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

[Crimson Longinus]

In a world with Paladins distinct from Clerics and Fighters, and Rangers distinct from Fighters and Barbarians, and Wizards distinct from Sorcerers...the status quo doesn't seem horribly out of place though (as a courtesy to those who love them separate, if nothing else).

It would bug me less if warlock didn't have rules which are thematically more appropriate for the sorcerer. Like always-on magic effects and rapidly recharging magic both sound like features of an innately magical being. So not only are the sorcerer rules lacklustre, another class has the rules they should have. Combining sorcerers with warlocks produces a sorcerer which has rules that support their themes better than the actual sorcerer rules do.

 

[glass]

But This has gotten too argumentative.

That much at least we agree on. Hopefully, this will steer the conversation in a less head-bangy direction....

So to be more constructive, what are the things you would want the warlord to have which you feel could not be fitted in the subclass structure and relatedly what aspects of the base fighter class you feel the warlord shouldn't have?

To answer the first one, the obvious answer is "anything at all for the first two levels". It might take a bit of shoehorning, but you could probably fit an Inspiring Word equivalent and some fun stuff like attack granting into the Martial Archetype Feature slots, but then you are waiting until 10th or 15th level to do the job that the 4e Warlord could do from level 1.

In terms of what the base Fighter has that they shouldn't, it is not so much any one feature; any of them could stay and it would not be the end of the world. The trouble is that in the aggregate, they do not leave enough space for anything else.

_
glass.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

To answer the first one, the obvious answer is "anything at all for the first two levels".

True, but I don't really see this an issue. The same applies to a lot of concepts. First level arcane trickster has no magic. And it feels super logical to me that you'd first need to have some experience in fighting before starting to tell other people how to fight better!

It might take a bit of shoehorning, but you could probably fit an Inspiring Word equivalent and some fun stuff like attack granting into the Martial Archetype Feature slots, but then you are waiting until 10th or 15th level to do the job that the 4e Warlord could do from level 1.

In terms of what the base Fighter has that they shouldn't, it is not so much any one feature; any of them could stay and it would not be the end of the world. The trouble is that in the aggregate, they do not leave enough space for anything else.

Battlemaster gets three manoeuvres straight at the third level. Warlord could in similar vein get three stratagems, so then you already have good toolkit and feel sufficiently different from other fighters. And at higher levels you could get even more stratagems and on top of that other features too. I just don't see how they could need so much stuff that it wouldn't fit in this framework.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

This.

 

[DND_Reborn]

At this point that difference exists solely in one fluff sidebar applying to Forgotten Realms and nothing more. And there the difference seems to be whether to power is channelled from some other entity (divine) or not (arcane) and If that is not the difference then I don't know what it is. I'm not sure how psionics wouldn't just be arcane magic under this definition.

The biggest difference between divine and arcane magic is divine (coming from your god) can be denied you if you are not following the tenants of your religion. Arcane spells will never be denied to the caster (as long as their are known/prepared anyway...).

This is why in AD&D we played clerics and druids did not have to chose their spells. Basically, they were always prepared so you could cast whatever you wanted as needed. Your god's insight will grant you want you want when you want it... just be careful what you ask for!

In terms of 5E, I would have divine spells are selected as needed on the fly, which would make them very different from prepared spells. You could also just say clerics, druid, and paladins "know" all their spells so can cast whatever, whenever.

 

[TwoSix]

The biggest difference between divine and arcane magic is divine (coming from your god) can be denied you if you are not following the tenants of your religion. Arcane spells will never be denied to the caster (as long as their are known/prepared anyway...).

This is why in AD&D we played clerics and druids did not have to chose their spells. Basically, they were always prepared so you could cast whatever you wanted as needed. Your god's insight will grant you want you want when you want it... just be careful what you ask for!

In terms of 5E, I would have divine spells are selected as needed on the fly, which would make them very different from prepared spells. You could also just say clerics, druid, and paladins "know" all their spells so can cast whatever, whenever.

Personally, I would love to see a refined D&D that leaned into the arcane/divine split more (since it's such a recognizable D&Dism) and had a cohesive theory for why all types of magical tradition fall into one of those two categories. Ideally, divine magic in such a system would support D&D-style henotheism but not require it for those of us who don't like it.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah. I'm still not seeing it. The only difference seems to be the arbitrary difference whether the thing is a divinity or not. Except that we have things like Raven Queen patron... So now there literally are both clerics and warlocks of the Raven Queen... So what's the difference?

The major difference is worship vs. contract. Your cleric of Mystra worships her, believes in her and her philosophy, and works hard to further her works because of your devotion and faith. My warlock of Mystra went to her to make a contract to get some power. He doesn't give a fig about her religion, but will do odd jobs for her when required, per the contract. And then of course the warlock doesn't even have to go to a god. Any powerful being will do, unlike a cleric.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The biggest difference between divine and arcane magic is divine (coming from your god) can be denied you if you are not following the tenants of your religion. Arcane spells will never be denied to the caster (as long as their are known/prepared anyway...).

This is why in AD&D we played clerics and druids did not have to chose their spells. Basically, they were always prepared so you could cast whatever you wanted as needed. Your god's insight will grant you want you want when you want it... just be careful what you ask for!

In terms of 5E, I would have divine spells are selected as needed on the fly, which would make them very different from prepared spells. You could also just say clerics, druid, and paladins "know" all their spells so can cast whatever, whenever.

It is indeed thematically weird that divine casters have to prepare thir spells, it seems like such an obvious wizard thing to do. It also seems completely arbitrary which of them have to do this, clerics, paladins and druids have to prepare theirs spells and know them all, but rangers don't.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Personally, I would love to see a refined D&D that leaned into the arcane/divine split more (since it's such a recognizable D&Dism) and had a cohesive theory for why all types of magical tradition fall into one of those two categories. Ideally, divine magic in such a system would support D&D-style henotheism but not require it for those of us who don't like it.

I agree. With 6 full-casters and 2 half-casters, you could divide things better IMO.

I would redo magic some like the following:
Arcane Prepared: Wizard
Arcane Known: Sorcerer
Divine All Known: Cleric
Divine Selected Known: Paladin
Primal All Known: Druid
Primal Selected Known: Ranger

Bards are Selected Known, but pick up spells from anywhere (I would make them half-casters but completely open to selecting any spells of a level they could cast...).

Warlocks I would like to see get more "powers" instead of spells, personally.

Sorcerers have metamagic to make up for limited spells, Paladins have smites, and Rangers would have a better Favored Enemy and/or Companion rules.

That's my overall thought on it anyway.

 

[TwoSix]

I agree. With 6 full-casters and 2 half-casters, you could divide things better IMO.

I would redo magic some like the following:
Arcane Prepared: Wizard
Arcane Known: Sorcerer
Divine All Known: Cleric
Divine Selected Known: Paladin
Primal All Known: Druid
Primal Selected Known: Ranger

Bards are Selected Known, but pick up spells from anywhere (I would make them half-casters but completely open to selecting any spells of a level they could cast...).

Warlocks I would like to see get more "powers" instead of spells, personally.

Sorcerers have metamagic to make up for limited spells, Paladins have smites, and Rangers would have a better Favored Enemy and/or Companion rules.

That's my overall thought on it anyway.

We could divide up every spell into one of those 3 lists with no overlap!

Oh wait...I already got that T-shirt.