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

Undrave

Hero
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.)

They tried with the Battlemaster and the Banneret and all we got were half-baked ideas that feel like someone took multi class feats and not a full on Warlord. Honestly, it should be the other way around: the Fighter should be a subclass of the Warlord, but you don't actually call it 'Warlord'.

In older editions, the Fighter ended up with a keep and followers, and you had the Leadership feat in 3.X that gave you a cohort... the Warlord was just the realization of that concept into modern rules by having you be able to synergies with the other players. I think the Warlord is what the Fighting Man should have always aimed to be, but was robbed by Magic and the Thief of anything but its 'bash it with a sword' basic ability. The Fighter was always meant to be the Leader.

Imagine a core Fighter that has Superiority Dice as its main class feature that they can use to help others, but the Champion subclass gains a Smite-like ability to just spend the dice on themselves to keep it simple so you can just bash away and throw extra dice whenever. And then the various subclasses would have different way to use Superiority Dice.

I think the 3.x "You get lots of FEATS!" and the whole "Fighter is a simple class for beginners lol" thing just pollutes the Fighter class' concept and make it far less interesting than it should be. It's been held back for the sake of a truly boring tradition.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

They tried with the Battlemaster and the Banneret and all we got were half-baked ideas that feel like someone took multi class feats and not a full on Warlord. Honestly, it should be the other way around: the Fighter should be a subclass of the Warlord, but you don't actually call it 'Warlord'.

In older editions, the Fighter ended up with a keep and followers, and you had the Leadership feat in 3.X that gave you a cohort... the Warlord was just the realization of that concept into modern rules by having you be able to synergies with the other players. I think the Warlord is what the Fighting Man should have always aimed to be, but was robbed by Magic and the Thief of anything but its 'bash it with a sword' basic ability. The Fighter was always meant to be the Leader.

Imagine a core Fighter that has Superiority Dice as its main class feature that they can use to help others, but the Champion subclass gains a Smite-like ability to just spend the dice on themselves to keep it simple so you can just bash away and throw extra dice whenever. And then the various subclasses would have different way to use Superiority Dice.

I think the 3.x "You get lots of FEATS!" and the whole "Fighter is a simple class for beginners lol" thing just pollutes the Fighter class' concept and make it far less interesting than it should be. It's been held back for the sake of a truly boring tradition.
I think we basically agree on what the fighter should be and how they thematically relate to warlords.
 

Undrave

Hero
I think we basically agree on what the fighter should be and how they thematically relate to warlords.

I don't think the 5e Fighter has enough design space to relate to the Warlord properly, sadly.

The Barbarian should take up the mantle of 'simple Noob class' (and also the Sorcerer IMO, but that's another kettle of fish). It's a big guy that swings a big stick, it doesn't need the subtlety a Fighter could have.
 

glass

(he, him)
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.
This is what is known as 'embrace and destroy'. You have made it abundantly clear that you object to the very concept of the 4e Warlord (a martial leader in 4e parlance), not just the "execution". You want something that looks kinda like a Warlord if you squint, because that makes it less likely that an actual Warlord will ever show up.

Conversly, I would be fine with a leadership-focussed Fighter subclass showing up, as long as nobody tries to pretend it is an actual Warlord.

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?
I do play Pathfinder (both editions). Both have a Summoner class, which you declared no sensible system should have.

_
glass.
 

This is what is known as 'embrace and destroy'. You have made it abundantly clear that you object to the very concept of the 4e Warlord (a martial leader in 4e parlance), not just the "execution". You want something that looks kinda like a Warlord if you squint, because that makes it less likely that an actual Warlord will ever show up.

Conversly, I would be fine with a leadership-focussed Fighter subclass showing up, as long as nobody tries to pretend it is an actual Warlord.
Considering that you have failed to articulate why fighter subclass cannot sufficiently fulfill the role of a warlord it seems you just want rule bloat for the sake of it. And no, there shouldn't be 'martial leader' in 5E, or any 'leader,' or 'striker' or 'defender' as those are 4E concepts. 5E doesn't work that way, every class can fulfill many roles, (some better than others) and a class that is too strongly focused on one thing doesn't fit the design paradigm.
I do play Pathfinder (both editions). Both have a Summoner class, which you declared no sensible system should have.
No I didn't. I'm sure there are many games where a dedicated summoner class makes perfect sense. Fifth edition D&D just isn't one of them.
 



How would the summoner class work then?
Do I have to design it? Okay, I'll give you a rough draft.

