Honestly, there’s not really any big archetypes that come to mind. Most setting-specific twists work better as subclasses, imo. It’s third-party, but Tal’Dorei Reborn has two blood magic casters, for example. And really the only other setting specialization that comes to mind right now is psions for Dark Sun, but as has been previously discussed at length in other threads it’s hard to pin down a functional class identity for psions that is practical to implement in 5e and doesn’t essentially recreate existing psionic leaning subclasses like Aberrant Mind, GOOlock, and College of Glamour.
Psions for Dark Sun seem the most obvious. But considering Dark Sun probably isn't going to be included in DnD from now on as a standalone setting, that one is highly unlikely.
It would be nice to see Blood Hunter get an official 2024 revamp as well. The 5e version is really showing its age at this point.
Psions for Dark Sun seem the most obvious. But considering Dark Sun probably isn't going to be included in DnD from now on as a standalone setting, that one is highly unlikely.
It would be nice to see Blood Hunter get an official 2024 revamp as well. The 5e version is really showing its age at this point.
People keep saying this, but Dark Sun is called out by name in the DMG as a published setting. Published Settings
I can't really say anything about it beyond the books my dad left me, but the basic concept seems cool. If magic is taboo then seems like it would need a Psion class or at least more Psion Subclasses and/or Feats.
WotC has officially said they don't have any plans to revisit the setting with a sourcebook or similar product. They're not trying to pretend it never existed, but they're not really inclined to actually dust it off as more than a passing mention either. In broad strokes it's a decent wasteland apocalypse setting, but there's a lot of either crunchy elements they probably don't want to try and work out for 5e (iron scarcity and the related weapon breakage rules, arcane magic draining life force from the land, psionics everywhere), and some transgressive elements they probably don't want as cornerstones of a product (there's something about halflings being cannibals, widespread slavery- including a dwarven subrace who've been bred for it, forced illiteracy, etc.); none of that is inherently bad as setting points in and of themselves, but given that WotC has been leaning into wide appeal and making content that appeals to younger players I doubt they want to go for something this grimdark, and if you rewrite most of the grimdark out then all the people with nostalgic memories of the setting will most likely loudly point out how it's not the setting they remember. Can't win either way. Plus, again, while psionics as a discrete system sounds interesting and appropriate in theory, previous discussions around the topic have highlighted that it's both conceptually hard to pin down what it would be as a separate system, and that prior practical attempts to implement it have had very mixed results.
WotC has officially said they don't have any plans to revisit the setting with a sourcebook or similar product. They're not trying to pretend it never existed, but they're not really inclined to actually dust it off as more than a passing mention either. In broad strokes it's a decent wasteland apocalypse setting, but there's a lot of either crunchy elements they probably don't want to try and work out for 5e (iron scarcity and the related weapon breakage rules, arcane magic draining life force from the land, psionics everywhere), and some transgressive elements they probably don't want as cornerstones of a product (there's something about halflings being cannibals, widespread slavery- including a dwarven subrace who've been bred for it, forced illiteracy, etc.); none of that is inherently bad as setting points in and of themselves, but given that WotC has been leaning into wide appeal and making content that appeals to younger players I doubt they want to go for something this grimdark, and if you rewrite most of the grimdark out then all the people with nostalgic memories of the setting will most likely loudly point out how it's not the setting they remember. Can't win either way. Plus, again, while psionics as a discrete system sounds interesting and appropriate in theory, previous discussions around the topic have highlighted that it's both conceptually hard to pin down what it would be as a separate system, and that prior practical attempts to implement it have had very mixed results.
So you are saying that it is the only Published Setting on the list that doesn't have some form of printed source and it is going to stay that way. It is just on the list because reasons. I can live with that.
WotC has officially said they don't have any plans to revisit the setting with a sourcebook or similar product. They're not trying to pretend it never existed, but they're not really inclined to actually dust it off as more than a passing mention either. In broad strokes it's a decent wasteland apocalypse setting, but there's a lot of either crunchy elements they probably don't want to try and work out for 5e (iron scarcity and the related weapon breakage rules, arcane magic draining life force from the land, psionics everywhere), and some transgressive elements they probably don't want as cornerstones of a product (there's something about halflings being cannibals, widespread slavery- including a dwarven subrace who've been bred for it, forced illiteracy, etc.); none of that is inherently bad as setting points in and of themselves, but given that WotC has been leaning into wide appeal and making content that appeals to younger players I doubt they want to go for something this grimdark, and if you rewrite most of the grimdark out then all the people with nostalgic memories of the setting will most likely loudly point out how it's not the setting they remember. Can't win either way. Plus, again, while psionics as a discrete system sounds interesting and appropriate in theory, previous discussions around the topic have highlighted that it's both conceptually hard to pin down what it would be as a separate system, and that prior practical attempts to implement it have had very mixed results.
