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

[Hatmatter]

Do you have any logical argument to support that statement? Why do you think it's better if there are multiple ways to model the same character concept, rather than just one?

Variety, for one. Each different model will have a different emphasis or flavor into which a player may lean when role-playing. I am not seeing the problem here. It is a fun game as is, why are we wanting to change it...so that there is only one possible way to create a Drizzit character? And, in exchange for that hypothetical situation, we have many players who miss having a ranger class? Or a paladin class? Or a barbarian class? I think the game seems to be pretty fun for those who like to play D&D and, the beauty of the game is that homebrewing it is quite easy. So, any DM who cares to (at least in a private game at home) can disallow classes if he or she is so inclined.

 

[Maxperson]

A rose by any other name would still swing a sword and wear medium armor.

But without Barbarian and Ranger abilities.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

There aren't, though. There's only one way to make a ranger, and that is the actual ranger class. Other classes or combinations of classes might work for something functionally similar (but not the exact same), and in 5e will likely work better mechanically since the ranger class itself is a mess, but it still isn't a ranger.

If my character has a bow and two short swords, and is skilled in the ways of nature and stealth, then that's a ranger in absolutely every way that matters. If you refuse to acknowledge that, then that's on you, but it isn't a rational position to hold.

 

[Maxperson]

Regardless of how many are in which camp, that's not evidence for which side is acting rationally. If you want to claim that it actually makes sense to have three different ways of modeling the same ranger, then you need to address that argument directly.

There aren't three different ways, though. All three of those are different, so it's an absolute fact that they would model that same ranger differently, making it not the same ranger.

 

[Gladius Legis]

If we only had 4-5 classes everything we have today would likely still be there and just jammed into/onto those classes as subclasses/kits/hybrids or whatever.

Maybe. Although it wouldn't be very satisfactory. A class that used to have a very narrow concept like the Paladin, for example, has been successfully expanded to encompass a decent swath of design space. I really would not want to see that narrowed back down to a Fighter or Cleric subclass like some seem to want.

 

[Maxperson]

If there are three ways to model Drizzt, then there's room to argue about which way is "most accurate to the books" or "most powerful" compared to the others. If there's one way to model Drizzt, then there's no argument.

If avoiding arguments is the reason why you want to cut down classes, then you have a seriously weak argument. Who cares if people want to argue over it. Let them. Better to allow three people to model a ranger how they want, then to gimp two out of three of them just so that YOU don't have to see them argue about which way is best.

 

[Gladius Legis]

If my character has a bow and two short swords, and is skilled in the ways of nature and stealth, then that's a ranger in absolutely every way that matters.

No, it's not. It's something else that managed to take those skills and can do some of the same things as a ranger might, but it is not a ranger.

If you refuse to acknowledge that, then that's on you, but it isn't a rational position to hold.

No, it's not a rational position to favor arbitrarily discarding a long-standing character class because its existence offends your subjective sensibilities.

 

[Maxperson]

Let's not.

They already have. All subclasses are, are prestige classes with a different name that you have to take. You go into it at 1st to 3rd level and it gives your base class a new flavor and abilities as you level, just like prestige classes did. It just does so with different mechanics, since you get some base class abilities mixed in.

 

[Maxperson]

If my character has a bow and two short swords, and is skilled in the ways of nature and stealth, then that's a ranger in absolutely every way that matters.

Leave your one true way at home. You don't get to decide which ways matter for anyone other than yourself.

If you refuse to acknowledge that, then that's on you, but it isn't a rational position to hold.

Or call them irrational for not following your one true way.

 

[Mecheon]

If my character has a bow and two short swords, and is skilled in the ways of nature and stealth, then that's a ranger in absolutely every way that matters. If you refuse to acknowledge that, then that's on you, but it isn't a rational position to hold.

Except if he's a pre-Legion Warcraft Survival or Marksmanship hunter. And heck, even under the current field of "Ranger" there's rangers that wouldn't fill this. Heck knows a Monster Hunter works better just with a ranged weapon than bothering with melee for example.

If you shove too many together into a single class, you lose a lot of that flavour people want to keep. Its why Barbarian's staying 'barbarian' rather than 'oh, you use a weapon, guess we're just stripping all of that away and shoving you into fighter again'. Look at psion as well to see how that's going, with people not wanting it to be a sub-class but instead its own class, like previous editions.