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

[Yunru]

Except that itself is an exaggeration of my claim. I gave two examples of things that can be done on the chassis of existing classes and don't justify their own classes. Nowhere did I state the general case to be true.* Which is why taking it to a logical extreme is merely a rhetorical stunt.

E.g., "No, you can't have my ice cream." "Oh, so you get to eat whatever you want and I have to starve?" That's also taking something to a logical extreme, and also not useful.

*Neither did I define an appropriate threshold, of course, but that's because I don't think that such a threshold can be precisely defined. Clearly your exaggeration is on one side of such a threshold, and I believe the examples in questions are deep into the opposite side. YMMV.

Fair point, but yes, I postulated the logical extreme in order to make a point.
Just because something can be (hackily) represented by another system via refluffing of a mechanic, is not a reason to not do it...

That explanation got away from me.

 

[Guest 6801328]

If anything, that edition was even worse than other editions about making new classes to fulfill similar concepts, because it tried to allow for every combination of role and power source.

I think this bullseyes the question that underlies the different viewpoints here. Different people like different limits on options. I happen to like restricted options. Not because it simplifies choices but because it makes them more meaningful (to me). After all, that is what a "game" is: it's about accomplishing a goal within the bounds of artificially imposed limits.

I'm not saying the other viewpoint is bad or wrong, just different. But that difference results in debates like the one in this thread.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Fair point, but yes, I postulated the logical extreme in order to make a point.
Just because something can be (hackily) represented by another system via refluffing of a mechanic, is not a reason to not do it...

That explanation got away from me.

True, it's the degree of hacking required. I think we have different limits for that.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

If all their powers are instant, without lingering magical auras (e.g. any healing) then they can't be dispelled. It means you couldn't have Concentration spells, but that could be worked around. (E.g., "for one minute you may use your Bonus action to grant...."). I guess Counterspell could be problematic, but there are already lots of hiccups in the game illusion that we deal with, so I had a hard time justifying a whole class on that basis.

Concentraton doesn't really need to be changed. All it is is a mechanic to prevent multiple spells being sustained at once. In my Valour bard bodge or warlord I just fluffed it as a continuous stream of attention, encouragement and orders that prevented you doing that same for a different effect.

The only real mechanical change on that score was that the effects needed LOS to sustain and that they didn't count as magic. So don't make Detect Magic go "Ping!", work in an antimagic field, etc.

 

[Yunru]

But it's a role playing game? You play it to play a role. Not being able to because there's not a class (or workable combination of classes) for your vision doesn't add to that.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

But it's a role playing game? You play it to play a role. Not being able to because there's not a class (or workable combination of classes) for your vision doesn't add to that.

Being able to play any character that fits your vision is not a mandatory (or particularly common) trait of role-playing games. If you're playing in a world that doesn't have warlords in it, then that's no different from playing it a world that doesn't have ninjas or gunslingers in it. Most game worlds have a fairly narrow list of character concepts which make sense for that world.

 

[Guest 6801328]

But it's a role playing game? You play it to play a role. Not being able to because there's not a class (or workable combination of classes) for your vision doesn't add to that.

Yeah, it comes down to what you think the constraints should be. There is no role for Jedi Knight in D&D, either. Or demolitions expert. Or Wolverine. Now I'm taking it to the logical extreme (well, somewhere out in that direction) but only to illustrate the principle that any imaginable "role" is too broad.

Should D&D be a "play any role you can imagine" game? My (strong) feeling is that a game that tries to be good at everything ends up being mediocre (or worse) at everything.

 

[Yunru]

True enough, classes and races alike are campaign specific. But DnD spans many campaigns and thus it not being setting appropriate loses meaning as an argument against.

 

[Yunru]

There is no role for Jedi Knight in D&D, either. Or demolitions expert. Or Wolverine.

To nitpick, the Sunblade, ??? (I would of said destruction domain, but they dropped it), and Alter Self spell all help approximate those examples

 

[The Crimson Binome]

True enough, classes and races alike are campaign specific. But DnD spans many campaigns and thus it not being setting appropriate loses meaning as an argument against.

So where do you draw the line, then? I mean, monks are already borderline-inappropriate for a fantasy setting, but should it also include a specific class for gunslingers? Can we really fault D&D for not including a computer-hacker, or giant-robot-pilot class?

D&D isn't generic fantasy. While there are an infinite number of campaign worlds that can be described under the D&D ruleset, that infinity is still a tiny subset of fantasy worlds, which is itself a tiny subset of fictional worlds.