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

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

A wizard sublaclass.


A sorcerer subclass. Though a monk subclass could also work.


Most definitely a druid subclass.


A fighter subclass.

They tried a Gish Wizard subclass, it's called the Bladesinger, and it has major problems. A true gish would be a half-caster.

Psionics =/= Spellcasting. That's all I have to say, psionics does not work if it is based off of a sorcerer subclass (Unfortunately, WotC doesn't agree with me).

Except limiting a shaman to a druid subclass limits character design potential.

They've tried to make fighters that can support their allies (Purple Dragon Knight, some Battle Master Maneuvers), it doesn't work out too well.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Why do we need Warlords when you can just multi class Fighter\Bard?

Because Multiclassing always solves all character problems, right? Why have a Paladin, when you can just multiclass Cleric and Fighter (said in sarcasm)?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

And the downward spiral occurs! Players get worse and worse on average because
View attachment 126113

Yeah, though that's a good movie quote, it's absolute BS. When everyone's super, everyone's super. If you are a parent, and you give all your kids ice cream as a dessert, they all tend to be happier.

 

[Maxperson]

I feel people are looking at the image and not the mechanics and play. The EKs in the game I DM and the game I play both sparingly use their spell slots as they have little impact. Our Battlemaster is know more for his Action Surge and Second Wind over his dice and maneuvers.

I think this here is the problem. It implies that you are looking at the mechanics and not the image. A class is both, not one or the other. A fighter is not, action surge + action surge + second wind. It's a man who fights, called a Fighter and that man who fights has a class that gives him action surge + fighting style + second wind.

Man who fights isn't a class.
If you attempt to put Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger, and Paladin under "Man who fights" as a subclass, you are just renaming class to subclass.

We absolutely do have a man who fights as a class. That class is called Fighter. And if Fighters cover such a broad spectrum such that it includes an arcane spellcaster, then it can also cover men who fight and get mad, men who fight and track with some spells and animal friends, and men who fight while calling down divine wrath to smite enemies.

Should 5e have more classes? Maybe. Not every big concept, fantasy adventurer archeype is in 5e as of now officially.
What 5e doesn't need it big concepts shoehorned into subclasses or simple archetypes spread into full classes. I don't think 6e needs that either.

I agree. I don't think we should put those classes into the Fighter. I'm saying that if you are going to so broadly interpret classes, those classes would then fall under the Fighter. I think classes should be much more narrowly defined, such that Eldritch Knight should really be its own class and not a Fighter at all. 3e did classes well.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

They tried a Gish Wizard subclass, it's called the Bladesinger, and it has major problems. A true gish would be a half-caster.

Nah. Bladesinger actually shows that it can work fine. Just make it more generic instead of elfy and sigy. (Let's leave singing to bard.) Or speking of bard, that's already a dedicated gish class.

Psionics =/= Spellcasting. That's all I have to say, psionics does not work if it is based off of a sorcerer subclass (Unfortunately, WotC doesn't agree with me).

Psionics is what people started calling magic when they wanted to sound (pdeudo) scientific. It's the same thing. But I can make a compromise: let's merge warlock and sorcerer and then we can have a separate mystic (psion) class. I guess some sort of purely spell point... sorry, psychic point based caster could work.

Except limiting a shaman to a druid subclass limits character design potential.

Shamans are known for assuming shapes of animals and communing with spirits. D&D druid is already more of a shaman than it is a proper druid. Having two separate classes for basically the same thing because two different words exist would be silly. (Let's not repeat the mistake that was done with warlock, wizard and sorcerer.)

They've tried to make fighters that can support their allies (Purple Dragon Knight, some Battle Master Maneuvers), it doesn't work out too well.

Works well enough. Just make a non-magical variant that uses all of it's subclass resources for support. And we don't need silly 4e-style warlord who heals people by yelling at them.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Because Multiclassing always solves all character problems, right? Why have a Paladin, when you can just multiclass Cleric and Fighter (said in sarcasm)?

