D&D (2024) How quickly should WOTC add new classes?

[Vaalingrade]

That's pretty awesome as a set-up.

 

[mamba]

Except many of the classes don't really give you a lot of design space to work with in the archetypes. They're too small a part of the whole package.

As they are today, sure. I do not really see why Fighter and Barbarian could not be subclasses of a more generic Warrior class however. To me this is all just drawing arbitrary lines in the sand, I simply would draw them differently

I’d rather figure out the generic power progression on a wider scope and then slot in the archetypes as subclasses that adapt or somewhat twist the baseline. To me this seems like the easier way to design and balance

 

[Micah Sweet]

As they are today, sure. I do not really see why Fighter and Barbarian could not be subclasses of a more generic Warrior class however. To me this is all just drawing arbitrary lines in the sand, I simply would draw them differently

I’d rather figure out the generic power progression on a wider scope and then slot in the archetypes as subclasses that adapt or somewhat twist the baseline. To me this seems like the easier way to design and balance

I thought this was a discussion of what you want WotC to do with new classes moving forward. Re-drawing the lines to make subclasses beefier seems pretty unlikely at this point.

 

[CleverNickName]

That would be a fun experiment to try sometime.

That's pretty awesome as a set-up.

It's not perfect and it won't work for every table (it makes multiclassing a little more challenging, for example) but it's working out pretty well for my group. My players enjoy having their choices matter on such a huge scale, and they like being able to shape the way the whole world looks right from the start.

 

[Amrûnril]

you won’t get any agreement in this…

I see no need for more than 4 classes. Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Mage. The others roll in there somewhere.

Barbarian and Monk clearly to Fighter, Druid clearly to Cleric, Sorcerer, Warlock and Wizard clearly to Mage. The rest might be depending on the flavor / emphasis. For balance (ie 3 each), Paladin to Cleric, and Ranger and Bard to Rogue.

If you want to break out half-casters (and I guess we actually should, for mechanical reasons at a minimum), then 6. With one divine and one arcane half-caster template.

Paladin then is the divine half-caster. Not sure who becomes the arcane half-caster, maybe Warlock. I prefer my Rangers and Bards more classic and less half-caster…

If you want to consolidate classes based on how they're designed in the current game, I'd argue the logical breakdown is Warrior (classes with extra attack), Mage (classes with full spellcasting progression), and Rogue (classes with sneak attack).

Grouping other classes with Rogue obscures where those classes' combat power actually comes from and overemphasizes flavor/skill selection factors that are only loosely tied to class. As for Clerics, they follow the same underlying power progression structure as arcane casters, even if their exact spells are different. There also isn't a clear dividing line if you want to separate them. The Bard's focus on healing and support lets it bridge the gap between traditionally Arcane and Divine magic, and while the Druid has historically been associated with the Cleric, I'd argue the modern incarnation has more in common with the Sorcerer.

More broadly, I think that Warrior vs. Mage is a widespread and intuitive archetype distinction in fantasy media, while Mage vs. Cleric is a more idiosyncratic D&Dism. It's worth representing in the current 12 class system, but I'm not convinced it should be a defining factor in a system with only 4 classes or class groups.

 

[mamba]

I thought this was a discussion of what you want WotC to do with new classes moving forward. Re-drawing the lines to make subclasses beefier seems pretty unlikely at this point.

doesn’t change that it is what I would like WotC to do. Also, to make classes cover a wider scope, subclasses stay essentially the same

 

[Jolly Ruby]

So are the game mechanics alone enough to justify having four different classes and about 40 subclasses? I don't think so. I'd prefer to have one unified set of mechanics for all "Mages," and then put all of these different themes as subclasses under it. For my nickel, I'd want arcane spellcasters in my campaign to have a small selection of spells that reset on a short rest, so I'd use the spellcasting framework of the warlock as my "Mage Class," and then put all five dozen arcane spellcasting subclasses under it.

I wouldn't go too far, myself, but I agree with the sentiment. If I would make some cuts I would still leave the wizard and the warlock untouched, because I think they are different enough both in gameplay and in concept to be different classes. If I had to change something, would be further the concept of the warlock as a "changed" being, with the invocations playing a major part of the class and the flavor being not only "I made a pact to have magic" but "I made a pact to become something more"

 

[mamba]

If you want to consolidate classes based on how they're designed in the current game, I'd argue the logical breakdown is Warrior (classes with extra attack), Mage (classes with full spellcasting progression), and Rogue (classes with sneak attack).

I’d add Cleric as a divine vs arcane spellcaster, but ultimately that is more about flavor than mechanics. I’d also add a half-caster (for both). While having the same mechanics, the progression is different enough to me.

The rest I agree with

 

[Frozen_Heart]

If psion goes under magic user in a 4 class system, I'd hope that the subclasses are able to overwrite how the casting works. So that the psion can have will points rather than spell slots.

 

[Minigiant]

I am intrigued now... I can't think of 10 new ones off top of my head so I can't imagine 40... but I would not doubt 16-20

This is what I thought up in 5 minutes brainstorm.

1. Alchemist*
2. Artificer
3. Arcanist (simple wizard)
4. Assassin*
5. Barbarian
6. Bard
7. Blackguard*
8. Beastmaster
9. Chief (Tribal)
10. Cleric
11. Druid
12. Echo Knight*
13. Fighter
14. Gish
15. Gladiator*
16. Hexblade*
17. Mastermind*
18. Monk
19. Mystic
20. Paladin (spelled)
21. Paladin (spellless)
22. Priest (specialist)
23. Psion
24. Psy Warririo*
25. Ranger
26. Ranger (spelled)
27. Rogue (spellless)
28. Rune Knight*
29. Rune Priest*
30. Scoundrel (complex rogue)
31. Sentinel (druid with companion)
32. Shaman
33. Sorcerer
34. Soul Knife*
35. Summoner
36. Swashbuckler*
37. Sowrdmage*
38. Templar (Strength priest)
39. Thief*
40. Totem Warrior*
41. Warlock
42. Warlord
43. War Priest*the
44. Weaponmaster (complex fighter)
45. Wilder
46. Witch Doctor*
47. Wizard

* Could be combined with other class.