D&D 5E What new classes do you think we need?

[Alexemplar]

I imagine most of the responses you'll get to that question will be that they dislike the idea of of "Asian" themed mystical martial artist in their pseudo-European medieval fantasy game...

This is my chief beef with the Monk. Not because I dislike Asian themed classes, but rather how it comes completely out of the blue and there are no other Asian- or even other really non pseudo-European classes. I mean I could understand if they had included multiple Asian themed classes or multiple "foreigner" classes for those characters that want to be from pseudo-Africa, pseudo-Near East, pseudo-Eurasia, etc.

But including only one "foreigner" class and basing it a Shaolin Monk of all things? That's just silly.

 

[cbwjm]

Maybe, back in 1e, the basic classes were meant to work in oriental style settings as well. Sure, they eventually brought in oriental adventures but I could easily see wizard, fighters, and assassins working as wujen, bushi, and ninja respectively. You wouldn't really need to change anything.

 

[Jester David]

There were too many classes in 2e. And 3e. And 4e. Pathfinder even made it a goal to keep the number of classes down but, oops, they slowly added up and now there's too damn many.

More than any other type of rule option, classes present a problem for balance. Because a class will impact and be involved for every round of combat for every level of the entire campaign. It can interact with any other rules element. It has to factor in multiclassing and feats and spells and magical items. And how it interacts with the abilities of allies of every other class (which also becomes harder as more classes are added). Which also makes them so much harder to balance, as you have twenty levels to playtest.

There's infinite design space for potential classes. Both in terms of story and mechanics. After all, if you look at 3e and Pathfinder (and include a few choice 3rd Party books like Ultimate Psionics) you can easily hit 100 unique classes. Without counting Prestige Classes.
So, right off the bat "X class fills a unique role/ niche" means squat. Because you can say that about 99 other classes.

Class is also one of the more important identifiers of your character. Race is a biggie as well, but that often just described what you look like. A class describes what you do, your role in the world, and the like. If I say I'm a gyr'at great weapon fighter, I have a vague idea what that looks like. I can picture the armour and weapons, and the rest can be easily described. If I say I'm an elf windrider that tells me little. Do you fly? Are you a sailor? Heavy armour or light? Spells? I have nothing. It's much more work.
Classes and races are also among the hardest elements to work into a campaign setting. While you can always work a mysterious race of creatures from a hidden valley or isolated woods or distant continent, it's harder to explain an adventurous profession and why no one in history was this class.


Now, I think there is room for the occasional new class. I think most can be handled by 3rd Parties, specifically for their campaign settings. Ones designed to fit the world.

With official classes, I think these need to be options that *really* bring something new to the game. Something that cannot easily be done by other classes and have little to no overlap with existing classes. Otherwise it's easier and simpler to just have a subclass; even if it's not perfect it's generally better for the game. Instead, new classes *need* to look and act different from other classes. But are also pretty universal and easy to integrate into most fantasy worlds.
The shaman is a good example. It's a pretty common trope, and works well with more savage humanoids like orcs and goblins. But it overlaps a lot with the druid, so it's probably easier to just make it a subclass. Similarly, things could be said about the witch doctor.

The one class I think that gets a pass is the psion. Or the mystic as it might end up being called. The artificer is also close, having been in two editions so far, and just different enough from the wizard (and rogue) that it doesn't work. It helps that concepts like the alchemist can be folded into the artificer, making it a more broad and diverse class.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Monks aren't inappropriate to a traditional medieval fantasy setting. You need somewhere to put 3rd sons and foundlings, and someone to tend vineyards and illuminate manuscripts and the like.

Monks, like Barbarians, have always suffered from being defined by 'cultural baggage' (or, conflating cultural baggage and class function or whatever).
It's an old controversy.
5e provides both classes for those who want 'em.
Those who don't, don't have to use 'em.

It was a sub-class of the Thief in the 1e PH, and is again in 5e. In between, well, there was a full class called 'Assassin' in a 4e Dragon Mag - a nearly unrecognizeable shroud-tossing Shadow whatever it was. Then, in HoS, it was a sub-class again, the Executioner. I assume there was at least one Assassin PrC in 3.x.
But, nope, never a full class in a PH, not in any edition.

Same with the Illusionist.

:shrug:

The Executioner is a "subclass" in name only.

IIRC, so is the 1e Assassin.

Regardless, it is a broad concept with at least a handful of archetypes contained within, and isn't a thing 5e represent even vaguely well. Especially in the thing it calls Assassin.

The Dark Stalker Ranger is a better Assassin, IMO.

 

[Jester David]

The Executioner is a "subclass" in name only.

Well, it's a subclass of the assassin. It's the executioner assassin like there was a slayer fighter. Assassin was 100% a class in 4e.

IIRC, so is the 1e Assassin.

Agreed. Calling subclasses not true classes is a very nitpicky distinction for 1e.

Subclasses in AD&D were a weird beast. The assassin and illusionist had their own experience charts and class features. Assassins could have far more hit points than a rogue, having up to 15 Hit Dice vs 10. It seems like they were mostly for combat tables.

 

[Jester David]

Monks were problematic back in 2000, when I was working on my campaign setting after years of 2nd Edition. And then, suddenly, there was this weird SE Asian class in the game, which I was unprepared to accommodate into my world. Or I could just ban it at my table.

Now, I'm ready for it. I know it's going to be part of the world so I need to find a way to justify its existence in one way or another. I know when worldbuilding that there will be some Oriental peanut butter in my western fantasy chocolate.
Ditto the Realms. Monks have a place, so it's not out of place there, having long since justified.

 

[Guest 6801328]

The "right" number of classes is also subject to personal preferences. Some people like games with lots of options; others appreciate games where there are fewer choices and part of the game is playing within those constraints. My experience, however, has been that many in the former group find the latter preference perplexing, and assume it has something to do with an inability to handle the cognitive load of increased choices. Often they respond with, "Well, don't use those choices, then."

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, I've been flogging this hobby horse too much. Bowing out now. Sorry folks, let my personal bugaboos get the better of me.

 

[cbwjm]

So, we don't need it, but when looking over star wars saga to get a look at the noble talent trees for inspiration for a warlord class, I ended up starting on a fantasy dnd version of the jedi. It's hard for me to stay focused on homebrew, I keep jumping from one to the next and back again.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So, we don't need it, but when looking over star wars saga to get a look at the noble talent trees for inspiration for a warlord class, I ended up starting on a fantasy dnd version of the jedi. It's hard for me to stay focused on homebrew, I keep jumping from one to the next and back again.

The Battlemind was supposed to be jedi-like, you could check that out, too - PH3.