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

[THEMNGMNT]

I definitely believe 5E could use a full gish, aka the Swordmage, likely built on a the Paladin frame. A warlord could probably be a Fighter subclass, but I'm also open to it being a full class. I have no particular opinion on how psionics comes to life. So I think 5E could use just a couple more classes.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I definitely believe 5E could use a full gish, aka the Swordmage, likely built on a the Paladin frame. A warlord could probably be a Fighter subclass, but I'm also open to it being a full class. I have no particular opinion on how psionics comes to life. So I think 5E could use just a couple more classes.

I agree about the full gish. We currently have a few subclasses that kind of function as arcane gishes (swords bards, eldritch knights, hexblades, and bladesingers), but they all kind of fall flat. Eldritch Knights are too much fighter, and not enough mage. Bladesingers are too much caster, not enough melee combatant, and so on. I personally think 5e should have an "arcane paladin" class, similar to Pathfinder's Magus, who can use Spell Strike abilities, and protect themselves with arcane wards.

Warlord could be a Fighter subclass, but we already have a couple subclasses of fighter that kind of could fill that niche (battlemaster and purple dragon knight). I personally would prefer a class who could support others with battle tactics fueled by their Intelligence, but this probably could work as a Fighter subclass.

 

[Charlaquin]

It feels like part of it depends on if the rules make the classes similar in terms of subbing things (4e?) or distinct (3e). If the rules make subbing easy, then grouping in big thematic chunks like you suggest seems nice. If the barbarian has different HD and armor and 5 pages of rage powers, and the ranger gets spells and a huge list of terrains and a few pages on animal companion ... then lumping them with fighter feels inelegant.

That’s why I say the more specific concepts should be on a further down branch. No class should be giving 5 pages of rage powers, thats too specific for what I feel should be under the purview of class. Classes should impart the basic, fundamental structure of the character - things like whether the character gains spells and at what levels. Then subclasses can give more specific features like proficiencies and spell lists. Then more specific features can come from more specific options like spell selection and feats.

Is 5e pretty interchangable? Do a lot of the players who want more classes have their heads back in 3.5?

There are folks who want more classes, for sure. I think the folks who want a unique class for every concept they can think of are mostly playing Pathfinder, but there’s at least demand for a psion class, a warlord, etc. I’m among them when it comes to 5e, but if I had my druthers, 6e would take the sort of branching approach to class design that I describe above.

 

[Helldritch]

I have hesitated between too much and enough. I voted for enough and there I say more than enough?
So far, only psionics have been left out and I personally do not miss them. But I do understand those that want a psionic class so if it is ever done, it should be the last class ever added.

Subclasses is an other matter, but even there, most new subclasses are now tiptoeing on each other's as their roles are either so niche that they work only in certain adventure types or simply encroaches on an other class' role.

The samouraï is a perfect example of what I want to convey. We have had a samurai in 2017. It was built on a battle master chassi and it was more believable and fun to play than the current samouraï we have now... The rogue scout is just encroaching on the ranger's role. And the cavalier... I should simply shut up about that piece of....

On the other hand, some of the subclasses could become more varied and customizable. We have an eldritch knight with the schools of necromancy and transmutation that we called the Necrom knight. It was a one shot, but it was a blast to see it in play.

Yep, we have enough classes as it is.

 

[Mecheon]

There's design space and room for more classes in the game, hence why there's so many homebrew ones

I'm a psion/warlord guy myself, but 'popularity wise' on the homebrew stuff tells me you could probably go ahead with a non-monk fist fighter, a not-Witcher, something along the shaman or witch side of things, and a dedicated gish without too much issue

 

[Minigiant]

Another thing I kinda hoped that 5e would dive in is the idea of natural talent vs trained skill vs granted/borrowed power in the fantasy universe.

You'd have the naturally talented warriors of the barbarian and ranger who have their natural talent focused in a direction and are taught ways to supplement and harness their raw ability. Then you have the trained skilled warriors of the fighter, monk, and warlord who use practiced techniques that could be taught to anyone of decent ability. Finally you'd have the paladin and "arcane paladin" who are given power and then taught to wield it. Or the barbarian/fighter/paladin could be the pure 3 with the ranger, warlord, monk, and "arcane paladin" as hybrids.

We see the strengthening of the trio from 4e to 5e in the arcanists with the sorcerer, wizard, and warlock.

Then there could be a Talented vs Skilled vs Gifted trio for the "skillmonkey" classes. The Rogue exists as the learned "skill user". This opens up the concept of a talented acrobat or dancer class for the naturally dexterous or a super-genius sage class for the mental savants.

----
There are many opening for new classes for 5e. Don't it need them? No. Should it get more classes? Maybe.

5e is almost already at the point where its can't think of completely new ideas for subclasses. It feels to me that 5e is now just squeezing the classes it has for juices within the constraints with just changes of elements, subtypes, sources, and origins. It'll need a new class if it go 5 more years officially.

 

[Vael]

One more, a dedicated Summoner class?

 

[jsaving]

How should one vote if the number of classes is too high but the number of well-designed classes is too low? That view doesn't mesh easily with the design of the poll but reflects how my group feels about 5e.

In particular we'd love to see WotC take a hard look at the bard, druid, ranger, and sorcerer. We think those four in particular need improvement, not because they are "weak" but they lack a unique and important role for which their existing class features are a good fit.

 

[Sacrosanct]

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

The shaman disagrees

 

[Weiley31]

Honestly, I maybe the only one that feels this way, especially with how you can spec the Eldritch Knight and Bard, but the only new class I would really want would be the Duskblade.