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

[Crimson Longinus]

There is a place between "All support, no fight" and "Almost all fight, hardly any support."

Yes, and I feel that by dedicating the whole fighter subclass budget for support (and writing the rules well) we get about equal fight/support split than the clerics do (as they can use their magic for fighting as well as for support, whereas all fight in warlord has to come from their mundane abilities) so that seems like a decent balance for me.

 

[DND_Reborn]

So, you don't want more classes because it would cause you a minor inconvenience. Okay, then. I guess I'll continue homebrewing classes until WotC decides to do their job because certain people in the community don't want to say no to a player.

If that is what you got from my post, I see no point in replying further on the issue... we just won't see eye-to-eye. I'm fine with that and certain you are as well. Happy gaming!

 

[DND_Reborn]

Is it correct to say, you don't want any more clases or subclasses, but if you had to pick you'd much rather have the sub-classes?

Yes, that would be correct.

I'd rather not see more subclasses either, because IMO if you want a certain sort of character, just PLAY them that way. It worked for many, many years in 1E and it still works now. We had people playing "swashbucklers" and "diviners" and "sages" and many others in 1E without needing classes or subclasses for them. Your weapon and armor selection, your spells, your proficiencies (once WSG and DSG came out), etc. all factored in, but also your character's personality, decisions, etc. were more important.

Think of it this way: a lot of people play 5E with the free material WotC offers, which has only one subclass per class, and they have great games and happy players and DMs alike. The game is simpler and your choices, more so than your features, determine who your character is.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Yes, that would be correct.

I'd rather not see more subclasses either, because IMO if you want a certain sort of character, just PLAY them that way. It worked for many, many years in 1E and it still works now. We had people playing "swashbucklers" and "diviners" and "sages" and many others in 1E without needing classes or subclasses for them. Your weapon and armor selection, your spells, your proficiencies (once WSG and DSG came out), etc. all factored in, but also your character's personality, decisions, etc. were more important.

Think of it this way: a lot of people play 5E with the free material WotC offers, which has only one subclass per class, and they have great games and happy players and DMs alike. The game is simpler and your choices, more so than your features, determine who your character is.

Except many character concepts cannot be played within the scope of the current rules.

I once had a player who wanted only 2 things: 1) the ability to end the world with a single thought, 2) for everyone to instantly know he had that power. So we did it. He was an average Joe who could end all existence and everyone he met knew it.

Balanced? No way. He was overpowered and underpowered at the same time.

Fun? Yes.

Did it work out? Absolutely. Everyone enjoyed it.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Yes, and I feel that by dedicating the whole fighter subclass budget for support (and writing the rules well) we get about equal fight/support split than the clerics do (as they can use their magic for fighting as well as for support, whereas all fight in warlord has to come from their mundane abilities) so that seems like a decent balance for me.

It is nothing like equal fight/support split as the cleric. Bear in mind that what you are suggesting, and what we have been telling you doesn't really fit with a full warlord, already exists: the BM fighter with the Commander's Strike, Distracting Strike, Maneuvering Attack and Rally maneuvers.

They are fine as low-end Warlord maneuvers, but while the base fighter has DPS options as powerful as Fighter Extra attacks and Action Surge, there isn't really room in the budget to use these maneuvers more often or get better versions at higher level.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Except many character concepts cannot be played within the scope of the current rules.

I once had a player who wanted only 2 things: 1) the ability to end the world with a single thought, 2) for everyone to instantly know he had that power. So we did it. He was an average Joe who could end all existence and everyone he met knew it.

Balanced? No way. He was overpowered and underpowered at the same time.

Fun? Yes.

Did it work out? Absolutely. Everyone enjoyed it.

Then develop the character. You want a PC who can "end the world", make a wizard who quests to create a world-ending artifact or something.

Why "give" such a PC to a player? Make them work for it.

If you just want to "give" it to them as you did, you don't need a class or subclass for it. You make it part of the story that your god has given you this horrible power and responsibility or something. Now you have what you want and you can have it with ANY class and race.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Then develop the character. You want a PC who can "end the world", make a wizard who quests to create a world-ending artifact or something.

Why "give" such a PC to a player? Make them work for it.

If you just want to "give" it to them as you did, you don't need a class or subclass for it. You make it part of the story that your god has given you this horrible power and responsibility or something. Now you have what you want and you can have it with ANY class and race.

That's only part of the concept. The concept was can anti-matter all of existence that's all. Otherwise the character is no better than an average commoner.

The point is, some concepts need rules. The more rules than increase the breadth of playable concepts, the better. I welcome more options. I may not allow all of them in my game, but I welcome them. I prefer a larger toolbox than a smaller one, even if I don't end up using all of the tools inside.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I prefer a larger toolbox than a smaller one, even if I don't end up using all of the tools inside.

Then to me you wasted your money on a bunch of tools you don't end up using.

But that's fine. Use what you want, buy what you want. It's your game, so enjoy it!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

For my money there's only one real "class-hole" in 5E, and that's Psion/Psionicist.

Warlords are also missing but I don't think they'd fit into 5E's mechanics well and they were always more of a mechanical identity than a conceptual one. Shamans are Druids. Seriously, the 5E Druid lines up much better with what Shamans are portrayed as in mythology and fantasy fiction than they do with Druids from either.

Actually, there is another class-hole - Warden. There's a spell which sort of temporarily turns you into a Warden, but that's a terrible concept, and Ancient Oath Pallies stole a bit of the Warden vibe, but it's still missing, and no class has the subclass space to create an actual Warden, whose key thing is being a frontline fighter with all these vaguely Druidic magical abilities and is centered around a shapeshift (but not into an animal/monster, rather a "more powerful form") deal. However I think it's been chipped away at, niche-wise, by so many classes that we just have to go "LAAAAAAAAAAAME!" at the 5E developers and see it as a lost cause.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Then to me you wasted your money on a bunch of tools you don't end up using.

But that's fine. Use what you want, buy what you want. It's your game, so enjoy it!

Well, I might use them later, as an option in a differently themed world. Either way, D&D is a super cheep hobby. I'm not too worried about it.