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

[LuisCarlos17f]

The Dragon Magazine had got the Savant class but it was a spellcaster, like the Archivist class from "Heroes of Horror".

A sage in a D&D squad is like to mix CSI and SWAT. They are different styles. A (no-magic) sage is too weak in the hard battlefield. And lots of players would rather to use magic tricks to find clues for an investigation.

* Paladins are too muscle to be clerics and too sacred to be only fighters.

* Knight/cavalier could be the new class in a future Dragonlance player's handbook.

 

[Hatmatter]

We have too many as-is. Almost half of the classes in the book are redundant, and only included for legacy purposes.

Yes...but the legacy is a great one...and a fun one! I love that we have ranger, paladin, barbarian, and so forth. What a joy to use the game to make a D&D version of a favorite character or characters from pulp fiction, comics, movies, literature, or mythology...a joy that goes way back to the early days of the development of the game.

Having fewer classes and treating barbarians and such as kits was was done in 2nd edition. As a devoted player of 2nd edition back in the day and someone who would purchase the character option books when they would be released, I can say that kits were simply not as exciting as a new class.

New subclasses, though are exciting. I love the new subclasses in Unearthed Arcana and I have already preordered Tasha's Cauldron. But, I also love the release of the artificer and I would love for a psionicist to be released as a class...if Wizards can manage it without the role-playing community getting hate-filled and divisive. I like it when the community can come together and do not like when there is strife and enmity: life being too short.

 

[Weiley31]

Blood Hunter is popular, but every time I read it looks like a Warlock with too many fiddly bits.

Funny you say that since the Blood Hunter has a Subclass that pretty much tries to make it a Warlock lite.* The Profane Soul*

 

[Gladius Legis]

An edition of D&D with only four or five classes like some want would absolutely destroy the franchise. People who want fewer classes do not realize that they are a very small minority, and the majority would simply not buy it.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Yes...but the legacy is a great one...and a fun one! I love that we have ranger, paladin, barbarian, and so forth. What a joy to use the game to make a D&D version of a favorite character or characters from pulp fiction, comics, movies, literature, or mythology...a joy that goes way back to the early days of the development of the game.

That's the point of only removing redundant classes. There's nothing stopping you from re-creating Conan or Drizzt as just fighters rather than barbarians or rangers. The only difference is, without the redundant classes, nobody can tell you that you did it wrong.

 

[Gladius Legis]

That's the point of only removing redundant classes. There's nothing stopping you from re-creating Conan or Drizzt as just fighters rather than barbarians or rangers. The only difference is, without the redundant classes, nobody can tell you that you did it wrong.

People who want to play barbarians and rangers want to play barbarians and rangers. Not fighters.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

People who want to play barbarians and rangers want to play barbarians and rangers. Not fighters.

A rose by any other name would still swing a sword and wear medium armor.

 

[Cadence]

A rose by any other name would still swing a sword and wear medium armor.

And yet people still buy name brand over generic at stores, even when the contents do the same thing.

Conan the Fighter, and Aragorn and the Fighters of the North... :-/

 

[Hatmatter]

People who want to play barbarians and rangers want to play barbarians and rangers. Not fighters.

I agree. Rangers have been a class for almost 45 years...4th edition made many admirable changes, including many that streamlined unnecessary elements, but some of those changes were received by players as altering the feel of the game so that it no longer felt like D&D. There is no harm in having rangers or barbarians. Speaking for myself, I wouldn't want D&D without rangers. And, when 2nd edition got rid of barbarians and then brought them back as a kit, I missed them. I mean, 5th edition is doing ok, what is the problem? One can still create a wilderness fighter or a rogue scout. I think the game is great.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

And yet people still buy name brand over generic at stores, even when the contents do the same thing.

Conan the Fighter, and Aragorn and the Fighters of the North... :-/

If someone refuses to make a Conan because there's no class labelled "Conan" then that's on them. Game designers shouldn't pander to irrational players at the expense of anyone else.