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

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I agree.
I find that many pople in many fan communities put theirown wants over what is good for the subject itself.

I'm not a fan of constantly adding morespells and magic items to D&D but I understand that it is needed for 5e D&D to stay alive. Because if 5e gets dull and stagnates, it dies and 6e comes to restart us from scratch.

New classes help 5e live. However only if they areoriginal and give new experiences.
And that's the double edge. The classes that will keep 5e alive will appeal to the new and not the old. Because if it appealed to the old, it would be in the game by now.

And that's what this whole 30page discussion kinda boils down to.
If you have everything you want, you don't see the appeal of new classes.

As a salesman myself, I naturally come from the other side. New product mean new customers or more spent by less enthusiastic customers mean more money means business plan lives longer.

That's why most of my suggestion have be for classes that have been in 0-1 editions. 5e should have more classes to bring in more players and dms to keep it alive.

I agree. Whenever I discuss this with a group of players, a player that's been around for longer will come along and say something along the lines of "that's not D&D, don't bring that into the game" or "you're not allowed to add to D&D, it wasn't here before," which always baffled me. There are archetypes to D&D that have been there since the beginning, Fighting Person, Magic User, Thief, and other classes. If that didn't exist in D&D for 40 years, it's not allowed in the game, from what I've been told.

D&D has to change. D&D has to grow. It is good to keep the elements from previous editions, and it's also good to be cautious when adding a change/new aspect to the game. I understand that humans have a phobia of new things, and it gets stronger as you get older, but seriously, the game won't be destroyed by adding an arcane gish class, an occultist, a psion, or warlord. If D&D becomes static, it will never change, and the hobby will die. People may not stop playing it, but WotC might stop making money, and editions might stop.

That is not to say we should go overboard and add a bunch of unneeded classes. I don't want that. Class bloat is a problem, and can destroy an edition, as has happened before. But, we can add more without killing the hobby. IMHO, we should add more. The general D&D community likes the Artificer, what would make another class not be widely accepted or popular? If it's well designed, thoroughly playtested and introduced to the community through the UA, added to improve the game, we should not be scared of adding more classes.

 

[Weiley31]

Arcane and Divine get to be different... ::::

Primal and Psionics are different too.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Primal and Psionics are different too.

And there are different classes for each of those. There's 3 arcane casters that can cast 9th level spells, there is one 9th level divine caster, and one 9th level primal caster. They're different classes, so even if you don't agree that psionics should be a different system than spellcasting (which I do), it should be its own class.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

A new class each two or three years can't be bad for the game.

 

[Minigiant]

I agree. Whenever I discuss this with a group of players, a player that's been around for longer will come along and say something along the lines of "that's not D&D, don't bring that into the game" or "you're not allowed to add to D&D, it wasn't here before," which always baffled me. There are archetypes to D&D that have been there since the beginning, Fighting Person, Magic User, Thief, and other classes. If that didn't exist in D&D for 40 years, it's not allowed in the game, from what I've been told.

I think part of it is reinforcement. There are plenty of D&D clones out there so those who have what they want are bombarded with rpgs, books, movies, tvs hows, and games that feature the same D&D classes in stale and less nuanced ways. There is litterally less exposure to other ideas as there is a market catering to the old.

But if you look at modern video gaming, since profit is paramount and a wide net can get more sales, you see video games with more tinkers, alchemists, psion/mentalists, witches, arcane warriors, witchers, shapeshifters and the list. Almost every RPG video game launches with at least 5 classes/paths and adds more in expansions and sequels.

Games, tabletop, board, and video, that have narrow focuses and strong but rigid narrritives and simulation tend to be more indie and small. D&D ispast that point and can't shrink back to it.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I find it interesting that people think adding a couple classes now and again will help keep 5E appealing when you consider how long 1E ran (about 10 years or so) with only the Unearthed Arcana (which was hardly universally well received--I mean the book literally fell apart LOL! ) which added Cavalier, Barbarian, and Thief-Acrobat. But it was seven years before it was released IIRC.

