D&D (2024) How many classes do you want to see this edition?

[tetrasodium]

It's not at all surprising to see more so far ahead. currently 62% with the next highest 24/16/8. It seems that 5.5/6e is still wedded to the class specific archetype progression levels at this point. As a result of that there isn't enough room to do a lot of concepts well without creating new classes that create different sized & shaped spaces for their archetypes to fit within. That's important because a lot of base classes contain a huge chunk of the total character's meaningful bread & butter abilities in ways that don't allow more fitting classes to accommodate archetypes they should be accommodating.

 

[Pedantic]

More is more, particularly in class and level systems. It's no loss to the Wizard if a more specific Witch Queen is published that has more appropriate archetypal abilities.

It's more design work, but that's not a player side problem, and it's precisely what game designers should be doing.

 

[overgeeked]

Less than 5E. There's already way too much overlap between archetypes. Three is the right number. Going with the class group names, there's warrior, mage/priest, and expert. The mage and priest group are only distinguished by their spell list and a bit of lore. Experts are variations on the same theme. Warriors are ever so slight variations on a theme. Combine the groups into three classes and strengthen the archetypes.

 

[the Jester]

Everything in the 5e PH plus an actual goddamn warlord.

 

[Minigiant]

I still say 5e was dreadfully missing 2 class, could use 2 more due to history, and 2 more after that rounds it out.

Basically each class group is missing a class.

Warrior: Warlord
Expert: Scholar
Priest: Inquisitor/Invoker
Mage: Gish

Then Psion/Mystic and Summoner round it out.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Why do we need more classes when you can just multiclass to create whatever concept you want?

 

[Minigiant]

Why do we need more classes when you can just multiclass to create whatever concept you want?

because some aspects of heroic fantasy don't exist in 5e yet.
You can't multiclass into something that doesn't exist.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

I'm happy with the existing classes. Is there another concept or two I could get behind? Sure. I could also do with trimming a couple existing classes. But at the end of the day what I really care about is having a manageable number of classes so that a DM can basically know what to expect from every character who shows up and have a rough grasp of their class rules. My guess is that if they doubled the number of classes they'd add one or two more that I actually really liked and ten more that I'd have to learn the rules of to feel comfortable running a game but have no enthusiasm for.

I had a player bring a Blood Hunter once, and it's not a terrible class design or anything, and they enjoyed it and all, but I really hated having to digest a whole new class that I personally have no interest in playing in order to accommodate them.

 

[Charlaquin]

The same, plus Artificer and Warlord. And if the ranger absolutely must be a spellcaster, then a new class that fills the same wilderness expert, monster hunter niche, but without spellcasting.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

Why do we need more classes when you can just multiclass to create whatever concept you want?

A multiclass doesn't do the concept nearly as well as a full class. They play very differently to a full class too. If you go 50/50 cleric/fighter, you don't play remotely like a paladin. You're just a bad fighter and a bad cleric.

Also some aspects just don't exist at all in 5e. That whole 'become the monster' the playtest sorcerer had is still completely untouched.