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

[Minigiant]

how is a scoundrel different from a rogue?

A Scoundrel is a rogue with complex mechanics.

For example instead of an always on Sneak Attack, they would have resources that power their activatable Backstab.

 

[Shardstone]

how is a scoundrel different from a rogue?

Complex rogue! I haven't done any work yet, but I'm very confident I can make the flavor different enough for MY taste to be its own class.

 

[MichaelSomething]

The correct answer is to cram in as many classes as possible into the PHB and then never make new classes. People detest splat books and will run "core only" games if you introduce new classes later.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The correct answer is to cram in as many classes as possible into the PHB and then never make new classes. People detest splat books and will run "core only" games if you introduce new classes later.

1000 page core. Do it!

Add more space for classes by deleting the wizard and its spells.

 

[Mecheon]

Aeons ago there were 4 classes

I am not sure why these all have to be separate classes instead of being subclasses under existing ones. Might come down to a case by case basis.

And pretty much the first books that came out added in more classes, plus it being a big part of the supplementary stuff at the time. Not necessarily stuff that stayed (Smith didn't last long, the first Dragon Magazine with Witch had, what, 3 different versions of the class?, Acrobat's come and gone but I don't see much push for it to stay regularly), but its showing that the 4 class paradigm wasn't stuck to at the time.

Cleric for example completely fails at the druid archetype. I don't want any chainmail armor or turning undead if I'm a druid, or, frankly, any divine spells at all. That's all useless to a druid. why would anyone consider druid to be 'oh just shove it under cleric it'll be fine'? Cleric offers nothing a druid needs, they have no synergy outside of 'casts spells'. Heck, wizard has more shapechanging than cleric does.

I asked my non-D&D playing friend about people saying that druid could be merged into cleric and she said 'holy magic for druids is ****ing stupid' so uh, all that's going to do is confuse people


and uh, yeah. I'm big on new classes coming into the game. Subclasses don't cover anything and add in stuff that classes don't need (See my comments about how battlemaster has too much Fighter stuff to truly hit the Warlord archetype)

 

[mamba]

And pretty much the first books that came out added in more classes, plus it being a big part of the supplementary stuff at the time.

yes, that was always something to sell books in those days. None of them are really new templates however, they might as well have the others as subclasses of those 4, and if you look at the reprint of 1e, they have.

Players Handbook (1e) - Wizards of the Coast | AD&D 1st Ed. | Rules | AD&D 1st Ed. | Dungeon Masters Guild

Players Handbook (1e) - The 1st Edition Player's Handbook is back! No more searching through stacks of books and magazines to find out what you

www.dmsguild.com

 

[Remathilis]

If you put the game mechanics aside and just look at them thematically, the similarities between the arcane classes far outweigh any of their differences:

A wizard is a mage who studies different schools of magic, and carries a book of spells and a familiar.

A sorcerer is a mage who studies different schools of has a bloodline mixed with magic, and carries a book of spells magical bloodline and a familiar.

A warlock is a mage who studies different schools of sold their soul to be able to use magic, and carries a book of spells, a talisman, a sword, and or a familiar.

An artificer is a mage who studies different schools of magic technologies, and carries around a book of spells set of tools and a familiar automaton.

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.

Pull out your PHB and design me a "druid" domain for cleric. Make sure it has the iconic spells and abilities of the classic druid class. Show me you can make a druid in four subclass features that is fun and balanced and I'll buy your argument.

 

[Emberashh]

So are the game mechanics alone enough to justify having four different classes and about 40 subclasses?

To plug my game a wee bit I fully agree. In LNO, as I moved away from Vancian casting and all its baggage, it left me having to differentiate between the different mages.

Some were easy. The Wizard will be just your bog standard, exactly what you expect sort of class. The Battlemage and Cleric offshoot from that basic idea, and while they will be functionally identical in terms of magic usage, their actual primary design will be keeping them differentiated. Conviction for Clerics, which to make a reference is basically Dragonball Z x The literal Bible, and Summoning for Battlemages, specifically of arms and armor, which differentiates it from the other summoners, such as Necromancer and Conjurer, which will have their own casting design that hooks into their Summoning.

Meanwhile, the Sorcerer I designed around an adaptation of DCC' Mighty Deed, except its magic, and it basically serves as a war mage in every sense of the word. Part of the design is that you have to be careful as it can devastate the battlefield so heavily and thoroughly even your allies can suffer.

And the Warlock, is being designed around a Curse system, which admittedly is slightly similar to the Sorcerer design, but geared more towards debuffing rather than pure carnage, but will also integrate the more classic DND ideas of "patrons" or what have you, but tied specifically to different cursed artifacts unique to the Warlock, such as the Mask or the Staff, and one subclass will actually be based on being posessed by some entity.

Druids are one Im still deliberating on; Im inclined towards pushing them towards a Control playstyle styled by being Weather and Nature type mages, but Im not certain yet. Ill get there eventually.

Across all of these, though, the basic mechanical idea of how magic works and is cast is more or less identical, but the classes themselves are tuned to provide great differentiation in party roles and playstyles.

 

[CleverNickName]

Pull out your PHB and design me a "druid" domain for cleric. Make sure it has the iconic spells and abilities of the classic druid class. Show me you can make a druid in four subclass features that is fun and balanced and I'll buy your argument.

Why would I use the Cleric as a base class? If I had my way, Cleric would be a subclass of Priest just like Druid would.

Cleric subclasses would have domains, Druid subclasses would have circles, but they would get their core mechanics (spells, spell slots, etc.) from Priest.

As for "buying my argument," you're free to disagree with me. I don't mind.

 

[Minigiant]

Why would I use the Cleric as a base class? If I had my way, Cleric would be a subclass of Priest just like Druid would.

Cleric subclasses would have domains, Druid subclasses would have circles, but they would get their core mechanics (spells, spell slots, etc.) from Priest.

As for "buying my argument," you're free to disagree with me. I don't mind.

However if the base class has also no mechanics and flavor and the subclass contains all the crunch and fluff, isn't that just creating a new class with extra steps?