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

[robus]

Okay, this is a simple question, but should bring about a larger discussion in general about 5e. When D&D 5e was first released 6 years ago, there were 12 official classes. Now, there are only 13 official classes (with 3 more simpler ones coming out in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything). By the end of the year, there should be 13 full D&D 5e classes and 3 sidekick classes. This raises a question, are there enough classes in D&D 5e, or should there be more? Please answer the poll, and explain below.

Of course we should have more, but not every class or race is appropriate for every setting; that‘s where the madness lies.

 

[Minigiant]

Of course we should have more, but not every class or race is appropriate for every setting; that‘s where the madness lies.

I think that is key.
People have to stop thinking that D&D contained every fantasy archetype in narrative and mechanics back in the 1980s and be willing to add and remove races and classes to match the different settings at every table.

 

[glass]

Yes. But I'm not sure you do. Alexander, Caesar, Genhis Khan, Napoleon. These are warlords.

Ah yes, very clever. Conflating the real-world concept of 'warlord" with the D&D class Warlord, when I was very obviously talking about the latter. And in the process, providing ample evidence for my hypothesis that you have no idea what the Warlord class is or does.

I disagree that the paladin could not be assumed into the Fighter / Cleric hybrid, I think that is absolutely possible even in the design space of 5e. Heck just add the smite spells to the cleric list and your already mostly there.

Anything is possible. So far nobody has explained why it is desireable.

And the point was never to conserve pages or something like that.

Then what is the point? To stick it to Paladin fans? To make sure they cannot have their wrongbadfun any more?

Back in the "playtest" period, when 5e was still being called D&D Next, there were two groups involved in the dicussion about it. One group would be happy to get what they wanted, and even happier if more other people could get what they wanted too. For the second group, it was not good enough for them to get theirs; it was also important to them that other people didn't. This thread is reminding me strongly of that time.

_
glass.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Ah yes, very clever. Conflating the real-world concept of 'warlord" with the D&D class Warlord, when I was very obviously talking about the latter. And in the process, providing ample evidence for my hypothesis that you have no idea what the Warlord class is or does.

D&D should attempt to emulate the real existing concept instead of merely imitating it's past failed attempts at doing so. Lazy warlord that never fights and heals allies by shouting is not something that needs to exist. The very real concept of a warlord however should.

Then what is the point? To stick it to Paladin fans? To make sure they cannot have their wrongbadfun any more?

Back in the "playtest" period, when 5e was still being called D&D Next, there were two groups involved in the dicussion about it. One group would be happy to get what they wanted, and even happier if more other people could get what they wanted too. For the second group, it was not good enough for them to get theirs; it was also important to them that other people didn't. This thread is reminding me strongly of that time.

In case of the paladin it is not a big deal, I am particularly vigorously advocating getting rid of them, at least not in an environment where ranger and barbarian exist as separate classes. However the claim was that it couldn't be done within 5e framework but I am convinced that it very easily could be. That being said, I feel that the concept of paladin has been adversely affected by being so divorced from the fighter. Instead of a devout knight with a little bit of divine favour it has now become rather bizarre computer-gamey thing that no longer emulates the original real world and mythological tropes, but exceedingly flanderised pop-culture and computer game derivations of them. This is the same thing I don't want for the warlord.

With some other classes there however is even bigger problems. I have several times mentioned sorcerer and warlock. Warlock has interesting mechanics, but lore that fails to properly set it apart from the clerics. Sorcerer has unique lore, but mechanics that are utterly bland. And of course thematically it makes much more sense for an innately magical creature such as sorcerers are in the lore to have always-on magic effects and rapidly recharging magic that warlocks get. Between these two there is material for one whole coherent class, which would be better than either of the existing classes alone. They were made separate for silly legacy reasons and both were worse for it.

So it is not that I don't want people get what they want out of spite or anything of the sort. But sometimes what you want might prevent the thing I want from happening. Like here we have two different mental concepts of what a warlord should be.

