D&D (2024) New Classes for 5e. Is anything missing?

[Minigiant]

You obviously missed the bit where I said "move some core class features into subclasses".

So you are moving class features to subclasses.

What's the difference between that and having 2 separate classes?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't want any new classes from WotC. 3rd party producers make anything I need. The Mage Hand Press release Valda's Spire of Secrets has a bunch of new classes, and their strong focus on mechanical balance keeps them from being OP, if that sort of thing matters to you.

 

[RoughCoronet0]

I voted for having a few more classes as I’d like to have options not fully fleshed out by the current classes/subclasses.

I would like a half arcane caster Gish/Sword-mage like character with a unique list of smite spells and features. We have some classes/subclasses that kind of do this but they are limited in some way.

I would love a class that actually fully focuses on summoning/pet controlling with subclasses focusing on different creature types and their unique qualities. You could also give them a pact boon style feature that lets you pick between controlling a small army of weaker summons/pets, building a single strong and mechanically diverse pet, or maybe even allowing you to have your pet fuse with you like a symbiote or parasite.

I would also love to have a martial support class like the Warlord, one who uses in tactical intel and force of will to inspire and buff allies.

Outside of that I’m content with what we have and would also like for the current classes to remain.

 

[Eric V]

I'm not sure if I would axe them, but has D&D ever designed a mechanically viable monk?

4e monk was quite viable, no?

 

[Rogerd1]

For specific setting and genres.

For example in my 5e conversion of Rokugan I made classes for Samurai, Shugenja and Courtier, which aren't needed in other settings

Isn't this coming out for 5e...

 

[Shardstone]

@Minigiant, me and you are cut from the same cloth in this regard. I love creating classes, and I think, mechanically and narratively speaking, a lot more classes and ideas can be explored very easily using the 5E* framework. But, most people do not want more classes. They either can't keep up with the options, feel pressured by the amount of options, or are afraid that too many options will make earlier options obsolete. These, by the way, are all fair and valid beliefs, and I do not begrudge anyone who feels this way.

But man, just imagine if 5E added some more unique classes that could be expanded. It'd require making new Fantasy material, but ultimately that's what D&D truly does best — make new Fantasy material for us to imagine. Beholders, Mind Flayers, Gith, etc, all of these things are D&D originals, and as are many class concepts. The Druid and Paladin are wholecloth new concepts, the Sorcerer and Warlock reinventions of old real world ideas. If you can take these concepts and expand them into 2-3 archetypes, I think you can do so with a lot more concepts too.

Alas, this would require a different design team. Not a better one, but a different one. To make a game with 15, 20, 25 or so customizable, balanced classes in it requires a strong commitment to that idea that involves taking a risk to go even further than ever before. That kind or risk might not financially play out for Wizards.

Thus, people like us Mini are left just making up new classes on a rotating biweekly schedule, wishing people could see what we see so that we could play in these kinds of imagination-diverse games. This doesn't mean other games aren't imagination-diverse, btw. I'm checking myself just to make sure no one reads me the wrong way as being condenscending or otherwise.

 

[Rogerd1]

You could go an Fantasy Age route (although Age players hated it), Warrior, Mage, and Rogue.

That said, you could keep classes as unique per setting, so if you were playing in Midgard, or Norse setting you could gave main class of Viking, with a bunch of sub-classes / archetypes.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Ultimately I feel that a class system should have a limited number of broad and easily recognisable archetypes. I get the desire to have a huge number of varied characters, but I feel that is better served by a classless system that allows you to mix and match and build what you want more freely.

 

[Rogerd1]

Ultimately I feel that a class system should have a limited number of broad and easily recognisable archetypes. I get the desire to have a huge number of varied characters, but I feel that is better served by a classless system that allows you to mix and match and build what you want more freely.

I am working on a point buy idea to allow just that. As some setting will allow characters to possess magic, while some would not.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

So you are moving class features to subclasses.

Some.

The obvious one for fighter would be Action Surge. If this was made a Champion feature it would open up a shedload of design space.
I am assuming subclass choice is moved to level 1.

What's the difference between that and having 2 separate classes?

Less duplication.