It is either a Pact Magic user or spell-based half caster (spell based means it gets spell slots and cantrips at 1st level, like the Artificer). I haven't decided which I personally would prefer yet. It would get "primal totems" as a sort of "eldritch invocations" which would empower certain aspects of their casting. They'd have a d8 hit dice, most of the same proficiencies of a druid, with a spell list that is a mix of the cleric and druid spell list, mostly focused around healing and channeling primal spirits. They would use nature spirits to fuel their spellcasting, get nature spirit pets (similar to steel defenders) and get buffs when they summon creatures.

This is a rough frame. Is that enough to warrant its own class, in your opinion?
 

Do I have to design it? Okay, I'll give you a rough draft.

It is either a Pact Magic user or spell-based half caster (spell based means it gets spell slots and cantrips at 1st level, like the Artificer). I haven't decided which I personally would prefer yet. It would get "primal totems" as a sort of "eldritch invocations" which would empower certain aspects of their casting. They'd have a d8 hit dice, most of the same proficiencies of a druid, with a spell list that is a mix of the cleric and druid spell list, mostly focused around healing and channeling primal spirits. They would use nature spirits to fuel their spellcasting, get nature spirit pets (similar to steel defenders) and get buffs when they summon creatures.

This is a rough frame. Is that enough to warrant its own class, in your opinion?
Mechanics are not what warrant class in my mind. Evocative concepts that make sense in the metaphysics of the setting warrant classes, them mechanics are designed to describe them.

But apart being a half-caster, this sounds a lot like a druid, and as conceptually shamans should have shapeshifting, that makes them druids too. Shepherd druids already have the totem mechanic you describe and give buffs to summoned creatures. Wildfire druids have the sort of pet you describe. You could easily design a druid subclass that combines these elements. And 'nature spirits fueling spellcasting' presumably is how druids cast spells to begin with.

Now if one wants pact magic based summoner that would conceptually make a lot of sense as a warlock subclass. A warlock that focuses on summoning demons would thematically be very appropriate.
 

Mechanics are not what warrant class in my mind. Evocative concepts that make sense in the metaphysics of the setting warrant classes, them mechanics are designed to describe them.

But apart being a half-caster, this sounds a lot like a druid, and as conceptually shamans should have shapeshifting, that makes them druids too. Shepherd druids already have the totem mechanic you describe and give buffs to summoned creatures. Wildfire druids have the sort of pet you describe. You could easily design a druid subclass that combines these elements. And 'nature spirits fueling spellcasting' presumably is how druids cast spells to begin with.

Now if one wants pact magic based summoner that would conceptually make a lot of sense as a warlock subclass. A warlock that focuses on summoning demons would thematically be very appropriate.
I assumed when you asked "how would the summoner class work, then" that you were asking for basic mechanics. If you limit a shaman to a subclass of the Druid or Cleric, you're limiting the creativity a player can have when making a shaman character.
 

I assumed when you asked "how would the summoner class work, then" that you were asking for basic mechanics. If you limit a shaman to a subclass of the Druid or Cleric, you're limiting the creativity a player can have when making a shaman character.
Most of the mechanics you describe are already in the game, so I don't see what is being lost by not putting them in a fully separate but thematically and mechanically greatly overlapping class. Repeating similar concepts with tiny alterations just make classes lose coherence and thematic integrity. And ultimately a whole point of class based system is to limit options. Things come in prebuilt thematically coherent packages. Sometimes I feel that the people who want seven thousand different classes with minuscule distinctions would be happier with a system like GURPS where you can freely customise and finetune the tiniest detail and there are no classes or other such prebuilt packages. I kinda got the same feeling in many of the recent discussion about the species as well.
 

Most of the mechanics you describe are already in the game, so I don't see what is being lost by not putting them in a fully separate but thematically and mechanically greatly overlapping class. Repeating similar concepts with tiny alterations just make classes lose coherence and thematic integrity. And ultimately a whole point of class based system is to limit options. Things come in prebuilt thematically coherent packages. Sometimes I feel that the people who want seven thousand different classes with minuscule distinctions would be happier with a system like GURPS where you can freely customise and finetune the tiniest detail and there are no classes or other such prebuilt packages. I kinda got the same feeling in many of the recent discussion about the species as well.
I never said I want thousands of different classes. I want at most 7 more classes, and only ones that have niches to fill. Druids =/= Shamans, IMHO.
 

I never said I want thousands of different classes. I want at most 7 more classes, and only ones that have niches to fill. Druids =/= Shamans, IMHO.
You want seven. And the next thousand people want seven more. (Seven more alone sounds completely excessive to me.)

