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

[Undrave]

Because they all share common features that are easier to build upon a common class.

Just repeat those common feature then? It's not like Extra Attacks and Expertise and Fighting Styles don't already repeat... If you just make narrow classes you can have your flavor right from level 1 and you can focus on the fluff more fully. No more 'is it weird my Rogue suddenly learns Nature skill when they become a scout at level 3?' or 'My Fighter suddenly learns Magic'. You'd start with it at level 1.

Heck, if I had the time to put into it I'd remake 5e where you pick from narrow classes for level 1 to 10, and then pick a Paragon/Elite Class for level 11 to 20. Classes would have only a few choices and wouldn't allow multi classing.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Just repeat those common feature then?

Why not repeat spell descriptions then and have a better organized spell sections?

Because repeating too much was obviously a concern in the product cost.

As far as having your flavor right some level one, why bother? Characters are meant to grow into themselves, not just start that way. If you want to start out that way, start at higher levels (like a lot of people do when they start at level 3).

Heck, if I had the time to put into it I'd remake 5e where you pick from narrow classes for level 1 to 10, and then pick a Paragon/Elite Class for level 11 to 20. Classes would have only a few choices and wouldn't allow multi classing.

I'd be ok with that.

 

[Maxperson]

In 5E, if you are a bow weapon master, you have Archery fighting style. That other fighter with the same level and DEX is not just as good as you unless they also are a bow weapon master (or at least a "ranged" weapon master ).

Any Tom, Dick or Fighter can also have that style. It does not represent mastery. It represents some training.

Maybe it is better for you, but not for me. It makes the game too much about the character instead of the adventure and what choices they make in the story.

This just isn't true. Not the part about it not being better for you, but rather the part about it being about the character instead of the adventure and choices. My prestige classed bow weapon master makes every bit as many and as important choices during an adventure as your basic fighter who just plays at being a bow master. I'm just making those important choices as a real bow weapon master.

Earlier someone mentioned the mini-game of character creation (and leveling also really) which I think you dismissed? (Sorry if that wasn't you, but I think it was?).

No, that was me. In 3e where you had hundreds if not thousands of feats to pick from at first level, classes, prestige classes, more feats if you were human, skills to put points into, etc., it could be called a min-game at character creation. In 5e there is no mini-game. You just choose race and class and you are done. Adding extra classes and sub-classes doesn't change that noticeably.

I can't tell you how much time players in our group weigh different possibilities now. Should I stay in my same class or start a new one? What spells should I take, what feat should I take, etc.

I've noticed that this is a personal issue. I have two players who like to plot and plan, one of whom will plan out his PC for 20 levels, then something in game will inspire his PC into a different direction, and he will create a new plan to 20th level. He likes doing that. One of my players just says something to the effect of, "I think I'll be an Orc Wizard this time." and then writes stuff down. The last one will narrow down to 2 choices and then spend 3 weeks going back and forth between them. Then right before session 1, I'll ask him which he picked and 7 times out of 10 he will give me one of those two choices. 3 times out of 10 he will have an impulse and announce a class he's never brought up before and show me his character.

Everyone is different and that doesn't have anything to do with how many classes or subclasses that there are.

Also, now we see players complaining when the start a subclass, but get the next feature (which to them sucks) and they don't want it. Now they complain about wanting something else, or feeling they should have picked a different subclass in the first point. Of course people make poor choices or ones they later regret, but the trend in D&D now seems to be just let people change things and have all the versatility they want.

I haven't experienced that in my group. It's hard to make choices you will regret in 5e as pretty much every choice is viable now.

One thing I will say I did like was the concept of prestige classes when the requirements were not prior-class dependent. Being able to have two or more classes make their way into the same prestige class (through different routes obviously) was interesting.

I liked both. I enjoyed the Paladin prestige classes, as well as the general divine ones that could see any number of divine classes go into it.

Honestly, I wish subclasses were more generic and had been done like that. Certain ones might have to remain unique, but why should Assassin only be a Rogue subclass when anyone can really be an assassin? Or allow Arcane Archer to go to Rogues and/or Wizards or Sorcerers or Warlocks even? Creating a flexible system where options can mix-and-match is good game design IMO, but just giving more and more blanket options which leads to too many choices can slow things down.

Yeah. I think they probably didn't do that to keep the game simpler.

Anyway, I know which way the wind is blowing and I am not going to fight against it, and fortunately none of it is stuff I have to use. shrug

Yep! I've gotten rid of Dragonborn. Can't stand the race.

