D&D 5E Would you use setting-specific classes?

[Mind of tempest]

sure if it is cool and works.

 

[Tonguez]

Yeah DnD is a strange beast with the way its classes are constructed so that they already carry some setting assumptions. so that none of the standard classes fit anything other than DnD.

Strixhaven with its College backgrounds is on a rightist track and we have seen other attempts like the MTG plane shifts recently, but yeah I agree with @LordEntrails, to make them compelling would need redesign of the setting assumptions and not just themed classes and backgrounds

So, if a setting were written really well, AND the class/sub-class specifics fit really well AND maintained balance for my play style, then I would be all in. But I just haven't seen it yet.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I find that to be a rather strange assertion.

Anybody else have an opinion on that? Am I being blind?

Well, it depends on the class. Bards, Paladins, Monks, and Rogues are all pretty strong with core class only. Barbarian, Ranger (maybe), Warlock are decently strong in core class only. The rest really rely on subclasses for more power (if any) as well as flavor IMO.

*Wizards are pretty strong core class only, but that is due to their wide variety of spells, etc. not class features.

 

[Minigiant]

I use non-spellcasting classes ANYTIME I GET!

 

[Quickleaf]

There are numerous settings, some from WotC but many more from other authors/publishers. I have a bunch of them and some are really cool.

But…standard D&D classes often feel like an awkward fit. Many of the settings include new subclasses, but since most of a class’s power is built into the base class, that doesn’t change much.

Would you like to see settings come with custom-designed classes, not as additions to the standard list but as replacements? (Two examples are Adventures in Middle-Earth from Cubicle 7 and Beowulf from Handiwork.)

And the follow-up question is whether subclasses are really needed if such classes have such a narrow intended use.

Thoughts?

It depends on the overall design & intent of the product.

Where AiME succeeds is (a) they did the substantial playtesting required to publish a new class, (b) there's a substantial well of lore they're writing from, and (c) the existing classes would not quite fit the tone of Middle Earth.

 

[Steampunkette]

Dark Sun.

So yes.

 

[Bill Zebub]

It depends on the overall design & intent of the product.

Where AiME succeeds is (a) they did the substantial playtesting required to publish a new class, (b) there's a substantial well of lore they're writing from, and (c) the existing classes would not quite fit the tone of Middle Earth.

I don’t know how extensive the play testing was (Scholar?) but I think your second point is important: it should only be done if existing classes just don’t work/fit with the setting. If it’s a gratuitous vanity project (“While I’m at it I’ll redesign the classes the way they should have been! Mwuhahahaha!”) it will be obvious.

 

[Shiroiken]

It really depends on the necessity. For example, a psion class would be pretty important for Dark Sun, just like a shugenja class would be pretty important for Rokugan. There's no existing class that would be workable for either of those, yet they're pretty important to the setting. The courtier class for Rokugan can be done using the rogue or bard, so it would be best as sub-class.

 

[Zardnaar]

If it's interesting to me yes. That includes rewriting the phb eg 2E Darksun.

Might be great might be crap who knows.

 

[Andvari]

Different classes and races are ways to immediately make a setting feel different to players as they create their characters. So, yes.