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

[Minigiant]

I believe that it would be eminently possible through a subclass (although as ever, I think that subclasses should start from level 1). Possibly siimilar to the Inquisitive, but with less emphasis on spotting deception and more on knowing stuff.
The Scout for example gains two skills and expertise in them.

It might be possible in a pitch but I just don't think there is enough design space to pull it away from the rogue's sneaky, acrobatic, and underhanded base assumption.

The scout is still sneaking around and stabbing beings in the back.

Its pretty much a mechanical representation of the bare-knuckle fight in the Sherlock film. Observe. Predict. Tailor a strategy. That does not come across as underhanded to me.

Yeah but it doesn't have Sherlock's wealth of knowledge and lore nor applications of arts and sciences. It's not bringing special uses of Arcana, History, Nature, Medicine, Animal Handling, Religion, Deception nor Intimidation to the combat nor exploration phases as tools to defeat challenges.

I think that you're going to have to unpack this a little to explain it to me. The rogue does not need to be sneaky any more than than it needs to be athletic.

At it's base, the rogue relies primarily on sneakiness, acrobatics, or underhandedness defeat obstacles. The class is heavily Dexterity base by default as it's many combat strategy uses it for offense, defense, and setting itself up. Again in combat, rogues with shoot from afar, attack from shadows, or flank in light armor. All dexterity based. In exploration, the main aspects of rogues are based on dexterity as well: acrobatics, lockpicking, and sleight of hand.

The rogue doesn't have to be sneaky, underhanded, or acrobatic. However it gains almost nothing from playing off type.

Do you want to create an intelligent and charismatic character with a wealth of knowledge useful to the group, or do you just want a combat murder machine? If you want the loremaster character, dumping Intelligence is suboptimal

I want a character with a vast array of knowledge and techniques that can be brought to combat, exploration, and social encounters in some way.

That's why I like the concept of the truenames scholar. They comb times and books to learn the scraps of the secret language in the structure of the universes. In combat they can use their knowledge to guess parts of a foes truenames to alter it or an ally's truenames to enhance them. They can use truenames on objects why exploring to open new avenues or have secrets reveal themselves. And in social interaction, they can attempt to drop words in speech to affect those they speak to.

If the artificer wasn't a thing, that's where I would have put alchemy and kept it nonmagical. Or at least as fantasy science.

Maybe a Frankstien type with their own monster made with science.

An herbalist whose special diet of herbs and roots give themselves and their allies all kinds of enhancements. Put your frontline warriors on a regiment of special teas.

 

[jayoungr]

If you want a few more, but not a ton (like me) vote for more.

I just feel like the end product looks pretty different between adding one or two more classes versus going "full Pathfinder." I'm curious what the breakdown of opinions is on that question.

 

[Hatmatter]

Thanks. The name is still a work in progress. It was originally Magus, stolen from Pathfinder, but I may change it once more, possibly to Battlemage or something like that. I'm open to suggestions.

I think the game has niches that need filling, and some of the niches need filling by classes. A true gish class is one of those niches, as well as a Psion, Warlord, and other potential classes.

Well, there is no shame in ripping from Pathfinder...they have published a book or two based on the foundation of others' work (and more power to them...they add and refine, I am not casting aspersions here).

Let's see, some suggestions in addition to what you offered already: Martial Mage, Hexlord, Captain of Woof & Weave, Ensorcelling Knight, Spell Binder, Arcane Martialist, Martialist Arcanum, (to go to the Gish roots) Master of the Silver Sword or Lord of the Silver Sword, Spellwielder, and so forth and so on. If it was me, I would try to find a precedent in literature or mythology and go with a name already used (e.g. Aragorn as ranger or Ogier the Dane as paladin).

I am merely brainstorming and riffing here, so please, if you read this, do not mock me for the poverty of my brainstormings!

 

[Undrave]

I do have to wonder if the problem is that some classes have become too broad.

Fighter, for example, seems to eat up all the space around "great with weapons", and Rogue has "Sneak attack, great with skills" space. So adding another non-magical class inherently bumps into these two.

