Even with gloomstaker it takes 8 levels to get it complete. And people don't play that long after level 8.
The only real problem is Warlock.
D&D 5E Does your concern about adding more classes to 5e D&D stem from multiclassing?
Even with gloomstaker it takes 8 levels to get it complete. And people don't play that long after level 8.
The only real problem is Warlock.
As I'm sure is a shock to no one, I'm concerned about story. In this particular case, the story of the Classes in question. The game as it stands have really only two "generic" classes-- the Fighter and the Rogue. Both of them are really more just a category name and it's the subclasses inside of them that give the flavor of what they do. But all the other Classes are tied to their stories-- how they get what they get, how they do what they do, where they come from, how they feel about things, and what is their place in the world at large. That story and flavor is a foundational part of the Class-- they aren't just a random and generic pile of game mechanics. Which is really the whole point of having a Class system in the first place.
But that means that any new Class is going to have a similar need for a foundational story. A reason for the class to be a Class. The game is not going to introduce any more "flavorless" classes like the Fighter or Rogue. The new Class will need to have a place in the world carved out for itself, because otherwise the expectation is that another Class will fill it (via subclass or slight refluffing or multiclassing.) This is exactly why the "swordmage" Class has never gained traction-- because there's never been a foundational story for this class that hasn't just been "a fighter / wizard multiclass that gets its own stuff". So because of that lack of story, the game has always just given us things like an actual Fighter / Wizard multiclass, or the Eldritch Knight or Bladesinger subclasses, or even subclasses off of other classes that fill a similar niche.
I think this is where all the stumbling blocks come from-- when the class idea's story is too close to another class's story that it seems almost a waste to make a full 20 level class for it. Like for instance, the "Summoner". We already have Summoning in the game, and several classes that do summoning. They might not focus on it, and they might not get mechanics to be better at it... but what is the story of a specific Summoner or Binder class that is truly different at a foundational narrative level than the classes in the game that also do it? See also the "Archer" class that I see bandied about. What is foundationally different about an Archer's story compared to a Fighter (especially considering the Fight has been built to be so generic you can put the Archer into it?) Now if someone comes back with "Well, there are a lot of archery tricks that you do within an Archer class that you can't do as a Fighter"... that might be true, but that's purely game mechanics. That person is just looking for a different mechanical way to do a class whose story is no different than what we already have. And I suspect that's why we don't ever see that get made (except by 3rd parties, or maybe way down the line of WotC's publishing schedule.)
Why do we not have a Warlord? Because Mearls and Crawford said at the very beginning that the Warlord's narrative of a warrior who is more strategic and tactical at combat is not really any different than the narrative of the Fighter, but whose focus in one on combat in a certain direction. Now there might not be enough mechanical expression of that Fighter to recreate what fans of the 4E Warlord want to see... but story-wise there is nothing in the narrative of the Fighter class that precludes the identity of the Warlord. And that's why it was never made by WotC in 5E and who knows if it will ever be made?
The Psion? Again... the baseline narrative of the Psion is being able to do fantastical things via the power of your mind. Even laying aside the concepts of whether you call that "magic" or not (we don't need to rehash that argument)... the foundation of the Class is that the power comes from within the Psion character themself. But unfortunately, that pretty much lines up with the story of the Sorcerer too-- a Class who gets its power from within itself and not via some external action or force (gods, music, nature, extraplanar beings, the Weave etc.) Obviously the Sorcerer cannot do mechanically what fans of the Psion (and psionics) would want to do, and parts of the story of the Sorcerer do not align to the traditional ideas of the Psion (using CHA instead of INT, using spell components, a spell list of many non-psionic things etc.) But the foundation is the relatively same-- having the power within yourself to do these fantastical things. (That being said... I think the narrative differences between the Psion and the Sorcerer are indeed great enough that if/when there is a place to create and place a Psion Class (like for instance Dark Sun), it'll get done. The same way WotC eventually decided that the Artificer didn't end up working under the Wizard chassis despite a similar narrative foundation, so they finally made it a Class on its own when they had a book-- the Eberron campaign setting-- within which to place it.)
