log in or register to remove this ad

 

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

Should D&D 5e have more classes?


  • Total voters
    246

log in or register to remove this ad


I had though of the concept of a divine half-caster that was more like an Artificer than a Paladin (getting cantrips, an invocation-type feature, and divination abilities), which would get a lot of Channel Divinity options and skills, but I am still not exactly sure how you would do that.
 

With the Psionic talk in Tasha's BOE, I've be reminded of the Playtest Sorcerer.

That would have coolas a new class.

You get willpower that you can spend to use special powers. Then as you spend willpower, you transform and stay that way until you long rest.

SubclassWhen you have willpowerWhen you run out of willpower
Dragon DiscipleHeavy Armor BlasterClawed Tank
Half-VampireShadowcasterHigh Speed Striker
Alchemical HulkRemarkable AthleteHulk Smash
Warden of VinePlant based ControllerI am Groot
Warden of StoneChucker of RocksIt's Clobbering Time
Archon of LightBurst HealerGlowing Lazergun
Frankly I'm deeply saddened that the Playtest Sorcerer and Warlock were killed dead. I've honestly no idea why people disliked them so much, they were REALLY cool ideas with lots of creativity involved. The designers so swiftly caving on those concepts pretty much doomed any chance that 5e would actually rock the boat or do anything outside the neat little box of "tradition" (where "tradition" is interpreted as "mostly what 3.5e did.")

What would you call that? The Seer? Prophet? Oracle/Augur?
Avenger. Why not? It would be a rare olive branch to 4e fans, especially if its mechanics were translated as closely as possible to the originals. (As opposed to stuff like healing surges vs. hit dice, Warden vs. Oath of the Ancients Paladin, or Warlord vs. [ERROR: DATA NOT FOUND].) The overall class would be about skillful use of precise big strikes (as the 4e Avenger was the first instance of Advantage in a sense, and used big 2h weapons with Dexterity instead of Strength), and subclasses could delve more into stealth ("classic" 4e style), knowledge (3e style Archivist), or detective work ("new" 5e style), supporting their narrative role as the Internal Police force of religious organizations. Operatives, forensic librarians, divine assassins.
 

Vael

Hero
Frankly I'm deeply saddened that the Playtest Sorcerer and Warlock were killed dead. I've honestly no idea why people disliked them so much, they were REALLY cool ideas with lots of creativity involved. The designers so swiftly caving on those concepts pretty much doomed any chance that 5e would actually rock the boat or do anything outside the neat little box of "tradition" (where "tradition" is interpreted as "mostly what 3.5e did.")

I thought the playtest Sorcerer was interesting, but not as the base Sorcerer. You were pigeonholed into a melee build, and as a caster, it felt too limited. It also felt weird to be "punished" for casting your spells, so to speak.

That's actually been my critique of most attempts to "fix" the Sorcerer, most of the attempts I've seen really want to thematically lock in the Sorcerer, and that's not what I want. I have only just gotten the Level Up version, and that looks a bit more promising.
 

Dausuul

Legend
[Edited - removed link to playtest material since I noticed it was marked "Do Not Distribute." Probably nobody cares at this late date, but you never know.]

For reference, on the playtest sorcerer/warlock:

The sorcerer used a spell point ("willpower") system, and your subclass unlocked bonuses based on how many spell points you had used that day. For example, dragon sorcerers got bonuses to melee damage rolls after spending 3 spell points, and resistance to your dragon damage type after spending 10. So as you expended your magical resources, you became more of a melee bruiser instead. There were also some subclass-specific ways to use spell points.

The playtest warlock gave up spellcasting altogether (except for rituals), but it had drastically beefed-up invocations to compensate. It also had a "favor" mechanic which was essentially identical to Channel Divinity; two "charges" that can be spent to activate various patron-specific powers, refreshing on a short rest.

They only go to level 5, and the mechanics are quite rough and in need of polish, but I tend to agree--I wish they'd built more on those foundations instead of putting it all into spells.
 
Last edited:

I thought the playtest Sorcerer was interesting, but not as the base Sorcerer. You were pigeonholed into a melee build, and as a caster, it felt too limited. It also felt weird to be "punished" for casting your spells, so to speak.

That's actually been my critique of most attempts to "fix" the Sorcerer, most of the attempts I've seen really want to thematically lock in the Sorcerer, and that's not what I want. I have only just gotten the Level Up version, and that looks a bit more promising.
Okay, these are actually some cogent criticisms, so before anything else, kudos for actually giving a meaningful answer rather than "I didn't like it" or "it didn't feel like a Sorcerer"--this is something I can respond to. It's still about preferences, but they're articulated and meaningful, which is both rare and extremely appreciated.

