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

[Clint_L]

I think the big archetypes are pretty much covered and sub-classes are the way to go. Unless there is something very setting specific, so that I don’t feel expected to include it in my games (looks hard at psion).

I think folks have a tendency to assume that their personal preferences are more iconic than they really are.

 

[Minigiant]

I think the big archetypes are pretty much covered and sub-classes are the way to go. Unless there is something very setting specific, so that I don’t feel expected to include it in my games (looks hard at psion).

I think folks have a tendency to assume that their personal preferences are more iconic than they really are.

It's less that the big archetypes aren't covered currently or can't be covered in the core 12 classes of 5e.

It's that many archetypes won't be covered well under a subclass.

The Beastmaster people want to play cannot fit in the space of the Ranger subclass.
The tactical Warlord people want to play cannot fit in the space of the Fighter subclass.
The super shapershifter is too powerful for a full caster Druid.
The Arcane gish is too powerful for a full casting Warlock or Wizard
There is not enough room to stick a Psion inside a Sorcerer
There is not enough room to stick a full Summoner inside a Wizard

The thing about D&D fans and the community is we don't admit when we individually don't care about particular big archetype enough to advocate making anew class for it because the archetype peg doesn't fit in the subclass hole. The person who doesn't have interest in playing or DMing a Psion doesn't if Psionics is reduced to a meh subclass. We as a community are very human and hve a major "Don't Care, Got Mine" streak all over the fandom.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

Thematically I believe that everything can fit in magic user, thief, and fighting man. No subclasses, just flavouring.

Mechanically that would absolutely suck though, and it wouldn't be a game I was interested in playing.

 

[MostlyHarmless42]

The real question is why is anyone here even asking this question, when we all know the answer: they'll release new classes as paid dlc / microtransactions for their new VTT, likely at a rushed or untested rate that has nothing to do with actual balance or quality of game play, but at whatever their focus groups and marketing team determine is the optimal route to exploit whales or otherwise vulernative people. Why are we even pretending like this isn't the future of D&D when they've outright told us it is?

 

[Minigiant]

5 The real question is why is anyone here even asking this question, when we all know the answer: they'll release new classes as paid dlc / microtransactions for their new VTT, likely at a rushed or untested rate that has nothing to do with actual balance or quality of game play, but at whatever their focus groups and marketing team determine is the optimal route to exploit whales or otherwise vulernative people. Why are we even pretending like this isn't the future of D&D when they've outright told us it is?

As an edition that is approaching 10 years old and doing a revision, simply doing rushed DLC classes in a world of Youtube videos and Social Media is an obviously bad idea. Even to suits.

That's why they didn't do new classes in the first place.

However after 10 years, there is nothing fresh left for 5e. They did 90% of the good old settings and forced 90% of the big archetypes in an existing or upcoming subclass.

The only HYPE left is new classes or new settings. And they know they can't half ass them. They plan to go at least 5-10 more years. That's why the whole OGL debacle happened. D&D needs new official content.

 

[MostlyHarmless42]

As an edition that is approaching 10 years old and doing a revision, simply doing rushed DLC classes in a world of Youtube videos and Social Media is an obviously bad idea. Even to suits.

That's why they didn't do new classes in the first place.

However after 10 years, there is nothing fresh left for 5e. They did 90% of the good old settings and forced 90% of the big archetypes in an existing or upcoming subclass.

The only HYPE left is new classes or new settings. And they know they can't half ass them. They plan to go at least 5-10 more years. That's why the whole OGL debacle happened. D&D needs new official content.

And I think you're giving business executives too much credit. The corporate brainrot runs deep. They don't know a dang thing about this game or market or they wouldn't have tried to pull that OGL stunt in the first place. Or alternatively they simply do not care and will do it anyway. Again. Their new bigwigs are still mobile games people.

They are still trying to find ways to get a vice grip on the market and you are foolish if you don't think this mindset won't influence the design from the top down. The OGL isn't over. Not by a long shot.

