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

[TwoSix]

I'd say it should strive to emulate Galahad. Myths and legends based on the real world, not computer games. But this of course is a matte of preference. But for my liking effortless flashy magic becoming more and more abundant, even for classes that whose sole focus is not fantastic magic is unfortunate. It makes everything feel more like a computer game rather than even as somewhat grounded fantasy book or a film and ultimately makes magic feel completely non-magical.

I disagree, but as you said, a matter of preference. I'm simply fortunate in that my preferences appear to be currently in ascendance for the game as a whole.

 

[Cadence]

gish, 1/2 caster, d10 HD, Extra attack at 5th level and 17th level

Could the spot of special Gish classes (like the PF Magus) be met by simpling having a toolbox of skills/feats/abilities that could be applied to even-split Sorcerer/Wizard x Fighter/Rogue* to keep them at the power level of the single classed characters? Maybe a rule for 1st level, something for casting while wielding, and possibly a restriction on some types of spells. This would allow for the filling of that nitch without needing 4 extra classes (or 5 if Barb/Sorc* too) and having to force some unique flavoring.

 

[TwoSix]

Exactly. There seems to be this weird notion that classes require elaborate justicifcation before they can deign to exist. "A non-trivial number of people will have fun with it" is literally all the justification any class requires.

I think some of this comes from the common play trope that classes are actual entities that exist in the fiction (that PCs and NPCs think of themselves as "fighters"), which I've always found somewhat silly. It's why I've always preferred classes to be broad (such that it covers such a broad swath of concepts that no character would identify as "Class") or very specific (such that it only covers a few individuals, and everyone in that small tent is still differentiated from each other).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

RPG's are well into the realm of luxury goods, so"need" does not really enter into it (and even if we as players needed something, the class as an abstract concept cannot possibly need anything so the "does not need to exist" phrasing is meaningless).

With that out of the way, I want it to exist. I sadly never got the chance to play one in 4e, but I have GMed for one (a Warlord, not a "lazy" build) and they brought a lot of fun to the table for everyone involved.

'Lazy warlord' was an internet term for a build that basically never personally fought and merely boosted and healed their allies and gave them actions. And yeah, I have played in a group with one and it was rather tiresome and immersion breaking in the long run.

No, it isn't that. You seem to be trying to claim the existance of a class called "Warlord" precludes warlords in the plain-english sense from existing in the setting.

It most likely in practice would prevent a proper warlords from mechanically existing They will either make it as subcclass or a full class, not both.

Even if that wasn't obvious nonsense, it could be easily fixed by renaming the class ("Warlord" is a pretty crappy name anyway - it is the concept of a martial replacement for the Cleric that I care about, not the name).

And 'martial replacement of cleric' is not a thing that should exist, warlords should do their own thing instead of emulating another class with different fluff. You can already play cleric and pretend that their magic is not actually magic. Sure, it would be silly and immersion breaking but so is the sort of warlord you want so it shouldn't bother you.

Exactly. There seems to be this weird notion that classes require elaborate justicifcation before they can deign to exist. "A non-trivial number of people will have fun with it" is literally all the justification any class requires.

If you would have ever done some greater creative process you would understand and choosing what not to include is just as important than choosing what to include. There should be some coherent vision and only things that fit that should be included lest the end product becomes incoherent mess.

 

[TwoSix]

Could the spot of special Gish classes (like the PF Magus) be met by simpling having a toolbox of skills/feats/abilities that could be applied to even-split Sorcerer/Wizard x Fighter/Rogue* to keep them at the power level of the single classed characters? Maybe a rule for 1st level, something for casting while wielding, and possibly a restriction on some types of spells. This would allow for the filling of that nitch without needing 4 extra classes (or 5 if Barb/Sorc too) and having to force some unique flavoring.

That's what I would lean towards. Simple base classes, more mix-and-match options available to customize characters to fit concepts as needed.

