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

[Cap'n Kobold]

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.

I believe that it would be eminently possible through a subclass (although as ever, I think that subclasses should start from level 1). Possibly siimilar to the Inquisitive, but with less emphasis on spotting deception and more on knowing stuff.
The Scout for example gains two skills and expertise in them.

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.

Its pretty much a mechanical representation of the bare-knuckle fight in the Sherlock film. Observe. Predict. Tailor a strategy. That does not come across as underhanded to me.

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

I think that you're going to have to unpack this a little to explain it to me. The rogue does not need to be sneaky any more than than it needs to be athletic.

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.

Do you want to create an intelligent and charismatic character with a wealth of knowledge useful to the group, or do you just want a combat murder machine? If you want the loremaster character, dumping Intelligence is suboptimal.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

I'm right there with you; I think my only disagreement is that I like having new material because it gives new mechanics and new approaches to do those kind of swaps.

I mean, in my last campaign I let the wizard use a sorcerer subclass with some massaging of the features, and the monk got barbarian rage as a subclass feature. My general approach to my players is "Don't tell me what class you want to play; tell me your concept and let's see what we can use and change to get that."

 

[Hatmatter]

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.

Thanks for the clarification. I am sure that you are a great DM and it is fun to play at your table. Your approach sounds great.

 

[Undrave]

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.

Thanks! I've posted four versions of my Warlord class thus far and, while I got comments on the core class feature, I don't think anyone ever comments on my subclasses. Glad to know the concepts are at least interesting in theory, regardless of my execution.

I'm no wargamer so I don't know how I'd integrate a true war gaming element to the class, but I suppose my 'Shout' mechanic could apply to a squad of units instead of a singular ally and work just as well...

 

[Hatmatter]

Thanks! I've posted four versions of my Warlord class thus far and, while I got comments on the core class feature, I don't think anyone ever comments on my subclasses. Glad to know the concepts are at least interesting in theory, regardless of my execution.

I'm no warmer so I don't know how I'd integrate a true war gaming element to the class, but I suppose my 'Shout' mechanic could apply to a squad of units instead of a singular ally and work just as well...

I love games within games. We have had games of chess, cards, dice, and even a modified Axis and Allies with the map of the fantasy world take place within our D&D games...just as we have integrated feasts with real food served at the gaming table, and other fun stuff. I don't have the setup, but it would be cool to have a big wargaming table and go from role-playing warlords (or any character, really) to a war-game to adjudicate how the armies did, and then back to the characters and so forth.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

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!

Yeah, that's what I got from it. You essentially said that you wouldn't want more classes because it would increase the options in the game, and you don't want players to have those options. You're the DM, your game, your rules. Just say no to whatever you don't like. It's not that hard. I don't allow Yuan-Ti Purebloods, you can disallow an added class.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

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.

Thanks. The name is still a work in progress. It was originally Magus, stolen from Pathfinder, but I may change it once more, possibly to Battlemage or something like that. I'm open to suggestions.

I think the game has niches that need filling, and some of the niches need filling by classes. A true gish class is one of those niches, as well as a Psion, Warlord, and other potential classes.

 

[jayoungr]

I wish you had different choices for "Just one or two more" versus "Lots more."

 

[Vael]

I do have to wonder if the problem is that some classes have become too broad.

Fighter, for example, seems to eat up all the space around "great with weapons", and Rogue has "Sneak attack, great with skills" space. So adding another non-magical class inherently bumps into these two.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I wish you had different choices for "Just one or two more" versus "Lots more."

The options are you either want more classes in any number, you want no more, you want less, or you don't know. If you want a few more, but not a ton (like me) vote for more.