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

[cbwjm]

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

I'll give that a look, I'll mostly be basing it off the star wars game, but may need more ideas to ensure I don't end up with dead levels and more inspiration is always good.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The "right" number of classes is also subject to personal preferences.

0 is a number of classes that's proven to be 'right' for many systems.

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.

And, D&D, from the 3 classes of 0D&D, to the hundreds of 3.5, has served both extremes.

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.

Your experience is that people different from you are unreasonable and can't understand you?

Congratulations, you appear to be human!

Often they respond with, "Well, don't use those choices, then."

5e was conceived with the idea of being for fans of all past editions. If you want D&D with only the 4 oldest classes, you got it first, and for free with the basic odd. If you wanted D&D with must the most popular classes introduced before 4e, you got that right away when you bought the PH. It didn't take away the Big 4 option. If you wanted multiclassing, that was on the PH, also, if you opted into it. If you wanted some of the PH classes and not others, you could ban (or simply not play, yourself) one or more of them.

So, yes, the choice of the number of choices you want is yours. You need never read a UA class or buy another supplement again. You have the game you wanted, even if you have to trim a Monk or Warlock or something from it.

Now, if you wanted more choices: if you want the Warlord from the 4e PH1, or one of the newer or more obscure classes from the 3.5 or 4e PH2's, or 4e PH3, or from non- core supplements in any edition, you've waited years for 'em, and are still waiting....

...that doesn't mean you've been thrown under the bus or are a 3rd class citizen of the D&D community because the 1st- class 0D&D fans got their Big 4 classes 1st. It just means it takes longer to do 15 or 20 or more classes than to do 4 or 12.

 

[Hussar]

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."

Why is that an unreasonable response?

The game is already set up, as [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] points out, that you can scale up complexity from very simple to quite complex. And people don't seem to be having a huge difficulty with it.

Look, I get not wanting bloat. I really do. I LOVE the release schedule and the fact that the hobby is the healthiest it's been in a long, long time. So, yeah, I certainly don't want to go back to the days of blasting out class after class with little feedback from the fans.

But, since the genie is already out of the bottle - we've gotten at least one new full class already - the Mystic - plus, what, a few dozen new sub classes between SCAG and the UA articles, it's not like adding one more is going to make the game go wahoonie shaped. Particularly given that the class' abilities already exist in some form in the game already. Not under one umbrella, sure, but, it's not like they're adding an entire new magic system (cough psion cough) or anything like that.

Again, it's really hard not to see these arguments as self-serving. After all, if the issue is actually class bloat, then why aren't we seeing push back about the UA articles? I mean, good grief, the UA articles have essentially doubled (or thereabouts) the number of sub-classes in the game. That's not an insignificant addition. So, why is this particular bridge the bridge too far?

As I mentioned in another one of these threads, I'd have a LOT more sympathy with folk's point of view, if it was consistent. But, it really doesn't look like it is. "We HATE CLASS BLOAT!!" but, it's okay to add twenty or thirty new subclasses. "We HATE THESE MECHANICS!" but, it's perfectly fine to have these mechanics tied to other classes. I mean, seriously, at what point do we call an oblong excavation tool a shovel?

 

[mellored]

I would have to start from scratch, but...

At-will weapons. You get a pool of dice each turn, a big list of maneuvers to use them on, and a second choice of passive abilities. Covers fighter, rogue, barbarian, ranger and warlord.

Long rest Slot user. You get spell slots and a big list of spells to choose from, and a second choice of passive abilities. Covers cleric, bard, wizard, and sorcerer.

Short rest power point user. You get a set of points to use each short rest, a big list of bursts to use them on, and a second choice of passive abilities. Covers psionics, monks, and warlocks.

Passive abilities get you things like bigger hit dice, better armor, extra skills, or more damage. As well as various effects like flying, or climb speed.

 

[Guest 6801328]

0 is a number of classes that's proven to be 'right' for many systems.

And, D&D, from the 3 classes of 0D&D, to the hundreds of 3.5, has served both extremes.

Your experience is that people different from you are unreasonable and can't understand you?

Congratulations, you appear to be human!

You know, Tony, for the most part you are well-reasoned, well-informed, and respectful, but you also have a penchant for the most horrid pedantry. (I suppose I just broke forum rules with that.)

5e was conceived with the idea of being for fans of all past editions. If you want D&D with only the 4 oldest classes, you got it first, and for free with the basic odd. If you wanted D&D with must the most popular classes introduced before 4e, you got that right away when you bought the PH. It didn't take away the Big 4 option. If you wanted multiclassing, that was on the PH, also, if you opted into it. If you wanted some of the PH classes and not others, you could ban (or simply not play, yourself) one or more of them.

So, yes, the choice of the number of choices you want is yours. You need never read a UA class or buy another supplement again. You have the game you wanted, even if you have to trim a Monk or Warlock or something from it.

Now, if you wanted more choices: if you want the Warlord from the 4e PH1, or one of the newer or more obscure classes from the 3.5 or 4e PH2's, or 4e PH3, or from non- core supplements in any edition, you've waited years for 'em, and are still waiting....

