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

[Incenjucar]

If we had more classes we could then at least get a schmorceror that was free of all the baggage and then, perhaps, it replaces the sorcerer in the next edition.

 

[Shardstone]

Isn't it wild how people always think in these stark absolutes?

I understand that previous editions have gone well overboard with how many classes they have.

But there are more options than 12 classes or literally hundreds of classes.

Listening to the people of Enworld, these are literally the only options! naughty word, even adding 2 or 3 more options is class bloat to them. Imagine making a mystic AND a psion class? Or a mysterion to match the Pathfinder Thaumature or Occultist? What about an Alchemist class, etc?

Not to mention, Fantasy didn't stop evolving in the 70s and 80s folks! There are a lot of new Fantasy worlds out there in Manga, Anime, novel form, movies, video games, and more. The 12 are great if you're just trying to rehash ye olden days, but why not bring in something new, fresh, stylish? Something that draws on the modern Zeitgeist instead of taking a handful of steaming nostalgia to hand to you?

Ah, who am I kidding? People who grew up with editions before 5th don't care about adding to things to their game, just give'em more Greyhawk and they'll be happy!

 

[Shardstone]

Why are Paladins and Rangers not warriors? why is monk not a priest or a rogue? A lot of classes don't fit cleanly into the division, and forcing them to fit is going to cost them part of their identity.

No it isn't lol

 

[MoonSong]

For example, take Warlord. I'm not entirely sure why paladin or fighter or war cleric or valor bard don't fit that character archetype even with a custom subclass. Still, the usual response to that is "first-order lazy combat." The problem, though, is "lazy combat" isn't a character archetype. It's just a unique mechanic. It's a mechanic that doesn't translate well outside of 4e, but that's somewhat beyond the thread's scope.

The point is that mechanics are not what defines a character archetype.

No, but they enable or disable character archetypes. For example, lazy combat enables these two:

• The wealthy aristocrat -- Could be an actual landed noble or just a merchant who bought a title, which are common enough backgrounds, but D&D doesn't support starting with a bank account.[...]

• The professional out-of-their-league -- From physicians to lawyers to scholars to smiths, these are the average characters who find themselves doing things they didn't plan on doing and haven't been training for, but that bring an entirely new set of abilities to the table. The game says they're not really adventuring types, so they aren't available to be adventurers. They're confined to NPCdom. Not weird enough or wild enough, I suppose.

 

[MoonSong]

No it isn't lol

Sorry, can you be a bit less laconic? I know that in my mother tongue we kind of read minds, but that doesn't work in English. What isn't what? ^_^

 

[Shardstone]

Sorry, can you be a bit less laconic? I know that in my mother tongue we kind of read minds, but that doesn't work in English. What isn't what? ^_^

I'm saying that class groups won't make classes lose their identity. They provide a stronger identity for people unfamiliar with those concepts, a loose identity for people who like to modify but stay in the lines, and a suggestion for people to think about who want to ultimately go their own way with the class identity. Making a monk a Warrior instead of a Priest enables the wandering martial artist, but you can still play a more religious monk. Rangers being Experts, not Warriors, gives a greater focus to the Ranger's wilderness abilities, but you can still play up the Aragorn leader of men aspects with it. Ultimately, class groups only add benefits to the system, making on-boarding easier, enhancing the quality of flavor modifications, and still not restricting anyone who doesn't want to color outside of the lines.

 

[MoonSong]

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

Yet you'd rather have wizard -which is infamous for this- than "wizard but hot"...

 

[MoonSong]

We have 6 categories with the half-casters, if you do not fit any, you either get thrown out or are made to fit. Either is fine

So you want to have what you want while simultaneously denying others what they want with them -at best- getting a poor imitation of what they want?

 

[Shardstone]

So you want to have what you want while simultaneously denying others what they want with them -at best- getting a poor imitation of what they want?

I really don't get how class groups does anything your post suggests!

 

[MoonSong]

I'm saying that class groups won't make classes lose their identity. They provide a stronger identity for people unfamiliar with those concepts, a loose identity for people who like to modify but stay in the lines, and a suggestion for people to think about who want to ultimately go their own way with the class identity. Making a monk a Warrior instead of a Priest enables the wandering martial artist, but you can still play a more religious monk. Rangers being Experts, not Warriors, gives a greater focus to the Ranger's wilderness abilities, but you can still play up the Aragorn leader of men aspects with it. Ultimately, class groups only add benefits to the system, making on-boarding easier, enhancing the quality of flavor modifications, and still not restricting anyone who doesn't want to color outside of the lines.

I don't see how it is a net positive. For example, changing monks to no longer be short rest dependent isn't easy, but changing them to fit the warrior mold surely didn't help. And by not being in the warrior gorup, Paladins seem to be losing out on access to weapon abilities.