I think the older classes have gotten too broad. They have had too many versions and too many mechanics that need to be legacy in, and the original quartet were the total sum of all characters at the start, so anything else is really just refinement of those super vague concept. When you place the 5e Fighter, Cleric, Rogue and Wizard next to characters like the Ranger, the Warlock, the Druid or, to a certan extant, the Paladin, you can see that there is a disparity in coverage.

I think the 4e version of the Fighter is just the best one there was because of its clear focus on being a Defender and then having different expression of that concept. Yeah, you couldn't be a 'Fighter with a Bow' but why did a bowman need the 'Fighter' label aside from the legacy reason? The 4e Ranger could be the archer. 4e also had a GREAT melee Cleric, that could exist alongside the Paladin and Avenger, mostly because a lot of its Divine Blaster duty was shared to the Invoker and more design space was opened up instead.

Someone said 5e isn't 'designed like that', in regards to the roles in 4e... and I think that's actally a weakness of its design principle and why the Monk falls flat. They might say there is no roles but multiple class/subclass are clearly based around a role, it's just not the 4e ones. You got three or four categories really: The Spellslingers (Blaster or Controller flavor), the Martial Weapons guy (Tank or Archer flavor), the Support (Heal or Buff flavor) and the Skill Monkey (Sneaky or Spellcaster flavor) but the monk doesn't really fit any of those category and its own gameplay schtick ("It can lock down casters!") feels more like emergent gameplay than an actual design descision. It's too many random options from the past added without thought of how they synergize to one another.

The Fighter and the Rogue have eaten too much design space from mundane heroes, I totally agree, but their core features are too strong to just patch over with a Subclass and call it a day. At best you end up with a MC Subclass.

Like, I could see a 'Treasure Hunter Rogue' with tons of knowledge that is the best are overcoming traps. But that wouldn't be a full on loremaster.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I'd definitely avoid 'magus' as a gish name. That definitely sounds like a scholary wizard, not like a swordmage.

 

[Hatmatter]

I think the older classes have gotten too broad. They have had too many versions and too many mechanics that need to be legacy in, and the original quartet were the total sum of all characters at the start, so anything else is really just refinement of those super vague concept. When you place the 5e Fighter, Cleric, Rogue and Wizard next to characters like the Ranger, the Warlock, the Druid or, to a certan extant, the Paladin, you can see that there is a disparity in coverage.

I think the 4e version of the Fighter is just the best one there was because of its clear focus on being a Defender and then having different expression of that concept. Yeah, you couldn't be a 'Fighter with a Bow' but why did a bowman need the 'Fighter' label aside from the legacy reason? The 4e Ranger could be the archer. 4e also had a GREAT melee Cleric, that could exist alongside the Paladin and Avenger, mostly because a lot of its Divine Blaster duty was shared to the Invoker and more design space was opened up instead.

Someone said 5e isn't 'designed like that', in regards to the roles in 4e... and I think that's actally a weakness of its design principle and why the Monk falls flat. They might say there is no roles but multiple class/subclass are clearly based around a role, it's just not the 4e ones. You got three or four categories really: The Spellslingers (Blaster or Controller flavor), the Martial Weapons guy (Tank or Archer flavor), the Support (Heal or Buff flavor) and the Skill Monkey (Sneaky or Spellcaster flavor) but the monk doesn't really fit any of those category and its own gameplay schtick ("It can lock down casters!") feels more like emergent gameplay than an actual design descision. It's too many random options from the past added without thought of how they synergize to one another.

The Fighter and the Rogue have eaten too much design space from mundane heroes, I totally agree, but their core features are too strong to just patch over with a Subclass and call it a day. At best you end up with a MC Subclass.

Like, I could see a 'Treasure Hunter Rogue' with tons of knowledge that is the best are overcoming traps. But that wouldn't be a full on loremaster.

