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

[Shardstone]

Aeons ago there were 4 classes

I am not sure why these all have to be separate classes instead of being subclasses under existing ones. Might come down to a case by case basis.

My main objection to more classes (rather than subclasses) is that once you figure out the power progression and overarching theme (arcane magic user), it is relatively easy to add a balanced subclass to fill in a theme.

If you always start from scratch that is more work and probably less balanced.

Well if we're saying aeons ago, aeons ago there were two classes! And really, do we need more than one class?

What's a wizard but a fighter who fights with magic? What's a rogue but a fighter who fights smarter, not harder? What's a priest but a fighter who fights with the power of GOD behind them?

And fight doesn't just mean combat. Through semantic manipulation, fighting can be seen as any encounter, any adventure, any obstacle, be it overcame with violence or not.

I guess this is slippery slope fallacy, but I really don't think more or less classes is objectively BETTER than the other. Few classes has a great aesthetic too it. More classes can too. The best part is, you can take out classes you don't want in your game, but you can't add new ones that don't exist (you can, but go with my argument here). Why not have 4-5 more classes you can ignore with the other 8 you already do? Can't we cater to both mindsets with more over less?

 

[Frozen_Heart]

I'd either want few classes with tons of mechanical/thematic impact on the subclasses.

Or lots of classes with little mechanical/thematic impact of the subclasses.

5e is worst of both worlds, and as a result so many character types just left high and dry.

 

[mamba]

I mean, dnd next playtest sorcerer had a niche of basically turning into a monster as you spent will points.

A 'become the monster' class niche is barely touched on in 5e.

agreed, that one is not, but that is not the Sorcerer we have.

A shapeshifting focused class could be an entirely new class, it does not really fit into the ones we have.

 

[mamba]

I guess this is slippery slope fallacy, but I really don't think more or less classes is objectively BETTER than the other.

agreed, my assumption is more that it makes them easier to balance and the subclasses still can fit most of the niches without having to create a whole new class for each one

A separate class for each is too much ‘reinventing the wheel every single time’ to me. Use what you already have, if it fits

 

[Shardstone]

It also means that you have to waste a turn and your biggest spell slot doing nothing before you get to actually do anything with it. And that you can't do anythign fun with it because it wastes concentration.

I'm sorry, but none of these complaints map to reality!

The Sorcerer gets a new attack cantrip, a buffed chaos bolt, Arcane Eruption (another combat spell), Sorcerous Vitality (an action to heal and remove some conditions) and THEN Sorcery Incarnate, which is a BONUS action and gives you access to new subclass features too!

So, can you give me a specific example where your complaint (an action to waste your turn with your biggest spell slot that also wastes concentration) exists in the playtest packet for Sorcerers?

 

[Frozen_Heart]

agreed, that one is not, but that is not the Sorcerer we have.

A shapeshifting focused class could be an entirely new class, it does not really fit into the ones we have.

Yeah at some point I should probably accept I've lost that fight with the sorcerer. It's..... a long time since we had that playtest sorcerer.

 

[Shardstone]

agreed, my assumption is more that it makes them easier to balance and the subclasses still can fit most of the niches without having to create a whole new class for each one

A separate class for each is too much reinventing the wheel every single time to me

Funny enough, I USED to agree. However, in my own experimentation, I've found it a lot harder to break 5E with new mechanics, and have seen a LOT of homebrew and 3PP classes that are slick. Like, the Beast Heart from MCDM is AMAZING. How about all those amazing new KibblesTasty and LaserLlama classes? There's a lot you can do with 5E while still staying in the design paradigms, and we aren't even CLOSE to reinventing the wheel with new classes yet!

 

[mamba]

I'd either want few classes with tons of mechanical/thematic impact on the subclasses.

Or lots of classes with little mechanical/thematic impact of the subclasses.

5e is worst of both worlds, and as a result so many character types just left high and dry.

I prefer the former, but either one works. Just be consistent and keep it balanced

 

[MoonSong]

Aeons ago there were 4 classes

No, not really. This is an imaginary past. Original Edition had only three, and thief was added in a later supplement which also included druid and paladin. Basic had the Demihuman classes in addition to fighter, thief, cleric and MU. 2e had the class groups which were four granted, and that's it I think.

 

[mamba]

How about all those amazing new KibblesTasty and LaserLlama classes? There's a lot you can do with 5E while still staying in the design paradigms, and we aren't even CLOSE to reinventing the wheel with new classes yet!

Haven't taken a look at those yet (for Kibbles I will see them once the KS sends out stuff). I am not saying there cannot be innovation and we should only have a Wizard as envisioned in 1e, I just believe most fit into established classes rather than requiring separate ones. Of course 5e sits between those chairs by having defined 12 slightly narrow ones where 6 broad ones would do.