 

[Maxperson]

The Battlemaster is a great Fighter Subclass, (and it's name feels like a call back to Warlord, what with War>Battle, Lord>Master) but it's closer to the 4e Fighter than the 4e Warlord. It CAN support with Rally, Commander's Strike and a few others, but to me it always felt like the Eldritch Knight MC subclass to a full Warlord that doesn't exist. For one thing, your options never get better. You pick your best fitting Maneuvers at level 3, then spend the rest of the progression picking from the leftovers you didn't care for at level 3...

LOL Yeah. It would have been nice to see new maneuvers open up at say 7th and 14th levels(picked arbitrarily to demonstrate a spread of levels. )

But I am excited to play a Battlemaster with the new maneuvers, those will be fun to build with... but it's still not a real Warlord.

I hope you have a blast!

 

[Minigiant]

Backgrounds can provide that, as well as potentially swapping out Thieves tools/Cant.
Additional skills or expertise are also a common subclass feature.

Backward focus.
If the rogue doesn't get the skill it can't improve its application.
Also this sucks up the customization option for known lores by taking up the background.

Do you have Xanathar's Guide to Everything? Because that sounds almost exactly like the Inquisitive. (Enabling Sneak attack through an Insight check.

It's the closest one. Unfortunately it feels too much like an underhanded scoundrel still and the rogue base class snags too much off the design phase for improvement in lore.

The four rogue subclasses in Xanathar's are not criminal-flavoured and at least two have other methods of enabling sneak attack.

I mean Dex is useful to a rogue, but it is useful to everyone. That is an issue with the ability score balance, not the class

The issue is the base class. The 5e rogue is a sneaky sneaky class not a loremaster class.

Why do you feel that you would be dragging down the team by making one of those stats your primary?

Because the way I want to build the character is blatantly suboptimal for any noncaster? The Primary, secondary, and tertiary scores as the mental ones.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Because they all share common features that are easier to build upon a common class.

The slippery slope on this is: if the only feature they share is "proficient with martial weapons", we aren't really making the game any easier to access/learn/use.

There's only so far you can go with reducing complexity by re-arranging the book.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I can actually see an argument for some sort of 'expert' class. A person who is skilled in non-combat stuff that is not directly thievery related. It could could be used to represent merchants, scholars, artisans, explorers etc. Not that I can think how that could be executed in a manner that wouldn't feel strange in the 5E framework and I generally feel that such concepts can be built with skills as a secondary role for any of the existing classes, but in theory it is a distinct enough of a niche. Of course it is questionable how essential such roles are for the action adventure genre of D&D.

 

[Undrave]

I can actually see an argument for some sort of 'expert' class. A person who is skilled in non-combat stuff that is not directly thievery related. It could could be used to represent merchants, scholars, artisans, explorers etc. Not that I can think how that could be executed in a manner that wouldn't feel strange in the 5E framework and I generally feel that such concepts can be built with skills as a secondary role for any of the existing classes, but in theory it is a distinct enough of a niche. Of course it is questionable how essential such roles are for the action adventure genre of D&D.

There's the upcoming Sidekick rules that could be use as basis?

 

[Hatmatter]

I wanted to pause for a moment and just celebrate how amazing you all are. I mean, you are some really, thoughtful, intelligent, creative people.

I have read every page of this post, and I totally want to play one of Undrave’s nine warlords. They look awesome! What an epic campaign…and if you added some war gaming elements in it, I can imagine an awesome (and true) campaign of epic battles, skirmishes, and military objectives being met and thwarted.

I also want to play in Saelorn’s campaign and play his unique sorcerer-warlock class created by him that realizes his vision of a sorcerer-warlock where the mechanics fulfill the story background of the class. I love the variation in each D&D campaign and I love unique takes on classes, especially because it can enrich the collaborative storytelling at the table.

And, on that note of storytelling, I want to play D&D DMed by dnd4vr, where the mini-game of character creation is de-emphasized in favor of drama. Dnd4vr has some excellent and creative ideas about subclasses not attached to specific classes…subclasses that are a little reminiscent of prestige classes. Even though dnd4vr seems a bit disgruntled at having to do it himself, I don’t feel too bad for dnd4vr, because, having created classes and homebrewed 2nd edition to no end and had a blast myself, I am certain that dnd4vr, would love creating something that is unique to that campaign…people tend to feel good about creating something new, so I think the work dnd4vr invested would make that D&D campaign special and one in which I would like to play, and – I suspect – it would give dnd4vr and all the players enriching story and character ideas as well…good D&D rules tend to fertilize story ideas in my experience.

And, if I played in Minigiant’s, campaign, I could create an awesome Professor Plum scholar. Heck, I might make a few different scholars from among Minigiant’s subclasses that he offered. I would have my magnifying glass and library card at hand…I would feel like Gandalf in the archives of Mina Tirith researching the most important hidden truth in the world.

