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

[Cap'n Kobold]

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.

Different how?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Different how?

The way I already described.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It wouldn't be a caster. It would use magic, but not spellcasting. A psion class would need a new system.

What is the difference? What is the difference metaphysically? What it is mechanically? And why it needs a new system?

They've tried that. Purple Dragon Knights and Battlemasters have fighter support abilities, they're not good at being Warlords.

Battlemaster has some support abilities. Use the similar approach but make all the abilities to be support abilities. Stratagems you can choose from instead of manoeuvres. It will work. (Hell, do I really have to write this?)

Eldritch Knights are too much fighters to be proper gishes, and bladesingers, hexblades, and the college of swords and valor all have the opposite problem, they're too much casters to be proper gishes. A true gish class would be a half-caster, an arcane version of the paladin class with spell striking abiliites, and their own unique niche.

So you want a paladin except refluff it as arcane? Doesn't sound worthwhile use of designers' time to me. Seriously, there are plenty of gishes to choose from, but if one arbitrarily decides that a thing is always either too hot or too cold or too something you can 'justify' endless amount of classes. But for that there are games like GURPS.

Except runecasting should be distinct from spellcasting, and is definitely not wizardry.

How? Why? How bloody many ways to cast spells marginally differently there needs to be?

No. More of a witch. A class with coven magic, charms, jinxes, and blessings.

Witch is literally another word for warlock. At most you need a sublclass with couple of extra spells to do it.

Except oracles don't have spellbooks, and shouldn't have to worship a god.

Oracle of the Delphi (you know, the famous one) was literally the high priestess of Apollo. Furthermore, this is the same thing than with the summoner. Oracle is a caster with divination spells, and those spells already exist (just like summoning spells.) If you want a caster who focuses on such magic, you can easily make a subclass for that for the existing caster classes or even more simply just choose such spells. This is like wanting to make a bespoke 'axeman' class whose thing is that they fight with axes.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well that is an understandable wording and it definitely makes this trickier. The thing is that one of the biggest negative effects of having too many classes is that the existing classes become too narrow mechanically and thematically, but if we are not allowed to give the stuff of the removed classes to the remaining classes then it really doesn't solve it.

But then again, I don't think such limitation is sensible as the game is not static, new stuff gets introduced all the time. Tasha's Cauldron will include new features for existing classes and a lot of new subclasses. So keeping that in mind, I would still kill either sorcerer or warlock, so that in the future products the designers could use the freed design space to improve the remaining class.

New stuff does get introduced all the time (in one form or another), but almost nothing gets removed. The standard is to make few if any changes to existing content.

 

[Campbell]

It does not make a lot of sense to talk about classes in terms of need. The game started with Fighting Men and Magic Users and functioned fine. Other classes have added a lot to the game though.

Remember the Gnome Effect? There is niche material that while it may be used by a small portion of players makes them fall in love with the game. Current attitudes towards niche content mean fewer Gnomes. I think that's a shame

 

[Minigiant]

Nah. As I have said many times, easy to combine with warlocks. Whether the magical being that gave you your power is your boss or a relative is not a sufficient distinction. A fey pact warlock could just as easily represent fey ancestry etc.

Actually in D&D it'ss a major distiction. It's the whole point and basis of having seperate caster in D&D..

Clerics get their powers from the top dogs of the cosmos who control the portfolios: the gods.
Druids get their powers from the divinity of nature itself or the many lingering energies of nature gods, spirits and elementals.
Warlocks are the the next rung down who get their powers from powerful beings who either lack divinity, portfolios, or decide not to share their power.
Wizards are next in the source order and tap into the basic building blocks of magic that isn't channeled through powerful beings.
Bards follow them by commiting to a bastardie version of wizard magic via the magic of song. It's wiggly enough to snag from some divinity and nature magic.
Sorcerers are last as they have magic in their blood. Their source is weakest as it is diluted in mortal blood, often comes from nondivine beings, and might not come from a living entity at all.

1. Gods
2. Nature
3. Powerful immortals
4. The Code
5. The worse code
6. Monsters and the elements

D&D puts gods, devils, and dragon on different tiers.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It does not make a lot of sense to talk about classes in terms of need. The game started with Fighting Men and Magic Users and functioned fine. Other classes have added a lot to the game though.

Remember the Gnome Effect? There is niche material that while it may be used by a small portion of players makes them fall in love with the game. Current attitudes towards niche content mean fewer Gnomes. I think that's a shame

Gnomes and halflings should be merged into one species.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Actually in D&D it'ss a major distiction. It's the whole point and basis of having seperate caster in D&D..

Clerics get their powers from the top dogs of the cosmos who control the portfolios: the gods.
Druids get their powers from the divinity of nature itself or the many lingering energies of nature gods, spirits and elementals.
Warlocks are the the next rung down who get their powers from powerful beings who either lack divinity, portfolios, or decide not to share their power.
Wizards are next in the source order and tap into the basic building blocks of magic that isn't channeled through powerful beings.
Bards follow them by commiting to a bastardie version of wizard magic via the magic of song. It's wiggly enough to snag from some divinity and nature magic.
Sorcerers are last as they have magic in their blood. Their source is weakest as it is diluted in mortal blood, often comes from nondivine beings, and might not come from a living entity at all.

1. Gods
2. Nature
3. Powerful immortals
4. The Code
5. The worse code
6. Monsters and the elements

D&D puts gods, devils, and dragon on different tiers.

Except this doesn't work. Raven Queen is a god and a warlock patron.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

The way I already described.

Other than the "but be different from both clerics and druid", what you described sounds like a subclass of one of those. - The only constructive change that you mention is some extra spells - Which sounds like something provided by a subclass.

Battlemaster has some suppoert abilities. Use the similar approach but make all the abilities to nbe support abilities. Stratagems you can choose from instead of manoeuvres. It will work. (Hell, do I really have to write this?)

Its been mentioned a couple of times, but battlemaster doesn't have the wrong type of abilities, it has the wrong scale. Its like saying Eldritch Knight is fine as a wizard.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Its been mentioned a couple of times, but battlemaster doesn't have the wrong type of abilities, it has the wrong scale. Its like saying Eldritch Knight is fine as a wizard.

People keep saying things like that, but no one has actually articulated what it actually means in practice. What are the sort of feature that a warlord must have, which doesn't fit in the subclass budget?

Furthermore, as I said earlier, I don't think that a pure support class that does practically nothing else fits in the 5E design paradigm, Classes have their fortes, but they're not one trick ponies. Like sure, clerics heal and buff, but they can also fight. And now you might say that it is sufficient that warlords have mundane combat capabilities similar to the cleric and dedicate the rest of their budget to support. But clerics don't do that, because they can also use their spellcasting for combat. So to equal the similar personal combat power on a mundane character, this means having greater non-magical combat power than the cleric has, and then we are already nearing the fighter territory.