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

[Crimson Longinus]

I assumed when you asked "how would the summoner class work, then" that you were asking for basic mechanics. If you limit a shaman to a subclass of the Druid or Cleric, you're limiting the creativity a player can have when making a shaman character.

Most of the mechanics you describe are already in the game, so I don't see what is being lost by not putting them in a fully separate but thematically and mechanically greatly overlapping class. Repeating similar concepts with tiny alterations just make classes lose coherence and thematic integrity. And ultimately a whole point of class based system is to limit options. Things come in prebuilt thematically coherent packages. Sometimes I feel that the people who want seven thousand different classes with minuscule distinctions would be happier with a system like GURPS where you can freely customise and finetune the tiniest detail and there are no classes or other such prebuilt packages. I kinda got the same feeling in many of the recent discussion about the species as well.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Most of the mechanics you describe are already in the game, so I don't see what is being lost by not putting them in a fully separate but thematically and mechanically greatly overlapping class. Repeating similar concepts with tiny alterations just make classes lose coherence and thematic integrity. And ultimately a whole point of class based system is to limit options. Things come in prebuilt thematically coherent packages. Sometimes I feel that the people who want seven thousand different classes with minuscule distinctions would be happier with a system like GURPS where you can freely customise and finetune the tiniest detail and there are no classes or other such prebuilt packages. I kinda got the same feeling in many of the recent discussion about the species as well.

I never said I want thousands of different classes. I want at most 7 more classes, and only ones that have niches to fill. Druids =/= Shamans, IMHO.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I never said I want thousands of different classes. I want at most 7 more classes, and only ones that have niches to fill. Druids =/= Shamans, IMHO.

You want seven. And the next thousand people want seven more. (Seven more alone sounds completely excessive to me.)

Druids =/= Shamans, IMHO.

They're basically the same thing. They have a massive thematic overlap. D&D version of the druid is much closer to a real shaman than to a real druid.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I assumed when you asked "how would the summoner class work, then" that you were asking for basic mechanics. If you limit a shaman to a subclass of the Druid or Cleric, you're limiting the creativity a player can have when making a shaman character.

With the scaling summons spells from the UA that may well be coming out in Tasha's book, how would a summoner class be distinct in actual play from a current spellcasting class (pick the one that matches your concept best) concentrating on those spells?

I'm aware that there are many different takes on what a shaman is and how that would be represented in a D&D Shaman Class, but what are your opinions on it?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

You want seven. And the next thousand people want seven more. (Seven more alone sounds completely excessive to me.)

At most seven more, currently the Psion, Warlord, Gish, Runecaster, Occultist, Shaman, and Oracle. These will fill a lot of the niches that aren't already filled, and I don't think the community would be screaming for a thousand more classes if these were to come out.

They're basically the same thing. They have a massive thematic overlap. D&D version of the druid is much closer to a real shaman than to a real druid.

So what? Paladins are nowhere near the real world definition of a paladin, warlocks are nowhere near the real world definition of a warlock, and bards are nowhere near the real world definition of a bard. Who cares if the real world definition of a shaman fits the druid. There is space for a shaman in D&D as a spirit based totem caster.

 

[Eric V]

Most of the mechanics you describe are already in the game, so I don't see what is being lost by not putting them in a fully separate but thematically and mechanically greatly overlapping class. Repeating similar concepts with tiny alterations just make classes lose coherence and thematic integrity. And ultimately a whole point of class based system is to limit options. Things come in prebuilt thematically coherent packages. Sometimes I feel that the people who want seven thousand different classes with minuscule distinctions would be happier with a system like GURPS where you can freely customise and finetune the tiniest detail and there are no classes or other such prebuilt packages. I kinda got the same feeling in many of the recent discussion about the species as well.

I feel confident that there are no such people as described. Maybe you have a sound argument in here somewhere, but it's lost in all the hyperbole.

5e can accommodate a wider design space than it currently is doing. If that makes more people happier to play the game, that's a positive.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

With the scaling summons spells from the UA that may well be coming out in Tasha's book, how would a summoner class be distinct in actual play from a current spellcasting class (pick the one that matches your concept best) concentrating on those spells?

I'm aware that there are many different takes on what a shaman is and how that would be represented in a D&D Shaman Class, but what are your opinions on it?

A possible shaman class in my opinion would have a mix of the Druid and Cleric spell lists. They would get the prayer spells, healing spells, maybe even some aura spells from the paladin list, as well as some of the basic summoning and damaging spells. They would not have access to Flame Strike or Harm and other spells from both lists that would not fit the flavor of a spirit based totem summoning class. They would have some of those summoning spells (summon bestial spirit, mainly), but be different than both clerics and druid.

 

[TwoSix]

They're basically the same thing. They have a massive thematic overlap. D&D version of the druid is much closer to a real shaman than to a real druid.

There's nothing wrong with overlap. Sometimes players want different mechanical approaches to similar tropes. I use and allow multiple versions of druids, artificers, rangers, and warlocks in my own games.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

There's nothing wrong with overlap. Sometimes players want different mechanical approaches to similar tropes. I use and allow multiple versions of druids, artificers, rangers, and warlocks in my own games.

Exactly. Sorcerers and Wizards have overlap, but that doesn't mean that one has to die to make room for the other.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Psion

I still don't know what makes psionics anything more than a different word for magic and there are already too many caster classes.

Warlord

Should still be a fighter subclass.

Gish

Eldritch Knight, Bladesinger, Hexblade or basically any Bard. Take your pick.

Runecaster

This is what dwarfs call their wizards, right? Instead of spellbooks they have runestones, but they're still just wizards.

Occultist

So a warlock?

Shaman

Still a druid.

Oracle

Divination wizards already exist. Though if one want to go to the original Greek roots, there certainly could be a cleric subclass focusing on prophecy. (There isn't one yet, right? Knowledge domain comes close though.)

So what? Paladins are nowhere near the real world definition of a paladin, warlocks are nowhere near the real world definition of a warlock, and bards are nowhere near the real world definition of a bard. Who cares if the real world definition of a shaman fits the druid. There is space for a shaman in D&D as a spirit based totem caster.

They literally made a druid subclass for that! And yes, if you're using real word terms that are still relevant to existing indigenous cultures, then you actually should pay at least some attention to what these traditions actually entail.