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

[mamba]

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

not sure we do, I for example just sliced them differently (class vs subclass)

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?

Never liked Psionics, put that guy under Mage. If that that fits Wizard, Sorcerer and Warlock, we have room for that too. I see no real difference anyway, which us why I never liked them in the first place, all this artificial class inflation.

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?

no idea what that would be or why it would not fit as a subclass, I see mostly the same or at best different flavor.

And yeah, if you think superheroes or whatever, I agree. I do not want those in D&D, find a different game for that.

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!

Never played Greyhawk

 

[Shardstone]

not sure we do, I for example just sliced them differently (class vs subclass)


Never liked Psionics, put that guy under Mage. If that that fits Wizard, Sorcerer and Warlock, we have room for that too. I see no real difference anyway, which us why I never liked them in the first place, all this artificial class inflation.


no idea what that would be or why it would not fit as a subclass, I see mostly the same or at best different flavor.

And yeah, if you think superheroes or whatever, I agree. I do not want those in D&D, find a different game for that.


Never played Greyhawk

I'm just going to respond to "find a different game for that."

No!

D&D doesn't just get to be your personal toy, and it updates with the times! Sorry, not sorry and even tho I'm not suggesting superheroes be added, if they were I wouldn't be all that mad!

 

[Shardstone]

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.

Lmao what do you mean by changing them to fit the warrior mold?

They said they were going to add Weapon Masteries to the Expert and Priest classes fitting for them too.

Your complaints don't seem to be based in any logic I can understand. What does changing monks off of short rests have to do with their class group?

 

[mamba]

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

I see no point in those two. The first should / would not be on adventure and the second only is by accident. Both are just bad / low level incarnations of whatever existing class you want to pick for them (fighter or rogue)

 

[mamba]

I'm just going to respond to "find a different game for that."

No!

I do not really care whether you do, but given that there are so many different games out there, there is probably one that fits superheroes better, for starters all the ones that have them

D&D doesn't just get to be your personal toy

no, and neither is it yours

and it updates with the times! Sorry, not sorry and even tho I'm not suggesting superheroes be added, if they were I wouldn't be all that mad!

Given its popularity it seems to do just fine with the times, I see no superheroes in it however.

Also, meshing all the genres together is only resulting in some mess no one wants, this has nothing to do with going with the times.

 

[Shardstone]

I do not really care whether you do, but given that there are so many different games out there, there is probably one that fits superheroes better, for starters all the ones that have them


no, and neither is it yours


Given its popularity it seems to do just fine with the times, I see no superheroes in it however.

Also, meshing all the genres together is only resulting in some mess no one wants, this has nothing to do with going with the times.

Hey man, before we continue, can I ask why you keep talking about superheroes when I didn't bring it up?

 

[Frozen_Heart]

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

I prefer the concept of the sorcerer to the wizard. As long as that concept is a class defined by its power source and completely different depending on what bloodline is picked.

But most people seem to want sorcerer to just be a 'generic magic but innate' version of wizard. And that's not a class, it's just a wizard subclass. They don't like playing wizard due to the stereotype of a creepy old man with a huge dusty spellbook and a gnarled wooden staff. So they want to choose sorcerer as the 'naturally gifted, charming, young and good looking' caster.

Which doesn't vibe well with thematic subclasses giving you dragon scales or tentacles or having demon blood. They want to be harry potter or rand al'thor, not an ithilid.

 

[MoonSong]

Lmao what do you mean by changing them to fit the warrior mold?

They said they were going to add Weapon Masteries to the Expert and Priest classes fitting for them too.

Your complaints don't seem to be based in any logic I can understand. What does changing monks off of short rests have to do with their class group?

Maybe I'm just two black and white on this, but to me class groups either mean something mechanically (in which case they turn into straitjackets) or not (in which case there is no point to them in the first place)

I'd rather just each class is worked to represent the best version of that class possible without the additional restraints of them having to also conform to an external mold.

 

[mamba]

Hey man, before we continue, can I ask why you keep talking about superheroes when I didn't bring it up?

I chose it as my interpretation of ‘Something that draws on the modern Zeitgeist instead of taking a handful of steaming nostalgia’, esp. since some other post already mentioned them. Feel free to suggest something else, I just wanted to not be so vague / have a shorthand

 

[Shardstone]

Maybe I'm just two black and white on this, but to me class groups either mean something mechanically (in which case they turn into straitjackets) or not (in which case there is no point to them in the first place)

I'd rather just each class is worked to represent the best version of that class possible without the additional restraints of them having to also conform to an external mold.

I think I see now. We do have very different stances. While you see it as black or white, I see it as a grey tool that can be further modified or played with to achieve other ends. However, I don't think there are many restraints. Here is what class groups seem to mean to WotC:

• Experts get expertise.
• Warriors have more Weapon Mastery/damage-related features.
• Mages have many class abilities as spells.
• Priests have a Channel function that they can use in addition to the rest of their kit.

These just don't seem very constraining to me! And making a monk subclass or ALTERNATE CLASS FEATURE, ala Tasha, could actually let classes be flexed into other groups! Doesn't that just sound freaking rad? Imagine a new source book for 2024 D&D where you get to turn your Barbarian into an Expert and gain Expertise with alt features, or make your Warlock into an Expert and occultist doing the same thing, etc. These are just a few possibilities of many when it comes to manipulating Class Features as a lever. Great for the homebrewer, 3rd party developer, and WotC themselves!