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

[NotAYakk]

I think we should go back to the days of traditional D&D and none of this newfangled stuff.

We need a SirFang Vampire class.

I mean, it predates the Cleric.

ORIGINALIST D&D IS BEST D&D.

Also a superhero class. (8th level fighting-men where called superheros, if I remember rightly).

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Artificers say hello.

Ah, forgot a word on that "martial". Artificers aren't gish, Rangers and Paladins are Gish. Artificers are spell-focused arcane half casters, not martial focused ones.

 

[Crit]

There should only be two more: the Psion and the Warlord. Other that those two, no.

give me psionics
I need it

Edit:
To actually give an opinion on the topic of Psionics, I really think they're fun and I adore the far realm and Aberrations general connection to the topic. Tasha's Cauldron of Everything gave a lot on the surface level, but I can't help but think that there could be more. I don't know how to describe what I want other than "more". Aberrant Mind is okay for satisfying this theme, but Soul Knife and Psi Warrior are kind of letting me down. If nothing else, there's a lot of UA and Homebrew stuff out there but I would adore a class with new fundamental mechanics to execute the idea.

If anyone has recommendations for Psionic 5e stuff, I'd appreciate it.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

give me psionics
I need it

I agree. The stuff in Tasha's wasn't psionics. That was pretend psionics for newbies. I want/need real psionics.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

It's been awhile since this thread was started, and of the 4 categories, the single biggest category that was voted for was the "Yes, we should have more [Classes]" category. However, if you combine the "The current amount is good" and "We currently have too many classes" categories, it is clear that of the people who answered this survey, the majority of them don't think 5e should have more classes.

(The smallest category was the undecideds.)

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I agree. The stuff in Tasha's wasn't psionics. That was pretend psionics for newbies. I want/need real psionics.

I hate to break this to you, but D&D is all pretend. There is no real psionics.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I hate to break this to you, but D&D is all pretend. There is no real psionics.

You can lower your patronizing tone, I am aware of that. By "real psionics", I mean that they should make a real system (at least a class) for psionics.

 

[Mecheon]

However, if you combine the "The current amount is good" and "We currently have too many classes" categories, it is clear that of the people who answered this survey, the majority of them don't think 5e should have more classes.

I'd argue we could instead take the 'Too many classes' group and instead have them as 'we need to look at how classes are mechanically separated', considering that's the group who've oft said 'Strap like 90% of the classes into fighter'

Are they saying 'no new classes' or 'we need to reinvent how classes are portrayed' which could be construed as allowing for certain new classes in certain circumstances?

 

[Minigiant]

It's been awhile since this thread was started, and of the 4 categories, the single biggest category that was voted for was the "Yes, we should have more [Classes]" category. However, if you combine the "The current amount is good" and "We currently have too many classes" categories, it is clear that of the people who answered this survey, the majority of them don't think 5e should have more classes.

(The smallest category was the undecideds.)

But if you combine "Yes, we should have more" and "the current amount is good" ittotal is even larger and is more clear that 5e shouldn't have less classes and that the vast majority believe every current class fills a D&D fantasy niche enough to belong.

Combine the statements together and you get that a lot of people thing some sort of class might be missing but very few agree on what that missing class is. Or in simpler terms, there is a minority opinion of pulling any 5e class down to a subclass or pulling any subclass up to a full class.

If WOTC goes off our opinions, the official "core" class roster will never change. They would have to just make new classes and force the idea onto us like they and TSR have done in the past.

 

[Crit]

I'd argue we could instead take the 'Too many classes' group and instead have them as 'we need to look at how classes are mechanically separated', considering that's the group who've oft said 'Strap like 90% of the classes into fighter'

Are they saying 'no new classes' or 'we need to reinvent how classes are portrayed' which could be construed as allowing for certain new classes in certain circumstances?

I think some sort of fundamental restructuring would be beneficial. If there's a way to reduce redundancy while giving a broader scope of possible game play features, I'd be happy.

I think Warlock is an interesting example, here. You have the subclasses (patrons) and then larger archetypes (Tome, Blade, Chain, etc.) I could see Fighter being a class, and a barbarian's rage being an archetype like Pact of Blade, and then maybe Paladin stuff could be a set of subclasses and a pact of Tome.

If doing something like that gives us more fundamentally different classes, I think that would be interesting. I'm not well informed on the matter, so I wouldn't take my proposition too seriously.