So you are saying that it is the only Published Setting on the list that doesn't have some form of printed source and it is going to stay that way. It is just on the list because reasons. I can live with that.
Now that you mention it that does seem a bit odd, though for the reasons Ace of Rogues gave I can't imagine WotC trying to come out with a product for it. While I don't think it's particularly 'needed' I'd personally enjoy seeing a psionics system added to 5E. Dark Sun would be a logical pathway to it, but both the class/system and the setting seem pretty unlikely in an official release.
To the OP's original question, I would love to see the game get a few new classes. That would sell books, so it's surprising to me WotC is so adamantly against this, but they seem to think less is more when it comes to classes and like for the game to be max level accessible to new players. I think setting specific subclasses are great, but I would personally prefer to see any new full classes they do decide to add be as setting agnostic as possible (and yes, I know that goes a bit against what I said on psionics/DS above - my point was just that supporting DS seems to almost necessitate adding psionics officially). I think artificer suffers a bit from being so associated with Eberron.
The question is would they sell significantly more books than new subclasses. Building a whole new class is a lot more work than coming up with a few sets of 4 or 5 additional features for an existing one, but if the class only draws a few more purchases than the subclasses, then from a business perspective there's a loss in opportunity costs. Note that the book with the original Artificer debut had no class material aside from the Artificer. I don't object to the idea on principle, but it's easy to see why the subclass system is more attractive for developing new player options when they're budgeting dev time for a project.
WotC has officially said they don't have any plans to revisit the setting with a sourcebook or similar product. They're not trying to pretend it never existed, but they're not really inclined to actually dust it off as more than a passing mention either. In broad strokes it's a decent wasteland apocalypse setting, but there's a lot of either crunchy elements they probably don't want to try and work out for 5e (iron scarcity and the related weapon breakage rules, arcane magic draining life force from the land, psionics everywhere), and some transgressive elements they probably don't want as cornerstones of a product (there's something about halflings being cannibals, widespread slavery- including a dwarven subrace who've been bred for it, forced illiteracy, etc.); none of that is inherently bad as setting points in and of themselves, but given that WotC has been leaning into wide appeal and making content that appeals to younger players I doubt they want to go for something this grimdark, and if you rewrite most of the grimdark out then all the people with nostalgic memories of the setting will most likely loudly point out how it's not the setting they remember. Can't win either way. Plus, again, while psionics as a discrete system sounds interesting and appropriate in theory, previous discussions around the topic have highlighted that it's both conceptually hard to pin down what it would be as a separate system, and that prior practical attempts to implement it have had very mixed results.
So you are saying that it is the only Published Setting on the list that doesn't have some form of printed source and it is going to stay that way. It is just on the list because reasons. I can live with that.
It is certainly the odd one out on the list. I don't think it is getting a source book but I do think that it's weird that it's there.
As for the topic of the thread, I would not expect any new classes for a while. During the UA testing for 5.24 they mentioned a few times that they wanted to make things easier to add new classes later, but I am not hopeful.
The question is would they sell significantly more books than new subclasses. Building a whole new class is a lot more work than coming up with a few sets of 4 or 5 additional features for an existing one, but if the class only draws a few more purchases than the subclasses, then from a business perspective there's a loss in opportunity costs. Note that the book with the original Artificer debut had no class material aside from the Artificer. I don't object to the idea on principle, but it's easy to see why the subclass system is more attractive for developing new player options when they're budgeting dev time for a project.
It seems pretty clear the #2 market share company in this TTRPG space thinks new classes do indeed sell, but perhaps that's specific to the kinds of players who have adopted their system. I think DnD would stay feeling fresher and keep fans locked in if new classes were added sparingly, but it's entirely possible that is just me and most people don't want to need to learn how to integrate a new class.
