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

[mamba]

So the "time" thing factors in where?

I am not sure I understand. 5e was released 10 years ago. Let’s say it takes you 4 years for a solid design of your templates (so I get away from calling them classes).

Then either they started this 4 years ago, or it is too late for 5.5 now and will have to wait for 6e

I am pretty sure they did not wake up one day about a year ago and thought ‘you know what, we really should consider balancing 5e’ however. This is an ongoing process and once the changes become substantial enough or you discover a flaw in your design / core assumptions, you release a new book with everything that has accumulated. Just like WotC will do next year.

 

[Jolly Ruby]

I'm also on trim side. D&D have one or two too many classes, and the worst offender is the sorcerer. It's just wizard but worst, and WotC is struggling to find a niche to the sorcerer since they dropped strict Vancian casting.

I add that limiting the number of classes improves the "mood" of the settings. Having all arcane casters being a single class like 1e (or two, if you count the Illusionist as it's own thing) used to set a very evocative image of what arcane magic is.

 

[Incenjucar]

I am not sure I understand. 5e was released 10 years ago. Let’s say it takes you 4 your for a solid design of your templates (so I get away from calling them classes).

Then either they started this 4 years ago, or it is too late for 5.5 now and will have to wait for 6e

I am pretty sure they did not wake up one day about a year ago and thought ‘you know what, we really should consider balancing 5e’ however. This is an ongoing process and once the changes become substantial enough or you discover a flaw in your design / core assumptions, you release a new book with everything that has accumulated. Just like WotC will do next year.

I'm just trying to figure out how doing experiments with new classes somehow prevents them from working on the existing classes, especially given you can learn from experiments.

 

[Blue]

Classes are ways to mechanically represent multiple archetypes or tropes in the genre. If there are a group missing, they should come out with a class for it ASAP. Delaying is counterproductive.

On the other hand, we got the Artificer because it filled a niche in a particular setting, Eberron, that treated magic more like technology. So if a setting opens up new possibilities, then come out with a class to fit it.

Outside of those two very specific needs, NEVER come out with another class. It literally will not be adding anything narratively (otherwise it would have satisfied one or the other of these) and it's just a different mechanical representation of something we already can do. That's cruft and it's bad.

 

[mamba]

I'm just trying to figure out how doing experiments with new classes somehow prevents them from working on the existing classes, especially given you can learn from experiments.

It doesn't, I simply do not want any. You can 'experiment' with subclasses (a paid product is not where you experiment at all imo...).

 

[Incenjucar]

I agree that classes should be designed for gaps rather than gaps found to cram classes into. There are plenty of gaps as it is, so it will be awhile before that becomes an inherent conflict.

 

[Incenjucar]

It doesn't, I simply do not want any. You can 'experiment' with subclasses (a paid product is not where you experiment at all imo...).

Got it, thanks. I disagree.

 

[mamba]

Power as in for example artificer and ranger subclasses have a lot of 'power' which lets each subclass change up the playstyle a lot. Each artificer subclass feels almost like its own class.

While certain other classes feel identical no matter what subclass you pick.

changing up the playstyle is fine (within limits of course), I see this more on the theme side

 

[Frozen_Heart]

I'm also on trim side. D&D have one or two too many classes, and the worst offender is the sorcerer. It's just wizard but worst, and WotC is struggling to find a niche to the sorcerer since they dropped strict Vancian casting.

I add that limiting the number of classes improves the "mood" of the settings. Having all arcane casters being a single class like 1e (or two, if you count the Illusionist as it's own thing) used to set a very evocative image of what arcane magic is.

The worst thing is that sorcerer could be its own unique class, but the community doesn't allow that as they literally just want it to be wizard but without spellbook.

So we're stuck with wizard, and wizard but hot.

 

[CleverNickName]

I think that "No, see, I cast my spells differently!" is a poor premise for an entire new character class.
I fell the same way about "No, see, I swing my sword differently!" and for the same reason.