a Fighter subclass
• You really can't make the modern Paladin as a Cleric subclass
• I don't think editing the cleric orfighter to include the paladin and adding paladin feats is a better solution than having a paladin class by itself.

What's 'modern paladin?' If the distinction between paladin and cleric is that the paladin is much more fighty than the cleric who is more casty, I think paladin could easily work as a fighter subclass. Basically an eldritch knight except with cleric spells. And sure, that would make paladin a bit less magical, but to me that is a feature, not a bug.