I'm not sure why you'd feel you're being "punished" for using your spells? Admittedly, the mechanics were quite rough (as Dausuul just said), so polish was probably warranted. But the whole idea was (in some sense) "unleashing the beast within." The draconic Sorcerer has a physical-fighter "beast within," because dragons are physical powerhouses as well as magical ones. But other flavors--chaos, storm, cosmic, whatever else--could easily be other types. Heck, that would be a great way to make the subclasses different. Storm becomes a controller flinging lightning bolts and dropping twisters and thunderclaps. Chaos lurks about, flitting from place to place, perhaps getting a bonus to attacking things it didn't attack in the previous round. Cosmic becomes effectively stance-based, cycling through almost alternate personalities as different aspects take hold. Favored Soul even makes for a fascinating equal-yet-opposite, where the soul is being pulled, not toward dark ends, but toward benevolent alienation, aiding allies but losing touch with the "human" (or "mortal") element. Shadow becomes a life-sucking leech and, dare I say, phantom menace.

So, I guess what I'm saying is, this elevates subclass to a very high level, as might be expected for a class so thoroughly defined by whom your magic blood comes from. Yes, it "locks in" a particular theme, but it does so because being related to a dragon should be different from being related to a vampire.
 


jgsugden

Legend
I'd like to see:

Psion - A true psionic class that uses psi points rather than slots and treats psionics as different than standard magic>

Psychic Warrior - Using the same base mechanics of the Psion, but on a melee structure. It would have dexterity (and movement) focuses as well as strength (and brute force) focuses.

Invoker - A Priest that operates off of Charisma build and doesn't use spell slots. Instead, they're built with invocations.

Warlord - A combatant that leads through force of will and leadership. They'd have abilities similar to 4th edition design, with a lot of their abilities allowing them to lead by example. For example, if they hit an enemy, their allies would gain advantage versus the enemy. If they are targeted by something requiring a save at the same time an ally is, the ally can elect to use the warlord's die roll rather than their own. When they move in combat, they leave behind a trail. When an ally travels along that trail, they do not count that movement against their total movement for the round. When They make a save versus a fear effect, any ally further from the source than the Warlord that is targeted by the effect is immune if the warlord makes their save. They can charm without casting a spell. They can frighten enemies. Etc....

The Scientist - The Artificer fills some of this space, but I would go further and make a class that uses science without magic. There would be chemists that make chemical compounds, physicists that can control the battlefield, and biologists that know just how to make an enemy suffer.
 

Dragonsbane777

Explorer
Too many, some are redundant. I would be in favor for many many more subclasses. The Faiths of the Forgotten Realms DMGuild books show just how many variations there can be. Even better would be very detailed notes on creating subclasses with balance. So many out there have power creep . . .
 

Warlord - A combatant that leads through force of will and leadership.
The main idea I had for a Warlord was to steal the overall structure of the Warlock, but repurpose it.

Invocations become Tactics, always-on features or modifications of your other abilities.
Patron becomes Presence, which defines your Leadership Modifier (Cha = Bravura, Wis = Resourceful, Int = Tactical) and your overall approach to coordinating your allies (Bravura is high-risk/high-reward, Resourceful has the most pure support, Tactical leverages specific ally strengths).
Pact becomes your Leadership Method, whether you're a Vanguard (melee with stronger defenses), Skirmisher (ranged with more mobility), Prowler (stealth and precision strikes), Overseer ("lazylord"--working more through others than personal effort), or Magister (combining magic with battlefield coordination).
Spells are replaced with Strategies fuelled by a Gambit resource, which should flow freely during both your turn and others' turns--you care about what happens to the people on the team. E.g. Bravura Presence might give you gambit when your allies land critical hits, and Vanguard Style might give you gambit when things attack you. You can only have so many prepared strategies at any given time, but can change things up on a short rest.

I haven't come up with a good option for replacing Eldritch Arcana yet--but then again, I haven't done more than idly considering the above ideas. But I really think it could work quite well. By having different Presences and Methods, it's possible to capture many of the different flavors a Warlord could take without needing each Warlord to be bringing every focus to the table. And it would be a nod to the more option-filled character building that many 4th edition (and even 3rd edition!) fans enjoyed and can't always find in 5e.
 

Hatmatter

Adventurer
Bill Maher has a segment on Real Time called "I Don't Know It For a Fact, I Just Know That It's True" in which he wraps his cultural and political criticism in far-fetched observations.

I have no criticism to offer here, but after reading Tasha's and listening to the recent interviews with Jeremy Crawford on Dragon Talk from the last few weeks and reading an interview with him online, I will say that "I Don't Know It For a Fact, I Just Know That It's True" that we will be getting a dedicated psionics-using class at some point. I think with this "evergreen" version of D&D, the designers led by Crawford are really looking for the long-play and I think the three subclasses, two feats, and three psionic spells in Tasha's are all part of a long wind-up for a developed class, as was the psionic elements like the Mind Flayer in the Monster Manual and the use of psionics in the earlier books. It is my "I just know that it is true" response to the feeling I am picking up from Wizard's approach to psionics.
 

Bill Maher has a segment on Real Time called "I Don't Know It For a Fact, I Just Know That It's True" in which he wraps his cultural and political criticism in far-fetched observations.

