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

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Personally, I prefer to share my table players who concentrate less on playing the game and less on the character building mini game. A wide variety of mechanics and options allows me to see clearly which potential players will be a good fit for my game and which will be better off with a different DM.

 

[Helldritch]

Personally, I prefer to share my table players who concentrate less on playing the game and less on the character building mini game. A wide variety of mechanics and options allows me to see clearly which potential players will be a good fit for my game and which will be better off with a different DM.

Shouldn't you prefer to have players concentrating on playing the game more?

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Shouldn't you prefer to have players concentrating on playing the game more?

Exactly, if a player too focused on all those juicy mechanics, he/she isn't a good fit.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Exactly, if a player too focused on all those juicy mechanics, he/she isn't a good fit.

Fyi

Personally, I prefer to share my table players who concentrate less on playing the game and less on the character building mini game. A wide variety of mechanics and options allows me to see clearly which potential players will be a good fit for my game and which will be better off with a different DM.

you said you want players who concentrate less on playing the game and character building. So I assumed you wanted some free form chaos

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Fyi
you said you want players who concentrate less on playing the game and character building. So I assumed you wanted some free form chaos

Oops.

 

[Ath-kethin]

Not enough classes. Consider this. What if eldritch knight was its own class what if wildshape was its own class. What if a hex blade was its own class. What if a horizon Walker was its own class. What if Monster hunter was its own class. What if alchemist was its own class. What If beastmaster was its own class.

I'm actually on board here. A problem with the subclass system as it exists is that the subs are at once too specific but not specific enough IMO. Different spell lists, entirely unique abilities, etc, would go a long way toward rectifying the issue.

As subclasses, each concept has to share a core with other subclasses on the same frame. As individual classes, they could shine. Or maybe just handle subclasses the way Astonishing Swordsmen and Sorcerer's of Hyperboria does, where really the only thing the base class gives is a hut die and attack bonus and everything else is handled by the subclass.

 

[Dr Magister]

I'm in the camp of fewer base classes with more subclasses. Barbarian and Paladin as subclasses of Fighter; Ranger and Bard as subclasses of Rogue; Wizard, Sorcerer and Warlock as subclass of Magic-User; Druid and Monk as sub-classes of Cleric.

 

[Minigiant]

If you think about the question posed "Should D&D 5e have more classes?"
Then the option "We have too many classes" isn't even a viable option for 5e.

Why? Because all the current 5e classes have defining class features that cannot be rolled back into subclasses and maintain balance. It's too late for 5e and you can't even do it as alternate class features. The cat's out of the bag. The iconic features aretoo big to shrink. Only 1 class has the design space to truly alter the base class with subclasses an it is the one with the most baggage and poor design (ranger).

Why are hexblades and eldritch knights sublclasses but artificers and barbarians full classes? Because one set has class features that are low impact on the core concept whereas the other set has a major concepts or subsystems that cannot be contained in a subclass. Once you choose rages, half casting, infusions, and invocations, you are putting too much in an idea to have it be anything but its out class or an outside subsystem.

So "Should 5e have more classes?" Designwise, yes but only if you think big. New classes cannot be simple tweaks.

 

[dave2008]

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

Yep, that is what I would like to see. In fact, I think that is what @Morrus should do with LevelUp. Provide just the bare bones classes, but expand the subclass roll and bring it on sooner with more decision points.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Yep, that is what I would like to see. In fact, I think that is what @Morrus should do with LevelUp. Provide just the bare bones classes, but expand the subclass roll and bring it on sooner with more decision points.

While I agree on the surface, I'm afraid subclass choices too soon and too often will basically just make them pseudo-classes anyway. It is a fine line of balance between the two. shrug