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
    209

cbwjm

Hero
The classes I most want to see are and Fighter-Mage class which follows along a similar class structure to the paladin and ranger, and a Psion of some sort which I know they have been working on psionics and it keeps getting pushed back due to player's not liking it, but I hope they come up with something. Although a robust system that can be added to existing classes similar to the feats they released might also work well for me. Those are pretty much it for me.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

The classes I most want to see are and Fighter-Mage class which follows along a similar class structure to the paladin and ranger, and a Psion of some sort which I know they have been working on psionics and it keeps getting pushed back due to player's not liking it, but I hope they come up with something. Although a robust system that can be added to existing classes similar to the feats they released might also work well for me. Those are pretty much it for me.
Those are my main ones, too. I do want a few more than that, though.
 

I was actually thinking more like the scholar can create a plan and add their INT/WIS/CHA modifier to their or their allies attack rolls, damage rolls, AC, or saving throws.

You're could prepare a plan for big bonuses or craft one on the fly to get a small bonus in the specific aspect you wish.

So Lord Reginald might prepare Reggie's Turtle Gamble that add his Int modifer bonus to AC and Wis score as THP. But when facing a trio of ogres, he realizes that offense is the key to victory and cobbles together a quick plan that adds his Intelligence modifier as bonus damage on weapon and cantrip attacks for himself and 3 allies.
Sounds cool. I did something similar (lending superiority dice to allies) but it was always how to treat "The Plan" without stepping on those allies' toes that I was unsure of. Does the warlord actually have to come up with a plan and their allies get their bonuses when pursuing their objective, or do you treat is as a more metaphysical plot construct and however the encounter ends up is what the plan was all along.

Is there a resource cost when granting all the bonuses, or does it take time or a check?
 

Yet again this shouldn't be a class. There are already several classes capable of summoning and the could easily have subclasses that focus on that further like the druid has.
The issue is 5E doesn't handle pet classes well at all, as any BM ranger knows. There's def a space for a summoner focused class, and a lot of what I've seen takes notes from the Pathfinder summoner, so there's a space there that can be explored. Just, haven't seen it fully looked into
 

The issue is 5E doesn't handle pet classes well at all, as any BM ranger knows. There's def a space for a summoner focused class, and a lot of what I've seen takes notes from the Pathfinder summoner, so there's a space there that can be explored. Just, haven't seen it fully looked into
I mean they should fix the pet rules, sure. Starting with the beastmaster. And once that is fixed they will have a functioning framework for pets, and can easily add pet-based subclasses for many classes.

But 'summoner' really isn't a class in any sensible sense. It is just one thing one can do with magic, and there are already way too many classes that do magic and their metaphysical themes are already muddled by overlap. We don't need any more of those. If dedicated summoner is needed, then that can be a subclass of some of those numerous already existing caster classes. Wizards are solid as a base class, but their subclasses are super meh, they're mechanically and thematically weak and could use a complete overhaul. Summoner would be good candidate for a next generation wizard subclass.
 

Eric V

Hero
But 'summoner' really isn't a class in any sensible sense. Sure it is. It is just one thing one can do with magic, and there are already way too many classes that do magic and their metaphysical themes are already muddled by overlap. We don't need any more of those. If dedicated summoner is needed, then that can be a subclass of some of those numerous already existing caster classes. It can also be its own class. Options are greater if it is its own class than if one tries to force everything into a subclass. Wizards are solid as a base class, but their subclasses are super meh, they're mechanically and thematically weak and could use a complete overhaul. Summoner would be good candidate for a next generation wizard subclass.
 

The issue is 5E doesn't handle pet classes well at all, as any BM ranger knows. There's def a space for a summoner focused class, and a lot of what I've seen takes notes from the Pathfinder summoner, so there's a space there that can be explored. Just, haven't seen it fully looked into
A summoner class could be a Shaman, for those asking for what that would even look like.
 

But 'summoner' really isn't a class in any sensible sense. It is just one thing one can do with magic, and there are already way too many classes that do magic and their metaphysical themes are already muddled by overlap. We don't need any more of those. If dedicated summoner is needed, then that can be a subclass of some of those numerous already existing caster classes. Wizards are solid as a base class, but their subclasses are super meh, they're mechanically and thematically weak and could use a complete overhaul. Summoner would be good candidate for a next generation wizard subclass.

