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

[WayOfTheFourElements]

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.

Maybe they should rebrand to Clerics of the Coast.

 

[jmartkdr2]

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.

I can see that working, but I would expect that in practice it would just move the taxonomy around, rather than make a real improvement.

Whether it's 'warlock > hexblade' or 'mage > warlock > hexblade' isn't a meaningful distinction, IMO.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

There are are already too many classes and many subclasses are needlessly niche and specific. There should be fewer classes and then further differentiation happens via subclasses, many of which could be more broad and flexible than they're now. Every class and subclass should be thematically clear while at same time not being so specific that it is hard to plug into any setting.

 

[imeannoharm]

Maybe they should rebrand to Clerics of the Coast.

Caretakers of the Coast.

 

[Minigiant]

There are are already too many classes and many subclasses are needlessly niche and specific. There should be fewer classes and then further differentiation happens via subclasses, many of which could be more broad and flexible than they're now. Every class and subclass should be thematically clear while at same time not being so specific that it is hard to plug into any setting.

Actually I don't think DMs and worldbuilders should be forced to allow every class and subclass in their settings.

If there are more base classes with bigger mechanical hooks then DMs and WBs can exclude classes while still offering players a wide array of options to attract their interests.

"Fewer Classes" to me is antithetical to "Unique settings".

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Actually I don't think DMs and worldbuilders should be forced to allow every class and subclass in their settings.

Sure. But I still feel that some classes and subclasses are weirdly specific.

If there are more base classes with bigger mechanical hooks then DMs and WBs can exclude classes while still offering players a wide array of options to attract their interests.

"Fewer Classes" to me is antithetical to "Unique settings".

I don't think that setting uniqueness comes from classes, and broader, more flexible classes are suitable for a bigger range of settings.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Actually I don't think DMs and worldbuilders should be forced to allow every class and subclass in their settings.

If there are more base classes with bigger mechanical hooks then DMs and WBs can exclude classes while still offering players a wide array of options to attract their interests.

"Fewer Classes" to me is antithetical to "Unique settings".

Agreed. I'm in the process building a new world right now (getting a little tired of running my "everyone's an ass hole campaign). This world is inspired by the works of Jack Vance's Lyonesse, Edmund Spencer's The Faerie Queen, Ovid's Metamorphosis, and the philosophical words of Thomas Aquinas, Plato, and Aristotle. As such, I have my players' racial options to humans only (standard version), so I'm glad and I can at least offer them a wide variety of classes and sub-classes to choose from.

 

[Minigiant]

Sure. But I still feel that some classes and subclasses are weirdly specific.

To me that's fine.

I don't think that setting uniqueness comes from classes, and broader, more flexible classes are suitable for a bigger range of settings.

It doesn't. I think forcing your setting to include all 13 classes and all 50+ subclasses makes your setting less unique and more like another setting with the knobs turned and names changed. Same problem if you make broad flexible classes and force them into every setting as well.

However if you shrink the base number from the start, you have less leeway to ban tweeak and remove as you leave fewer options for players and might lose them.

5e is more or less close to the sweet spot. If it had 1 or2 nonspellcasters with some big mechanics, it wouuld be right where DMs and WBs could feel empowered to remove without scaring people off.

 

[FrogReaver]

These are the main classes I want officially, in no particular order:

• Occultist (Witch class)
• Magus/Swordmage (Arcane Martial Half-Caster, similar to paladin, with spell-striking abilities)
• Runemage
• Shaman
• Blood Hunter
• Psion

Other than this, I don't want a lot more classes. These are some niches of play that need filling, and cannot be filled in a satisfactory way as a subclass.

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...

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.



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.

EK is a late bloomer. Get 1 to be able to cast 3rd level shadow blades and it’s a huge portion of the class power.

 

[FrogReaver]

When people say we have too many classes in 5e, which would they want to see removed?