D&D 5E Does your concern about adding more classes to 5e D&D stem from multiclassing?

[Mind of tempest]

I allow both Laserllama's and Kibbles' Psion class, both are pretty polished and cover a lot of psionic tropes. Laserllama is medium complexity; Kibbles' is a little heavier, and the mechanics are a little more novel, but nothing mystic level.

you got a tutorial for how to use those as I took to the mystic like a duck to water, these not so much?

 

[Minigiant]

Yea, that's why I find the arguments about "needing more classes" so tedious. There's hundreds of well-done homebrew classes out there; what some really seem to "need" is for them to be official. People need to stop being so precious about only using WotC material, which isn't any better than good third-party stuff.

The issue isn't finding the homebrew class.

It's convincing your DM to let you play it. That WOTC official label does a lot of work in the pitch.

My DM wouldn't let me play a PC class who invented the revolver and the shotgun.

 

[TwoSix]

you got a tutorial for how to use those as I took to the mystic like a duck to water, these not so much?

Wait, are you saying you found the mystic EASIER than these? Not sure I can help you, honestly, obviously we have different mindsets.

 

[TwoSix]

The issue isn't finding the homebrew class.

It's convincing your DM to let you play it. That WOTC official label does a lot of work in the pitch.

My DM wouldn't let me play a PC class who invented the revolver and the shotgun.

<shrug>

Got me. I've never had a issue, but all of my DMs have also been players when I DM, and they know I allow them to try all sorts of ideas, so they're usually happy to reciprocate.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Wait, are you saying you found the mystic EASIER than these? Not sure I can help you, honestly, obviously we have different mindsets.

how is select which block of powers you want then burn spell points hard it is like mass effect Andromeda it is fairly easy, this modified warlock chassis is just nuts?
also, do you have a tutorial at all as no one has a mind like mine?

 

[CleverNickName]

The issue isn't finding the homebrew class.

It's convincing your DM to let you play it. That WOTC official label does a lot of work in the pitch.

My DM wouldn't let me play a PC class who invented the revolver and the shotgun.

Even though I'm quoting @Minigiant from this thread, I'm trying to write a universal response. I hope nobody feels singled-out.

-----

Two schools of thought always emerge on threads like these.

• Stuff the players want that the DM doesn't, and
• Stuff the DM wants that the player's don't.

Both sides focus on the rules as-written as if it were an immutable anchor in the discussion (it isn't, btw). Those same rules as-written also permit (encourage, even) the DM to omit or house-rule away anything that they feel don't belong in the game. And even if a particular game element is in the Core Rules, the players are not obligated to use them for their characters. In short: the rules as-written can only help present this argument...they can't help solve it.

There are plenty of advice posts about 'convincing your players/DM to see things your way,' but they all boil down to the same point: you have to talk to your fellow gamers. You have to explain why you want/don't want a particular thing in your game, and you have to be honest and flexible about it.

• If a particular class only interests you because it lets you spam a particular power combination, tell your DM. Don't try to hide it, sneak it in, or pretend you didn't notice it--your DM needs to know that power combos and optimization are important to your enjoyment of the game.
• If the only reason you want to play a unique psion class (instead of a reskinned Whatever) is to circumvent the anti-magic and Counterspell effects in the game, tell your DM...they need to know that you feel like magic is being too heavily suppressed.
• If you want to use the "gritty" rules for long rests because you feel like the players spend too much time resting and not enough time exploring, tell your players. They need to know that you are unhappy with the pace of the story.

Talk it out, be willing to bend, and actively look for compromise. Official books from WotC are no substitute for clear, honest communication with your table-mates. Nothing is.

 

[Helldritch]

ROFL bloody hell mate. Palladium is a total disaster/trashfire of a system on every possible level so that's a bold choice. The world is good fun though.

Hey! That is your appreciation. Not mine. We may disagree but I really like that system and so does their fans. And they've used the same system since almost forever!

Statements like this make me think my level of imagination on word and character design is much higher than the average D&D fan. But my humility and levels of self critique make me think I'm just a crazy person instead.

I don't think you're crazy. Or that a person that wants zounds of character classes is less imaginative. Some like to twist and adapt their class to their tastes and views. Others prefer it served on a silver platter with every single details filled up. Most people falls in around those extremes.

 

[cbwjm]

I've never worried about multiclassing and wouldn't be concerned with additional classes causing balance issues since I don't really worry too much about balance between classes/multiclass combinations, they just need to be balanced enough.

I expect there are a lot of class concepts that I'd love to see an official take on that won't get made, but as long as they make any required classes for a setting, much like the artificer was made for eberron, I'm not too worried. That means I'm hoping for a psion for any potential dark sun setting book, though I'm halfway expecting them to create some sort of module that you attach to current classes similar to the supernatural gifts/piety of Theros but with uniquely psionic flavour.

 

[Mind of tempest]

I've never worried about multiclassing and wouldn't be concerned with additional classes causing balance issues since I don't really worry too much about balance between classes/multiclass combinations, they just need to be balanced enough.

I expect there are a lot of class concepts that I'd love to see an official take on that won't get made, but as long as they make any required classes for a setting, much like the artificer was made for eberron, I'm not too worried. That means I'm hoping for a psion for any potential dark sun setting book, though I'm halfway expecting them to create some sort of module that you attach to current classes similar to the supernatural gifts/piety of Theros but with uniquely psionic flavour.

why not both?

 

[Minigiant]

I don't think you're crazy. Or that a person that wants zounds of character classes is less imaginative. Some like to twist and adapt their class to their tastes and views. Others prefer it served on a silver platter with every single details filled up. Most people falls in around those extremes.

The thing is

People can only imagine what they imagine or what is described or displayed clearly enough that they can imagine it.

The biggest hurdles for new class ideas in 5e isn't the fear of multiclassing breaking it are

• People not being exposed to the concepts behind the classes (or forgetting they exist)
• Most fans not being good enough game designers to design what's left
• Many fans not being good at explaining or describing common ideas
• Like @CleverNickName said, people not being honest of why they want things and not stating so

5e handles 90% of the higher level character concepts in fantasy well. The problem is the 10% of 5e doesn't handle is either

1) is not common in generic dungeoneering fantasy or wasn't before the last 20 years so a lot of the commnity doesn't know of its existence as an adventurer archetype.
2) can be recreated in a weak substitute vis refluffing and thus requires a convincing discussion the one proposing lacks the ability to support or
3) is really hard to design within the design and requires creation of subsystems beyond the talent or patience of most

For example. D&D for a long term handled item based technology classes poorly. It as a game never really dug into thoseideas for a class without just dumping magic into it for an wizard or artificer type character. Because it's hard to design. Really hard to design. And what is hard to design is equally hard to explain and convince to allow.