The question is would they sell significantly more books than new subclasses. Building a whole new class is a lot more work than coming up with a few sets of 4 or 5 additional features for an existing one, but if the class only draws a few more purchases than the subclasses, then from a business perspective there's a loss in opportunity costs. Note that the book with the original Artificer debut had no class material aside from the Artificer. I don't object to the idea on principle, but it's easy to see why the subclass system is more attractive for developing new player options when they're budgeting dev time for a project.
It seems pretty clear the #2 market share company in this TTRPG space think new classes do indeed sell, but perhaps that's specific to the kinds of players who have adopted their system. I think DnD would stay feeling fresher and keep fans locked in if new classes were added sparingly, but it's entirely possible that is just me and most people don't want to need to learn how to integrate a new class.
I'm not saying there's a single right way, but if subclasses are already selling pretty well and they don't have firm data that says that full classes will give a larger proportionate return on investment, it's unlikely the business people at WotC will want to change models, even if the other one is viable.
WotC has officially said they don't have any plans to revisit the setting with a sourcebook or similar product. They're not trying to pretend it never existed, but they're not really inclined to actually dust it off as more than a passing mention either. In broad strokes it's a decent wasteland apocalypse setting, but there's a lot of either crunchy elements they probably don't want to try and work out for 5e (iron scarcity and the related weapon breakage rules, arcane magic draining life force from the land, psionics everywhere), and some transgressive elements they probably don't want as cornerstones of a product (there's something about halflings being cannibals, widespread slavery- including a dwarven subrace who've been bred for it, forced illiteracy, etc.); none of that is inherently bad as setting points in and of themselves, but given that WotC has been leaning into wide appeal and making content that appeals to younger players I doubt they want to go for something this grimdark, and if you rewrite most of the grimdark out then all the people with nostalgic memories of the setting will most likely loudly point out how it's not the setting they remember. Can't win either way. Plus, again, while psionics as a discrete system sounds interesting and appropriate in theory, previous discussions around the topic have highlighted that it's both conceptually hard to pin down what it would be as a separate system, and that prior practical attempts to implement it have had very mixed results.
Honestly even if we never got Dark Sun again, it would be nice to see a gritty wilderness themed survival setting. One designed to work with 2024 DnD.
Other than the psion class(es) I have a hard time really seeing anything that demands to be a class rather than a subclass of an existing class. You already have 5 martial classes (barbarian, fighter, Paladin, ranger, and monk), 5 primary casting classes (bard, cleric, Druid, sorcerer, and Wizard), 3 “skills” classes (bard, ranger and rogue) and 4 “Gish” classes (artificers, paladins, ranger, and warlock). As well as bunch of subclasses that cross the boundaries in various ways. ( yes I know some are listed multiple times - so what?) what niche is so large that it needs an entire class with at least 3-4 subclasses to fill it?
None; if a given concept is worthy of its own class to begin with, then you can justify it fitting into multiple settings / places in the multiverse. Even Artificers aren't an Eberron-only thing anymore.
Yes that happens too often in school, in the game however ( like in the working world) rote memorization fails quickly and you have to have some real expertise in the concept. So any concept so broad as to become a class with multiple subclasses ( that’s the key - can you think of at least 4 sufficiently different variants or not) that hasn’t bent covered and that would only fit in one style of campaign is a reach.
Considering testeri1 joined today and posted something irrelevant to the discussion I assume that is a bot that picked up on PsyrenXY's keywords "concept" and "class".
Other than the psion class(es) I have a hard time really seeing anything that demands to be a class rather than a subclass of an existing class. You already have 5 martial classes (barbarian, fighter, Paladin, ranger, and monk), 5 primary casting classes (bard, cleric, Druid, sorcerer, and Wizard), 3 “skills” classes (bard, ranger and rogue) and 4 “Gish” classes (artificers, paladins, ranger, and warlock). As well as bunch of subclasses that cross the boundaries in various ways. ( yes I know some are listed multiple times - so what?) what niche is so large that it needs an entire class with at least 3-4 subclasses to fill it?
I don't disagree that no additional class is "needed", though I do think a truly satisfying arcane gish class is arguably missing (warlock and artificer are fairly unique classes imo, different from what I think of with an archetypal swords n sorcery character where both magic and martial prowess is core to the character concept). Regardless of what is actually needed, when I look at 3rd party classes that are out there by laserllama, kibblestasty, and many others, I think there are classes that people would enjoy playing and that would feel far more fresh than a new subclass that only has a couple of key abilities to differentiate it from anything else that already exists. And yes, obviously people can adopt 3rd party content. It's just a lot easier to get a DM to accept something from WotC, especially if DDB is being used for the campaign.
