D&D 5E (2024) What should the 15th Class be?

[Minigiant]

Maybe I'm a bit thick here, but, isn't arcane gish an Artificer? I mean, they've got the spells, powers and extra attack. In what way isn't an artificer an arcane gish?

Artificer is Mage/Expert not Mage/Warrior.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Artificer is Mage/Expert not Mage/Warrior.

Not really how it plays. It’s an expert in the same way that a ranger is an expert.

 

[CreamCloud0]

* The witcher could be a good concept for a martial+magic class but we will need other name to avoid copyright troubles.

that people think we need a new independent class to play a witcher is i think, a sign of the failure of the ranger's design.

 

[Zardnaar]

Not really how it plays. It’s an expert in the same way that a ranger is an expert.

Bad at damage, spells, tanking and support?

At least Rangers can hit hard.

 

[Minigiant]

Not really how it plays. It’s an expert in the same way that a ranger is an expert.

Exactly.

The 5e Ranger is a Primal Mage/Expert or Priest/Expert. Not a Primal/Warrior.

5e Rangers are too squishy and lack the number/power of weapon attack spells to fill the full Warrior role

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Exactly.

The 5e Ranger is a Primal Mage/Expert or Priest/Expert. Not a Primal/Warrior.

But in practical terms, the distinction is meaningless. They both go round attacking stuff with magically enhanced weapons.

 

[Minigiant]

But in practical terms, the distinction is meaningless. They both go round attacking stuff with magically enhanced weapons.

Artificers primarily use spells for offense.

It takes a subclass choice to make a Artificer attack with weapons well. And that comes at the cost of defense.

Ranger is closer to Rogue as well. Ranger is all OFFENSE and SKILLS.

The Arcane/Divine/Primal Spellcaster / Fighter hybrid has magic enhance their offense and defense.

 

[Minigiant]

that people think we need a new independent class to play a witcher is i think, a sign of the failure of the ranger's design.

The modern Ranger is OFFENSE + SKILLS

There is a missing grid-fill for Primal and Arcane OFFENSE + DEFENSE

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It takes a subclass choice to make a Artificer attack with weapons well

Pretty much the whole of the artificer is in the subclass, considering them without is disingenuous.

And spells are a secondary class feature. Their magic gear, with may be focused on offence, defence or support, is their main thing.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yes, I would say that. And a fighter who fights with magic is the same as a fighter that doesn’t use magic, aside from fluff that is easily changed. Elric fights with magic, but the magic enhances his otherwise poor strength. So it can be built into his stats.

I prefer the four class model: fighter, mage, priest, expert. Or three, combining mage and priest.

Then there is essentially nothing for us to discuss. I completely disagree with this philosophy, and anything I say on the subject will be predicated on the idea that only-exactly four classes is not even an idea on the table.

That’s all that is needed. Everything else can be done with subclasses and refluffing.

This is incorrect.

Nothing is needed. Ever. There is literally not any part of the game which can said to be "needed". Everything in it, is elective on the part of the designers. To require that something must be "needed" means we shouldn't be including anything at all. Classless games exist, GMless games exist, non-dice-using games exist. Nothing is mandatory.

Hence, where you prefer to stake the "this is what is needed" flag, is at four classes. That position needs just as much justification as planting the flag at 12, or 13, or 15, or 25, or whatever.

Why should we use four classes instead of any other number? Clearly, say, 100 classes is a ridiculously over-large number, but given the actual required minimum is zero, any other number requires its justification. What's four's?