D&D (2024) How quickly should WOTC add new classes?

[CreamCloud0]

i think new classes are important, not just 'new classes for the sake of new classes' but sometimes you need a dedicated base for certain mechanics that was actually designed to support them and has room for going into details, like the 'pet'/summoner archtype which really can't be done justice with just a handfull of scattered subclasses all individually trying to figure out how to make themselves work off their respective base class's mechanics.

as for new classes i think the ones i'd really like to see rounding out the roster that i can think of right now would be warlord, swordmage, pet/summoner and the psion.

on the wizard vs sorcerer conversation. the sorcerer i'm happy with, i think it should be the arcane blaster caster, on the other hand the wizard is an unfocused overpowered mess, it's only been expanded and needs to be narrowed in on an actual concept, so IMO strip wizard of a significant portion of anything that's not it's basic utility and support spells then repackage the spells what you took away back into it as distinct subclass' expanded spell lists, not the spell school subclasses but actual thematic wizard archtypes, necromancer, elementalist, diviner, binder, abjurer, enchanter(okay yes these two are still technically based on spell schools but they also have their own thematic cores), where the necromancer gets summon undead, ray of sickness and speak with dead, elemenatalist getting wall of fire, sleet storm and chromatic orb, the diviner getting divination spells, the binder gets trapping and disabling spells and you get the picture here, not just 'i'm a necromancer because i picked slightly more necromancy spells than the average wizard alongside the standard fireball, fly and counterspell'

 

[Minigiant]

Scoundrel is a great idea, imma make that, thanks!

An idea that has been rolling aroundin my head has always been have a simple, intermediate, and complex version of each power type

• Arcane
  • Simple
  • Intermediate
  • Complex
• Divine
  • Simple: Healer
  • Intermediate: Paladin
  • Complex: Cleric
• Martial
  • Simple: Brute
  • Intermediate: Fighter
  • Complex: Weaponmaster
• Primal
  • Simple: Beastmaster
  • Intermediate: Shaman
  • Complex: Druid
• Underworld
  • Simple: Rogue
  • Intermediate: Swashbuckler
  • Complex: Scoundrel
• Wild
  • Simple: Barbarian
  • Intermediate: Ranger
  • Complex: Warden

 

[Remathilis]

However if the base classhas also no mechanics and flavorand the subclass contains all the crunch and fluff, isn't that just creating a new class with extra steps?

Exactly.

Plus, this system I assume would not allow multi-classing (you couldn't be a cleric/druid) and set certain parameters (such as a fighter and barbarian sharing the same HD).

I've never found any Superclass system that is either so broad and vague that the subclasses act like regular classes (but with less design flexibility) OR the subs are so stripped down to accommodate the base class, they barely exist (such as the example druid domain maybe granting a weak animal shape CD and a few nature spells)

 

[Shardstone]

One thing I would also like as an alternative to new classes is packages of alternate class features.

For example, you could put the Scoundrel on top of the Rogue by replacing certain features with more advanced ones, like Debilitations, Connections, and so on. This is the third axis of class manipulation that WotC has toyed with but not committed to.

 

[Minigiant]

Exactly.

Plus, this system I assume would not allow multi-classing (you couldn't be a cleric/druid) and set certain parameters (such as a fighter and barbarian sharing the same HD).

I've never found any Superclass system that is either so broad and vague that the subclasses act like regular classes (but with less design flexibility) OR the subs are so stripped down to accommodate the base class, they barely exist (such as the example druid domain maybe granting a weak animal shape CD and a few nature spells)

It only tends to work in videogames because you can put heavy mechanics in the superclass, class, and subclass. The CPU or AI handles the match and complexity for you.

In TTRPG, you are limited to a human's brainpower when exhausted. Making all thre levels matter mean you have to make a game that make Pathfinder look like a game for babies.. That would seriously kill your customer base.

 

[Professor Murder]

For me, the "danger" of class bloat is not so much adding a new class, as it opens the door for needed subclasses for said class. While I like the artificer and feel it is doing things that a wizard subclass would struggle reproducing, thus far, they have added all of one new subclass since the introduction of the Artificer. It's unlikely will will ever get many more.

That said, when a niche is unfilled and making a subclass of an existing class would require some radical changes, just make the new class. What I would most ask for is a non-spellcasting support class, akin to the Marshall of 3e. I know the Battlemaster can do some of this, but it just feels insufficient.

 

[mamba]

However if the base classhas also no mechanics and flavorand the subclass contains all the crunch and fluff, isn't that just creating a new class with extra steps?

what extra steps? If you create a new class for it, you still have to create the subclass(es) too… so at worst it saves you little

 

[Minigiant]

what extra steps? If you create a new class for it, you still have to create the subclass(es) too… so at worst it saves you little

My comment was on fans who think you only need 4 classes and do subclasses from that.

Them: You only need 4 classes. The Cleric and Druid is subclasses of Priest. Barbarian and Fighter are subclasses of Warrior.
Me: So how do I become a Light Cleric or Echo Knight Fighter?
Them: Well that would be subsubclasses?
Me: Subclass and subsubclasses? So what do Classes do?
Them: What do you mean?
Me: Cleric Subclass gives you Divine spells. Light Subsubclass gives you Light spells. What does Priest Class do?
Them: What?
Me: What does Priest Class do?
Them: What?
Me: What are the class features of Priest?
Them: Divine Spells.
Me: But Druid don't divine spells.
Them: No. Wait.
Me. If the Superclass, class, and subclass are not all 3 adding mechanical fetures to the PC, you are just going from Class/Sublcass to Superclass/Class.
Them: No. You have Priest, Druid, Moon.
Me: What does Priest Class do?

 

[Frozen_Heart]

However if the base class has also no mechanics and flavor and the subclass contains all the crunch and fluff, isn't that just creating a new class with extra steps?

sshhhh

The people who only want 4 classes get their 4 neat categories. The people who want lots of classes get their mechanically and thematically impactful characters with lots of choice of 'subclass'.

 

[Minigiant]

sshhhh

The people who only want 4 classes get their 4 neat categories. The people who want lots of classes get their mechanically and thematically impactful characters with lots of choice of 'subclass'.

Naah broo naaah

OD&D at least tags Class Groups to feats and magic items. People who only want 4 classes fail in 4 camps.

1. People who don't even want subclasses. They only want Fighter, Cleric, Thief, Mage and that's it. Everything else is flavor. No Bard. No Warlock. No Monk. No Sorcerer.
2. People who want subclasses but don't want subclasses fr fr. Barbarian is a subclass of Fighter. But no Totem Barbarian or Storm Barbarian or Zealot Barbarians.
3. People who want customization to be feats. And we learned in 3e, Not ..Everything.. Can .. Be.. A.. Feat. We learned this 20 years ago maaaaaaaan
4. People who are willing to make mechanical features for superclass, class, and subclass but know it will be too complex for new players and too hard to balance so they never bring it up.