Summoner does have its niche. The thing is, rather than being a caster who focuses on doing stuff itself, it more has to do with controlling and buffing its summon. Could be ways this could be done such as swarms of summons, or a single beefy lad, or even summoning something you merge with, but there's an idea there with some promise. Basically rather than you becoming stronger, you raise your summon to be stronger. While D&D has things that can summon, it doesn't quite have that 'dedicated summoner' feel

A lot of what I've seen looks at Pathfinder's Summoner as a base where a lot of that class is basically building your own summon over time. I know in Pathfinder it got bloody ridiculous (couldn't you like, graft hundreds of arms onto it?) so, good luck balancing, but 'highly customisable minion spawners' is a thing. Plus thanks to a certain anime (Jojo), caster-specific summons you customise and do vastly different things is a bit of an in thing at the moment. And, well, the 'Pokemon Trainer' class, where you raise a stable of minions you can select to handle individual problems.

A summoner class could be a Shaman, for those asking for what that would even look like.
Shaman definitely has to do with summoning, but shaman also has a few other bits and pieces to it (Buffing, elementals, spirits) that split it from just a summoner
 


Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
Sounds cool. I did something similar (lending superiority dice to allies) but it was always how to treat "The Plan" without stepping on those allies' toes that I was unsure of. Does the warlord actually have to come up with a plan and their allies get their bonuses when pursuing their objective, or do you treat is as a more metaphysical plot construct and however the encounter ends up is what the plan was all along.

Is there a resource cost when granting all the bonuses, or does it take time or a check?

Exactly. We abstract HP damage and what organs a rogue sneak attacks. So the scholar's plan can be a blob of abstracted plot bonuses too.

In my idea for scholar plan's, there is a resource. Basically there is a list of various element you can put into a plan.

Predictive Dodge adds you INT to AC
Intuitive Defense adds THP equal to your Wis score
Terrifying Strikes adds your CHA to weapon attacks
etc

You spend the resource to add an element to the plan. A prepared plan has a discount on the cost but you have to design the plans at level up.
 

A summoner class could be a good hook for fans of collectable monster pets videogames, but as crunch it would need a lot of playtesting to avoid possible abuses by munchkin players.

Sometimes I imagine the summoner as a shaman with a mixture of vestige binder and incarnum totemist. Summoning and changing summoned allies it would be like vestige pact magic, and when the creature is summoned, adding monster traits and powers as incarnum soulmelds. A special summoned creature would work like a symbiotic living armour.

Other option it would allow something like a monster demi-PC class, but the XPs rewards would be laid out how there was an extra PC (technically it's like this).

Maybe if Hasbro created a mobile videogame about skirmishes wargames the warlord and the summoner would be possible. I would bet the videogames will the future way to introduce new ideas.

5th Ed was published in 2014, and there is only the artificer, and working in the developing of the blood hunter the psionic mystic. The warlord and the shaman are in the list of future options. In the next ten years we can allow ourself three new classes, maybe one of them remake of the martial adepts.

If the new generations of players are used to tablets with virtual tabletops apps then they can allow to play with bigger groups, using monster pets, minions, troops and squires+sidekicks. Here the warlord (with a subclass using the martial maneuvers of the white raven school) could be more useful.

To say we have enough classes is how saying we have enough dragons or other monsters, enough magic item, enough feats or enough PC races.
 


glass

(he, him)
@Crimson Longinus, you have made a lot of posts since I last checked back here so I have not bothered to do a massive wall of quotes, and in pretty much all of them you are still conflating your personal preference with objective quality.

Your opinion, as someone who does not like or want a Warlord anyway (as per the D&D 4e class, not any other definition of the word "warlord") on what a Warlord needs is frankly less important than the views of people who actually like the class. Similarly I really like Paladins, and in fact it was liking what I was hearing about the 5e version of the Paladin class that persuaded me to give the finished 5e game a go after the horrific playtest period. If WotC had taken the view that Paladin could be a Fighter subclass, or a multi-class Fighter/Cleric or something, then that would not have occurred.

Also, you should probably not categorise both editions of Pathfinder (and by inferrence anyone who plays them) as not "sensible". I personally think that PF2 at least is a lot more "sensible" than D&D 5e!

_
glass.
 


@Crimson Longinus, you have made a lot of posts since I last checked back here so I have not bothered to do a massive wall of quotes, and in pretty much all of them you are still conflating your personal preference with objective quality.

