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

[Minigiant]

I don't think removing a class necessitates removing other objects which have a current connection to that class. You can, but you certainly don't have to.

I'm not saying that.

The quotation that started this line of thought was that turning classes into subclasses would lower the amount of spells and feats.

I argued that doing so would create more spells as you would have to make more spells to mimic the classes that were downgraded and forced into the new parent class' system.

I don't think that's necessarily true. Not putting in a paladin class doesn't change the existence of a paladin archetype, they might have simply moved smite-related abilities to cleric or fighter (or wherever else would be appropriate to emulate the paladin archetype).

That's my point.
A paladin subclass would require more spells, not less.

 

[Cadence]

I don't think that's necessarily true. Not putting in a paladin class doesn't change the existence of a paladin archetype, they might have simply moved smite-related abilities to cleric or fighter (or wherever else would be appropriate to emulate the paladin archetype).

Had to go check. So 2e had groups (like Warrior) and then classes (like Paladin and Fighter) instead of classes with archetypes or sub-classes.

Is it the name, or the organization that matters?

 

[TwoSix]

Had to go check. So 2e had groups (like Warrior) and then classes (like Paladin and Fighter) instead of classes with archetypes or sub-classes.

Is it the name, or the organization that matters?

Got me. Personally, the only effect any class hierarchy has in my mind is on multiclassing. The more subclasses that are grouped together into one overarching class, the less possible multiclass combinations you have. Other that that (which is a fairly big caveat), I don't see how having 2 classes with 20 subclasses or just 40 classes has a big difference on what options are available at the table.

 

[Cadence]

Got me. Personally, the only effect any class hierarchy has in my mind is on multiclassing. The more subclasses that are grouped together into one overarching class, the less possible multiclass combinations you have. Other that that (which is a fairly big caveat), I don't see how having 2 classes with 20 subclasses or just 40 classes has a big difference on what options are available at the table.

So, how important is multti-classing? If you have separate classes for every combination of Fighter or Rogue with Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, or Wizard, for example, how much does the need go down. (And then we can have the turf fight over Fighter-Druid "Rangers" and Rogue-Druid "Rangers").

 

[TwoSix]

So, how important is multti-classing? If you have separate classes for every combination of Fighter or Rogue with Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, or Wizard, for example, how much does the need go down. (And then we can have the turf fight over Fighter-Druid "Rangers" and Rogue-Druid "Rangers").

My personal thinking is that while the NEED for it may go down, the DESIRE to do it will still be there. It's too much a part of D&D's DNA.

 

[Cadence]

My personal thinking is that while the NEED for it may go down, the DESIRE to do it will still be there. It's too much a part of D&D's DNA.

Does the amount of desire change if its a campaign that usually stops by level 10, vs. one that goes to 20? Or do a lot of folks just love to multi-class?

 

[TwoSix]

Does the amount of desire change if its a campaign that usually stops by level 10, vs. one that goes to 20? Or do a lot of folks just love to multi-class?

In currently formulated 5e, I don't think it would matter. I'm sure a hypothetical or alternative game in 5e's lineage could either make multiclassing more of a norm or remove it entirely, depending on the design goals. Right now multiclassing is in kind of a weird place as both an accepted rule and simultaneously vaguely shameful if you utilize it too much.

 

[Minigiant]

Just to get back on topic.

5e could use a Scholar/Sage class.

You know.... a smart adventurer who uses knowledge that isn't magic. Science, Tactics, Math, History, Diplomacy.

 

[imeannoharm]

It's fairly common for either both parents (or the only parent) to be working in much of the world. So sure, in a family with mother, father, and children, the father is often expected to work -- but so is the wife. And I'm not sure what that has to do with a dad being able to give his kids ice cream just because. It's not like dads don't get to spend quality time with their kids too (like, say playing D&D).

Depends on how fortunate the family is. Most people I know only have one spouse working. The other takes care of the kids.

 

[MoonSong]

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.

Part of this is that the themes for sorcerers remain underexplored. Sorcerer is not just about "which entry in the monster manual banged grandma". Sorcerer is "my magic is innate", the reason being a creature in the family tree is but one possibility.

IMO, The sorcerers problem is one of bad design. If early on they had removed metamagic and gave more powerful and thematic bloodline features I think it would have worked better. Maybe give each it's own subclass specific bloodline metamagic ability.

More like if they had designed it concurrently with the wizard instead of wasting a year trying to get rid of it and then cobbling it together at the eleventh hour. Metamagic was the kind of mechanic that demanded extended playtesting to fine tune, but didn't get it and the end result was underpowered/overpenalized (It could have been more powerful for the trade offs it required or the trade offs could have been lowered)