I have no criticism to offer here, but after reading Tasha's and listening to the recent interviews with Jeremy Crawford on Dragon Talk from the last few weeks and reading an interview with him online, I will say that "I Don't Know It For a Fact, I Just Know That It's True" that we will be getting a dedicated psionics-using class at some point. I think with this "evergreen" version of D&D, the designers led by Crawford are really looking for the long-play and I think the three subclasses, two feats, and three psionic spells in Tasha's are all part of a long wind-up for a developed class, as was the psionic elements like the Mind Flayer in the Monster Manual and the use of psionics in the earlier books. It is my "I just know that it is true" response to the feeling I am picking up from Wizard's approach to psionics.
I sure hope that you're right.
 

Shroompunk Warlord

Archdruid of the Warp Zones
Supporter
We should not have more classes to have more classes, but especially as settings roll out we should have more classes to fit them.

Artificer was needed for Eberron. Call it a Psion or a Mystic, but a psionic full casting full class is necessary for Dark Sun.

We are probably never going to see Kara-Tur again, but if we did... Sohei could probably be a subclass for practically anything, but would be better as a full class. Shaman and Shukenja (1e) or Shugenja (3e) don't fit into the existing classes.

But... of the settings we're likely to see or the settings I really want to see, the only class we're really missing is the psychic.
 




Sabathius42

Bree-Yark
We have too many, in my opinion. Cut down the number of base classes to 4 or 5 and make subclasses more meaningfully differentiated.
I feel the opposite of this. There are too many subclasses that SORT OF portray their theme because of the base class they are appended to that would be better served to have been created and a new class entirely (not necessarily with new rules gimmicks). One example is that the Eldritch Knight, Arcane Archer, and Pact of the Blade could be slotted under a class built from the ground up to have better spell/weaponry 50/50 dichotomy.
 

I feel the opposite of this. There are too many subclasses that SORT OF portray their theme because of the base class they are appended to that would be better served to have been created and a new class entirely (not necessarily with new rules gimmicks). One example is that the Eldritch Knight, Arcane Archer, and Pact of the Blade could be slotted under a class built from the ground up to have better spell/weaponry 50/50 dichotomy.
I agree. There is no official arcane half-casting class in 5e, but there are a few subclasses that try (and fail) to fill that role.
 

Marandahir

Crown-Forester
The current amount is good.

I go back and forth on whether we need a Psion that isn't an Aberrant Mind Sorcerer (that uses Spell Points instead of slots and Int instead of Cha), or need a Shaman (that isn't just a Warlock with a Primal Spirit pact), but I'm happy and can build pretty much everything from this set.

Unlike some folks I often agree with here on the Enworld forums, I think it's a great thing that 5e has both big tent classes like Fighter and Wizard and small tent classes like Paladin or Warlock.

I think there's a gamist role for the 3 Gish classes that aren't just subclasses of Fighter or Rogue a la Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster, allowing for a more balanced and integrated focus of magic-wielding warriors in the game. But by definition, such "dual class" classes are more narrowly defined that the broad tent classes they're "children" of. These "Gish" classes are akin to what have been considered Prestige or Promoted classes in other editions or mediums, and thus in some media can get away with having both at once. But they're often lackluster in their storytelling precisely because Paladins are so often just "Warrior/Knight+Priest/White Mage." To make sense of them, finding core mechanics that make them tick and can unite a bunch of different archetypal ideas that are all Gish but approach it differently is key.

As you might guess, I'm a fan of the Paladin, (Revised) Ranger, and Artificer in 5e. ALL THREE have found said hooks that allow for a bunch of different archetypes, even if less broad than their parent classes, while still united in their identities as Gish.

IMHO, the reason Ranger was so lackluster in the PHB was that it lacked those key unifying working mechanics. Deft Explorer, Favored Foe, and Primal Awareness change all that, in the same way that Lay on Hands, Smite, and Auras work for Paladins, and Magical Tinkering, Infuse Item, and the Right Tool For the Job do for Artificers. These ideas enforce the fiction of Resolute Oathsworn Gish, Open World Adventure Game Gish, and Techno-Hero Gish.

Artificers don't feel like Bladesingers or Hexblades or Eldritch Knights, but Armourers Forge Adepts, Battle Smiths, and Artillerists very clearly fill that Martial+Arcane box while Alchemists and Mavericks feel right at home with the concept while showing what they can be without being on the front lines.

Rangers don't feel like Fighter+Druid, and Paladins don't feel like Fighter+Cleric, in a large part because they've got these host of other abilities that Fighters and Clerics and Druids don't get. But they have shared abilities too, between shared cantrips and shared spells, and shared "ideas" about magic, and that's critical.

I don't think reducing the game's class list down would be helpful. It would lead to more "balance" of concepts, but I don't think the concepts need equality. What they need is to be balanced gameplaywise so that players aren't screwed over. And they need to carve out their own niches to represent the supporting fiction and new ideas in ways that aren't interchangeable.

There are a handful of ideas in the supporting fiction and past editions that still aren't possible in 5e. I would like to see those added, and MAYBE there's a class out that could be added in some capacity, but I really see most everything being possible as subclasses going forward.

I agree. There is no official arcane half-casting class in 5e, but there are a few subclasses that try (and fail) to fill that role.

Artificers say hello.
 

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top