Druids =/= Shamans, IMHO.
They're basically the same thing. They have a massive thematic overlap. D&D version of the druid is much closer to a real shaman than to a real druid.
 

I assumed when you asked "how would the summoner class work, then" that you were asking for basic mechanics. If you limit a shaman to a subclass of the Druid or Cleric, you're limiting the creativity a player can have when making a shaman character.
With the scaling summons spells from the UA that may well be coming out in Tasha's book, how would a summoner class be distinct in actual play from a current spellcasting class (pick the one that matches your concept best) concentrating on those spells?

I'm aware that there are many different takes on what a shaman is and how that would be represented in a D&D Shaman Class, but what are your opinions on it?
 

You want seven. And the next thousand people want seven more. (Seven more alone sounds completely excessive to me.)
At most seven more, currently the Psion, Warlord, Gish, Runecaster, Occultist, Shaman, and Oracle. These will fill a lot of the niches that aren't already filled, and I don't think the community would be screaming for a thousand more classes if these were to come out.
They're basically the same thing. They have a massive thematic overlap. D&D version of the druid is much closer to a real shaman than to a real druid.
So what? Paladins are nowhere near the real world definition of a paladin, warlocks are nowhere near the real world definition of a warlock, and bards are nowhere near the real world definition of a bard. Who cares if the real world definition of a shaman fits the druid. There is space for a shaman in D&D as a spirit based totem caster.
 

Eric V

Hero
Most of the mechanics you describe are already in the game, so I don't see what is being lost by not putting them in a fully separate but thematically and mechanically greatly overlapping class. Repeating similar concepts with tiny alterations just make classes lose coherence and thematic integrity. And ultimately a whole point of class based system is to limit options. Things come in prebuilt thematically coherent packages. Sometimes I feel that the people who want seven thousand different classes with minuscule distinctions would be happier with a system like GURPS where you can freely customise and finetune the tiniest detail and there are no classes or other such prebuilt packages. I kinda got the same feeling in many of the recent discussion about the species as well.

I feel confident that there are no such people as described. Maybe you have a sound argument in here somewhere, but it's lost in all the hyperbole.

5e can accommodate a wider design space than it currently is doing. If that makes more people happier to play the game, that's a positive.
 

With the scaling summons spells from the UA that may well be coming out in Tasha's book, how would a summoner class be distinct in actual play from a current spellcasting class (pick the one that matches your concept best) concentrating on those spells?

I'm aware that there are many different takes on what a shaman is and how that would be represented in a D&D Shaman Class, but what are your opinions on it?
A possible shaman class in my opinion would have a mix of the Druid and Cleric spell lists. They would get the prayer spells, healing spells, maybe even some aura spells from the paladin list, as well as some of the basic summoning and damaging spells. They would not have access to Flame Strike or Harm and other spells from both lists that would not fit the flavor of a spirit based totem summoning class. They would have some of those summoning spells (summon bestial spirit, mainly), but be different than both clerics and druid.
 

TwoSix

Unserious gamer
Supporter
They're basically the same thing. They have a massive thematic overlap. D&D version of the druid is much closer to a real shaman than to a real druid.
There's nothing wrong with overlap. Sometimes players want different mechanical approaches to similar tropes. I use and allow multiple versions of druids, artificers, rangers, and warlocks in my own games.
 

There's nothing wrong with overlap. Sometimes players want different mechanical approaches to similar tropes. I use and allow multiple versions of druids, artificers, rangers, and warlocks in my own games.
Exactly. Sorcerers and Wizards have overlap, but that doesn't mean that one has to die to make room for the other.
 

I still don't know what makes psionics anything more than a different word for magic and there are already too many caster classes.

Should still be a fighter subclass.

Eldritch Knight, Bladesinger, Hexblade or basically any Bard. Take your pick.

Runecaster
This is what dwarfs call their wizards, right? Instead of spellbooks they have runestones, but they're still just wizards.

Occultist
So a warlock?

Still a druid.

Divination wizards already exist. Though if one want to go to the original Greek roots, there certainly could be a cleric subclass focusing on prophecy. (There isn't one yet, right? Knowledge domain comes close though.)

So what? Paladins are nowhere near the real world definition of a paladin, warlocks are nowhere near the real world definition of a warlock, and bards are nowhere near the real world definition of a bard. Who cares if the real world definition of a shaman fits the druid. There is space for a shaman in D&D as a spirit based totem caster.
They literally made a druid subclass for that! And yes, if you're using real word terms that are still relevant to existing indigenous cultures, then you actually should pay at least some attention to what these traditions actually entail.
 

Halloween Horror For 5E

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top