Now of course the argument can be made that even within the 12 Classes we currently have, there are several that could be said to tread upon the same foundational story and thus you could "remove" some of them if you wanted from the game (the Druid being just a Nature Cleric but with different mechanics, the Paladin being a War Cleric but with different mechanics, the Ranger being a Fighter or a Rogue but with a nature background etc.) And I won't argue that isn't the case. The idea of the "generic" Core Four is greatly tied to D&D-- the warrior, the expert, the divine magician, and the arcane magician (and I'm sure there are those out there who would merge the divine and arcane magicians into a single class too if given a chance.) And you could certainly build the Class system of D&D from that foundation too... where the four Classes are generic umbrella terms, and then the Subclasses give us all the narrative story of what their individual places are within the world. But I think that ship has sailed. There's a reason why we hear virtually no one using just the Basic Rules to play D&D. Because the ones that want to play that style of old school I think are just going back to play those actual old school games themselves because that way they can definitely get the experience they want, rather than trying to jerry-rig 5E to do it.
At the end of the day... any Class to be added in 5E is going to need a reason for its existence as per the ideas of the WotC D&D design team. A foundational place in a world that requires it. The "Artificer in Eberron" or the "Psion in Dark Sun" kind of place. Will we get a gish or swordmage type of Class? Maybe if the designers determine that a Spelljammer / githyanki campaign setting (and book) needs it. Will be get a Warlord? Maybe if the designers determine a Points of Light / Nentir Vale campaign setting (and book) needs it. But until then? I just don't see it happening. They're leaving those things to KibblesTasty to make for them, LOL.
But that means that any new Class is going to have a similar need for a foundational story. A reason for the class to be a Class. The game is not going to introduce any more "flavorless" classes like the Fighter or Rogue. The new Class will need to have a place in the world carved out for itself, because otherwise the expectation is that another Class will fill it (via subclass or slight refluffing or multiclassing.) This is exactly why the "swordmage" Class has never gained traction-- because there's never been a foundational story for this class that hasn't just been "a fighter / wizard multiclass that gets its own stuff". So because of that lack of story, the game has always just given us things like an actual Fighter / Wizard multiclass, or the Eldritch Knight or Bladesinger subclasses, or even subclasses off of other classes that fill a similar niche.
I think this is where all the stumbling blocks come from-- when the class idea's story is too close to another class's story that it seems almost a waste to make a full 20 level class for it. Like for instance, the "Summoner". We already have Summoning in the game, and several classes that do summoning. They might not focus on it, and they might not get mechanics to be better at it... but what is the story of a specific Summoner or Binder class that is truly different at a foundational narrative level than the classes in the game that also do it? See also the "Archer" class that I see bandied about. What is foundationally different about an Archer's story compared to a Fighter (especially considering the Fight has been built to be so generic you can put the Archer into it?) Now if someone comes back with "Well, there are a lot of archery tricks that you do within an Archer class that you can't do as a Fighter"... that might be true, but that's purely game mechanics. That person is just looking for a different mechanical way to do a class whose story is no different than what we already have. And I suspect that's why we don't ever see that get made (except by 3rd parties, or maybe way down the line of WotC's publishing schedule.)
Why do we not have a Warlord? Because Mearls and Crawford said at the very beginning that the Warlord's narrative of a warrior who is more strategic and tactical at combat is not really any different than the narrative of the Fighter, but whose focus in one on combat in a certain direction. Now there might not be enough mechanical expression of that Fighter to recreate what fans of the 4E Warlord want to see... but story-wise there is nothing in the narrative of the Fighter class that precludes the identity of the Warlord. And that's why it was never made by WotC in 5E and who knows if it will ever be made?