Your opinion, as someone who does not like or want a Warlord anyway (as per the D&D 4e class, not any other definition of the word "warlord") on what a Warlord needs is frankly less important than the views of people who actually like the class. Similarly I really like Paladins, and in fact it was liking what I was hearing about the 5e version of the Paladin class that persuaded me to give the finished 5e game a go after the horrific playtest period. If WotC had taken the view that Paladin could be a Fighter subclass, or a multi-class Fighter/Cleric or something, then that would not have occurred.
Of course it is about preferences and opinions, that's what we're discussing. But I don't think it is at all sensible to say that because you liked 4E version of the warlord whilst I found it a flawed execution that your opinion on what 5E warlord should be would somehow to be more valuable. I want a warlord, I just want it to be a fighter subclass (and there has been some excellent ideas in this thread how to do just that.) And if you liked 4E version that much, it still exists, you can play that version of the game if you want. A lot of people play much older editions too.

Also, you should probably not categorise both editions of Pathfinder (and by inferrence anyone who plays them) as not "sensible". I personally think that PF2 at least is a lot more "sensible" than D&D 5e!
I have not once mentioned Pathfinder in this thread, and never played either edition of it. I have some knowledge of it, but ultimately I don't care. But again, if you think it is more 'sensible' then perhaps you should play it instead?
 


Eh, this may be one and a half decades of Warcraft talking, but I reckon there's more space in shaman as well. Shepherd druid is certainly towards the direction though
The druid/shaman thing has gotten weird because in real mythology shapeshifting is something that is strongly associated with shamanism and not really with druidism, but in D&D and WoW (no doubt due D&D influence) it has become a druid thing. D&D druid resembles more a real world shaman than it resembles a real world druid, thus any attempt to somewhat accurately represent (of course trough a fantasy lens) a shaman will produce a class that is super similar to the druid. So yeah, I strongly feel that a separate shaman class would be a mistake. Rename druids shamans and call nature clerics druids. That would be pretty accurate.
 

TwoSix

Unserious gamer
Supporter
The druid/shaman thing has gotten weird because in real mythology shapeshifting is something that is strongly associated with shamanism and not really with druidism, but in D&D and WoW (no doubt due D&D influence) it has become a druid thing. D&D druid resembles more a real world shaman than it resembles a real world druid, thus any attempt to somewhat accurately represent (of course trough a fantasy lens) a shaman will produce a class that is super similar to the druid. So yeah, I strongly feel that a separate shaman class would be a mistake. Rename druids shamans and call nature clerics druids. That would be pretty accurate.
I think shapeshifting as a trope is primarily viewed as part of the toolkit of nature/primal magic users. I do think that a primary shapeshifter ability is better off a druid subclass than a druid main class feature, though. That would leave more run for various shaman and druid abilities underer a broader "druid" main class. (The druid I use in my own games doesn't have shapeshifting as a core feature, as an example.)
 

I have also thought about something like the shifter class from Pathfinder but I suggest the name "nagual".


I imagine this class like a remake of the totemist class from magic of incarnum, but to change the powers she had to summon totem spirits with a game mechanic like the vestige pact magic, and maybe some powers would work as primal martial-maneuvers, nor at-will neither once-encounter but in the middle, you could reload with special actions for the fight.


Other times I wonder about a class what add monster traits spending points like the prestige class Demonbinder from "Drows of the Underdark"


Today the main strategy by WotC is to sell modules. The production of new bluff(lore, background) is too linked to multimedia projects (comics, novels, videogames, toys, media productions) and today players who want bluff only need to read the free fandom wikis about their favorite IPs. For 3.5 Ed they sold a lot of books about crunch, with lots of prestige classes, magic item, feats, spells.... but they notice their customer don't want to spend their money into lots of serie B titles some some pieces of AAA titles. D&D players don't have enough money to buy more books, or are an older generation without enough time to play because they are too busy with their works and family lives.

WotC has to sell the best crunch, something 3PPs can't offer. Each new base class is a lot of work, and not only the power balance, but a fun gameplay and the right favor to can be used in fiction for D&D as multimedia franchise.

In this decade we may see the psionic mystic, the warlord, the shaman, the martial adept, and in the last years they can dare some risks as the remake of the incarnum soulmelders.

---

Paizo has published new base classes for Pathfinder 2, and 3 more for Starfinder and one comingsoon. The second videogame of Pathfinder will have a lot of base classes.

Could WotC to hire Dreamscarred Press as an outsourcer company to create the 5th Ed of the psionic powers?

Saying 15 class are enough is as saying DC or Marvel need to sell only 15 titles of comic series.
 
Last edited:

Cadence

Legend
Supporter
Wouldn't a well done summoner be the true Vancian spell caster, with the ability to summon sandestins and daihaks. (My favorite use for them is in Dan Simmons' "The Guiding Nose of Ulfant Banderoz" (from the Songs of the Dying Earth anthology).
 

Halloween Horror For 5E

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top