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

[jmartkdr2]

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 split out caster-fighters, only because having both spells and maneuvers is overkill. I might even make them into more than one class (rune knight could have different kinds of runes by subclass: giant, eladrin, dragon, etc.) and another that's designed to handle fighter + some existing caster type.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I'd split out caster-fighters, only because having both spells and maneuvers is overkill. I might even make them into more than one class (rune knight could have different kinds of runes by subclass: giant, eladrin, dragon, etc.) and another that's designed to handle fighter + some existing caster type.

I really wish the community wasn't so opposed to magical and non-magical abilities using thesame limited resource. If manuever dice and spell slots were the same resource, you could mix the two without any problems.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I really wish the community wasn't so opposed to magical and non-magical abilities using thesame limited resource. If manuever dice and spell slots were the same resource, you could mix the two without any problems.

Tangential thought: [a maneuver that lets you deliver a spell with a weapon attack] + [multiclassing] = general gish option for almost any combo of warrior and caster.

Not a total solution (I'd still want rune knights to be their own thing) but if executed well it means we could focus on story-based half-casters and let concepts that are just hybrids exist via multiclassing, where they should be. Especially if 'a maneuver' is possible via feats.

 

[FrogReaver]

My problem with new classes and subclasses is system bloat. I think we are already at that point. I'd rather see more done with Culture (which doesn't really exist mechanically in 5e) and Backgrounds.

What is the issue you have with a 'bloated' system?

Personally my concern with system bloat stems primarily from multiclassing and interchangeable pieces becoming too strong. To a lesser extent it comes from the thought of a newly created class outright overshadowing an older class at the things it's designed to be good at.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Tangential thought: [a maneuver that lets you deliver a spell with a weapon attack] + [multiclassing] = general gish option for almost any combo of warrior and caster.

Not a total solution (I'd still want rune knights to be their own thing) but if executed well it means we could focus on story-based half-casters and let concepts that are just hybrids exist via multiclassing, where they should be. Especially if 'a maneuver' is possible via feats.

As to hybrid concepts belonging in the MC space, I would agree more if extra attack worked differently. If you are MCd, and all your classes have the Extra Attack class feature, you get it at level 5, perhaps. If they don't, you treat any levels of a class that doesn't get the feature as half levels. So a knight 3/wizard4 would get Extra Attack at level 7, but a knight/archer would get it at character level 5.

A suite of spells that include a weapon attack as part of the action used to cast the spell would help.

Also, the EK would kick ass if they could cast a spell as a bonus action after taking the attack action.

 

[TwoSix]

I really wish the community wasn't so opposed to magical and non-magical abilities using thesame limited resource. If manuever dice and spell slots were the same resource, you could mix the two without any problems.

I think it's the same rationale as wanting psions to use a "different" system. A broad group of players want different mechanics to delineate different fictional spaces; I think it correlates with having broadly simulationist desires.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think it's the same rationale as wanting psions to use a "different" system. A broad group of players want different mechanics to delineate different fictional spaces; I think it correlates with having broadly simulationist desires.

It definitely does not correlate, at least not reliably, to any sort of simulationist desires. Not how most people use the term, at least, which relates to mechanics representing the physics of the world.

Meaningful differentiation of character facing mechanics along the lines of fictional themes is about, well, exactly what it sounds like.

I just don't see any reason that having a martial character whose martial abilities are powered by spell slots creates any issue in that context, because what the character is doing is still very mechanically distinct from casting spells. What is important is that what the character is doing, ie their actual actions in game and mechanically, are meaningfully distinct from abilities with a very different thematic flavour.

Basically in a game with distinct, prescribed, rules widgets that can be used selectively, it's a waste of design space, IMO, to not make those widgets thematically and mechanically distinct. If playing a paladin feels the same as playing a fighter, there is no point in having classes and distinct ability sets. Just give characters combat skills, and use a broadly defined set of types of actions a character can take, and let them decide how to flavor a given action, at that point.

 

[Bill Zebub]

My resistance to more classes is solely based on my sense that the basic “low fantasy” archetypes are covered, so additions will need to stray into “high fantasy” territory in order to find unclaimed design space.

And I prefer a more basic/simple aesthetic.

 

[Mind of tempest]

My resistance to more classes is solely based on my sense that the basic “low fantasy” archetypes are covered, so additions will need to stray into “high fantasy” territory in order to find unclaimed design space.

And I prefer a more basic/simple aesthetic.

have you tried just not buying the relevant books?

I think it's the same rationale as wanting psions to use a "different" system. A broad group of players want different mechanics to delineate different fictional spaces; I think it correlates with having broadly simulationist desires.

I would prefer a different system but I could live without it.

 

[jmartkdr2]

As to hybrid concepts belonging in the MC space, I would agree more if extra attack worked differently. If you are MCd, and all your classes have the Extra Attack class feature, you get it at level 5, perhaps. If they don't, you treat any levels of a class that doesn't get the feature as half levels. So a knight 3/wizard4 would get Extra Attack at level 7, but a knight/archer would get it at character level 5.

A suite of spells that include a weapon attack as part of the action used to cast the spell would help.

Also, the EK would kick ass if they could cast a spell as a bonus action after taking the attack action.

If 'overhaul existing stuff is on the table, then that's another good thing to add to the list.