D&D 5E Really concerned about class design

[Oofta]

Of course you don't need it! You don't need literally anything but the PHB to play D&D! That clearly is not the point. If you're satisfied with no new options ever, that's fine and that's your prerogative, but you have no basis whatsoever for fighting expansion of content for players who want it.

Was I fighting it? I was stating my opinion that it's not necessary. I think as a general rule more classes just to have a class is a poor design decision so if a class is added it should fill some niche that can't already be filled.

I don't want to go back to previous edition's proliferation of classes. It was confusing and diluted what a class meant. It led to issues with balance, identity and problems with multi classing.

 

[Einlanzer0]

I could get behind that, if there weren't already a monk class. But I can't see that we need two base classes focused on unarmed fighting, especially if we have ways for other types of characters to dabble in it (e.g. Tavern Brawler and a fighting style).



No offense, but I don't want to wade through pages of homebrew. I just want a bottom line here. I don't need a list of mechanics, even, just a few ideas on what would set a brawler apart from a monk.

Now, I do agree that the monk carries a lot of weight in its fluff that makes certain other types of unarmed fighters seem a bit weird when done as a monk, but this is a perfect example of when I think reflavoring stuff can really do the heavy lifting. It's like a warrior who enters a focused battle trance in combat- it's a barbarian with the serial numbers filed off.

Except refluffing doesn't work as well as everyone acts like it does. A published class carries a shared understanding among players of how its designed and how it's meant to work. In many cases it makes more sense to design something new than it does to reflavor something that's existing. This is increasingly true the more of it you need to do to make a concept work, such as trying to convert a monk into a more western-friendly brawler concept.

The homebrew version I use has a ton of unique mechanical features that emphasize athletic maneuvers and grappling (tied to the base class progression); it allows tertiary score options such as Charisma for brawlers that have more of an entertainer background. The subclass archetypes are fight clubs (gladiator, improviser, pugilist, wild one, wrestler, and spellfist). The spellfist is particularly cool as it uses a unique casting mechanic involving magical tattoos/body art, but they are all quite distinct from one another in terms of both flavor and crunch.

 

[Parmandur]

If they did it, a fighter subclass would make the most sense. I'd provide a link to the interview I saw recently but I don't remember when/where that was.

In any case, I wouldn't hold my breath. On the other hand with some of the UA articles and surveys I wouldn't be surprised by a Player's Options type book some time next year. Time will tell.

It's interesting, we have a nice gob of new player.optioma on the docket now, but when you look at the word and page count, it's less than 40 pages of hardcover material.

This is meant for some sort of product, but whatever it is, ia more than sSubasses by a long shot.

 

[Parmandur]

That sounds about as satisfying and representative of the concept as calling a Dex Fighter with magic initiate a Bladesinger.

I'm really not clear on what a witch base Class would do, that isn't replicable with PHB options...?

 

[bedir than]

Honestly, I played the old jester. Having a clown is as valid as having a brawler.
Social games are still D&D.

 

[Mistwell]

I think that's actually a big part of my irritation with this thread. Everyone is acting like it's either subclass everything or we have class bloat, which is a massive false dichotomy. 5e is already set up to avoid class bloat due to the existence of subclasses, so it's an irrational concern.

Here's my big irritation with this thread. The fairly regular drum beat of messages like your own which reads, to my eyes, like "Everyone who doesn't want the things I want is irrational and not thinking as clearly as I am thinking."

And if you don't know why your message could come across that way - you need to start asking people politely why they're reacting to what you have to say in that manner, and consider the possibility you're not expressing yourself the way you intended.

You're driving people away from your position with your tone. That's a mistake.

 

[Einlanzer0]

Here's my big irritation with this thread. The fairly regular drum beat of messages like your own which reads, to my eyes, like "Everyone who doesn't want the things I want is irrational and not thinking as clearly as I am thinking."

And if you don't know why your message could come across that way - you need to start asking people politely why they're reacting to what you have to say in that manner, and consider the possibility you're not expressing yourself the way you intended.

You're driving people away from your position with your tone. That's a mistake.

Well you need to reread and try to reinterpret if that's how you're reading my messages. Maybe my tone is a little harsh, but there's still no reason to interpret anything in the way you've described above - the shortcoming isn't on my side.

In fact, I very much feel like that's what people are doing to me - most of the dissenting posts in this thread are various repetitions of "I can't really imagine this making sense as a full class, so it shouldn't be developed as a full class." It's hard to not find that irritating.

 

[Mistwell]

Well you need to reread and try to reinterpret

No. I don't. See that's what I am trying to explain - YOU are the one advocating for a change in something. YOU are the one that needs to be both informative and persuasive. If you're failing in that task, nobody else has to go back and do you a favor of trying to reread and reinterpret what you've said. That's not how advocacy works.

You're failing at doing at the thing you're trying to do. You need to try harder, and do better, and say it in a way that people will get what you're saying without needing to go back and reread or reinterpret it. Because we're not advocating for change - you are. You are not entitled to people working harder on your behalf to figure out that you don't mean what you appear to say in the way you've been saying it.

 

[Einlanzer0]

No. I don't. See that's what I am trying to explain - YOU are the one advocating for a change in something. YOU are the one that needs to be both informative and persuasive. If you're failing in that task, nobody else has to go back and do you a favor of trying to reread and reinterpret what you've said. That's not how advocacy works.

You're failing at doing at the thing you're trying to do. You need to try harder, and do better, and say it in a way that people will get what you're saying without needing to go back and reread or reinterpret it. Because we're not advocating for change - you are. You are not entitled to people working harder on your behalf to figure out that you don't mean what you appear to say in the way you've been saying it.

No, I'm not - because plenty of people agree with me. I'm not going to change every single person's mind. That doesn't mean I'm wrong OR that I'm under any obligation to change my communication style. In fact, I've had several people stop arguing with me - likely because they slowly began to realize I was right, or, at the very least, that they could no longer put forth logical arguments demonstrating otherwise.

Nice try, but it amounts to little more than the same condescension you're accusing me of, which of course is always humorous to see.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I'm really not clear on what a witch base Class would do, that isn't replicable with PHB options...?

Well, like I said before, the witch could probably be a suite of options for the Warlock.

But, as for the base class, it would be the only base class with a built in pet IMO (even the Shaman would likely choose between a pet and something else), would have small overlap with the Artificer, and would be a full caster. Like the other full casters, it would lean pretty strongly on its spell list, including spells made for the class.