After all, a 3rd party market for creators controlled by WoTC just so coincidentally targets drive-through RPG, which is one of the revenue sources for roll 20, who just happens to be their primary VTT competition.

And it's not a coincidence that new wizard ability Modify/Create spell is being proposed and would be quite convenient for microtransactions in their new VTT. After all, why wouldn't the average player just pay a dollar to have their spell match the right collar, right?

 

[CleverNickName]

The real question is why is anyone here even asking this question, when we all know the answer: they'll release new classes as paid dlc / microtransactions for their new VTT, likely at a rushed or untested rate that has nothing to do with actual balance or quality of game play, but at whatever their focus groups and marketing team determine is the optimal route to exploit whales or otherwise vulernative people. Why are we even pretending like this isn't the future of D&D when they've outright told us it is?

The last "new class" they gave us was the Artificer, almost 3 years ago...and even then, it was a reprint of an already years-old Eberron class.

It's worth considering: new base classes might not be very high on WotC's list of priorities.

 

[Clint_L]

It's less that the big archetypes aren't covered currently or can't be covered in the core 12 classes of 5e.

It's that many archetypes won't be covered well under a subclass.

The Beastmaster people want to play cannot fit in the space of the Ranger subclass.
The tactical Warlord people want to play cannot fit in the space of the Fighter subclass

As measured by whose preferences? Who are these "people" to which you allude? I think you are speaking for yourself. I think that's what a lot of these discussions come down to - folks assuming that their personal preferences are widespread. I think, for example, that a tactical Warlord reminiscent of 4e would be quite easy to add to 5e via a few feats, particularly when combined with the Battlemaster sub-class, as several of us suggested in that thread.

 

[Minigiant]

As measured by whose preferences? Who are these "people" to which you allude? I think you are speaking for yourself. I think that's what a lot of these discussions come down to - folks assuming that their personal preferences are widespread. I think, for example, that a tactical Warlord reminiscent of 4e would be quite easy to add to 5e via a few feats, particularly when combined with the Battlemaster sub-class, as several of us suggested in that thread.

WOTC was very vocal about how people were dissatisfied with the Beastmaster Ranger. That's why they not once but thrice tried t fix the Ranger, created big sublcass changes to the Beastmaster, and redid their design for pet subclasses.

It's not just some minority stating. WOTC said it with their word, design, and official publishing. They are doing the surveys.

It's pretty clear that in the words and surveys, WOTC would have created at least 5 classes by now if they didn't put a "no new classes unless setting demands" rule on themselves

 

[CleverNickName]

The Beastmaster people want to play cannot fit in the space of the Ranger subclass.
The tactical Warlord people want to play cannot fit in the space of the Fighter subclass.
The super shapershifter is too powerful for a full caster Druid.
The Arcane gish is too powerful for a full casting Warlock or Wizard
There is not enough room to stick a Psion inside a Sorcerer
There is not enough room to stick a full Summoner inside a Wizard

The thing about D&D fans and the community is we don't admit when we individually don't care about particular big archetype enough to advocate making anew class for it because the archetype peg doesn't fit in the subclass hole. The person who doesn't have interest in playing or DMing a Psion doesn't if Psionics is reduced to a meh subclass. We as a community are very human and hve a major "Don't Care, Got Mine" streak all over the fandom.

Another thing about D&D fans and the community is that they (we) cannot agree on what these subclasses are supposed to look like, or what power level is appropriate for a druid, or even what an 'arcane gish' is, etc. We are our own worst enemies.

You talk about the people who want to play a particular version of the Beastmaster or Warlord as if they represent a unified whole, and I doubt that's the case. I think that if you asked 100 people on ENWorld what a "warlord" is supposed to be, you'll get dozens of different answers before it dissolves into an argument.

Before the Paranormal Power Kickstarter came along (thanks again, @Steampunkette ), the only psion I played was an Aberrant Mind Sorcerer that used the optional Spell Points rule in the DMG. It works a lot better than most folks claim...and while a handful of people here and on Reddit still really like that version, the disagreeable majority will have none of it.