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

[EzekielRaiden]

Warlord - A combatant that leads through force of will and leadership.

The main idea I had for a Warlord was to steal the overall structure of the Warlock, but repurpose it.

Invocations become Tactics, always-on features or modifications of your other abilities.
Patron becomes Presence, which defines your Leadership Modifier (Cha = Bravura, Wis = Resourceful, Int = Tactical) and your overall approach to coordinating your allies (Bravura is high-risk/high-reward, Resourceful has the most pure support, Tactical leverages specific ally strengths).
Pact becomes your Leadership Method, whether you're a Vanguard (melee with stronger defenses), Skirmisher (ranged with more mobility), Prowler (stealth and precision strikes), Overseer ("lazylord"--working more through others than personal effort), or Magister (combining magic with battlefield coordination).
Spells are replaced with Strategies fuelled by a Gambit resource, which should flow freely during both your turn and others' turns--you care about what happens to the people on the team. E.g. Bravura Presence might give you gambit when your allies land critical hits, and Vanguard Style might give you gambit when things attack you. You can only have so many prepared strategies at any given time, but can change things up on a short rest.

I haven't come up with a good option for replacing Eldritch Arcana yet--but then again, I haven't done more than idly considering the above ideas. But I really think it could work quite well. By having different Presences and Methods, it's possible to capture many of the different flavors a Warlord could take without needing each Warlord to be bringing every focus to the table. And it would be a nod to the more option-filled character building that many 4th edition (and even 3rd edition!) fans enjoyed and can't always find in 5e.

 

[Hatmatter]

Bill Maher has a segment on Real Time called "I Don't Know It For a Fact, I Just Know That It's True" in which he wraps his cultural and political criticism in far-fetched observations.

I have no criticism to offer here, but after reading Tasha's and listening to the recent interviews with Jeremy Crawford on Dragon Talk from the last few weeks and reading an interview with him online, I will say that "I Don't Know It For a Fact, I Just Know That It's True" that we will be getting a dedicated psionics-using class at some point. I think with this "evergreen" version of D&D, the designers led by Crawford are really looking for the long-play and I think the three subclasses, two feats, and three psionic spells in Tasha's are all part of a long wind-up for a developed class, as was the psionic elements like the Mind Flayer in the Monster Manual and the use of psionics in the earlier books. It is my "I just know that it is true" response to the feeling I am picking up from Wizard's approach to psionics.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Bill Maher has a segment on Real Time called "I Don't Know It For a Fact, I Just Know That It's True" in which he wraps his cultural and political criticism in far-fetched observations.

I have no criticism to offer here, but after reading Tasha's and listening to the recent interviews with Jeremy Crawford on Dragon Talk from the last few weeks and reading an interview with him online, I will say that "I Don't Know It For a Fact, I Just Know That It's True" that we will be getting a dedicated psionics-using class at some point. I think with this "evergreen" version of D&D, the designers led by Crawford are really looking for the long-play and I think the three subclasses, two feats, and three psionic spells in Tasha's are all part of a long wind-up for a developed class, as was the psionic elements like the Mind Flayer in the Monster Manual and the use of psionics in the earlier books. It is my "I just know that it is true" response to the feeling I am picking up from Wizard's approach to psionics.

I sure hope that you're right.

 

[DammitVictor]

We should not have more classes to have more classes, but especially as settings roll out we should have more classes to fit them.

Artificer was needed for Eberron. Call it a Psion or a Mystic, but a psionic full casting full class is necessary for Dark Sun.

We are probably never going to see Kara-Tur again, but if we did... Sohei could probably be a subclass for practically anything, but would be better as a full class. Shaman and Shukenja (1e) or Shugenja (3e) don't fit into the existing classes.

But... of the settings we're likely to see or the settings I really want to see, the only class we're really missing is the psychic.

 

[Necrozius]

I think that there should be fewer, but with more distinct sub-classes.

Eg, a variant of the Ranger without magic, a variant of the Warlock like a Witch, a Wuxia Fighter etc...

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think people should support our fellow players out there by buying additional classes through EN World or DMs Guild, rather than sitting and stewing for years on end that WotC themselves isn't making them.