If multi-classing actually worked properly, that indeed would be perfectly valid way to handle the paladin. The ranger could similarly be a hybrid druid/fighter.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Why have a Paladin, when you can just multiclass Cleric and Fighter (said in sarcasm)?

Why the sarcasm? It is pretty much true. Or Paladin could be a subclass of cleric easy enough.

If multi-classing actually worked properly, that indeed would be perfectly valid way to handle the paladin. The ranger could similarly be a hybrid druid/fighter.

Yeah, this. ^

 

[Minigiant]

I think this here is the problem. It implies that you are looking at the mechanics and not the image. A class is both, not one or the other. A fighter is not, action surge + action surge + second wind. It's a man who fights, called a Fighter and that man who fights has a class that gives him action surge + fighting style + second wind

My point was that the EK solved most appropriate problems with Fighter class features. The stance magic was a tweak and not the focus.

We absolutely do have a man who fights as a class. That class is called Fighter. And if Fighters cover such a broad spectrum such that it includes an arcane spellcaster, then it can also cover men who fight and get mad, men who fight and track with some spells and animal friends, and men who fight while calling down divine wrath to smite enemies

My point is the relationship between fighters and the classes people what to put under it.

In the old days, those subclasses were straight upgrades of the fighter as a reward for rolling good and taking the restrictions. After a while it became a sidegrade.

Eventually the fighter was narrowed, focused, and given class features to represent this. Once this happened the Fighter stopped being the parent class. It became the brother.

The fighter has been defined into a certain type of warrior since 3e. It's less broad than it's 1e and 2e. Putting the cork back on the bottle is hard. It's not just a man who fights anymore.

 

[MoonSong]

• Mage covers arcane casters, both learned and innate: school specialist, dragon-mage, demonologist, star-seer etc

Which is code for "Mage will closely model the wizard to a T to the detriment of every other spellcasting concept"

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.

Which classes don't make the cut? And why is sorcerer one of them?

That’s why I say the more specific concepts should be on a further down branch. No class should be giving 5 pages of rage powers, thats too specific for what I feel should be under the purview of class. Classes should impart the basic, fundamental structure of the character - things like whether the character gains spells and at what levels. Then subclasses can give more specific features like proficiencies and spell lists. Then more specific features can come from more specific options like spell selection and feats.

How is this different from the current setup with extra steps and less customization?

I'm in the camp of fewer base classes with more subclasses. Barbarian and Paladin as subclasses of Fighter; Ranger and Bard as subclasses of Rogue; Wizard, Sorcerer and Warlock as subclass of Magic-User; Druid and Monk as sub-classes of Cleric.

Your classification is pretty arbitrary. Monk as subclass of cleric? I know some monk subclasses cast spells, but vanilla monk certainly doesn't.

(Let's not repeat the mistake that was done with warlock, wizard and sorcerer.)

The only mistake was making an hyper-specific spellcaster that mirrors practically no spellcaster in folklore or media and pretend it was generic. You can either keep your hyper-specific wizard or get rid of sorcerer and warlock. You cannot do both

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The only mistake was making an hyper-specific spellcaster that mirrors practically no spellcaster in folklore or media and pretend it was generic. You can either keep your hyper-specific wizard or get rid of sorcerer and warlock. You cannot do both

How is wizard hyper-specific? It's problem it the opposite, it is so brad that it leaves very little design space for other casters.

But my logic in combining warlock and sorcerer, is to make them a clear 'intuitive caster, imbued with magic' that contrasts pretty sharply with wizard's 'scientific caster, learned magic' thing.

And I just feel that warlock and sorcerer are confused in their mechanics and themes. Like it is weird that of the two the warlock is the one that gets permanent, always on spell-like effects, and not the sorcerer, whose thing is that they're literally gifted magic as a birthright and it permeates their whole being. Similarly if some class has to be a rapidly recharging short-rest caster (a concept of which I'm a a bit dubious about) then certainly thematically it should again be the sorcerer, not the warlock. Warlock might need to do all sort of dark rituals and sacrifices and other such things to recharge their magic, whilst the innate magical nature of the sorcerer allows them to recuperate swiftly by simply taking a breather.