Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 7045126" data-attributes="member: 7006">At the end of the day going forward, doesn't it all really boil down to "What classes are a major story part of the seven primary D&D campaign settings, and does it require adding them to the game?"  And if a major part of the setting's story is "missing", then WotC will add a class to finish it off.  But if not... then I imagine they have less need or desire to just add classes for the sake of adding classes.Like it or not... the Mystic and the Artificer are the only two "new" classes for which they are a primary story point for two separate settings.  Dark Sun has an incredibly strong psionic focus... mainly because psionics have replaced divine magic.  Without having psionics in the game, you lose an incredibly important part of Dark Sun's story.Likewise, the Artificer is the focus of where all magic has gone to in Eberron.  The construction of magical items (both powerful and basic) is a foundation of the setting's economy, its technology, and on a party-level a "healer" for one of the main races in the game.  Eberron was designed and built under the idea of the Artificer class and what that type of character means to its setting and story.But once you get past those two and you look at the remaining primary campaign settings... Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Dragonlance, Planescape, Birthwright... all of them use just what is already in the game.  There's no "missing" class for any of those settings where you'd say "Nope, it's not X without having Y class!"  Which means that WotC has no imperative to create any other class just because.  I mean, they could of course... they could create any number of classes if they wanted to.  But I don't think they'd necessarily feel the setting was incomplete if they didn't.  Now yes, I'm sure that someone will try and make the case that Nentir Vale isn't Nentir Vale without the Warlord... but I personally wouldn't agree.  There's nothing inherent in that pseudo-setting's story that needed a whole host of tactically and inspirationally motivated warriors.  Heck, war is the furthest thing from what's happening in the Nentir Vale right now, so there's no in-story necessity for having warlords and tacticians and inspiring leaders milling around.Now that being said... if anyone wants to argue that even psionics and artificing don't necessarily have to be new classes either because you could fulfill them as (for example) Monk & Sorcerer subclasses for the former and a Wizard subclass for the latter... I won't argue or disagree with you.  I really don't care how these ideas are represented mechanically, because I personally create and differentiate characters through fluff rather than mechanics.  So if the Basic Game had been the entirety of 5E in terms of classes, I wouldn't have any issue creating "paladins" and "rangers" and "barbarians" and "bards" using the Core Four, backgrounds and multiclassing.  So making mystics and artificers using current foundational mechanics in the PH would be a fine alternative for me too.  But that's just me.At the end of the day though... looking through the prism of what is at the heart of the settings WotC has... psionics and artificing are the two classes from the past which I'd argue are intertwined with the settings they are a part of and which need to get made in some form or fashion (class or subclass) just so the setting can be played at a baseline level.  Any classes past that though?  Sure, they can be made if WotC wants to... I just don't know if any more are "required" per se.</blockquote>

Verification