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

[DND_Reborn]

Paladins be angels now.

This also gets into the issue of too many classes having too many "magical" abilities.

Also, other than smiting, Paladins always could heal, had divine protections, etc. Nothing really new here, just the interpretation of them.

 

[Coroc]

i would like additional classes only in setting context arti for eberron, psion for DS e.g.
But that is wishful thinking so i voted it's good as it is.

 

[Minigiant]

It changed into that and it can be changed back.

Won't be me who does it. I don't wanna be smited by paladin fans.

Luckily, neither you nor I are bound by Mike Mearl's super special flavor text.

Different classes take different roles in different settings. The flavor text in the books defaults to the Forgotten Realms. Since I don't run my games there, Mike's super special flavor test doesn't apply.

Sure, but it's not just the text. It's the mechanics. From 3e and on, paladins mechanically became less like fighters and clerics and more like monsters. Probably to justify them as their own separate class.

This also gets into the issue of too many classes having too many "magical" abilities.

Also, other than smiting, Paladins always could heal, had divine protections, etc. Nothing really new here, just the interpretation of them.

That too. 3e started both the "magic everywhere" train and the "supernatural ability everywhere" train.

That's the thing. A game compay has to sell you something different to make it worth buying. WOTC knows classes that are just hybrids of old classes wont sell as well. So they reinvent them to spark interest in new demos.

That's the cornerstone of "Should 5e have more classes?"
The more classes have to be new ideas in flavor and mechanics to pull in more purchases.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I don't wanna be smited by paladin fans.

Yeah, watch out! They can be mean, little zealots!

That too. 3e started both the "magic everywhere" train and the "supernatural ability everywhere" train.

That's the thing. A game compay has to sell you something different to make it worth buying. WOTC knows classes that are just hybrids of old classes wont sell as well. So they reinvent them to spark interest in new demos.

That's the cornerstone of "Should 5e have more classes?"
The more classes have to be new ideas in flavor and mechanics to pull in more purchases.

Personally, I thought the d20 mechanic was a big enough move. shrug

There are so many things they could have done other than giving most classes magical and supernatural abilities... no wonder at higher levels players feel like they are in a superhero or demigod game.

Although wizards to have magic, it isn't inherent in them. Fighters and rogues are both mundane. That is probably why those three classes continue to be my favorites. Clerics are also one I like but I am fine with them as their powers (also not inherent) are "granted" to them.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Sure, but it's not just the text. It's the mechanics. From 3e and on, paladins mechanically became less like fighters and clerics and more like monsters. Probably to justify them as their own separate class.

If it's in the mechanics, why has your proposed sentiment that paladins are angels/demons never entered my game before? I've had several paladins in my game, though never once have they seems particularly supernatural in essence.

Perhaps this has something to do with the five-minute workday (I typically see 8-12 encounters per long rest).

 

[imeannoharm]

Except as a parent, I would never do that. Instead, I would say, "OK, kids. Here are the requirements (clean you room in X number of minutes, do X number of pushup in X number of minutes, etc.) for attaining the ice cream. If you complete those successfully, you will receive ice cream as a reward."

The same thing happens in D&D: the DM presents the challenge / situation, then players compete for the spotlight in the same was Homer's myrmidons and Arthur's knights competed for glory.

Well, first of all people need to clean their room in the first place, a clean room is their reward. But you don't say that to kids. Also, sometimes you can just be kind and give them ice cream because you love them. But yeah, being happy doesn't make someone super.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Well, first of all people need to clean their room in the first place, a clean room is their reward. But you don't say that to kids. Also, sometimes you can just be kind and give them ice cream because you love them. But yeah, being happy doesn't make someone super.

That's the wife's job.

 

[FrogReaver]

The most common and recurring position in this thread is that class A is not needed because we could make it a subclass of class B.

My issue with this position is that it’s a defacto admission that we want to keep all the flavor and fluff of Class A in the game. That’s nearly half of what we all agree that is necessary before something becomes a class.

What’s the other half? This half is about mechanics. It’s about what mechanics are necessary to fulfill the concept and whether the important ones can reasonably fit into a subclass. It’s also about where the class itself has any features that wouldn’t mesh with the flavor and fluff of whatever it is we are trying to create.

Keep in mind D&D has A lot of tradition it’s trying to maintain. So when we are talking Paladin we can’t just say it’s a holy warrior. It instead is a holy warrior that gets lay on hands, spell casting and auras. Could we fit those features onto a fighter subclass while keeping it roughly as powerful as the other fighter subclasses and while achieving the necessary features early enough?

I think the answer to both of those questions is no. A fighter subclass could hold those necessary features but the features would make it too strong and they would come online too slowly.

we could do the same analysis for a cleric subclass. It would come out similar with the added complication that the traditional Paladin isn’t a full caster and is much better at martial combat.

That leaves Class the only place remaining for Paladin.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The most common and recurring position in this thread is that class A is not needed because we could make it a subclass of class B.

My issue with this position is that it’s a defacto admission that we want to keep all the flavor and fluff of Class A in the game. That’s nearly half of what we all agree that is necessary before something becomes a class.

What’s the other half? This half is about mechanics. It’s about what mechanics are necessary to fulfill the concept and whether the important ones can reasonably fit into a subclass. It’s also about where the class itself has any features that wouldn’t mesh with the flavor and fluff of whatever it is we are trying to create.

Thing is that making things into separate classes often needs to adding pointless spells and whistles that detract from the flavour rather than add to it. Paladin is an good example of this. As it has gotten more divergent from the fighter, more ridiculous it has become.

Another aspect is spreading both the flavour and mechanics too thinly. Warlock and Sorcerer have enough fluff and interesting mechanics between them to make a one solid and thematically coherent class. But instead we got two half-arsed and thematically confused ones.

Keep in mind D&D has A lot of tradition it’s trying to maintain. So when we are talking Paladin we can’t just say it’s a holy warrior. It instead is a holy warrior that gets lay on hands, spell casting and auras. Could we fit those features onto a fighter subclass while keeping it roughly as powerful as the other fighter subclasses and while achieving the necessary features early enough?

Yes. Most definitely yes. And you don't need to get all your superpowers at early levels. I think in particularly in the case of paladins it will be far more compelling if they just start out as pretty mundane devout knights and as they progress they start to gain more divine favour (without at any point becoming full computer-gamey discolight-emitting magic-beings.)

 

[FrogReaver]

The one class I would say likely could be merged into a fighter subclass would be a traditional Barbarian. The fighter is broad enough that his fluff meshes well with Barbarian fluff. The only essential feature of a Barbarian is rage. Preferably there would be a reckless attack style feature as well but it wouldn't have to mimic the current barbarians. It could be any mechanic that adds offense and subtracts defense.

IMO, The only reason Barbarian is a class in 5e is because of D&D tradition.