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

[Dr Magister]

Your classification is pretty arbitrary. Monk as subclass of cleric? I know some monk subclasses cast spells, but vanilla monk certainly doesn't.

Granted. Monk should probably be a subclass of fighter, or possibly even rogue.

 

[FrogReaver]

Thing is that making things into separate classes often needs to adding pointless spells and whistles that detract from the flavour rather than add to it. Paladin is an good example of this. As it has gotten more divergent from the fighter, more ridiculous it has become.

I actually think the 5e Paladin is one of the most well designed and most thematic classes in all of 5e.

Yes. Most definitely yes. And you don't need to get all your superpowers at early levels. I think in particularly in the case of paladins it will be far more compelling if they just start out as pretty mundane devout knights and as they progress they start to gain more divine favour (without at any point becoming full computer-gamey discolight-emitting magic-beings.)

I'd think that the overall design of 5e necessitates that most class defining features need obtained early, between levels 1-3.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I'd think that the overall design of 5e necessitates that most class defining features need obtained early, between levels 1-3.

You can have a weapon, armour, faith and uncompromising attitude at level one. So paladin is good to go.

 

[Dr Magister]

As a sort of aside, the free basic rules for 5e just have the Champion Fighter, Life Cleric, Thief Rogue and Evoker Wizard, and you can run a perfectly good game using just those classes and the different backgrounds. For me, a STR-based fighter with the Acolyte background is thematically close enough to a Paladin, and a DEX-based fighter with the Outlander background is virtually (and some would say better than) a Ranger.

The Essentials set expands that to include the Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster, War Cleric and Illusionist (I think?) Wizard, and adds the Bard plus two subclasses. And again that seems like plenty to be getting on with.

 

[FrogReaver]

Another aspect is spreading both the flavour and mechanics too thinly. Warlock and Sorcerer have enough fluff and interesting mechanics between them to make a one solid and thematically coherent class. But instead we got two half-arsed and thematically confused ones.

Mechanically I think that's possible. Thematically I'm not as sure. Being born with innate power vs making a pact for power are pretty divergent concepts. I'm not sure it would have made sense for the subclass to say: "pick a pact or a bloodline, regardless of which you picked you get the following features". Because of that I really think you've got to have unique pact features which really pushes them toward a separate class instead of a combined one.

IMO, The sorcerers problem is one of bad design. If early on they had removed metamagic and gave more powerful and thematic bloodline features I think it would have worked better. Maybe give each it's own subclass specific bloodline metamagic ability.

I actually don't think warlocks have any major mechanical or thematic issues. The only issue I've seen cited is that some would prefer the pact stuff to be fully in game. Personally I think you can have both the class and in game pacts being offered to other players.

I'm really not seeing the fluff/thematic reason to try and combine warlock and sorcerer?

 

[FrogReaver]

You can have a weapon, armour, faith and uncompromising attitude at level one. So paladin is good to go.

So can a peasent

 

[jmartkdr2]

As a sort of aside, the free basic rules for 5e just have the Champion Fighter, Life Cleric, Thief Rogue and Evoker Wizard, and you can run a perfectly good game using just those classes and the different backgrounds. For me, a STR-based fighter with the Acolyte background is thematically close enough to a Paladin, and a DEX-based fighter with the Outlander background is virtually (and some would say better than) a Ranger.

The Essentials set expands that to include the Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster, War Cleric and Illusionist (I think?) Wizard, and adds the Bard plus two subclasses. And again that seems like plenty to be getting on with.

You certainly can play with just those four - but I'm not sure it makes the game any better to remove the other options and only allow those four.

 

[FrogReaver]

As a sort of aside, the free basic rules for 5e just have the Champion Fighter, Life Cleric, Thief Rogue and Evoker Wizard, and you can run a perfectly good game using just those classes and the different backgrounds.

The question of what should be a class has no bearing on the question of how many classes are needed to play the game.

For me, a STR-based fighter with the Acolyte background is thematically close enough to a Paladin, and a DEX-based fighter with the Outlander background is virtually (and some would say better than) a Ranger.

Ranger has a bit of an identity crises so I won't argue there.
Paladin though has a fairly established D&D identity, lay on hands, spells, auras. While I can play a religious fighter, or even a fighter that takes an oath, and I can even call myself a Paladin, that's not enough to be a Paladin in D&D terms.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Mechanically I think that's possible. Thematically I'm not as sure. Being born with innate power vs making a pact for power are pretty divergent concepts. I'm not sure it would have made sense for the subclass to say: "pick a pact or a bloodline, regardless of which you picked you get the following features". Because of that I really think you've got to have unique pact features which really pushes them toward a separate class instead of a combined one.

IMO, The sorcerers problem is one of bad design. If early on they had removed metamagic and gave more powerful and thematic bloodline features I think it would have worked better. Maybe give each it's own subclass specific bloodline metamagic ability.

I actually don't think warlocks have any major mechanical or thematic issues. The only issue I've seen cited is that some would prefer the pact stuff to be fully in game. Personally I think you can have both the class and in game pacts being offered to other players.

I'm really not seeing the fluff/thematic reason to try and combine warlock and sorcerer?

Warlocks and Sorcerers are both charisma based casters whose thing is a thematic link to some great supernatural being. Quibbling about whether that being is your boss or a relative seems rather pointless. And there could be all sort of other variants that do not neatly fall into either category. Like how about some sect of warlocks/sorcerers who get imbued with demonic power by consuming blood of demons in ritualistic manner or something like that. Or a person who got imbued with power in a magical accident. Just make one solid 'imbued with magic' class that can cover all of these concepts. No need to have duplicates for fae pact/fae ancestry, dragon pact/dragon ancestry etc. And in general I'd wish move away from warlock's thing just being that they have some supernatural master who funnels magical power to them, because certainly that's just a cleric?

 

[Minigiant]

Thing is that making things into separate classes often needs to adding pointless spells and whistles that detract from the flavour rather than add to it. Paladin is an good example of this. As it has gotten more divergent from the fighter, more ridiculous it has become.

Actually it's the other way around. Making things into subclasss often needs to adding pointless spells and whistles.

For example a paladin subclass would need

1. a divine sense spell
2. a smite spell
3. a lay on hands spell

just to get working.
Turning a warlock or sorcerer into a wizard subclass would mean a whole lot of spells and feats to copy their class features.