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

[TwoSix]

Then develop the character. You want a PC who can "end the world", make a wizard who quests to create a world-ending artifact or something.

Why "give" such a PC to a player? Make them work for it.

If you just want to "give" it to them as you did, you don't need a class or subclass for it. You make it part of the story that your god has given you this horrible power and responsibility or something. Now you have what you want and you can have it with ANY class and race.

I would imagine because playing a character who CAN destroy the world and a character who WANTS TO destroy the world are two very different experiences. (The "everyone knows you can destroy the world" is a fantastic touch, by the way.)

I agree it does seem tangential to the class/subclass discussion, as I don't think that would ever be a published concept. But I do think running it as a basic fighter with a plot hook would cheapen the idea, somewhat.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, and I feel that by dedicating the whole fighter subclass budget for support (and writing the rules well) we get about equal fight/support split than the clerics do (as they can use their magic for fighting as well as for support, whereas all fight in warlord has to come from their mundane abilities) so that seems like a decent balance for me.

I'm going to preface this by saying that I've never personally liked the Warlord class. I didn't play one before 5e and I wouldn't play a new one if WotC ever releases one. That said, I have looked at the class. The Warlord class has more abilities than any subclass can grant. The only way to make one for 5e that resembles the prior class is through a new class. That way the base class + whichever subclass will wind up similar to the prior versions. If WotC tries to make them Fighter subclasses, they will be giving the players deficient Warlords and that won't go over very well.

 

[Maxperson]

I'd rather not see more subclasses either, because IMO if you want a certain sort of character, just PLAY them that way.

This is not sufficient for me. If I'm playing my Fighter a bow weapon master, it doesn't really cut it that any other Fighter of the same level and Dex is just as good as I am without being played like that.. If we have feats, then we can both have Sharpshooter, but that's another wash.

With a Bow Specialist subclass of Fighter, that can't happen. Any other rival bowman is going to also have that Subclass, so will also be a bow weapon master.

Before anyone says, "Well then play a Ranger. Those have bow abilities." Yes, yes they do. They also have the other Ranger baggage that doesn't fit the concept of someone who is just a bow weapon master. So that fails to work as well.

This was 3e's strength. The sheer number of different prestige classes meant that I could actually realize my concepts with sufficient mechanical support.

It worked for many, many years in 1E and it still works now. We had people playing "swashbucklers" and "diviners" and "sages" and many others in 1E without needing classes or subclasses for them. Your weapon and armor selection, your spells, your proficiencies (once WSG and DSG came out), etc. all factored in, but also your character's personality, decisions, etc. were more important.

We did! But we also didn't know how good it could be when you had support for your concept. 3e let that cat out of the bag and it won't go back in.

 

[DND_Reborn]

This is not sufficient for me. If I'm playing my Fighter a bow weapon master, it doesn't really cut it that any other Fighter of the same level and Dex is just as good as I am without being played like that.. If we have feats, then we can both have Sharpshooter, but that's another wash.

In 5E, if you are a bow weapon master, you have Archery fighting style. That other fighter with the same level and DEX is not just as good as you unless they also are a bow weapon master (or at least a "ranged" weapon master ).

We did! But we also didn't know how good it could be when you had support for your concept. 3e let that cat out of the bag and it won't go back in.

Maybe it is better for you, but not for me. It makes the game too much about the character instead of the adventure and what choices they make in the story. Earlier someone mentioned the mini-game of character creation (and leveling also really) which I think you dismissed? (Sorry if that wasn't you, but I think it was?). I can't tell you how much time players in our group weigh different possibilities now. Should I stay in my same class or start a new one? What spells should I take, what feat should I take, etc. Sure, some choices are easy and if you have a concrete idea in mind it might not be a long process, but most of the time IME half of D&D has become about this mini-game in some ways. Also, now we see players complaining when the start a subclass, but get the next feature (which to them sucks) and they don't want it. Now they complain about wanting something else, or feeling they should have picked a different subclass in the first point. Of course people make poor choices or ones they later regret, but the trend in D&D now seems to be just let people change things and have all the versatility they want.

One thing I will say I did like was the concept of prestige classes when the requirements were not prior-class dependent. Being able to have two or more classes make their way into the same prestige class (through different routes obviously) was interesting.

Honestly, I wish subclasses were more generic and had been done like that. Certain ones might have to remain unique, but why should Assassin only be a Rogue subclass when anyone can really be an assassin? Or allow Arcane Archer to go to Rogues and/or Wizards or Sorcerers or Warlocks even? Creating a flexible system where options can mix-and-match is good game design IMO, but just giving more and more blanket options which leads to too many choices can slow things down.

Anyway, I know which way the wind is blowing and I am not going to fight against it, and fortunately none of it is stuff I have to use. shrug

 

[TwoSix]

Maybe it is better for you, but not for me. It makes the game too much about the character instead of the adventure and what choices they make in the story. Earlier someone mentioned the mini-game of character creation (and leveling also really) which I think you dismissed? (Sorry if that wasn't you, but I think it was?). I can't tell you how much time players in our group weigh different possibilities now. Should I stay in my same class or start a new one? What spells should I take, what feat should I take, etc. Sure, some choices are easy and if you have a concrete idea in mind it might not be a long process, but most of the time IME half of D&D has become about this mini-game in some ways. Also, now we see players complaining when the start a subclass, but get the next feature (which to them sucks) and they don't want it. Now they complain about wanting something else, or feeling they should have picked a different subclass in the first point. Of course people make poor choices or ones they later regret, but the trend in D&D now seems to be just let people change things and have all the versatility they want.

I sympathize. I enjoy the character building mini-game in and of itself, but I also enjoy games with more procedural generation and progression that is more open-ended. What I've come to realize is that I like building a character to be unique within a concept, but I don't like fixed progression and waiting to get cool abilities until I've gathered enough XP. I like my growth to be random and determined by in-campaign events.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Then to me you wasted your money on a bunch of tools you don't end up using.