 

[Hatmatter]

I think people should support our fellow players out there by buying additional classes through EN World or DMs Guild, rather than sitting and stewing for years on end that WotC themselves isn't making them.

Yup, I do/done that.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

We have too many, in my opinion. Cut down the number of base classes to 4 or 5 and make subclasses more meaningfully differentiated.

I feel the opposite of this. There are too many subclasses that SORT OF portray their theme because of the base class they are appended to that would be better served to have been created and a new class entirely (not necessarily with new rules gimmicks). One example is that the Eldritch Knight, Arcane Archer, and Pact of the Blade could be slotted under a class built from the ground up to have better spell/weaponry 50/50 dichotomy.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I feel the opposite of this. There are too many subclasses that SORT OF portray their theme because of the base class they are appended to that would be better served to have been created and a new class entirely (not necessarily with new rules gimmicks). One example is that the Eldritch Knight, Arcane Archer, and Pact of the Blade could be slotted under a class built from the ground up to have better spell/weaponry 50/50 dichotomy.

I agree. There is no official arcane half-casting class in 5e, but there are a few subclasses that try (and fail) to fill that role.

 

[Marandahir]

The current amount is good.

I go back and forth on whether we need a Psion that isn't an Aberrant Mind Sorcerer (that uses Spell Points instead of slots and Int instead of Cha), or need a Shaman (that isn't just a Warlock with a Primal Spirit pact), but I'm happy and can build pretty much everything from this set.

Unlike some folks I often agree with here on the Enworld forums, I think it's a great thing that 5e has both big tent classes like Fighter and Wizard and small tent classes like Paladin or Warlock.

I think there's a gamist role for the 3 Gish classes that aren't just subclasses of Fighter or Rogue a la Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster, allowing for a more balanced and integrated focus of magic-wielding warriors in the game. But by definition, such "dual class" classes are more narrowly defined that the broad tent classes they're "children" of. These "Gish" classes are akin to what have been considered Prestige or Promoted classes in other editions or mediums, and thus in some media can get away with having both at once. But they're often lackluster in their storytelling precisely because Paladins are so often just "Warrior/Knight+Priest/White Mage." To make sense of them, finding core mechanics that make them tick and can unite a bunch of different archetypal ideas that are all Gish but approach it differently is key.

As you might guess, I'm a fan of the Paladin, (Revised) Ranger, and Artificer in 5e. ALL THREE have found said hooks that allow for a bunch of different archetypes, even if less broad than their parent classes, while still united in their identities as Gish.

IMHO, the reason Ranger was so lackluster in the PHB was that it lacked those key unifying working mechanics. Deft Explorer, Favored Foe, and Primal Awareness change all that, in the same way that Lay on Hands, Smite, and Auras work for Paladins, and Magical Tinkering, Infuse Item, and the Right Tool For the Job do for Artificers. These ideas enforce the fiction of Resolute Oathsworn Gish, Open World Adventure Game Gish, and Techno-Hero Gish.

Artificers don't feel like Bladesingers or Hexblades or Eldritch Knights, but Armourers Forge Adepts, Battle Smiths, and Artillerists very clearly fill that Martial+Arcane box while Alchemists and Mavericks feel right at home with the concept while showing what they can be without being on the front lines.

Rangers don't feel like Fighter+Druid, and Paladins don't feel like Fighter+Cleric, in a large part because they've got these host of other abilities that Fighters and Clerics and Druids don't get. But they have shared abilities too, between shared cantrips and shared spells, and shared "ideas" about magic, and that's critical.

I don't think reducing the game's class list down would be helpful. It would lead to more "balance" of concepts, but I don't think the concepts need equality. What they need is to be balanced gameplaywise so that players aren't screwed over. And they need to carve out their own niches to represent the supporting fiction and new ideas in ways that aren't interchangeable.

There are a handful of ideas in the supporting fiction and past editions that still aren't possible in 5e. I would like to see those added, and MAYBE there's a class out that could be added in some capacity, but I really see most everything being possible as subclasses going forward.

I agree. There is no official arcane half-casting class in 5e, but there are a few subclasses that try (and fail) to fill that role.

Artificers say hello.