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

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

Sure. And I don't allow all classes, let alone all subclasses or races in my settings.

Same problem if you make broad flexible classes and force them into every setting as well.

Yes, except with broad classes it is unlikely that any forcing is needed.

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.

But more specific the classes are more likely it is that they do not fit the tone of your setting and you need to ban more classes.

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.

There are definitely too many caster, specifically arcane ones. Illusionist and enchanter wizards step on the toes of bards, both warlocks and sorcerers are arcane casters imbued with a power by an supernatural entity, the only difference is whether this happened at the birth or later. And more you start to emphasise this difference and focus on the patron aspect of the warlock, more they start to resemble a cleric.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

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

I would remove the warlock. I think selling one's soul to the devil should be something that happens in-game not during character creation.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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

It depends on how big redesign we are talking about here. But if we are not talking about complete overhaul, my first objective would definitely to cull the arcane casters. So combine warlock and sorcerer into one class, (lets call it 'witch') This is a caster who has innate magic that they use intuitively, as opposed to wizards who learn their magic. With subclasses there is crazy amount of super specific bloat too. Like there doesn't need to be four different monk subclasses that all cast different spells or spell-like effects badly. Make one spellcasting monk subclass that can cast spells well and has a good selection of them, Then you can build a shadow-magic monk, blaster monk or a healy monk (or most importantly a mix of them or something else) by selecting appropriate spells. This is in general the sort of broad and flexible approach I would like to see; not every super specific concept needs to have their own bespoke set of inflexible rules when more flexible set of rules could easily cover it and much more.

 

[DND_Reborn]

And the downward spiral occurs! Players get worse and worse on average because
View attachment 126113

You get the Ha-Ha both for the idea and the movie quote selection.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I would remove the warlock. I think selling one's soul to the devil should be something that happens in-game not during character creation.

Ecellent point! That is one thing that bugs me about warlock too. Narratively a wizard or somesuch being tempted by a deal with extraplanar baddies is cool. But mechanically it doesn't really work.

 

[DND_Reborn]

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

Well, first I would get rid of Bard... well, um, just because.

Seriously, though, definitely sorcerer and maybe warlock. I could easily see sorcerer under wizard and warlock as a subclass of cleric maybe?

 

[FrogReaver]

It depends on how big redesign we are talking about here. But if we are not talking about complete overhaul, my first objective would definitely to cull the arcane casters. So combine warlock and sorcerer into one class, (lets call it 'witch') This is a caster who has innate magic that they use intuitively, as opposed to wizards who learn their magic. With subclasses there is crazy amount of super specific bloat too. Like there doesn't need to be four different monk subclasses that all cast different spells or spell-like effects badly. Make one spellcasting monk subclass that can cast spells well and has a good selection of them, Then you can build a shadow-magic monk, blaster monk or a healy monk (or most importantly a mix of them or something else) by selecting appropriate spells. This is in general the sort of broad and flexible approach I would like to see; not every super specific concept needs to have their own bespoke set of inflexible rules when more flexible set of rules could easily cover it and much more.

I think the crux of this issue is, you are answering a different question - "how many classes should be in a ideally designed 5e" vs "how many classes should be in 5e as 5e exists today".

I'm going out on a limb here and going to say that there are very few that want to see classes removed from the 5e that exists today. They instead don't want 5e as it exists today.

So when I ask which classes should be removed and your first go to clarification is talking about a complete overhaul then we are on different pages and nothing good will come of us continuing to communicate that way.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think the crux of this issue is, you are answering a different question - "how many classes should be in a ideally designed 5e" vs "how many classes should be in 5e as 5e exists today".

I'm going out on a limb here and going to say that there are very few that want to see classes removed from the 5e that exists today. They instead don't want 5e as it exists today.

So when I ask which classes should be removed and your first go to clarification is talking about a complete overhaul then we are on different pages and nothing good will come of us continuing to communicate that way.

And this was my 'not complete overhaul' answer. So I guess this is what I would do for some sort of 5.5. as opposed to 6th edition. Merge warlock and sorcerer, redesign a lot of the subclasses. And if the only reason you're keeping a class is because it would be inconvenient to remove it at this point then you really don't want to have that class.

 

[FrogReaver]

I would remove the warlock. I think selling one's soul to the devil should be something that happens in-game not during character creation.

Just curious - Should the bard going off to bard college and the wizard having went through wizard school and the fighter going off to train in martial combat and the rogue learning his thieving also happen in-game and not in character creation?

What I'm trying to get at is, what is it about that particular power source that makes you want to actually treat it different than the others - because I believe the same criticism you made could be levied against most any class.

 

[FrogReaver]

And this was my 'not complete overhaul' answer. So I guess this is what I would do for some sort of 5.5. as opposed to 6th edition. Merge warlock and sorcerer, redesign a lot of the subclasses. And if the only reason you're keeping a class is because it would be inconvenient to remove it at this point then you really don't want to have that class.

Can I get your no overhaul at all answer? Should any classes we have today be straight up cut from 5e?