 

[Horwath]

We have too many, in my opinion. Cut down the number of base classes to 4 or 5 and make subclasses more meaningfully differentiated.

Sidekick(NPC) classes; warrior, expert and mage with a little tweak and more sublcasses could be all 5E needs.
Maybe add 4th class, Gish

warrior, no spells(or 1/3 caster subclass), d12 HD, Extra attack at 5th, 11th and 17th level
gish, 1/2 caster, d10 HD, Extra attack at 5th level and 17th level
expert, no spells(or 1/3 caster subclass), d8 HD, Extra attack at 11th level
spellcaster(full), d6 HD, (Extra attack for some subclasses at various levels)

 

[Eric V]

D&D should attempt to emulate the real existing concept instead of merely imitating it's past failed attempts at doing so. Lazy warlord that never fights and heals allies by shouting is not something that needs to exist. The very real concept of a warlord however should.

I don't know that any class needs to exist, but if it's something people will have fun playing, why shouldn't it be an option. It's a game, after all...

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don't know that any class needs to exist, but if it's something people will have fun playing, why shouldn't it be an option. It's a game, after all...

Because the silly concept existing will most likely prevent the properly executed one from happening.

Besides this is a thread where we discuss our preferences. Of course anything could in theory exist in the game and you can always find people who would like anything but that's besides the point.

 

[TwoSix]

That being said, I feel that the concept of paladin has been adversely affected by being so divorced from the fighter. Instead of a devout knight with a little bit of divine favour it has now become rather bizarre computer-gamey thing that no longer emulates the original real world and mythological tropes, but exceedingly flanderised pop-culture and computer game derivations of them. This is the same thing I don't want for the warlord.

I would argue it's far more important for a D&D paladin to be able to embody Uther and Arthas from WoW than a member of Charlemagne's retinue. D&D is pop culture, it's not a historical simulation.

 

[glass]

D&D should attempt to emulate the real existing concept instead of merely imitating it's past failed attempts at doing so. Lazy warlord that never fights and heals allies by shouting is not something that needs to exist. The very real concept of a warlord however should.

RPG's are well into the realm of luxury goods, so"need" does not really enter into it (and even if we as players needed something, the class as an abstract concept cannot possibly need anything so the "does not need to exist" phrasing is meaningless).

With that out of the way, I want it to exist. I sadly never got the chance to play one in 4e, but I have GMed for one (a Warlord, not a "lazy" build) and they brought a lot of fun to the table for everyone involved.

So it is not that I don't want people get what they want out of spite or anything of the sort. But sometimes what you want might prevent the thing I want from happening. Like here we have two different mental concepts of what a warlord should be.

No, it isn't that. You seem to be trying to claim the existance of a class called "Warlord" precludes warlords in the plain-english sense from existing in the setting. Even if that wasn't obvious nonsense, it could be easily fixed by renaming the class ("Warlord" is a pretty crappy name anyway - it is the concept of a martial replacement for the Cleric that I care about, not the name).

I don't know that any class needs to exist, but if it's something people will have fun playing, why shouldn't it be an option. It's a game, after all...

Exactly. There seems to be this weird notion that classes require elaborate justicifcation before they can deign to exist. "A non-trivial number of people will have fun with it" is literally all the justification any class requires.

_
glass.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I would argue it's far more important for a D&D paladin to be able to embody Uther and Arthas from WoW than a member of Charlemagne's retinue. D&D is pop culture, it's not a historical simulation.

I'd say it should strive to emulate Galahad. Myths and legends based on the real world, not computer games. But this of course is a matte of preference. But for my liking effortless flashy magic becoming more and more abundant, even for classes that whose sole focus is not fantastic magic is unfortunate. It makes everything feel more like a computer game rather than even as somewhat grounded fantasy book or a film and ultimately makes magic feel completely non-magical.