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

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I understand you desire for an "arcane" version of a half-caster, a kin to Paladins (divine) and Rangers (primal), but the last thing I want to see (personally) is more classes in D&D.

Why? Why do you not want more classes? Does it harm anything to add more? I'm honestly asking.

It actually got me thinking a bit about going the other route... Make a warrior/half-caster class, with subclasses of "Gish", Paladin, Ranger; where by choosing the subclass you are choosing whether your half-caster is all about arcane, divine, or primal.

It could work if they decided to nuke half the classes in D&D 6e, but I personally don't like that route.

 

[cbwjm]

@AcererakTriple6

I understand you desire for an "arcane" version of a half-caster, a kin to Paladins (divine) and Rangers (primal), but the last thing I want to see (personally) is more classes in D&D.

It actually got me thinking a bit about going the other route... Make a warrior/half-caster class, with subclasses of "Gish", Paladin, Ranger; where by choosing the subclass you are choosing whether your half-caster is all about arcane, divine, or primal.

That would work if you can choose your subclass at level 1. There is a dmsguild product called the magus which does something kind of like this, choosing your subclass at level one sets your entire spell list among other things so would be a fairly good model.

However, a half-caster that lets you focus on arcane, divine, or primal powers I feel like it might be missing a bit of specialisation that the current paladin and ranger get. Unless you add in something like the pacts that warlock get to help differentiate them.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Why? Why do you not want more classes? Does it harm anything to add more? I'm honestly asking.

It shifts the focus of the game even further away from the actual table, and toward the character creation mini-game.

It's good if a player knows what type of character they want to play. It's bad if they have to spend any amount of time figuring out how to "build" that character.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

It shifts the focus of the game even further away from the actual table, and toward the character creation mini-game.

It's good if a player knows what type of character they want to play. It's bad if they have to spend any amount of time figuring out how to "build" that character.

I fail to see how adding 7 more classes would change that. It takes 1 minute explaining a class to a new group of players, and they will remember what they are when making other characters.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I fail to see how adding 7 more classes would change that. It takes 1 minute explaining a class to a new group of players, and they will remember what they are when making other characters.

If a player decides that they want to make a gish, then adding a gish class to the game is the worst thing you could do, because there are already three arcane-magic sword-wielders in the PHB alone. They already know what they want to make, but instead of being able to pick that option and go, they're forced to learn all of the obscure minutiae that differentiates them from each other just so they can make an informed decision. Adding even more options to the mix does not help. You're just giving them more homework that they need to read through before they can start playing.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

If a player decides that they want to make a gish, then adding a gish class to the game is the worst thing you could do, because there are already three arcane-magic sword-wielders in the PHB alone. They already know what they want to make, but instead of being able to pick that option and go, they're forced to learn all of the obscure minutiae that differentiates them from each other just so they can make an informed decision. Adding even more options to the mix does not help. You're just giving them more homework that they need to read through before they can start playing.

And they have to do that one time, and then they're done. If they want to be a wizard that can gish, they can be a Bladesinger. If they want to be a fighter that can gish, they can be an Eldritch Knight. If they want to be a Warlock that can gish, they can be a Hexblade. If they want their whole class to be based around gishing, they can be the Gish class, if there was one in the official game. You already have to do that for War Clerics, Paladins, and Celestial Bladelocks. Adding that for gish characters doesn't make anything worse.

 

[Minigiant]

I've pondered this briefly once or twice in the past and then found myself thinking it wouldn't be very good.

Re-reading Glen Cook's Dread Empire series has two characters that makes me wonder how it would work though... the spectacularly written Magelin Radetic in the prequels, and then the more superficial Michael Trebilcock at the end of the main sequence and in the sequels. That they apparently teach fencing at the Rebsamen University in Hellin Daimiel would probably be important to making them playable. The former has also has some "rally the troops" skills when pressed and the later is good at being a sneak. (I can't imagine de Camp and Pratt's Harold Shea being nearly as useful without fencing either -- although his magical aptitude helped).

I'm more familiar with 2e and PF than 5e, and in those, I probably would have started with a Bard and nuked the magic, or a Rogue without sneak attack but who could give suggestions to colleagues (like a mini-Warlord).

It's hard to imagine but I can't help but see the gap in the fantasy archetypes where it could lay.

The D&D Rogue could have toook on the role but edition after edition focuses and doubles down the clases underhandedness, sneakiness, and skullduggery. The skills aspect gets covered in the dirty slime of SNEAKATTACK, thieves tools, and Thieves Cant.