The Psion? Again... the baseline narrative of the Psion is being able to do fantastical things via the power of your mind. Even laying aside the concepts of whether you call that "magic" or not (we don't need to rehash that argument)... the foundation of the Class is that the power comes from within the Psion character themself. But unfortunately, that pretty much lines up with the story of the Sorcerer too-- a Class who gets its power from within itself and not via some external action or force (gods, music, nature, extraplanar beings, the Weave etc.) Obviously the Sorcerer cannot do mechanically what fans of the Psion (and psionics) would want to do, and parts of the story of the Sorcerer do not align to the traditional ideas of the Psion (using CHA instead of INT, using spell components, a spell list of many non-psionic things etc.) But the foundation is the relatively same-- having the power within yourself to do these fantastical things. (That being said... I think the narrative differences between the Psion and the Sorcerer are indeed great enough that if/when there is a place to create and place a Psion Class (like for instance Dark Sun), it'll get done. The same way WotC eventually decided that the Artificer didn't end up working under the Wizard chassis despite a similar narrative foundation, so they finally made it a Class on its own when they had a book-- the Eberron campaign setting-- within which to place it.)
Now of course the argument can be made that even within the 12 Classes we currently have, there are several that could be said to tread upon the same foundational story and thus you could "remove" some of them if you wanted from the game (the Druid being just a Nature Cleric but with different mechanics, the Paladin being a War Cleric but with different mechanics, the Ranger being a Fighter or a Rogue but with a nature background etc.) And I won't argue that isn't the case. The idea of the "generic" Core Four is greatly tied to D&D-- the warrior, the expert, the divine magician, and the arcane magician (and I'm sure there are those out there who would merge the divine and arcane magicians into a single class too if given a chance.) And you could certainly build the Class system of D&D from that foundation too... where the four Classes are generic umbrella terms, and then the Subclasses give us all the narrative story of what their individual places are within the world. But I think that ship has sailed. There's a reason why we hear virtually no one using just the Basic Rules to play D&D. Because the ones that want to play that style of old school I think are just going back to play those actual old school games themselves because that way they can definitely get the experience they want, rather than trying to jerry-rig 5E to do it.
At the end of the day... any Class to be added in 5E is going to need a reason for its existence as per the ideas of the WotC D&D design team. A foundational place in a world that requires it. The "Artificer in Eberron" or the "Psion in Dark Sun" kind of place. Will we get a gish or swordmage type of Class? Maybe if the designers determine that a Spelljammer / githyanki campaign setting (and book) needs it. Will be get a Warlord? Maybe if the designers determine a Points of Light / Nentir Vale campaign setting (and book) needs it. But until then? I just don't see it happening. They're leaving those things to KibblesTasty to make for them, LOL.
Mind of tempest
(he/him)advocate for 5e psionics
on the psion - Sorcerer problem does have an answer simply move the thematic for the psion to between monk and wizard as a caster that has elevated their mind to a higher state is more or less a way out of the thematic brambles which also happens to be what I would want for a psion none of the sorcerer eugenic problems.As I'm sure is a shock to no one, I'm concerned about story. In this particular case, the story of the Classes in question. The game as it stands have really only two "generic" classes-- the Fighter and the Rogue. Both of them are really more just a category name and it's the subclasses inside of them that give the flavor of what they do. But all the other Classes are tied to their stories-- how they get what they get, how they do what they do, where they come from, how they feel about things, and what is their place in the world at large. That story and flavor is a foundational part of the Class-- they aren't just a random and generic pile of game mechanics. Which is really the whole point of having a Class system in the first place.
But that means that any new Class is going to have a similar need for a foundational story. A reason for the class to be a Class. The game is not going to introduce any more "flavorless" classes like the Fighter or Rogue. The new Class will need to have a place in the world carved out for itself, because otherwise the expectation is that another Class will fill it (via subclass or slight refluffing or multiclassing.) This is exactly why the "swordmage" Class has never gained traction-- because there's never been a foundational story for this class that hasn't just been "a fighter / wizard multiclass that gets its own stuff". So because of that lack of story, the game has always just given us things like an actual Fighter / Wizard multiclass, or the Eldritch Knight or Bladesinger subclasses, or even subclasses off of other classes that fill a similar niche.
