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

[Gladius Legis]

Game designers shouldn't pander to irrational players at the expense of anyone else.

No, game designers shouldn't pander to an irrational minority at the expense of everybody else. Because it's bad for business. And make no mistake, the irrational minority in this case is people in your camp who want to cut classes down to a bare-bones number.

 

[Minigiant]

One thing about new classes is that the newly created classes begin to solidify their archetype and those of the classes around it.

For example, the barbarian of 3e created this idea of a warrior who fights via emotion and raw power. 4e and 5e added more mysticism and primal magic to it. The barbarian developed to add berserkers, zealots, spirt worshipping warriors, and warriors touced by the element to the game.

Parallel to this is the fighter of whom the barbarian was excised from. With the barbarian taken out of it, the fighter lost its mantle of the "warrior of emotion, rawpower, and primal spirits". The fighter got smarter. The fighter received more style and technique.

Now is Johnny the gigantic gang enforcer with no formal training a fighter or a barbarian?
Well Johnny feels more like a barbarian. You could force him to be a fighter but he's better as a barbarian to display his lack of technique and reliance on anger and muscle.

One thing 5e did right was fuly make each class different and not just have them be sliders of the same 4-5 subsystems like a 1990s videogame rpg.
If any new classes are added, they need to be their own thing and fill a missing hole in D&D.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

No, game designers shouldn't pander to an irrational minority at the expense of everybody else. Because it's bad for business. And make no mistake, the irrational minority in this case is people in your camp who want to cut classes down to a bare-bones number.

Regardless of how many are in which camp, that's not evidence for which side is acting rationally. If you want to claim that it actually makes sense to have three different ways of modeling the same ranger, then you need to address that argument directly.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

That's a bit doom and gloom. If we only had 4-5 classes everything we have today would likely still be there and just jammed into/onto those classes as subclasses/kits/hybrids or whatever.

It would feel a bit different but all the fundamentals and archetypes we enjoy would still exist.

 

[Cadence]

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.

By having done it wrong, you mean like in PF where some of the gish are woeful compared to some of the others gotten there in a different way?

Is that less of an issue in 5e because of the way it's set up?

 

[FrogReaver]

Regardless of how many are in which camp, that's not evidence for which side is acting rationally. If you want to claim that it actually makes sense to have three different ways of modeling the same ranger, then you need to address that argument directly.

Presumably if the mechanics were different at all you wouldn't be modeling the "same" ranger. You would be modeling a slightly different ranger. In which case I'm not seeing the issue?

 

[Gladius Legis]

Regardless of how many are in which camp,

Which is important when making a business decision.

that's not evidence for which side is acting rationally.

Desiring to remove options that have been part of D&D for decades, to hell with the majority who still wants those options available, strikes me as irrational. Not to mention bad for business.

If you want to claim that it actually makes sense to have three different ways of modeling the same ranger, then you need to address that argument directly.

Except there's only one way to model an actual ranger. There may be other ways to make the same character, but those ways involve making that character not a ranger. If the player wants to be an actual ranger, then the game needs to have that option available, as it's had for almost 40 years.

 

[DND_Reborn]

For example, the barbarian of 3e created this idea of a warrior who fights via emotion and raw power. 4e and 5e added more mysticism and primal magic to it.

IMO 3E expanding barbarian was fine. 4E I can't say, I never played it. From what I've seen of it, I wouldn't like it. 5E, mysticism and primal magic to barbarians killed the class IMO. I have no interest in playing a 5E barbarian over all, but at least some of the subclasses remained "true" to the original (sort of--- not enough for me, but at least it's kind of there).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

IMO 3E expanding barbarian was fine. 4E I can't say, I never played it. From what I've seen of it, I wouldn't like it. 5E, mysticism and primal magic to barbarians killed the class IMO. I have no interest in playing a 5E barbarian over all, but at least some of the subclasses remained "true" to the original (sort of--- not enough for me, but at least it's kind of there).

I feel the opposite. I like the mystical and primal aspects of the barbarian. Makes it more justified being a separate class than a mere 'angry fighter' would.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Which is important when making a business decision.

The goal of making a good game is often at odds with the goal of running a successful business. Reducing bloat would be good for the game as a game, even if it is politically non-viable.