WotC has officially said they don't have any plans to revisit the setting with a sourcebook or similar product. They're not trying to pretend it never existed, but they're not really inclined to actually dust it off as more than a passing mention either. In broad strokes it's a decent wasteland apocalypse setting, but there's a lot of either crunchy elements they probably don't want to try and work out for 5e (iron scarcity and the related weapon breakage rules, arcane magic draining life force from the land, psionics everywhere), and some transgressive elements they probably don't want as cornerstones of a product (there's something about halflings being cannibals, widespread slavery- including a dwarven subrace who've been bred for it, forced illiteracy, etc.); none of that is inherently bad as setting points in and of themselves, but given that WotC has been leaning into wide appeal and making content that appeals to younger players I doubt they want to go for something this grimdark, and if you rewrite most of the grimdark out then all the people with nostalgic memories of the setting will most likely loudly point out how it's not the setting they remember. Can't win either way. Plus, again, while psionics as a discrete system sounds interesting and appropriate in theory, previous discussions around the topic have highlighted that it's both conceptually hard to pin down what it would be as a separate system, and that prior practical attempts to implement it have had very mixed results.
Sounds like a good thing to me. I like that wotc is being more progressive and stuff but they could ruin it by retconning a bunch of stuff.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please, honor this signature by humming that one Zelda sound next time your players find a magic item
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I’m talking about stuff like the artificer and ebberon.
heres mine: a bloodancer. A blood magic class for the ravenloft setting.
yeah so that’s it! What ideas do you have?
Please, honor this signature by humming that one Zelda sound next time your players find a magic item
Honestly, there’s not really any big archetypes that come to mind. Most setting-specific twists work better as subclasses, imo. It’s third-party, but Tal’Dorei Reborn has two blood magic casters, for example. And really the only other setting specialization that comes to mind right now is psions for Dark Sun, but as has been previously discussed at length in other threads it’s hard to pin down a functional class identity for psions that is practical to implement in 5e and doesn’t essentially recreate existing psionic leaning subclasses like Aberrant Mind, GOOlock, and College of Glamour.
Psions for Dark Sun seem the most obvious. But considering Dark Sun probably isn't going to be included in DnD from now on as a standalone setting, that one is highly unlikely.
It would be nice to see Blood Hunter get an official 2024 revamp as well. The 5e version is really showing its age at this point.
People keep saying this, but Dark Sun is called out by name in the DMG as a published setting. Published Settings
I can't really say anything about it beyond the books my dad left me, but the basic concept seems cool. If magic is taboo then seems like it would need a Psion class or at least more Psion Subclasses and/or Feats.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
WotC has officially said they don't have any plans to revisit the setting with a sourcebook or similar product. They're not trying to pretend it never existed, but they're not really inclined to actually dust it off as more than a passing mention either. In broad strokes it's a decent wasteland apocalypse setting, but there's a lot of either crunchy elements they probably don't want to try and work out for 5e (iron scarcity and the related weapon breakage rules, arcane magic draining life force from the land, psionics everywhere), and some transgressive elements they probably don't want as cornerstones of a product (there's something about halflings being cannibals, widespread slavery- including a dwarven subrace who've been bred for it, forced illiteracy, etc.); none of that is inherently bad as setting points in and of themselves, but given that WotC has been leaning into wide appeal and making content that appeals to younger players I doubt they want to go for something this grimdark, and if you rewrite most of the grimdark out then all the people with nostalgic memories of the setting will most likely loudly point out how it's not the setting they remember. Can't win either way. Plus, again, while psionics as a discrete system sounds interesting and appropriate in theory, previous discussions around the topic have highlighted that it's both conceptually hard to pin down what it would be as a separate system, and that prior practical attempts to implement it have had very mixed results.
So you are saying that it is the only Published Setting on the list that doesn't have some form of printed source and it is going to stay that way. It is just on the list because reasons. I can live with that.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Now that you mention it that does seem a bit odd, though for the reasons Ace of Rogues gave I can't imagine WotC trying to come out with a product for it. While I don't think it's particularly 'needed' I'd personally enjoy seeing a psionics system added to 5E. Dark Sun would be a logical pathway to it, but both the class/system and the setting seem pretty unlikely in an official release.
