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

[Minigiant]

The Dragon Magazine had got the Savant class but it was a spellcaster, like the Archivist class from "Heroes of Horror".

A sage in a D&D squad is like to mix CSI and SWAT. They are different styles. A (no-magic) sage is too weak in the hard battlefield. And lots of players would rather to use magic tricks to find clues for an investigation.

I see a scholar/sage class as an adventuring learned man.

I could see it having:

• Expertise
• Bonus languages
• 4e's Int to AC
• Ways to add Int, Wis, or Cha to attack or damage rolls
• Charming people by just talking to them
• Surgery boosted by magic
• identifying weakness in enemies
• Buffs as "fantasy battle tactics"

 

[Tonguez]

Life Clerics can't smite until level8. They don't get martial weapons. And clerics are primarily spellcasters.
It's a totally different experience for a modern paladin.

cough*Prestige Class*cough

paladin is one class I think should be level-gated using Cleric-Zealot as base class

 

[Minigiant]

IMO 3E expanding barbarian was fine. 4E I can't say, I never played it. From what I've seen of it, I wouldn't like it. 5E, mysticism and primal magic to barbarians killed the class IMO. I have no interest in playing a 5E barbarian over all, but at least some of the subclasses remained "true" to the original (sort of--- not enough for me, but at least it's kind of there).

I feel the opposite. I like the mystical and primal aspects of the barbarian. Makes it more justified being a separate class than a mere 'angry fighter' would.

I like both.
Beauty is how it boosts both the lore of the barbarian and fighter.

The Fighter is trained.
The Barbarian isn't.

The barbarian didn't go to the royal academy of magic knights. He didn't squire under Sir Karl. He wasn't trained by Master Kazama. He didn't read books of Johan the Red.

The barbarian is untrained in martial arts. That's why they get no fighting style. That's why they fight with rage or spirits or religious fervor.

 

[Minigiant]

cough*Prestige Class*cough

paladin is one class I think should be level-gated using Cleric-Zealot as base class

Why must all paladins be high level?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

By having done it wrong, you mean like in PF where some of the gish are woeful compared to some of the others gotten there in a different way?

If there are three ways to model Drizzt, then there's room to argue about which way is "most accurate to the books" or "most powerful" compared to the others. If there's one way to model Drizzt, then there's no argument.

I'm not familiar with all of the different gish available in Pathfinder, but the Complete Warrior from 3.5 introduced a samurai class, where the subsequent advice regarding how to play a samurai was to make it as a paladin or a fighter or anything other than the actual samurai class.

Is that less of an issue in 5e because of the way it's set up?

Fifth edition is about middle of the road, as far as these games go. I still see plenty of questions about the benefits and drawbacks of different ways to model the same character concept. The introduction of feats will aggravate the problem considerably.

 

[Gladius Legis]

The goal of making a good game is often at odds with the goal of running a successful business. Reducing bloat would be good for the game as a game, even if it is politically non-viable.

1) I reject the statement that it would be good for the game in any capacity.
2) It would be bad for the survival of the brand, regardless.

 

[Gladius Legis]

cough*Prestige Class*cough

Let's not.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

1) I reject the statement that it would be good for the game in any capacity.

Do you have any logical argument to support that statement? Why do you think it's better if there are multiple ways to model the same character concept, rather than just one?

 

[Gladius Legis]

Why do you think it's better if there are multiple ways to model the same character concept, rather than just one?

There aren't, though. There's only one way to make a ranger, and that is the actual ranger class. Other classes or combinations of classes might work for something functionally similar (but not the exact same), and in 5e will likely work better mechanically since the ranger class itself is a mess, but it still isn't a ranger.

 

[Maxperson]

That's the point of only removing redundant classes. There's nothing stopping you from re-creating Conan or Drizzt as just fighters rather than barbarians or rangers. The only difference is, without the redundant classes, nobody can tell you that you did it wrong.

There are no redundant classes. Making Conan or Drizzt as fighters = failure to achieve the concept. It may work for YOU, but it wouldn't even come close to working for me.