There is a space for the learned researcher or wise man who isn't a 12th rank thief of the local criminal organization to adventurer and explorer the ruins of a lost civilization, tomb of an long dead king, or the mansion of an evil vampire.

Now I'm not saying the class would be a defenseless wimp. I'd gofor a war cleric like base assumption. I'm just think the class would not go the full assassiny route of the rogue nor display the supreme combat prowess of the fighter.

Because that's the other part: fighters aren't just guys who fight anymore. Fighter are combat masters perform the most incredible feats of martial prowess. If Professor Scotch is a 10th level fighter, he can outfight 99% of the knights in a kingdom 1v1. That's why I am tempted to meld the Truenamer and Warlord into the class. Only a big stinking nerd would study enough Truespeak to make it combat capable. And I could see someone with expertise in History and a geek for thefamous battles of history bringing that to the table in an orc fight.

Push come to shove the Scholar class would have the subclasses of Detective, Duelist, Medic, Truenamer, Warlord.

 

[Cadence]

If a player decides that they want to make a gish, then adding a gish class to the game is the worst thing you could do, because there are already three arcane-magic sword-wielders in the PHB alone. They already know what they want to make, but instead of being able to pick that option and go, they're forced to learn all of the obscure minutiae that differentiates them from each other just so they can make an informed decision. Adding even more options to the mix does not help. You're just giving them more homework that they need to read through before they can start playing.

Do most new players read through all the supplemental books before playing for the first time?

Is four that much more than three?

If your against having to do more homework because of more options, does that mean you are also against any new sub-classes and archetypes?

 

[DND_Reborn]

Why? Why do you not want more classes? Does it harm anything to add more? I'm honestly asking.

IMO yes and here is why:

Let's go back in time... many years ago... to 1E AD&D. You had the Player's Handbook, and later Unearthed Arcana and Oriental Adventures. Other than some settings books (like Dragonlance), for making your character concept and deciding your races, etc. that was pretty much it. Nearly all the additional books were meant to build on the rule systems for the game: Dungeon Master's Guide, Monster Manuals 1 and 2, the Fiend Folio, Deities & Demigods, The Manual of the Planes, The Wilderness Survival Guide, the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide, etc.; and thus revolved more around building the "game world" and the adventure. The adventure is what was important. The excitement of the quest! Not what new feature your PC was about to get, or what other class you should take to maximize your damage potential or try to break the system.

Now, I blame 2E when the bloat came and starting this. Every race and class eventually had a guide book of one sort or another, there were so many new things with kits and such it was ridiculous in the end. I hope 5E never gets to this point, but it has a healthy start in that direction.

Don't get me wrong, there was plenty of stuff in AD&D that had its issues as well!

Now, we come forward to the present. Today I was discussing house-rules with one of my online players. He started mentioning a race I and some spells I never heard of! Later, he told me they were from Acquisitions Incorporated. Sigh... When players want to play things that, as a DM, I have no access to and really don't want to add more stuff to my games, it becomes an issue. Their happiness is lessened because they want to be something I'm not prepared to approve and frankly don't want to add. More subclasses, more bloat. More races, more bloat. More everything, more bloat. There is enough, already.

I understand: it is a business and has to put out content to make money. No issues there.

But there are other things I would like to see that for 5E simply aren't going to happen. One of the players will DM for the first time soon. He was asking me how does a rule work for something (I forget exactly what, it was a couple weeks ago), but my response was "Well, there really isn't a rule. You just have to make it up and deal with it however you feel works best." Some people love that freedom in 5E, for others it is annoying as HELL! The game feels incomplete to me because of such issues. There are other things I would like to see done, but I know aren't a priority for WotC so I won't see them...

I've said it before and I'm sure I'll say it again: the game used to be more about what your character did, not what your character can do. That might not make any sense... it is past midnight here so I am probably just rambling anyway. I'll leave this for now and revisit it in the morning when I have time.

Before I go I'll say one more thing. I would rather see more subclasses than classes. I think the core types are already there to build out pretty much anything you can think of and I don't think you need a class for every concept under the sun. BUT (and this is a big but ) what I personally don't want to see is SO much overlap and making magic even more ingrained into each subclass (I'm looking at you, Wild Magic Barbarian or whatever!). To me, personally, part of the appeal of D&D is the mundane. Because then, when the magical and really heroic stuff happens, it is much more special.

I hope that clears up some of my perspective. I'll never fault WotC for trying to make money LOL or appeal to what their market research shows is what the broadest groups want, but when it makes things harder, or more annoying for me, then I'm not happy about seeing it...

Ok, I need sleep. Until tomorrow.

 

[MoonSong]

Sorcerer is the most pointless class in the game.

The horror, the horror! T.T