log in or register to remove this ad


5E Should 5e have more classes (Poll and Discussion)?

Should D&D 5e have more classes?

  • Total voters
Okay, this is a simple question, but should bring about a larger discussion in general about 5e. When D&D 5e was first released 6 years ago, there were 12 official classes. Now, there are only 13 official classes (with 3 more simpler ones coming out in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything). By the end of the year, there should be 13 full D&D 5e classes and 3 sidekick classes. This raises a question, are there enough classes in D&D 5e, or should there be more? Please answer the poll, and explain below.

log in or register to remove this ad


Unserious gamer
I would certainly never limit myself to official options, but more options is always better.

There should only be two more: the Psion and the Warlord. Other that those two, no.
I want both of those, and a few others, like a martial arcane half-caster (Magus/swordmage), a Shaman class, a Psion, an Occultist, a Runemage, and just a bit more. I don't want the game to be bloated with classes, but I also want there to be all the main niches filled.
Last edited:


Jewel of the North
I think we have too many classes, making the theme behind them too thin.
I'd be ok with Warrior, Bard, Mage, Cleric and Rogue.
  • Rogue are exploration/social focused. Ranger can fall in this category.
  • Warrior is your usual bruiser but also includes the light-armored skirmisher usually given to the rogue. Paladin and Barbarian can be subclasses of warrior.
  • Bards cover non-divine druidic and fey magic, with a good side of status effect and time magic. These are you FF's Red Mage.
  • Cleric are the sacred caster, covering the FF's white mage trope, with some domains giving access to more martial proficiency. The more divine druid stuff falls under the more primal domains (nature, storms, moon etc)
  • Mage covers arcane casters, both learned and innate: school specialist, dragon-mage, demonologist, star-seer etc


I want to know why some people want less, though. I see a lot of people ask for it, but never give any reason why it would make the game better.
Where there are two or more equally valid methods of representing a character concept, the choice of which method to use becomes more important than the character being represented. It shifts the focus of the game away from the actual table, and toward character creation.

Removing redundant options would allow us to shift the focus back toward the table.


Goblin Queen
I voted more, but only because I'm bored with the current offerings.

I want to know why some people want less, though. I see a lot of people ask for it, but never give any reason why it would make the game better.
Classes as they currently exist are very inconsistent in terms of conceptual specificity. You’ve got “guy who fights” sitting in the same character building and conceptual space as “guy who made a pact with a powerful and potentially sinister otherworldly entity for magic power.” The ranger struggles to find a niche somewhere between the broad conceptual spaces filled by the fighter, the rogue, and the druid. Paladins and Clerics compete for being “the holy warrior.” It’s a huge mess. Pairing down to a small number of very broad character archetypes and allowing them to be further refined by subclasses and kits would address this problem.


Not looking for Pathfinder or 3.5 level of classes, but I do think 5e can support a few more. A full Psion makes sense, you could probably sell me on another Gish option, a fighter/mage half caster that fits between the Spellsinger Wizard and Eldritch Knight Fighter, and of course, the Warlord is an option. But not too many more. I keep thinking that if one were to do a Tome of Battle system, would you use a new class or two or make subclasses for the existing ones?


It’s a huge mess. Pairing down to a small number of very broad character archetypes and allowing them to be further refined by subclasses and kits would address this problem.
It feels like part of it depends on if the rules make the classes similar in terms of subbing things (4e?) or distinct (3e). If the rules make subbing easy, then grouping in big thematic chunks like you suggest seems nice. If the barbarian has different HD and armor and 5 pages of rage powers, and the ranger gets spells and a huge list of terrains and a few pages on animal companion ... then lumping them with fighter feels inelegant.

Is 5e pretty interchangable? Do a lot of the players who want more classes have their heads back in 3.5?


I think the current number is good, although I can see an argument for more or less. But right now, we've got a nice array of archetypes, as well as countless sub-classes to further specify.

One of the things I liked about 4E was the power sources, although the big flaw was that the underlying mechanics were all the same. If I were doing a 6E, I'd take the basic idea and differentiate them thematically and mechanically.

For instance, primal classes would draw from the power of nature itself. A range wouldn't just be a naturalist warrior, but a warrior whose abilities are infused with primal power. So they wouldn't cast spells as much as draw upon primal energy to augment their actions.

The arcane power source is, of course, pure magical energy, and classes would offer different ways of using it: wizards through trained spells (Vancian), sorcerers through wild magic via will-power, and bards through music.

And so forth. Each power source would still use the d20 mechanic, but would be structured differently.


Elder Thing
I don't even allow all the classes from the Player's Handbook in my games, so I certainly have no need for more extras.

But that's me and that's my game. I don't begrudge others their needs or desires.


I have ideas for at least 6 classes that could be added to D&D.

But ultimately, I think 5 could benefit from 2 new nonspellcasting classes. One that is u[prfront mystical or magical and one not so much.

But I am a fan of the "upgrade a class or two to the main roster each edition" trend.


The Smurfiest Wizard Ever!
Here's the way I see the breakdown anyway:

The primal fighter: Barbarian
The skilled fighter: Fighter
The unarmed fighter: Monk
The cheap-shot fighter: Rogue

The divine caster: Cleric
The primal caster: Druid
The arcane caster: Wizard
The mystic caster: Psion

IMO rangers have such a bad outlook because they are too many things which are sort of subsets of the other classes. Paladins are really cleric/fighters in many way, but instead of as much spell power, they have other divine gifts.

Sorcerers are arcane casters who simply have a different method of getting their spells. And instead of as many, they learn to warp them.

Warlocks are also just "out there" like the other classes. They "sort of" have a niche, but instead of warping spells like a Sorcerer, they are more akin to Paladins in that their magic has given them other "gifts".

Bards are basically rogues with a whole heap of magic thrown on top (too much, IMO, but whatever...).

How unique the Psion could become depends entirely how it is developed, but so far every attempt to make one has fallen flat because we can't arrive at a large enough consensus about it.

The warlord is in a similar boat, but could easily be a subclass of Fighter IMO and doesn't warrant a full class. ANY class can lead others, really, and that is another issue I have with Warlord.

I know a lot of people don't like prestige classes, but I think that is a great way to develop a character and then branch them off to really fill a particular need or concept.

Anyway, my argument why we don't need more classes is because IME every concept can be realized with even less than the classes we have now. If the class doesn't completely do it alone, that is where subclasses should come in IMO.

COMING SOON: 5 Plug-In Settlements for your 5E Game