D&D 5E What 5E needs is a hundred classes

[Stormonu]

@Stormonu : What is the advantage of your version? I don't see any, just extra work. And even though it's more complicated, your archer covers only 1 archetype, where mine covers yours and four others.

Mine only takes up one level (one-and-your-done). I could easily take your other 3 archtypes and make them into separate, but easily combined combinations. Arcane Archer? Take the Archer subclass and then the Weapon Enchanter subclass*. Done - possibly even in one level, if not 2, if you take both subclasses in one swoop.

Yours seems more a 10-level "path". Also, it looks like a good many of your levels are really just "take this feat at this level" advice locked to how you want the player to proceed - I don't really think that should be the backbone of a class or subclass; it should be about choice, not lock-steps.

* Weapon Enchanter (Wizard subclass)
- Trade access to 8th-9th level spells for fighter BAB
- Trade access to 2 spell schools for Martial Weapon proficiency and Medium Armor proficiency

Imbue Weapon: Instead of casting a spell with a range of touch, you may imbue a melee weapon with the spell as a minor action. Instead of casting a spell with a range of short/medium/long, you may imbue a ranged weapon or piece of ammunition with the spell as a minor action.

<Edit: Notice that "Weapon Enchanter" could be used to cover for an Arcane Archer or a Swordmage as well...>

 

[Bobbum Man]

I can see a case being made for having a lot of classes, though not in the way that the OP suggests.

If we look at a 1-20 level progression, we have about 4 tiers...for the sake of argument we'll call them:

1-5 Adventurer
6-10 Hero
11-15 Paragon
16-20 Epic

We can break up classes by tier, so that player pick a class at Adventurer Tier, and another at Hero Tier, and yet another at Paragon tier, etc.

The classes themselves would be easy to design, because you only need to design features for 5 levels each.

 

[Sanglorian]

I can see a case being made for having a lot of classes, though not in the way that the OP suggests.

If we look at a 1-20 level progression, we have about 4 tiers...for the sake of argument we'll call them:

1-5 Adventurer
6-10 Hero
11-15 Paragon
16-20 Epic

We can break up classes by tier, so that player pick a class at Adventurer Tier, and another at Hero Tier, and yet another at Paragon tier, etc.

The classes themselves would be easy to design, because you only need to design features for 5 levels each.

I don't think getting a new class at a different tier makes sense in the fiction. That's one reason I'm not a fan of paragon classes: why do I get the powers of a wizard of the Spiral Tower at level 11? What if I start training with them at level 6? What if I start training with them at level 16?

In addition, why would someone acquire those extra abilities only at high levels? If a level 1 paladin lapses, shouldn't she become a level 1 blackguard? Why is the ability to shoot magical arrows reserved for 6th or 7th level characters - isn't that something any spellsword could pick up?

It seems very artificial to me, rather than reflecting the fiction.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Most interestingly, it seems as if themes will take care of tiers. you don´t have 4 classes but four optional themes there.

And maybe they also take care of kits.
every fighter is proficient with medium armor and melee weapons. The archer theme gives you a ranged weapon, the soldier theme heavy armor at first level.

 

[Sunseeker]

Most interestingly, it seems as if themes will take care of tiers. you don´t have 4 classes but four optional themes there.

And maybe they also take care of kits.
every fighter is proficient with medium armor and melee weapons. The archer theme gives you a ranged weapon, the soldier theme heavy armor at first level.

I hope however, since I know Wizards is reading the Pathfinder books, that I can go Rogue/Rogue/Rogue/Rogue all the way to the endgame. I really hope I'm not going to be forced into picking up unfitting "prestige themes" so I'll be a rogue/midnight scoundrel/dark walker/panty thief. I really do favor the idea that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", a "base" class should be able to go all the way to the end.

 

[Bobbum Man]

I don't think getting a new class at a different tier makes sense in the fiction. That's one reason I'm not a fan of paragon classes: why do I get the powers of a wizard of the Spiral Tower at level 11? What if I start training with them at level 6? What if I start training with them at level 16?

In addition, why would someone acquire those extra abilities only at high levels? If a level 1 paladin lapses, shouldn't she become a level 1 blackguard? Why is the ability to shoot magical arrows reserved for 6th or 7th level characters - isn't that something any spellsword could pick up?

It seems very artificial to me, rather than reflecting the fiction.

But experience levels seem perfectly legit?

At some point we have to expect some abstraction in the game, or else it would be unwieldy and stupidly complicated.

I advocate picking things up a certain tiers, because that's how many decisions I want to have to make concerning my characters development. I don't want a lot of granularity.

 

[Sunseeker]

I don't think getting a new class at a different tier makes sense in the fiction. That's one reason I'm not a fan of paragon classes: why do I get the powers of a wizard of the Spiral Tower at level 11? What if I start training with them at level 6? What if I start training with them at level 16?

In addition, why would someone acquire those extra abilities only at high levels? If a level 1 paladin lapses, shouldn't she become a level 1 blackguard? Why is the ability to shoot magical arrows reserved for 6th or 7th level characters - isn't that something any spellsword could pick up?