I'm hoping the sidekick classes in Tasha's are very flexible in this regard.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think some of this comes from the common play trope that classes are actual entities that exist in the fiction (that PCs and NPCs think of themselves as "fighters"), which I've always found somewhat silly. It's why I've always preferred classes to be broad (such that it covers such a broad swath of concepts that no character would identify as "Class") or very specific (such that it only covers a few individuals, and everyone in that small tent is still differentiated from each other).

I kinda varies. Sure, things like fighters and rogues are pretty vague, but some things such as wizards of certain schools of magic, druid circles, martial arts schools of the monks and many many others clearly are supposed to be in-world concepts as well. And if we have large number of classes and weirdly specific subclasses like we do now, then I prefer it to be that way. The difference in fiction makes the difference in mechanics feel like it actually represents something instead of just being gamist rules bloat. But yeah, with a lesser number of broad and flexible classes such approach would be less warranted.

 

[glass]

'Lazy warlord' was an internet term for a build that basically never personally fought and merely boosted and healed their allies and gave them actions.

Since I literally used the term in my post that you quoted, I obviously know what a "lazy Warlord" refers to.

It most likely in practice would prevent a proper warlords from mechanically existing They will either make it as subcclass or a full class, not both.

But "proper warlords" are not adventurers, they are people sitting in castles and command tents miles from the action. That is not something that really needs much in a way of mechanics, and is certainly not a PC character class. So again, that fear must be unfounded.

And 'martial replacement of cleric' is not a thing that should exist, warlords should do their own thing instead of emulating another class with different fluff.

And the 4e Warlord does exactly that; "is a replacement for" != "is identically equal to". So mission accomplished?

If you would have ever done some greater creative process you would understand and choosing what not to include is just as important than choosing what to include. There should be some coherent vision and only things that fit that should be included lest the end product becomes incoherent mess.

By all means, insult me some more. That will make your onetruewayism seem more reasonable. [/sarcasm]

_
glass.

 

[TwoSix]

Regardless of how many are in which camp, that's not evidence for which side is acting rationally. If you want to claim that it actually makes sense to have three different ways of modeling the same ranger, then you need to address that argument directly.

It makes sense because there's no such thing as a single version of any character, especially a well-known character. There are a million different versions, each built by the distinct relationship between the reader (or other media consumer) and the consumer. If you build your own version of Drizz't, you're going to emphasize the shards and facets of the character that were most relevant and personal to your own reading.

Heck, this is true in real life. Everyone who knows me would model a different version of me, because they see different aspects of me. Even my own model of myself would necessarily be incomplete, because I can't see myself from the outside. Only the aggregate of every person's perception comes the closest to actually being "true", likewise, the only Drizz't model that is "correct" is the aggregate of everyone's perception of him.

 

[Mecheon]

Warlock has interesting mechanics, but lore that fails to properly set it apart from the clerics

This is one I'm heavily going to disagree with.

Clerics follow divinities. They worship a being and gain a bit of its power, but they're hardly the only ones who do so. Being an adventurer they might get a one-on-one session of 'hey, you're doing great, keep doing that' or 'please sort this problem out', but they're hardly the only ones around. I mean, some may worship regional deities, but there's that worship base in there and the fact you are specifically doing it for that deity.
Warlocks do not follow divinities. They make pacts and bargains with various beings, who run the whole gamut from 'nice' to 'evil' and of course 'unknowable ancient beings from beyond the veil'. They may have just stumbled into an area and accidentally just, read the wrong thing. Picked up a sword in a store and next thing they know they hear its whispers, as its been waiting oh so very long for someone like them, and now its plans can begin. Warlocks aren't necessarily working for where they have the power from, they just have that power and, well, boss'll be back every now and again to check in.

 

[DND_Reborn]

a build that basically never personally fought and merely boosted and healed their allies and gave them actions

This sounds like some sort of weird bard-cleric hybrid...