I love your posts, Undrave, and could read what you write all day. But, hear me out: I think there is legitimacy in a game designed around archetypes from literature, films, mythology, and so forth...and not necessarily to fill "design space." I started playing in 1980 and up through the 2000s, no one that I was playing with (and I played in conventions in three or four states as I researched a book) was using terms like "tank" or "blaster" (unless it was West End's Star Wars game!), or "buff flavor." I think I know what you are referring too when you use these now (especially here) common terms. But, could it be that trying to go under the hood and impose those terms does a disservice?

For example, I think that there is nothing wrong with trying to create a class that emulates Bruce Lee. Bruce Lee is enough of a "design space," I think.

I have played a few different monks, in fact they are my favorite class, and I have never had my monk "fall flat" at the table, nor have any of my fellow players suggested as much.

I played 4th edition and enjoyed it. Wizards was very forward at the time that its classes were designed to fulfill its four combat roles. From a game designer's POV, I am sure it is rewarding. But, from a player's POV, it is fun to play the monk who can do things like I see in Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, Ipman, and what have you.

I have seen almost every class criticized for its design except the warlock. Either Wizards is completely incompetent, which I do not think is the case, or this way of looking at the game might be more trouble (= leading to dissatisfaction) than it is worth.

But, maybe I am wrong, maybe I simply have been lucky with my monks or something. I sure do like monks, though.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I'd definitely avoid 'magus' as a gish name. That definitely sounds like a scholary wizard, not like a swordmage.

It's the Pathfinder name for the same concept. I don't like Swordmage or Duskblade, as the name is kind of restricting to using a sword or bladed weapon. It's the same problem College of Swords and Bladesingers have, they can use different weapons (flails, warhammers, tridents, whips, halberds), but a name that alludes to the use of blades wouldn't fit that. I'm still open to suggestions for the name

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I love your posts, Undrave, and could read what you write all day. But, hear me out: I think there is legitimacy in a game designed around archetypes from literature, films, mythology, and so forth...and not necessarily to fill "design space." I started playing in 1980 and up through the 2000s, no one that I was playing with (and I played in conventions in three or four states as I researched a book) was using terms like "tank" or "blaster" (unless it was West End's Star Wars game!), or "buff flavor." I think I know what you are referring too when you use these now (especially here) common terms. But, could it be that trying to go under the hood and impose those terms does a disservice?

This is very strongly how I feel. I have played a lot of MMOs, and I do love them, but frankly it bugs me when the MMO terminology and design logic creeps into tabletop RPGs. If I want to play a MMO, I'll do that on my computer. I seek a fundamentally different things from tabletop RPGs.This of course is very much a personal preference type of a thing, but I think this difference in attitude is one of the reasons why people disagree on what should or shouldn't be a class.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

This is very strongly how I feel. I have played a lot of MMOs, and I do love them, but frankly it bugs me when the MMO terminology and design logic creeps into tabletop RPGs. If I want to play a MMO, I'll do that on my computer. I seek a fundamentally different things from tabletop RPGs.This of course is very much a personal preference type of a thing, but I think this difference in attitude is one of the reasons why people disagree on what should or shouldn't be a class.

Does adding a Psion or Gish class make D&D suddenly become a video game? That's a slippery slope argument, and therefore null.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It's the Pathfinder name for the same concept. I don't like Swordmage or Duskblade, as the name is kind of restricting to using a sword or bladed weapon. It's the same problem College of Swords and Bladesingers have, they can use different weapons (flails, warhammers, tridents, whips, halberds), but a name that alludes to the use of blades wouldn't fit that. I'm still open to suggestions for the name

Now if I were to be cheeky (and I am!) then this would be a perfect opportunity to point out that if the concept doesn't even have a readily recognisable name derived from history, mythology or even literature then perhaps it is a thematically weak concept that has been artificially created to fulfil a gamist role.

Though come think of it, there are actually is one well known version of gishes. The jedis!

But I don't think that calling them 'swordmages' would be a problem. It's just a name and doesn't mean they have to use sword. Eldritch knight is good but already taken. Battle-mage? A bit generic, but does what it says in the tin and doesn't have a weapon type in its name.