D&D 5E Does your concern about adding more classes to 5e D&D stem from multiclassing?

[Ruin Explorer]

I think there comes a point when more choice is an imagination killer. "oh yes, there is a class for that, don't bother being creative".

I feel like the existence of the game RIFTS and the fact that it's well, pretty awesome on a certain level (not really the mechanics) kind of means you might actually be objectively wrong here lol. I know it's an opinion and I'm busting your balls a bit but I'm having difficulty with this idea that because there are a lot of classes, you can't be creative or imaginative.

5E's class design is a bit different, but even were we to imagine this might be true (and it's hard to see how it would work), we're surely dozens of classes away from it being an issue.

 

[Helldritch]

Strange, I love RIFTS not for the classes, but for the world itself and the mechanics... quite the reverse of @Ruin Explorer . Too many classes spoils the broth. In fact, too many classes limits the imagination in differentiating the characters. At some point, it will not be how can I make my character unique, but which class will make my character unique. Quite a drastic move in phisolophy. We had a samurai way before it was offered to us (build on the chassi of the battlemaster) we had a ninja (a monk way of the shadow/rogue assassin), a shoei (fighter battle master/cleric of war) and so on. All built upon base classes or a combination of two classes. Anything can be done with a bit of imagination. No need for an endless amount of classes.

The problem with multiclassing is that it is simply too easy. Just put back the Paladin with a high charisma requirement and make it a MAD class in which it needs wisdom to cast spells but charisma to smite. Make the Warlock an Intel casters and voilà! No more problems with multiclassing (a bit more would be required but you see the point).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

the mechanics

ROFL bloody hell mate. Palladium is a total disaster/trashfire of a system on every possible level so that's a bold choice. The world is good fun though.

 

[Minigiant]

Anything can be done with a bit of imagination. No need for an endless amount of classes.

Statements like this make me think my level of imagination on word and character design is much higher than the average D&D fan. But my humility and levels of self critique make me think I'm just a crazy person instead.

 

[Neonchameleon]

My concern about extra classes stems from how newbie friendly the game is. D&D (yes even 5e) is a complex rules-heavy game with three 320 page core rulebooks that can be easily overwhelming for most people. Even the existing 12+1 classes are more than enough to leave newbies with their heads spinning. (There are in total more than 100 subclasses; it's my belief that if 5e didn't practice this form of chunking and instead made many of its subclasses into classes it would have collapsed under its own weight by now and that this discipline is part of the secret of 5e's longevity).

Therefore to add a new class to 5e when subclasses are a thing needs a really good reason and if something can be done as a subclass then it should.

 

[Jer]

My concern about adding more classes (rather than subclasses) is I want to see a real need for them. Not a "oh we need to fill this mechanical niche" need either, but a "here's an archetypal character type that can't be done with the current classes available and can't really be done with a new subclass". Personally I think dual classing in 5e (not just "dipping for flavor" or "dipping in to optimize" but actual dual classing) could be better handled with subclass design.

I think adding Artificer to the game is an example of a good place to put a new class into the game - the magical inventor is now a staple of fantasy, and while you could make it with a Wizard subclass there's enough variation in the "magical inventor" space that it merits its own class and mechanical approach.

I also think that folks clamoring for more subclasses and classes is an indication that there might be something missing that is complementary to the class structure. I think that 5e doesn't go far enough with Backgrounds - 4e was starting to dabble in the idea of a character "Theme" that worked across classes and that morphed kind of into Backgrounds for 5e. But themes went farther in allowing you to swap elements of your character's class choices out for theme choices. I don't know how it would be implemented in 5e mechanics, but that approach was an interesting one for dealing with the "my idea doesn't quite fit into a particular character class" problem that crops up.

 

[Blue]

Exactly why I said most of the time multiclassing is a nerf. If your PC isn't level 13+ warrior, a Paladin (Divine Smite), or a Warlock (Hexblade, Pact Magic) multiclassing makes you weaker.

Assuming a new claass would have its features be self contained and have new mechanics, I don't understand how multiclassing becomes an issue or reason for not creating new classes.

I agree with you about multiclassing, but I do see where the people worried about the problem come from. If they introduce a new low-level combo.

We've had a lot more subclasses come out then classes, so I'll use those for examples. When the PHB was out, Paladin 2 for Divine Smite and Warlock 2 for Eldritch Blast+Agonizing Blast invocation were the only two few-level dips that caused problems. But since then we've have the Hexblade subclass which makes such a wonderful 1 level dip for any CHR-focused weapon wielder. We've had the Gloomstalker ranger that gives the extra attack first round but especially synergizes with fighter's Action Surge.

It's those combinations, where X is fine and Y is fine, but X and Y together that can cause problems, and new classes are more likely to have foundational low-level abilities than subclasses are, so that's where the concern could be.

That said, I'm with you in not being particularly worried. The design team seems to have done c very good job of watching for these types of problems.

 

[guachi]

My problem with new classes and subclasses is system bloat. I think we are already at that point. I'd rather see more done with Culture (which doesn't really exist mechanically in 5e) and Backgrounds.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

I don't understand if the question is whether I oppose it because I think multiclassing fulfills the need that more classes would or because I fear that more classes would exponentially increase the multiclass combos available in some ruinous way. My answer is no in either case.

I oppose more classes because I really just like having it be reasonable for every experienced DM to basically know how every base class plays and hence have an idea of how to balance to challenge and highlight people's class features, and I think 5e achieved that by having a manageable number of classes and being very slow to add to them, while still supporting a very broad range of character concepts. I think a panoply of base classes becomes a barrier to what I consider the necessary amount of system mastery to be comfortable DMing.

As a secondary matter I just don't think there are that many compelling premises for whole classes on the "base class with numerous subclasses" model of 5e, which I like. I've really heard very few proposed class ideas that wouldn't be more suited to being one or more subclasses than to being a whole class with the like ten subclasses we expect out of a 5e class at this point.

 

[Ath-kethin]

We don't use the multiclassing option in my games, so it's never a concern for any reason.