Of those, only the Barbarian made it to 5E through the editions run. We now also have Bards (different from the 1E version), Sorcerers and Warlocks, both of which people seem to like but many people say are not fully developed or whatever. A number of people even talk about how much better it would be to combine them. A fair number of people have asked for revision to Rangers and even Monks.

So, they added the Artificer. Meh Some people like it, others don't. No surprise there. Personally, I think it is OP, but a lot of people like a more intense game-style. I didn't buy the book for it.

Anyway, after several hundred posts the only good thing I can say is this: any new classes will come in supplemental books. I probably won't buy them and don't feel the need for the classes. As a DM I'll have to tell players they can't use them in my games. Oh, well. shrug When 6E comes out, maybe they will have 20 classes or something ridiculous like that... But depending on the rest of the system, I might or might not buy that either. Maybe they will finally adopt the game to something completely different and revolutionary? We'll see.

But, I feel it is time for me to unwatch this thread. Time to move on. I'll conclude by saying that for the people who want them, I hope the new classes at least are designed well enough to make you happy. Cheers.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think artificer is a distinct enough of a concept that it works as its own class. It doesn't suit all setting though, but with this many classes its not a huge problem.

 

[Essafah]

I voted yes because I want to see psionic classes versus psionics being a path for existing classes (though at this point I will be happy if we get psionics at all. Beggars can't be choosers I guess), and an official warlord class.

 

[Cadence]

I find it interesting that people think adding a couple classes now and again will help keep 5E appealing when you consider how long 1E ran (about 10 years or so) with only the Unearthed Arcana (which was hardly universally well received--I mean the book literally fell apart LOL! ) which added Cavalier, Barbarian, and Thief-Acrobat. But it was seven years before it was released IIRC.

For 1e did Dragon provide a steady stream of potential new ideas that folks could suggest to their DMs (kind of like the UA things do now) and often include variant classes (Archer, alignment paladins, bounty hunter, ninja, etc...). Did that scratch a lot of the new class itch?

 

[Essafah]

For 1e did Dragon provide a steady stream of potential new ideas that folks could suggest to their DMs (kind of like the UA things do now) and often include variant classes (Archer, alignment paladin's, bounty hunter, ninja, etc...). Did that scratch a lot of the new class itch?

Yes it did. Also while I started playing D&D in 2E and not 1st I don't think comparing games now or rather what audiences were willing to accept in early versions of D&D to modern audiences is wise because game design has changed so much and competition was more limited at that time vs. now. As an example, race wise in the 1E PHB you had dwarves, elves, gnomes, half-elves, halflings, half-orcs and humans with no subtypes and class level limits opposed to certain races. I dare say while there are retroclones that seek to emulate 1E and OSR gaming has a dedicated and appreciative fan base this is not a standard most gamers would accept today.

People like variety and choices. Early D&D I greatly appreciate. It was the granddaddy that started the RPG market but because it was that it had the advantage of having an audience/market with more limited demands because it created the market. As time has gone on people want and have come to expect more choices as the norm. Take the warlord. While it was technically introduced in the Miniatures Handbook for 3E it really didn't gain an identity as a class until it was put into the 4E PHB as a core class. Yet people are clamoring for a version of it now and 5E while not officially releasing it has martial paths like the Purple Dragon Knight and Battlemaster that gives nods to it despite it being a relatively new class concept historically speaking. We can also look at races like Dragonborn and Tiefling which are overall relatively new editions to D&D being introduced in 3E but again mainly gaining an identity in 4th. Yet while technically optional in the 5E PHB every campaign or game I have played in has them as a viable option....meaning folks have accepted them by and large.

So I think the more options presented including classes and paths the better. I am also really looking forward to Tasha's and how it deconstructs racial selection opening up even more options (hopefully). I do agree with what I think the subtext of @dnd4vr 's point is which is there is no need to rush out new classes but really take time and make sure the classes are well designed. It would be nice to have some official psionics though as the 5E has been out since 2014.