To the OP's original question, I would love to see the game get a few new classes. That would sell books, so it's surprising to me WotC is so adamantly against this, but they seem to think less is more when it comes to classes and like for the game to be max level accessible to new players. I think setting specific subclasses are great, but I would personally prefer to see any new full classes they do decide to add be as setting agnostic as possible (and yes, I know that goes a bit against what I said on psionics/DS above - my point was just that supporting DS seems to almost necessitate adding psionics officially). I think artificer suffers a bit from being so associated with Eberron.
The question is would they sell significantly more books than new subclasses. Building a whole new class is a lot more work than coming up with a few sets of 4 or 5 additional features for an existing one, but if the class only draws a few more purchases than the subclasses, then from a business perspective there's a loss in opportunity costs. Note that the book with the original Artificer debut had no class material aside from the Artificer. I don't object to the idea on principle, but it's easy to see why the subclass system is more attractive for developing new player options when they're budgeting dev time for a project.
It is certainly the odd one out on the list. I don't think it is getting a source book but I do think that it's weird that it's there.
As for the topic of the thread, I would not expect any new classes for a while. During the UA testing for 5.24 they mentioned a few times that they wanted to make things easier to add new classes later, but I am not hopeful.
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
It seems pretty clear the #2 market share company in this TTRPG space thinks new classes do indeed sell, but perhaps that's specific to the kinds of players who have adopted their system. I think DnD would stay feeling fresher and keep fans locked in if new classes were added sparingly, but it's entirely possible that is just me and most people don't want to need to learn how to integrate a new class.
I'm not saying there's a single right way, but if subclasses are already selling pretty well and they don't have firm data that says that full classes will give a larger proportionate return on investment, it's unlikely the business people at WotC will want to change models, even if the other one is viable.
Honestly even if we never got Dark Sun again, it would be nice to see a gritty wilderness themed survival setting. One designed to work with 2024 DnD.
Other than the psion class(es) I have a hard time really seeing anything that demands to be a class rather than a subclass of an existing class. You already have 5 martial classes (barbarian, fighter, Paladin, ranger, and monk), 5 primary casting classes (bard, cleric, Druid, sorcerer, and Wizard), 3 “skills” classes (bard, ranger and rogue) and 4 “Gish” classes (artificers, paladins, ranger, and warlock). As well as bunch of subclasses that cross the boundaries in various ways. ( yes I know some are listed multiple times - so what?) what niche is so large that it needs an entire class with at least 3-4 subclasses to fill it?
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
None; if a given concept is worthy of its own class to begin with, then you can justify it fitting into multiple settings / places in the multiverse. Even Artificers aren't an Eberron-only thing anymore.
Yes that happens too often in school, in the game however ( like in the working world) rote memorization fails quickly and you have to have some real expertise in the concept. So any concept so broad as to become a class with multiple subclasses ( that’s the key - can you think of at least 4 sufficiently different variants or not) that hasn’t bent covered and that would only fit in one style of campaign is a reach.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Considering testeri1 joined today and posted something irrelevant to the discussion I assume that is a bot that picked up on PsyrenXY's keywords "concept" and "class".
I don't disagree that no additional class is "needed", though I do think a truly satisfying arcane gish class is arguably missing (warlock and artificer are fairly unique classes imo, different from what I think of with an archetypal swords n sorcery character where both magic and martial prowess is core to the character concept). Regardless of what is actually needed, when I look at 3rd party classes that are out there by laserllama, kibblestasty, and many others, I think there are classes that people would enjoy playing and that would feel far more fresh than a new subclass that only has a couple of key abilities to differentiate it from anything else that already exists. And yes, obviously people can adopt 3rd party content. It's just a lot easier to get a DM to accept something from WotC, especially if DDB is being used for the campaign.
A spelljammer class that is focused on being a getaway man and having speed buffs.
basically a vehicle technician mixed with psionic eldritch abilities.
Please, honor this signature by humming that one Zelda sound next time your players find a magic item
Sounds like a good thing to me. I like that wotc is being more progressive and stuff but they could ruin it by retconning a bunch of stuff.
Please, honor this signature by humming that one Zelda sound next time your players find a magic item