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
    205

Minigiant

Legend
Except this doesn't work. Raven Queen is a god and a warlock patron.
Actually it does.
The higher tier beings can offer the lower tier power paths.
The lower tier beings can't offer the higher tier power paths.

A god can make clerics, warlocks, and sorcerers.
A normal devil can make warlocks and sorcerers. A devil needs divinity like Asmodeus to create clerics.
A normal dragon can only make sorcerers. A dragon has to ascend or transform to make warlocks.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Crimson Longinus

Adventurer
Actually it does.
The higher tier beings can offer the lower tier power paths.
The lower tier beings can't offer the higher tier power paths.

A god can make clerics, warlocks, and sorcerers.
A normal devil can make warlocks and sorcerers. A devil needs divinity like Asmodeus to create clerics.
A normal dragon can only make sorcerers. A dragon has to ascend or transform to make warlocks.
So why does these different methods of granting power produce casters that work mechanically differently whist being roughly of equal power instead of the lower tier ones just being similar but weaker?
 


What is the difference? What is the difference metaphysically? What it is mechanically? And why it needs a new system?
Because psionics should not be spellcasting. That severely limits the potential of psionics.
Battlemaster has some suppoert abilities. Use the similar approach but make all the abilities to nbe support abilities. Stratagems you can choose from instead of manoeuvres. It will work. (Hell, do I really have to write this?)
Yes, they have some support abilities, but they are underwhelming, and a Warlord should focus mostly on supporting.
So you want a paladin except refluff it as arcane? Doesn't sound worthwhile use of designers' time to me. Seriously, there are plenty of gishes to choose from, but if one arbitrarily decides that a thing is always either too hot or too cold or too something you can 'justify' endless amount of classes. But for that there are games like GURPS.
I don't want an arcane paladin subclass as a gish, I already made a homebrew for that. The gish class would not have any of the paladin abilities besides spellcasting. They'd be as different from each other as rangers are from paladins.
How? Why? How bloody many ways to cast spells marginally differently there needs to be?
Why do runes have to be spell?
Witch is literally another word for warlock. At most you need a sublclass with couple of extra spells to do it.
Again, the real world definition of a D&D class or subclass does not have to be exactly the same as the D&D version. Yes, warlocks in real world terms is a male witch, but that's not what it is in D&D terms.
Oracle of the Delphi (you know, the famous one) was literally the high priestess of Apollo. Furthermore, this is the same thing than with the summoner. Oracle is a caster with divination spells, and those spells already exist (just like summoning spells.) If you want a caster who focuses on such magic, you can easily make a subclass for that for the existing caster classes or even more simply just choose such spells. This is like wanting to make a bespoke 'axeman' class whose thing is that they fight with axes.
The Oracle of Delphi did worship Apollo, but fantasy oracles don't have to.
 


Minigiant

Legend
So why does these different methods of granting power produce casters that work mechanically differently whist being roughly of equal power instead of the lower tier ones just being similar but weaker?
Honestly, a third of it is balance, a third is designer laziness, and a final third is design apathy.

Originally sorcerers and warlocks were weaker. Partially because the 3e designers didn't care much about the sorcerer and the warlock didn'tfit right in the rigid 3e system.

I feel the 5e designers didn't care enough to balance and differentiate the sorcerer and warlock to provide a creative concept and structure that would get high marks in the playtest. Same thing happened to the ranger.
 

Mecheon

Adventurer
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 had a sleep on it, and pretty much decided on shaman effectively being a merge of warlock and druid. I scrounged about and there is a highly regarded one on the DM's guild that goes down this alley, but I haven't given it a shot myself so can't confirm how well it is in practice, but its certainly the idea I had

Gnomes and halflings should be merged into one species.
Them's fighting words. Gnomes and Halfling archetypes are completely different

Halfling: chill dudes who like to thief, eat, and just, be chilll
Gnome: Magic as hell

Nah. As I have said many times, easy to combine with warlocks. Whether the magical being that gave you your power is your boss or a relative is not a sufficient distinction. A fey pact warlock could just as easily represent fey ancestry etc.
Disagreeing on this two. Honestly, if we could do things over again I'd grab that not-metamagic feat the Loremaster UA had and just, give that to sorcerers. Magic flows through your very veins, you should just be able to change it on the fly and do crazy stuff like that.

5E just, didn't do sorcerers well, but its a completely separate narrative from warlock magic. Its also why a lot of people look towards redoing it to be Con-based, rather than Cha base (well, that and the excess of cha-based classes)
 



Crimson Longinus

Adventurer
Because psionics should not be spellcasting. That severely limits the potential of psionics.
You didn't answer my question. What makes psionics different from magic metaphysically?

Why do runes have to be spell?
I don't know why they have to be anything.

Again, the real world definition of a D&D class or subclass does not have to be exactly the same as the D&D version. Yes, warlocks in real world terms is a male witch, but that's not what it is in D&D terms.
Yet your description sounded like a version of a warlock.

The Oracle of Delphi did worship Apollo, but fantasy oracles don't have to.
And fantasy oracles can have spellbooks.

Seriously, you are just coming up with stuff that already exist in the game, but because you want some word or mechanical minutiae to be slightly different you want to design completely new classes that has 90% overlap with already existing classes. If the designers would have had similar attitude than you, none of the current subclasses would have existed because they would have made each of them into a separate class (or three!)
 


