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

[doctorbadwolf]

To me the best solution is to not attempt to merge the simple athletic fighter and the the complex mental fighter.

The Champion would be the simple fighter with action surge. It would have the Samurai, Cavalier, Brawler, Brute, subclasses.

The Fighter would be the complex fighterwho has maneuvers as base. Al the magicky and warlordy subclasses go here: Battlemaster, Echo Knight, Eldritch Knight, Psi Warrior, Rune Knight, Warlord

I’d rather give all martial classes optional access to maneuvers.

Basically if I were designing a new edition and pitching a new model for martials during playtesting, all martial classes would be designed with part of their power budget assigned to 3 options. Half-casting* with a unique spell list, manuevers with a unique list and superiority dice as the same power level as half-casting, and a third option that is particular to that class.

Then I’d split the fighter into a few classes.

*half-casting. All spell casting could progress at the same level rate, but with different spell level caps. So the Ranger gets 3rd level spells at level 5, but never gets 6th level spells or 6th level slots.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Nope more class bloat and I don't have much faith in the execution eg artificer.

This may be I’ll advised considering how differently we see the game, but what is so bad about the artificer’s execution?

Like, it has room for either more Spellcasting or more infusions, or maybe more spell storing item type stuff, but it isn’t like…at the bottom of the power scale or anything.

 

[Minigiant]

I’d rather give all martial classes optional access to maneuvers.

Basically if I were designing a new edition and pitching a new model for martials during playtesting, all martial classes would be designed with part of their power budget assigned to 3 options. Half-casting* with a unique spell list, manuevers with a unique list and superiority dice as the same power level as half-casting, and a third option that is particular to that class.

Then I’d split the fighter into a few classes.

*half-casting. All spell casting could progress at the same level rate, but with different spell level caps. So the Ranger gets 3rd level spells at level 5, but never gets 6th level spells or 6th level slots.

That's how multiclassing could become a problem.

Half Casting, Manuevers, Surges, and subclass stuff need to be siloed of their own classes or subclasses. This ensures limited stacking via multiclassing and allows them all to progress within the tiers.

Personally I wouldn't want to split the fighter and rogue into too many pieces. It could easily go from the extreme of them being bland to them being too niche. If anything, splitting them into Physical Fighter class, Mental Fighter class, Physical Rogue class, and Mental Rogue.class gives them each some story but makes them broad enough to maintain subclasses within.


The STR, DEX,and CON Fighter really shouldn't be the same classes as the INT WIS, and CHA Fighter.

 

[CleverNickName]

That's how multiclassing could become a problem.

Fortunately, it's an optional problem.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That's how multiclassing could become a problem.

Doesn’t have to, though.

Half Casting, Manuevers, Surges, and subclass stuff need to be siloed of their own classes or subclasses. This ensures limited stacking via multiclassing and allows them all to progress within the tiers.

Ah! no! Lol Srsly tho, I’d much rather make all those features work like Spellcasting currently works in 5e. Ie, your manuever progression wouldn’t stack by multiclassing two martial classes, and if you used MC to have some manuvers and some Spellcasting, you’d just have more options, but the same power budget of spell slots and manuever dice.

Personally I wouldn't want to split the fighter and rogue into too many pieces. It could easily go from the extreme of them being bland to them being too niche. If anything, splitting them into Physical Fighter class, Mental Fighter class, Physical Rogue class, and Mental Rogue.class gives them each some story but makes them broad enough to maintain subclasses within.

Eh, splitting the rogue into assassin, jack/trickster, and the swashbuckler (which would be a mix of current rogue and current fighter toys), for instance, leaves plenty of room for plenty of subclasses, and gives the base classes more of a story,

The assassin with a subclass focused on infiltration and poison, will play that concept better than the current assassin, because more of is mechanics will be designed to support the concept.

Th jack or thief doesn’t need a damage spike mechanic, but the assassin does.

The Swashbuckler Rogue as written has no swordplay mechanics, waits until level 9 to get mechanical support for taunting and charming people in ways that anyone with Skill Expert can’t duplicate, and lacks any real ability to take on several enemies at once and keep them all at bay while pulling stunts. A swashbuckler class would be able to hit all those beats bc it would be purpose built to do so.

The STR, DEX,and CON Fighter really shouldn't be the same classes as the INT WIS, and CHA Fighter.

I don’t agree with distinguishing class concepts by ability score. Story first. Mechanics serve story. The Knight is a class concept, Strength (the ability score mechanics) is not. IMO, of course.

 

[Minigiant]

I don’t agree with distinguishing class concepts by ability score. Story first. Mechanics serve story. The Knight is a class concept, Strength (the ability score mechanics) is not. IMO, of course.

It's more that I see Action Surge as a Physical thing and Maneuvers as Mental.

The warrior who crushes an orc's skull and ribs with his hammer because he's just as strong should use different mechanics from the warrior who used his knowledge to decapitate another orc with Master Kon's Seven Streams Strike.

To me Ajax, Achilles, and Odysseus are different classes. Might, Origon/Patron, and Knowledge. 3 different stories. 3 different sources of power. 3 different classes. Attempting to do them all in the same class weakens the story and prevents combinations via multiclassing.

You should be able to play as a Hector style warrior. A Might hero (Action surge) who gets blessing from allied gods (invocations) as a multiclassesed Champion/Chosen. Or you could be his brother Paris who gets invocations as well but uses trick shots as a Battlemaster/Chosen.

Or you could go Menelaus or Agememnon and mutliclass for both Surges and Maneuvers without obvious patron boosting from the sidelines. "I'm a King who also smashes skulls. This is all kingly muscle. (Cuss Word) your stupid city!"

 

[Zardnaar]

This may be I’ll advised considering how differently we see the game, but what is so bad about the artificer’s execution?

Like, it has room for either more Spellcasting or more infusions, or maybe more spell storing item type stuff, but it isn’t like…at the bottom of the power scale or anything.

It's bad at spellcasting and lacks the combat oomph of the ranger/paladin and takes to long to switch on around level 9/10.

I would rate it near the bottom of the classes keeping the monk and rogue company.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It's bad at spellcasting and lacks a he combat iomph of the ranger/paladin and rajes to long to switch on around level 9/10.

I would rate it near the bottom of the classes keeping the monk and rogue company.

I laugh not at you, but at the fact I knew how far our opinions differed in general and asked anyway.

 

[Mezuka]

I don't allow multi-classing, it's optional. No plumber level 3 + singer level 5 + engineer level 2 in my campaigns.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Half of it is basically unusable without heavy revision, at which point I could have just made it myself in the first place.

If only half of it is unusable, then your revisions will only take half as long than if you had done the entire thing yourself. You're saving yourself time by using it!