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

[Minigiant]

Okay, but then so do Rangers, Paladins and Barbarians. I mean, if Eldritch Knights fits under a fighting man classification, then so do those classes.

They fit under the classification of the old "Fighting Man" to the modern "Fighter".

That's the difference. Fighting Man isn't a PC class anymore. It's NPC claass.

 

[Maxperson]

1) Not really. That's the point. The class contains 75-90% of a class' power.
You could totally skip subclass and it would function fine. If you really wanted it to match up with the baseline you could replace subclass with +1 to an ability score.

2) 5e classes aren't complete until level 3.

You think 75-90% of the Eldritch Knights power comes from the non-spellcasting base fighter? You think that Maneuvers are only 10-25% of the Battle Master's combat ability?

The base "fighter" is vanilla milk toast. There's nothing there to define it. Not even Action Surge is a defining ability, and it's the best of the three purely base fighter abilities.

They fit under the classification of the old "Fighting Man" to the modern "Fighter".

That's the difference. Fighting Man isn't a PC class anymore. It's NPC claass.

I'm not using it as a PC class. "Fighter" is just short form for a man who fights, or fighting man classification. If we're classifying men who fight as fighters, then the Ranger, Barbarian and Paladin classes need to go. Those are all just variations of men who fight.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

We are to laugh a lot if the gladiator is the new base class in the next Dark Sun player's handbook, as a hybrid between monk and warrior, without armour but shields and and manicas(armguards). Subclasses for gladiator? easy, the kits from gladiator handbook 2nd Ed.

Why to play with a no-core class? Because classes are as mark of identity, and using a no-core class is to feel your PC is different, special. Why do you want to wear different clothing to show you are from certain urban tribe?

Why not knight/cavalier can't be a base class if Paizo did it?

Why not to add new characters if teoricaly Avengers or Justice League have just got enough superheroes?

And we shouldn't worry about too many base classes if only appear one each two or three years.

* Sometimes I think warlord will appear in a future Birthright handbook, and this setting together with a strategy videogame.

* I imagine the shaman as a mixture of summoner and shifter classes by Pathfinder, and the incarnum totemist, somebody who summon "collectable monster pets" whose monster traits can be personalized by means of incarnum soulmelds. The way to summon different totem spirits would be a game mechanic close to the vestige pact magic.

* The keys to design a base class:

• Right power balance, of course.
• Fun gameplay. An example of failure is the psychic enervation by the psionic wilder. To bet or risk some pps for a metapsionic effect wasn't interesting. This could be fixed by Dreamscarred Press with the optional penalties, for example to be dazed.
• Interesting concept. A class should be recognizable in a fiction title (novel or comic) without gameplay at all. Soulborn and incarnate from magic of incarnum are two example of boring ideas, too close to paladin and no LG variants.

* I would give a new opportunity to magic of incarnum, but not yet, and it should to start from zero, and simple mechanics to can be used with nPCs.

 

[Li Shenron]

Okay, this is a simple question, but should bring about a larger discussion in general about 5e. When D&D 5e was first released 6 years ago, there were 12 official classes. Now, there are only 13 official classes (with 3 more simpler ones coming out in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything). By the end of the year, there should be 13 full D&D 5e classes and 3 sidekick classes. This raises a question, are there enough classes in D&D 5e, or should there be more? Please answer the poll, and explain below.

Personally I am not much interested. 8-12 classes are my sweet range in a RPG, and 5e is already stretched to my comfort limit. If they could make new classes significantly different from the others in both concept and mechanics then sure why not adding a couple more, but I certainly don't think there's a particular need for that, and the Artificer absolutely didn't seem a good addition to me.

Simplified/generic and sidekick classes are another matter. Which I hate with a greater passion, to be honest.

 

[Minigiant]

You think 75-90% of the Eldritch Knights power comes from the non-spellcasting base fighter? You think that Maneuvers are only 10-25% of the Battle Master's combat ability?

For the EK it's close to 90%

1/3 caster? your evocations never threaten level appropriate enemies. Your abjurations do little at the levels you get them as well.
Canrips? The only thing good about EKs
Weapon Bond? Ribbon
War Magic? A buff to the only thing goodabout EKs: cantrips
Eldritch strike? Your attack spells suck when you get them so...
Arcane Charge? Buff to base fighter feature
Imp War Magic? Your attack spells suck when you get them so...

EKs, Chmpions, and Battlemasters are fighter first. That's why you say...

The base "fighter" is vanilla milk toast. There's nothing there to define it. Not even Action Surge is a defining ability, and it's the best of the three purely base fighter abilities.

I feel people are looking at the image and not the mechanics and play. The EKs in the game I DM and the game I play both sparingly use their spell slots as they have little impact. Our Battlemaster is know more for his Action Surge and Second Wind over his dice and maneuvers.

I'm not using it as a PC class. "Fighter" is just short form for a man who fights, or fighting man classification. If we're classifying men who fight as fighters, then the Ranger, Barbarian and Paladin classes need to go. Those are all just variations of men who fight.

But this discussing is about classes.
Man who fights isn't a class.
If you attempt to put Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger, and Paladin under "Man who fights" as a subclass, you are just renaming class to subclass.

Should 5e have more classes? Maybe. Not every big concept, fantasy adventurer archeype is in 5e as of now officially.
What 5e doesn't need it big concepts shoehorned into subclasses or simple archetypes spread into full classes. I don't think 6e needs that either.

 

[Stalker0]

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

This. I don’t mind classes if they truly expand on the design space with something truly brand new. For example, late 3e experiments with concepts like:

a class based around auras that you could switch at will.

Aka something completely outside the box from what we have now.

the warlord for example. I personally think you could make a perfectly good warlord from a battle master with a few new good maneuvers (heck there already a few that get you most of the way). But if WotC gave me a class that was highly different from the fighter (aka not a fighter with a few party buffs)...then i could make room for the class.

I will also say, a new caster that just has their own spell list is not enough, they truly need to use magic differently to make the cut.

 

[dave2008]

For me, if class in't a separate 1-20 thing that you add onto like 3e did with class and prestige class, then it isn't a class at all. If you yank out the subclass in 5e, you have a broken thing that can't function effectively in the game. Class doesn't really exist.

Ahh, but this isn't about you now is it

 

[imeannoharm]

Okay, this is a simple question, but should bring about a larger discussion in general about 5e. When D&D 5e was first released 6 years ago, there were 12 official classes. Now, there are only 13 official classes (with 3 more simpler ones coming out in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything). By the end of the year, there should be 13 full D&D 5e classes and 3 sidekick classes. This raises a question, are there enough classes in D&D 5e, or should there be more? Please answer the poll, and explain below.

5e needs to put more focus on monster abilities. The more options PCs have, the easier it is for them to kill puny monsters that are supposed to be a challenge. Gygax wasn’t afraid to kill PCs. Wizards wants to keep them alive.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Gygax wasn’t afraid to kill PCs. Wizards wants to keep them alive.

So true!

 

[imeannoharm]

So true!

And the downward spiral occurs! Players get worse and worse on average because