A rose by any other name would still swing a sword and wear medium armor.
Look at all the people that complained that their range-based fighter was actually a ranger in 4th ed. D&D's legacy is too strong to remove things that work, whether it's the best way to present a concept or not. Changing 5e by removing content is not going to happen officially. Best get out the scissors like one of the posters up thread suggested.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Disagreeing on this two. Honestly, if we could do things over again I'd grab that not-metamagic feat the Loremaster UA had and just, give that to sorcerers. Magic flows through your very veins, you should just be able to change it on the fly and do crazy stuff like that.

5E just, didn't do sorcerers well, but its a completely separate narrative from warlock magic. Its also why a lot of people look towards redoing it to be Con-based, rather than Cha base (well, that and the excess of cha-based classes)
Yeah that totally would have been how I did Sorcerers. Sorcerers would have been able to change a spell's damage type or saving throw.
A dragon sorcerer could change their spells to the damage and saving throw of their parent's breath attack.
A wild sorcerer would rolls randomly for both
A divine soul sorcerer could change them base on their soul alignment.
A shadow sorcerer could change damage to nercotic and saving throws to Con
A storm sorcerer could change spells to lighting damage and Dex saves or thunder damage and Con saves.

Lightning balls for everyone.
 

dnd4vr

The Smurfiest Wizard Ever!
Yeah that totally would have been how I did Sorcerers. Sorcerers would have been able to change a spell's damage type or saving throw.
A dragon sorcerer could change their spells to the damage and saving throw of their parent's breath attack.
A wild sorcerer would rolls randomly for both
A divine soul sorcerer could change them base on their soul alignment.
A shadow sorcerer could change damage to nercotic and saving throws to Con
A storm sorcerer could change spells to lighting damage and Dex saves or thunder damage and Con saves.

Lightning balls for everyone.
I would be cool with a lot of these suggestions if the sorcerer had to learn the spell that way... so instead of learning Fireball and you can change it to Lightning, you learn Lightningball and you are stuck with it.
 

Honestly, I'm not sure why the people who want fewer classes are playing 5e at all. There are many, many other fantasy games with fewer/more condensed class options. 5e is not going to have less stuff. They don't even evince much interest in fixing the stuff they do have. The very existence of the upcoming Tasha's book is like a strange dream to me.
 

Minigiant

Legend
I would be cool with a lot of these suggestions if the sorcerer had to learn the spell that way... so instead of learning Fireball and you can change it to Lightning, you learn Lightningball and you are stuck with it.
I would be fine with that.

When you learn a spell, you could to learn the spell modified by your sorcerous origin or not. You could learn the both the original version and one of the sorcerous versions but each version you know counts as one of your spells known.

So a storm sorcerer could have fireball, lightningball, and thunderball but that takes up 3 of their precious spells known.
 

Crimson Longinus

Adventurer
Honestly, I'm not sure why the people who want fewer classes are playing 5e at all. There are many, many other fantasy games with fewer/more condensed class options. 5e is not going to have less stuff. They don't even evince much interest in fixing the stuff they do have. The very existence of the upcoming Tasha's book is like a strange dream to me.
My optimal design would have classes even more condensed, but aside from sorcerer I'm OK with every 5e class existing. They have decent thematic and mechanical uniqueness. I'm also OK with subclasses being added, but I don't want any more classes. Or I'm not even fundamentally opposed to that, it would just require something much more distinct than anything people have brought up in this thread. Perhaps at some point someone manages to sell me some new class concept.
 


People keep saying things like that, but no one has actually articulated what it actually means in practice. What are the sort of feature that a warlord must have, which doesn't fit in the subclass budget?

Furthermore, as I said earlier, I don't think that a pure support class that does practically nothing else fits in the 5E design paradigm, Classes have their fortes, but they're not one trick ponies. Like sure, clerics heal and buff, but they can also fight. And now you might say that it is sufficient that warlords have mundane combat capabilities similar to the cleric and dedicate the rest of their budget to support. But clerics don't do that, because they can also use their spellcasting for combat. So to equal the similar personal combat power on a mundane character, this means having greater non-magical combat power than the cleric has, and then we are already nearing the fighter territory.
A couple of people have made suggestions, but in essence, the BM fighter only has a few dice to perform maneuvers each short rest, and those maneuvers are relatively minor and don't scale well at all.
The "lazy lord" was an edge case only really made possible by a splatbook, and isn't indicative of warlords as a whole, but the ability to attack an opponent and grant effective bonuses against it for example is something that a warlord should be able to do regularly. The issue is that as a Fighter subclass any bonus-granting actions are having to compete not just on a 'class power' economy, but also the action economy, with the fighter's monster attacks/round and other directly offensive capabilities.
- It is similar to the way the Eldritch knight just isn't an effective blaster wizard, because their spells are just too weak at the level that they get them to compare with their weapon attacks.
 

Crimson Longinus

Adventurer
Psionics is a different type of magic. Its different from Divine magic, Arcane magic and Primal magic (druid/shaman/barbarian stuff)
How?

Is the clarification between these not as clear this edition? Sure. But there is the design space there, and the legacy
The legacy is the main reason why people want this.

I'm not even fundamentally opposed to having psions, but seems pretty pointless to have yet one more marginally different sort of magic user. And there is a weird overlap. Usually fiction either has magic or psionics, not both. Because the latter is just marginally more scientific sounding interpretation of former. So having both is weird.
 

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

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top