...that doesn't mean you've been thrown under the bus or are a 3rd class citizen of the D&D community because the 1st- class 0D&D fans got their Big 4 classes 1st. It just means it takes longer to do 15 or 20 or more classes than to do 4 or 12.

I'm not making an argument for which version 5e "should" be. I mean, I have a preference of course, but that's not what my post was about. I was merely pointing out that some of us actually prefer fewer options, even...yes...when some of the choices we would prefer are not present. It's fun to be forced to try something different. (This is one of the reasons I love The One Ring.)

(See my response to Hussar next for some elaboration.)

 

[Guest 6801328]

Why is that an unreasonable response?

The game is already set up, as @Tony Vargas points out, that you can scale up complexity from very simple to quite complex. And people don't seem to be having a huge difficulty with it.

Look, I get not wanting bloat. I really do. I LOVE the release schedule and the fact that the hobby is the healthiest it's been in a long, long time. So, yeah, I certainly don't want to go back to the days of blasting out class after class with little feedback from the fans.

But, since the genie is already out of the bottle - we've gotten at least one new full class already - the Mystic - plus, what, a few dozen new sub classes between SCAG and the UA articles, it's not like adding one more is going to make the game go wahoonie shaped. Particularly given that the class' abilities already exist in some form in the game already. Not under one umbrella, sure, but, it's not like they're adding an entire new magic system (cough psion cough) or anything like that.

Again, it's really hard not to see these arguments as self-serving. After all, if the issue is actually class bloat, then why aren't we seeing push back about the UA articles? I mean, good grief, the UA articles have essentially doubled (or thereabouts) the number of sub-classes in the game. That's not an insignificant addition. So, why is this particular bridge the bridge too far?

As I mentioned in another one of these threads, I'd have a LOT more sympathy with folk's point of view, if it was consistent. But, it really doesn't look like it is. "We HATE CLASS BLOAT!!" but, it's okay to add twenty or thirty new subclasses. "We HATE THESE MECHANICS!" but, it's perfectly fine to have these mechanics tied to other classes. I mean, seriously, at what point do we call an oblong excavation tool a shovel?

Wait...have we been talking all this time about UA articles?

Good grief, I have zero problem with UA articles. By all means if that would keep Warlord fans happy then I hope there's a UA Warlord. My wary opposition is reserved for truly official classes and sub-classes, by which I suppose I mean "legal for AL". Everything beneath that still falls under "house rules".

And, yes, if ALL of those UA sub-classes, and the Artificer and Mystic, become AL-legal I will be very disappointed.

Oh, yeah, and this:

Again, it's really hard not to see these arguments as self-serving.

Like I said.

 

[Tony Vargas]

. My wary opposition is reserved for truly official classes and sub-classes, by which I suppose I mean "legal for AL".

AL legal is an entirely different subject. I think you're being unreasonable on that subject, too, but it would be perfectly plausible for AL to opt in or out of any given optional supplements. That AL had opted into feats and MCing, for instance, needn't imply that it will opt into the Warlord, nor the Mystic or Artificer already in the queue ahead of it beforehand, for that matter.

Even if it did, your fellow players and the WPN organizer would have to be monumental jerks to so much as make you feel like you're imposing if you needed to change tables to avoid one. (And, yes, there may be AL events as small as a single table, and that does present some challenges to all involved, even now.)

Oh, yeah, and this:


Like I said.

Yep, you aren't the only human being letting their preconceptions color their perceptions of this discussion.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

So, my original response to this thread was made with just the thought of what I personally want to see that hasn't been included yet.

The real answer, for me, is "every single class that has ever been in a phb, or any number, or any official sourcebook, eventually. And also probably a bunch that don't fit into those categories"

not all of them need need to be full classes, but I'd rather err on the side of full classes.

If it can have two two or more archetypes under it, make it a class.

Even if it is already a subclass, like the Assassin, gish, summoner, warlord, or even the favored soul.

I don't meed to see them all anytime soon, but that wasn't the question.

IMO, "player option bloat" is a false flag. Not a real thing. Got a distinct idea for making an acrobat class, and it's got two or three archetypes? Cool. Make it. Doesn't detract in any way from a rogue or monk acrobat.

Want to see an Elementalist class that is simple like the Champion fighter, with subclasses for different elemental focuses? Go for it.

And also feats for every major class concept, to MC without dealing with MC rules, and also subclasses to do the same.

I don't care if it ends up being 500 phbs worth of character options that any given group just cannot ever possibly even try to keep track of. Give us a character builder and let us tinker.

in short: all of them.

 

[Alexemplar]

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.

Every time I look at Star Wars Saga Edition, I sigh a little and think of what could have been.

 

[cbwjm]

Every time I look at Star Wars Saga Edition, I sigh a little and think of what could have been.

Yeah, when SW Saga came out and I was hearing about 4e, I was hoping that it was going to be based on similar rules as SW. There are definitely some similarities in some of the basic systems, but I really liked the whole structure of the class talent trees and hoped for a similar system for 4e. As I recall, there were 1 or 2 fantasy hacks of the saga system.