But that's fine. Use what you want, buy what you want. It's your game, so enjoy it!

If you're concerned about buying tools you don't use, can't you just not buy them? Other people can buy them if they want, WotC can continue producing things many people want and keep making money, and you can just be clear to your players that your campaign uses a reduced set of character options.

 

[Undrave]

Thank you, I can see your point. Not that all of these feel particularly distinct to me but some do. But this kinda comes down to the granularity level one wants. You can always subdivide any concept into even more specific concepts. For example perhaps the chosen one could be a class and there would be subclasses based on the sort of faith or divine entity that provides their divine spark.

My preference is to keep things pretty broad and flexible. I feel that more subclasses should be written in a manner that lets people choose from a list of options instead of just everyone getting the same ones. The totem barbarian is a good example of this done well. For each feature they can choose from a list of different totems, so you can make a bunch of totem barbarians who all have different set of traits. If done this way one subclass can provide a wide variety of builds.

One could also see some of your concepts being subclasses of classes other than fighter. For example divine warlord could be a type of a paladin, your rabble rouser could be a subclass of a rogue etc.

But yeah. I'm not saying your approach is 'wrong' just not how I'd prefer to do it.

Well, a few of them were specifically made on the 'MC-like' model of stuff like Eldritch Knight and Divine Soul Sorcerer, so of course the Rabble Rouser could feel Rogue-esque and the Marshal feel Ranger-esque.

But the core of the class is still the ability to support allies, things that the Rogue doesn't have, so you'd end up with a very front loaded subclass and a bit tonal shift.

Personally, I'd rather have a ton of narrow classes and no subclass at all rather than a few wide classes with ton of subclasses. If you go too wide (like, say, Star Wars SAGA edition that had Noble, Soldier, Scoundrel and Jedi as its only classes ever) I feel like the classes lose a lot of their own identity and the fluff is just entirely carried by the subclasses, at which point... why don't we just have the subclasses each be stand alone then?

Actually, there is another class-hole - Warden. There's a spell which sort of temporarily turns you into a Warden, but that's a terrible concept, and Ancient Oath Pallies stole a bit of the Warden vibe, but it's still missing, and no class has the subclass space to create an actual Warden, whose key thing is being a frontline fighter with all these vaguely Druidic magical abilities and is centered around a shapeshift (but not into an animal/monster, rather a "more powerful form") deal. However I think it's been chipped away at, niche-wise, by so many classes that we just have to go "LAAAAAAAAAAAME!" at the 5E developers and see it as a lost cause.

I think you're right on the chipped away deal, but they could still bring in the forms by making a Barbarian subclass that transforms when Raging, but, again, not in the beastial way of the Beast Soul Barbarian. Have a handful of forms to pick from, give each a passive boost and a special action they can take, maybe an effect that triggers on the first turn or when dismissing the rage sooner? (I could see an Harvest Spirit Form that casts Goodberry when you when the rage on your own). I was working on a similar concept for a while, maybe I could revive it?

 

[DND_Reborn]

If you're concerned about buying tools you don't use, can't you just not buy them? Other people can buy them if they want, WotC can continue producing things many people want and keep making money, and you can just be clear to your players that your campaign uses a reduced set of character options.

Of course, but that also means they aren't working on things I would like them to work on. So, while others get to enjoy their shiny new toys, I am resigned to either doing it myself or just giving up on 5E (and if I can't convince others to join me--- D&D in general. ).

Of course, this is new material we know of is only one aspect of it. I am hopeful that maybe something in the new releases will actually be something I want to use and possible buy.

 

[DND_Reborn]

why don't we just have the subclasses each be stand alone then?

Because they all share common features that are easier to build upon a common class.

 

[Undrave]

Yes, and I feel that by dedicating the whole fighter subclass budget for support (and writing the rules well) we get about equal fight/support split than the clerics do (as they can use their magic for fighting as well as for support, whereas all fight in warlord has to come from their mundane abilities) so that seems like a decent balance for me.

I would argue the 5e Cleric is a terrible support class. They have literally no option for at-will support in Combat, everything is just tied to their spells and they can change those completely every day. One day they can spend the whole day on Bless and Cure Wounds, the next they can burn all their spell slots on Inflict Wound to maximize DPR. The 5e Cleric is too selfish for me. The Life Cleric is the closest but it's all healing focus, which is very limited.

I'm going to preface this by saying that I've never personally liked the Warlord class. I didn't play one before 5e and I wouldn't play a new one if WotC ever releases one. That said, I have looked at the class. The Warlord class has more abilities than any subclass can grant. The only way to make one for 5e that resembles the prior class is through a new class. That way the base class + whichever subclass will wind up similar to the prior versions. If WotC tries to make them Fighter subclasses, they will be giving the players deficient Warlords and that won't go over very well.

Like the Purple Dragon Knight, who is arguably one of the worse subclass in the game (alongside Battlerager and Wild Soul Sorcerer).

The Battlemaster is a great Fighter Subclass, (and it's name feels like a call back to Warlord, what with War>Battle, Lord>Master) but it's closer to the 4e Fighter than the 4e Warlord. It CAN support with Rally, Commander's Strike and a few others, but to me it always felt like the Eldritch Knight MC subclass to a full Warlord that doesn't exist. For one thing, your options never get better. You pick your best fitting Maneuvers at level 3, then spend the rest of the progression picking from the leftovers you didn't care for at level 3... But I am excited to play a Battlemaster with the new maneuvers, those will be fun to build with... but it's still not a real Warlord.

You still have the self-centred abilities of the Fighter that increase their survivability, their DPR and their action economy.