Crimson Longinus, in whose campaign there would be a few broad but flexible classes: can I play in one of your campaigns? I love Adventures in Middle Earth where there are only a few classes available and it is a relatively low-magic setting set in one of my favorite fantasy worlds (It was a dream of mine in the 1980s to see D&D for Middle Earth published with that degree of care, given that I loved both D&D and MERPS)…I think you would create a thoughtful world where choices greatly impacted the world. I want to play in your campaign!

And AcererakTriple6, your gish class is awesome. Can’t say I am a fan of the name, but I’d play that class! Heck, I like the eldritch knight (I hope that you don’t think less of me for saying that), and I would love to play a gish in a party that also included an eldritch knight, a hexblade warlock, and a bladesinger. But your thoughtfulness concerning the class you created is impressive.

I was so thankful to have met Gary Gygax back in 1993…he was deep into Dangerous Journeys back then. He loved playing with the mechanical stuff, and about the only time I heard him speak ill of another system’s mechanics was about Eric Wujick’s (I lived in the same town, Detroit, as Wujick and played a few games with him always as the GM) Amber Diceless Roleplaying…and Gygax’s disagreement was on strictly theoretical level. Wujick was brilliant, by the way (and a terrific guy..a really dynamo). And I don’t use that adjective lightly.

You are all embodying Gygax's dream of crunchy and narrative-driven gamers creating their own worlds and games to enrich our time on this planet. Well done! If any of you want to invite me to play in your games, and if I have the time, it would be an honor. Contact me through Enworld.

Speaking for myself, I would like to see 5th edition D&D stay as the final version of the game till the end of time. Not because it cannot be improved – Saelorn and Undrive and AcererakTriple6 and others dispel that – but because it has proven to be an effective game of coalescing the role-playing community. For every improvement, there is some subsequent error or mistake made and for every new edition, we see more splintering of the community, and more divisiveness. I think perfection is probably best pursued at each individual D&D table, and that Wizards managed to satisfy the most people possible back in 2014. They will never produce the perfect game for everyone. The increase of people reevaluating 4th edition and now using 4th edition to critique 5th edition is an interesting testimony to that. That process will never end. For every element one does not like in 5th edition, if there was a 6th edition that “fixed it,” someone would come along in a forum post five years after 6th edition’s release and criticize 6th edition for not retaining that element that was previously disliked by others.

If you are not bound to Adventurers League, which I realize has to deal with official product releases in a different way than home games, then each game can manifest the creativity and intelligence of its DM simply by the DM disallowing what are, after all, already designated as options throughout all published D&D material. As many have pointed out here, there is a great creative energy and power in limiting options in some areas as well as increasing them in others.

Thanks for enduring my little soapbox moment. I have appreciated each post here. I get exhausted reading the newspaper these days and I enjoy what you all have to write much better.

 

[DND_Reborn]

And, on that note of storytelling, I want to play D&D DMed by dnd4vr, where the mini-game of character creation is de-emphasized in favor of drama. Dnd4vr has some excellent and creative ideas about subclasses not attached to specific classes…subclasses that are a little reminiscent of prestige classes. Even though dnd4vr seems a bit disgruntled at having to do it himself, I don’t feel too bad for dnd4vr, because, having created classes and homebrewed 2nd edition to no end and had a blast myself, I am certain that dnd4vr, would love creating something that is unique to that campaign…people tend to feel good about creating something new, so I think the work dnd4vr invested would make that D&D campaign special and one in which I would like to play, and – I suspect – it would give dnd4vr and all the players enriching story and character ideas as well…good D&D rules tend to fertilize story ideas in my experience.

Thanks for your interest, but frankly my enjoyment in homebrewing is in rules and mechanics, not in classes or subclasses. I like to find the balance for the best feeling for the game I can create. I an not adverse to a player asking "Hey, I have proficiency in medium armor, which I know I won't benefit from, do you mind if I take a skill instead?" Sure, knock yourself out. I wouldn't mind if a player wanted to play a Fighter with only Light Armor and Shield proficiency and asked to get vehicles for land and water instead of Medium and Heavy armor.

I guess that might explain things better towards my outlook. I don't feel more classes are needed because as long as balance seems reasonable, you can change things out. Want to play a Fighter/Cleric sort of Eldritch Knight, getting cleric spells instead of wizard? Sounds cool, just swap out INT for WIS and we'll look quickly to see if evocation/abjuration schools have a decent blend of cleric spells (FYI, they do). This idea would work great for a game where you don't want the oath of a paladin, but there is no MCing allowed either. BAM! Reskin Eldritch Knight to "Holy Warrior" or something, swap some things around, and you're basically there.

So, flexibility with the current classes would help make up a lot of the concepts people seem to want otherwise IMO.