I think this is where all the stumbling blocks come from-- when the class idea's story is too close to another class's story that it seems almost a waste to make a full 20 level class for it. Like for instance, the "Summoner". We already have Summoning in the game, and several classes that do summoning. They might not focus on it, and they might not get mechanics to be better at it... but what is the story of a specific Summoner or Binder class that is truly different at a foundational narrative level than the classes in the game that also do it? See also the "Archer" class that I see bandied about. What is foundationally different about an Archer's story compared to a Fighter (especially considering the Fight has been built to be so generic you can put the Archer into it?) Now if someone comes back with "Well, there are a lot of archery tricks that you do within an Archer class that you can't do as a Fighter"... that might be true, but that's purely game mechanics. That person is just looking for a different mechanical way to do a class whose story is no different than what we already have. And I suspect that's why we don't ever see that get made (except by 3rd parties, or maybe way down the line of WotC's publishing schedule.)
Why do we not have a Warlord? Because Mearls and Crawford said at the very beginning that the Warlord's narrative of a warrior who is more strategic and tactical at combat is not really any different than the narrative of the Fighter, but whose focus in one on combat in a certain direction. Now there might not be enough mechanical expression of that Fighter to recreate what fans of the 4E Warlord want to see... but story-wise there is nothing in the narrative of the Fighter class that precludes the identity of the Warlord. And that's why it was never made by WotC in 5E and who knows if it will ever be made?
The Psion? Again... the baseline narrative of the Psion is being able to do fantastical things via the power of your mind. Even laying aside the concepts of whether you call that "magic" or not (we don't need to rehash that argument)... the foundation of the Class is that the power comes from within the Psion character themself. But unfortunately, that pretty much lines up with the story of the Sorcerer too-- a Class who gets its power from within itself and not via some external action or force (gods, music, nature, extraplanar beings, the Weave etc.) Obviously the Sorcerer cannot do mechanically what fans of the Psion (and psionics) would want to do, and parts of the story of the Sorcerer do not align to the traditional ideas of the Psion (using CHA instead of INT, using spell components, a spell list of many non-psionic things etc.) But the foundation is the relatively same-- having the power within yourself to do these fantastical things. (That being said... I think the narrative differences between the Psion and the Sorcerer are indeed great enough that if/when there is a place to create and place a Psion Class (like for instance Dark Sun), it'll get done. The same way WotC eventually decided that the Artificer didn't end up working under the Wizard chassis despite a similar narrative foundation, so they finally made it a Class on its own when they had a book-- the Eberron campaign setting-- within which to place it.)
Now of course the argument can be made that even within the 12 Classes we currently have, there are several that could be said to tread upon the same foundational story and thus you could "remove" some of them if you wanted from the game (the Druid being just a Nature Cleric but with different mechanics, the Paladin being a War Cleric but with different mechanics, the Ranger being a Fighter or a Rogue but with a nature background etc.) And I won't argue that isn't the case. The idea of the "generic" Core Four is greatly tied to D&D-- the warrior, the expert, the divine magician, and the arcane magician (and I'm sure there are those out there who would merge the divine and arcane magicians into a single class too if given a chance.) And you could certainly build the Class system of D&D from that foundation too... where the four Classes are generic umbrella terms, and then the Subclasses give us all the narrative story of what their individual places are within the world. But I think that ship has sailed. There's a reason why we hear virtually no one using just the Basic Rules to play D&D. Because the ones that want to play that style of old school I think are just going back to play those actual old school games themselves because that way they can definitely get the experience they want, rather than trying to jerry-rig 5E to do it.
At the end of the day... any Class to be added in 5E is going to need a reason for its existence as per the ideas of the WotC D&D design team. A foundational place in a world that requires it. The "Artificer in Eberron" or the "Psion in Dark Sun" kind of place. Will we get a gish or swordmage type of Class? Maybe if the designers determine that a Spelljammer / githyanki campaign setting (and book) needs it. Will be get a Warlord? Maybe if the designers determine a Points of Light / Nentir Vale campaign setting (and book) needs it. But until then? I just don't see it happening. They're leaving those things to KibblesTasty to make for them, LOL.