It seems very artificial to me, rather than reflecting the fiction.

I dunno, why can't you create demi-planes at level 1? Same reason.

Why do you have to wait till level 15 to get "Disintegrate"? Why do you only have one spell level at first level? Why is your sneak skill so low as a new rogue? Same reason.

Call it being too undisciplined. Call it being unable to physically tolerate channeling that much magical energy through your body. Blame on it the whims of Our Lord and Master Pun-Pun. At some point, the game, like the DM is going to have to say "No you can't!" in order to maintain some semblance of functionality.

 

[Sanglorian]

But experience levels seem perfectly legit?

At some point we have to expect some abstraction in the game, or else it would be unwieldy and stupidly complicated.

I advocate picking things up a certain tiers, because that's how many decisions I want to have to make concerning my characters development. I don't want a lot of granularity.

Experience levels seem legit enough, yeah. Your character becomes incrementally better at things, and occasionally learns new things. If you're a fifth level fighter, upon gaining sixth level you learn something new about fighting.

What does not make sense to me is why a fifth level lurker would suddenly become a shadowdancer, or a fifth level pub crawler suddenly become a dwarven defender. If these classes/themes are supposed to be grounded in the fiction (and they are - there are themes that involve membership in an organisation like the Red Wizards of Thay), then access to them should open up when fictionally appropriate.

An alternative that I think works much better is the way mini-classes work in Dungeon World. When you gain a level, if you meet the prerequisites for the mini-class then you can choose the basic talent (called a 'move') of that mini-class instead of one from your main class. Then you can choose additional talents at later levels from your mini-classes or from your main class.

I think this is a better system than themes/classes acquired at fixed levels. Acquiring the mini-class is grounded in the fiction, and those who want to avoid making a choice of mini-class can always select from their main class.

I dunno, why can't you create demi-planes at level 1? Same reason.

Why do you have to wait till level 15 to get "Disintegrate"? Why do you only have one spell level at first level? Why is your sneak skill so low as a new rogue? Same reason.

Call it being too undisciplined. Call it being unable to physically tolerate channeling that much magical energy through your body. Blame on it the whims of Our Lord and Master Pun-Pun. At some point, the game, like the DM is going to have to say "No you can't!" in order to maintain some semblance of functionality.

Why can you become a blacksmith at level one or at level six, but not any of the levels in between? If you get bitten by a werewolf at level 2, why doesn't it turn you into a werewolf? Why will the Red Wizards of Thay induct you into their order at 1st level or 6th level or 11th level or 16th level only? Why does becoming an axe specialist require you to be sixth level? Does it require an extra five levels worth of discipline than becoming an weapon master?

I'm okay with the DM saying "No you can't", but I'd like the DM's veto to be consistent with the setting.

 

[Sunseeker]

Why can you become a blacksmith at level one or at level six, but not any of the levels in between? If you get bitten by a werewolf at level 2, why doesn't it turn you into a werewolf? Why will the Red Wizards of Thay induct you into their order at 1st level or 6th level or 11th level or 16th level only? Why does becoming an axe specialist require you to be sixth level? Does it require an extra five levels worth of discipline than becoming an weapon master?

I'm okay with the DM saying "No you can't", but I'd like the DM's veto to be consistent with the setting.

None of these things have anything to do with the setting. The game has to pick some point at which to limit your progression. Sure you could do "every level", but then why even have themes, backgrounds, classes or "mini classes"? Why not just have a list of features and feats and skills you can pick up at any level. Bigger question: why are you only allowed to pick one? Why can't at 6th level, I take EVERY feature?

Personally, I think of D&D as a classed game, and to me, classes are more than single level with a single feature. That's basically a classless game, and while I'm up for more fluidity, I'm not interested in an open ocean.

Think of classes like a college degree. You can double major, but you can't pick a new major until you've completed one of the ones you're on, which takes about 2 years. Prospectively in 5e, that's how classes will work, it takes you 5 levels worth of "time" to master a class, and until you master the things you're already working on, you can't go on to master something else. And that is generally the goal of most classes, to become a master of it, not just dabble in a little of everything.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I hope however, since I know Wizards is reading the Pathfinder books, that I can go Rogue/Rogue/Rogue/Rogue all the way to the endgame. I really hope I'm not going to be forced into picking up unfitting "prestige themes" so I'll be a rogue/midnight scoundrel/dark walker/panty thief. I really do favor the idea that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", a "base" class should be able to go all the way to the end.

of course. i kinda assumed that.

i believe: fighter (soldier/elite soldier/paragon soldier/epic soldier) to get a well specialized fighter should be possible, as should be fighter (soldier/archer/guardian/knight) which will be less specialized more well rounded fighter.

Maybe names of classes and themes should be different... so while rogue/rogue/rogue should be possible, i´d rather have: rogue(thief/ elite thief/ paragon thief/ epic thief) or rogue (scoundrel/thief/acrobat/elite scoundrel)