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

[FrogReaver]

Hopefully a simple question.

 

[aco175]

Yes, since they cannot fix multiclassing. Everyone now wants a class to fit what multiclassing would do. People want the power of a single class, but with powers of a multiclassed PC.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Inverse: I want more classes because multiclassing is a crappy solution for hybrid concepts or dabbling in skills outside your class. (It's good for career changes, but that's about it.)

 

[Charlaquin]

Nah, my concerns, such as they are, are just about keeping the number of base options to a manageable number of broad archetypes - perhaps a dozen or fewer. Multiclassing is, in theory, a way to allow greater character diversity within a system that has a small number of base archetypal options. Though, I would really prefer more choices within each class, instead of having to mix different classes together to achieve this diversity, which in my opinion defeats the point of having a small number of broad archetypes to begin with.

 

[Lyxen]

Multiclassing is an option anyway. It's true that it's rarely straight powers that cause trouble, it's usually combos, but no, it's about the unnecessary complexity of maintaining all these classes. Our players have not problem choosing classes, and even after so many campaigns, there are archetypes that have not been tried.

 

[Minigiant]

I have no concerns over adding new classes. And even if I did,mutliclassing would not be a concern for me. During the time of most people's play (level1-10), multiclassing is a nerf or temporary power boost only to be outshone later.

As long as new classes aren't frontloaded and have tier appropriate features, multiclassing is not even an issue in the discussion of new classes.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Ug... more classes... more subclasses... when will the madness stop!?!

 

[Shiroiken]

A big aspect of having only a few classes is that it makes it easier for the DM. Jim may be an Arcane Archer, but he's mainly a fighter. His abilities are going to be the same as most other fighters, except for those from a handful of levels. The first of these special levels is going to be the important one to learn, but other than that, the DM just has to know what the fighter can do. Keeping it tight allows the DM to prepare for their abilities without needing their character sheets, and with only 13 classes, it's not unreasonable for a veteran DM to know the base class abilities for the first two tiers. Knowing what they can do allows the DM to design better adventures, making the game better overall.

 

[Professor Murder]

Honestly, multiclassing is pretty uncommon in my playgroup this edition. I think it more comes down to that most of the fertile ground is already covered by existing classes. Artificer worked as an addition in part because it was evocative of a new idea, something that wasn't expressly possible under existing classes. Now, that in part comes from the setting. So if we did get a new class, I would expect it to stem out of a new setting offering.

What are the remaining blank spots? I think a "face" class that is not a caster, akin to the Marshall in previous editions.

 

[Minigiant]

Ug... more classes... more subclasses... when will the madness stop!?!

Never?

If D&D has unlimited settings, it has unlimited ideas for classes and subclasses.