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

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

I still think there's merit to not adding too many classes to DnD, but I'll confess the ones I want, I want ASAP. The main classes I'd like to see are:

• Summoner
• Warlord
• Psion

After that, dunno, need to be convinced about any more.

I would love to have a dedicated 'pet caster' that can be a summoner or necromancer based on build
Warlord is a given
psion would be cool
but may I add an arcane half caster some where between the playtest warlock and the armor/battlesmith artificer

 

[Frozen_Heart]

Ideally I think a PHB could do better with 8 classes, with more time and effort put into making them.

A couple of years later they can introduce an additional 4, and then a few years after that add 4 more. If the edition keeps going, then at the very most, another 4 a few years after that.

Which comes out at 16 total, or 20 if the edition lasts long enough. Keep the warrior/mage/priest/expert categorisation for organising them and giving them common mechanics.

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

Not literally hundreds but In core D&D there are at least 40-50 iconic D&D archetypical characters that could be classes. That's before you get into the super niche.

I am intrigued now... I can't think of 10 new ones off top of my head so I can't imagine 40... but I would not doubt 16-20

 

[Frozen_Heart]

I'm still not sure why sorcerer exists and eats up a class slot. 'hot wizard' isn't a class.

I'd love to see sorcerer merged into wizard and warlock, and then warlord take its place.

 

[CleverNickName]

Other: Wizards of the Coast should reduce the number of classes, not increase them.

I say this every time the subject comes up: D&D only needs 4 base classes:

• Artificers, sorcerers, warlocks, wizards, and their subclasses should all be subclasses of Mage.
• Clerics, druids, paladins, and their subclasses should all be subclasses of Priest.
• Bards, rogues, and their subclasses should all be subclasses of Sneak.
• Barbarians, fighters, monks, and their subclasses should all be subclasses of Warrior.

 

[mamba]

“Assuming the current class and subclass design is static, what is right number of classes for 5e” would be an interesting poll question in and of itself.

you won’t get any agreement in this…

I see no need for more than 4 classes. Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Mage. The others roll in there somewhere.

Barbarian and Monk clearly to Fighter, Druid clearly to Cleric, Sorcerer, Warlock and Wizard clearly to Mage. The rest might be depending on the flavor / emphasis. For balance (ie 3 each), Paladin to Cleric, and Ranger and Bard to Rogue.

If you want to break out half-casters (and I guess we actually should, for mechanical reasons at a minimum), then 6. With one divine and one arcane half-caster template.

Paladin then is the divine half-caster. Not sure who becomes the arcane half-caster, maybe Warlock. I prefer my Rangers and Bards more classic and less half-caster…

 

[TwoSix]

you won’t get any agreement in this…

I see no need for more than 4 classes. Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Mage. The others roll in there somewhere.

Barbarian and Monk clearly to Fighter, Druid clearly to Cleric, Sorcerer, Warlock and Wizard clearly to Mage. The rest might be depending on the flavor / emphasis.

I mean, if you were starting from scratch with a new D&D heartbreaker, sure. Plenty of people have done core 4 or core 3 approaches. But 5e already has 12(13) baked in, so what's the best-feeling number of new classes to add to that is a distinct question.

 

[Undrave]

Class bloat sucks. It makes it harder to DM when you don't know what the characters can do.

I dunno why people need to absolutely know what PCs can do to DM. I'm fine with being surprised. I'll just learn from it as we go about playing and I don't need to know everything in advance.

 

[mamba]

I mean, if you were starting from scratch with a new D&D heartbreaker, sure. Plenty of people have done core 4 or core 3 approaches. But 5e already has 12(13) baked in, so what's the best-feeling number of new classes to add to that is a distinct question.

yeah, I still see no reason to have more. We can roll the existing 12 into the 6 (with the two half-casters) and have them as subclasses.

I am not seeing this as a fantasy heartbreaker, regardless of whether we get that with 1DD. They basically do that anyway with their four groups (Expert etc.), they just create a new tier in their hierarchy instead of flattening it.

So they now have Group - Class - Subclass when I would have Class - Subclass, with the number of subclasses staying the same for both. It’s mostly an organizational difference.

 

[TwoSix]

yeah, I still see no reason to have more. We can roll the existing 12 into the 6 (with the two half-casters) and have them as subclasses.

I am not seeing this as a fantasy heartbreaker, regardless of whether we get that with 1DD. They basically do that anyway with their four groups (Expert etc.), they just create a new tier in their hierarchy instead of flattening it.

So they now have Group - Class - Subclass when I would have Class - Subclass, with the number of subclasses staying the same for both. It’s mostly an organizational difference.

Yea, but you're aware that rolling back/flattening the number of classes is a pipe dream, right? It's not going to happen with official D&D.