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

[DND_Reborn]

There's more than one way to be a Warlord and I think it'd be really boring and limiting to try and pull it off with a single Fighter subclass. There's not just enough room in a Fighter subclass for it! For my home-brew Warlord I wrote up EIGHT subclasses, with a 9th one I have in mind right now, and they aren't as simple as 'inspiring Warlord vs Tactical Warlord'.

the same could easily be said of the Barbarian, Paladin and Ranger. The fact 5e managed to give us multiple subclasses for those prove there is plenty of conceptual ground to work with that would not be fully covered if they were reduced to a single subclass.

Fair enough. I never played 4E or even seen the warlord, so I am just going off of what people are saying about it online, in forums, etc.

Personally, the class sounds super boring to me, but then again I am not all about support classes and find classes like the 5E bard concept super annoying. No issues if other people want it, but even if WotC came out with a warlord class, I doubt I'd play it--I just don't feel the concept is needed beyond what could be accomplished as a Fighter (or other class) subclass.

But hey, different strokes and all that.

 

[Minigiant]

Like a Rogue with a decent Intelligence and Charisma? Pretty much all of those seem to fall into ability checks/skill proficiencies or player decisions.

It wouldn't sneak attack. It would fight smart, use ancient techniques, and invent or refine special weaponry.

There HAS to be a combat strategy for no spellcasting nonwarriors than being the dirtiest underhanded cheat on one side of the plane.

It's too bad the artificer snatched all SCIENCE! and made it magic. And all diplomacy is in the bardic or enchantment sphere.

 

[Undrave]

Personally, the class sounds super boring to me, but then again I am not all about support classes and find classes like the 5E bard concept super annoying. No issues if other people want it, but even if WotC came out with a warlord class, I doubt I'd play it--I just don't feel the concept is needed beyond what could be accomplished as a Fighter (or other class) subclass.

I like support classes a lot, or at least loved them in 4e... but the 5e incarnations leave me a little cold... I think the reason the Cleric and Paladin feel too similar is that the 5e Cleric is too selfish of a design. It can only support a few times per day with like... Bless or Healing Spells, or by using Guidance. The Bard takes forever (IMO) to get Inspiration on a short rest... and the Druid is just the same as the Cleric but can don a fur suit.

There's some cool support abilities in 5e, like the aforementioned Guidance, but also the bard's Vicious Mockery, their Inspiration, some Battlemaster Maneuver, the Mastermind's ranged Help action, the Sheppard Druid's Spirit and the Diviner's ability to replace dice... but it's all scattered one-of and there is not one class or subclass that truly scratch the itch for me :/

 

[DND_Reborn]

I like support classes a lot, or at least loved them in 4e... but the 5e incarnations leave me a little cold... I think the reason the Cleric and Paladin feel too similar is that the 5e Cleric is too selfish of a design. It can only support a few times per day with like... Bless or Healing Spells, or by using Guidance. The Bard takes forever (IMO) to get Inspiration on a short rest... and the Druid is just the same as the Cleric but can don a fur suit.

There's some cool support abilities in 5e, like the aforementioned Guidance, but also the bard's Vicious Mockery, their Inspiration, some Battlemaster Maneuver, the Mastermind's ranged Help action, the Sheppard Druid's Spirit and the Diviner's ability to replace dice... but it's all scattered one-of and there is not one class or subclass that truly scratch the itch for me :/

I understand your point. For someone who really loves that type of role, the 5E design is a bit lacking. You'd almost have to roll most of those things into one (support buffs, healing, inspiration, maybe a BM maneuver or two, etc.) to really get a strong support PC. I know due to the nature of 5E design a lot of build concepts can take several levels to really "come online", so that doesn't help the cause any, either.

I guess if you play golf you can relate to the idea of a pro player who turns caddie because they know they will earn more and do better supporting another pro player than they can likely do on their own.

 

[Undrave]

I understand your point. For someone who really loves that type of role, the 5E design is a bit lacking. You'd almost have to roll most of those things into one (support buffs, healing, inspiration, maybe a BM maneuver or two, etc.) to really get a strong support PC. I know due to the nature of 5E design a lot of build concepts can take several levels to really "come online", so that doesn't help the cause any, either.

I guess if you play golf you can relate to the idea of a pro player who turns caddie because they know they will earn more and do better supporting another pro player than they can likely do on their own.

The biggest problem with the 5e design is that I want to be able to play my support role every turn... but I also don't want to be stuck doing the same thing every turn to do my role either. That balance is there if you want to be a Spellcaster with blasting and controlling, but not for a support role. It's a bit thin.

The Bard is probably the best but I'm not super into its flavor and style...

 

[DND_Reborn]

The Bard is probably the best but I'm not super into its flavor and style...

LOL I hear ya there! In our CoS game I played a Bard/Rogue... and we goofed on the class the whole time. I'll never play a bard again...

 

[Ringtail]

I think we can do a few more, there are a few concepts that haven't been recognized as a full class.

I also don't mind a little redundancy. I'm not looking for the best "designed" game but one that fulfills my needs and plays smoothly at the table. In my experience, players and DMs generally like more options. A little class-crossover has never hurt me. (Your experience may differ.)

I am wary of power creep however. The more options there are, the more likely some will become "optimal." So while I would like some new classes, I would only encourage a few and only those that weren't well represented by the game already (IMO, the artificer) or have enough potential/material to justify over a subclass.

 

[Undrave]

LOL I hear ya there! In our CoS game I played a Bard/Rogue... and we goofed on the class the whole time. I'll never play a bard again...

I tried a Trickery Cleric and it really wasn't working, I then turned him into a Bard after like 1 session and it sorta worked out... but it felt a bit zestless and low-impact most of the time. I don't even remember my subclass! That should tell you how much impact it had on me... I think it was lore because I wanted Cutting word? Thinking back on it, I think an Arcane Trickster with the Charlatan background and Magic Initiate Cleric might have been what I was looking for (he was a V-human) in that specific case.

I might give a Bard a try one day if I can start at level 5 or more, Inspiration on long rest is garbage.

 

[DEFCON 1]

My only real complaint when yet more material and options are released is "How about fixing the stuff that really hasn't been working for the last 5 or so years instead?" Personally, I am tired of fixing it myself.

If you've already fixed it, aren't you already done? Why do you need them to fix it a second time?

 

[Vael]

So, the Summoner. I'm legit surprised that this class hasn't made it's way into DnD. Given the popularity of Pokemon, and that we are getting more crossover with MTG, a base Summoner class seems like a slamdunk. The problems are obvious, action economy and such, but this is a class that has definite options. A summoner can also be a support class, laying down buffs on your summons or your party (or both).