Blue
Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
True, but not the main thrust. Subclasses only add at set levels. Classes not just can but will add at most non-ASI levels. And what you are getting at the low levels are foundational abilities. Look at just two levels of the fighter - fighting styles, action surge and more.
What I am saying is that some people have concerns that adding in new classes that adding in new low-level abilities, which happens more than subclasses add and they have caused problems, will likely give birth to more power-combos of them.
That said, I don't think it's a big problem myself, just explaining where I think theya re coming form. It can be a big problem, but WotC has been doing a decent job of making sure it is not. 3rd party or homebrew worries me about that a lot more.
Blue
Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
I'm not opposed to new classes, I'm opposed to class proliferation. 4e is a good example of that, where they had their matrix of role * power source and wanted a separate class to fill each. So seeing things like I want an XX, which is just like a fighter but with different mechanics, is a poor excuse to add a class. I'll go one further, the only acceptable reason to add a class is because there is a trope or archetype that should exist for the setting but can not be modeled in 5e using the existing tools of classes, subclasses, multiclassing, and feats, and none of the "lesser impact" resolutions will do a reasonable job of fulfilling it. Mechanics without archetype/trope need is never a reason to add a new class.
The other issue with new classes is more choices is a barrier to entry for new players, and to a lesser degree new DMs.
I understand how poorly done classes could be a problem with multiclassing, but so far WotC has proven to be reasonable stewards of the game in that regard, with 5e being much better than 3.x, the last edition to have this style of multiclassing. Though homebrew or 3rd party new classes I would treat with a critical eye.
The other issue with new classes is more choices is a barrier to entry for new players, and to a lesser degree new DMs.
I understand how poorly done classes could be a problem with multiclassing, but so far WotC has proven to be reasonable stewards of the game in that regard, with 5e being much better than 3.x, the last edition to have this style of multiclassing. Though homebrew or 3rd party new classes I would treat with a critical eye.
My point is the worry of most people are unfounded.
For example: Extra Attack.
Making a weapons based character without Extra Attack is a massive Nerf of you aren't a Rogue. But the earliest you can get it is 5th level in one class straight.
So you multiclass dip before extra attack, you are nerfing yourself in the long run. The power only come once 90% of campaigns are over.
Overall multiclass is a Nerf and being worried about it is a low system mastery fear. It is fear of something that doesn't or hasn't happened if you play as intended or written.
Now not every idea should be a class. However there are plenty of fantasy archetypes you can't do in 5e yet. Multiclassing shouldn't be the wall stopping them.
doctorbadwolf
Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Best solution there is to just get rid of the fighter, which is the single blandest player option in D&D, and most just serves as a black whole that good ideas can’t escape from.
jmartkdr2
Hero
I'll add that my initial answer is based on the assumption that we're starting from the game as it is right now and keeping all that.
If the assumption changes to allow re-writing old stuff to work better, than I can see arguments for not adding any classes. (Although I would argue for splitting up certain existing classes - definitely fighter, possibly rogue and/or warlock.)
If the assumption changes to allow re-writing old stuff to work better, than I can see arguments for not adding any classes. (Although I would argue for splitting up certain existing classes - definitely fighter, possibly rogue and/or warlock.)
Neonchameleon
Legend
If we're talking about splitting certain classes can we start with the wizard? Starting with making the necromancer its own class.
CleverNickName
Limit Break Dancing
I voted no, because Multiclassing almost never comes into play for us. The players don't really use the optional Multiclassing rules....the rules are available to the players, and they can choose to use them whenever they want, but so far I'm the only one who has ever used them. (I've taken a 2-level dip into the Fighter class, once.)
And I'm not really concerned about adding more classes; I just don't want to do it. (shrug) I don't think the game needs them.
And I'm not really concerned about adding more classes; I just don't want to do it. (shrug) I don't think the game needs them.
Similar Threads
