Talk:5e Classes

Guide

Let's collect some hints and tips and design insight to make a Guide page for making 5e classes.

I found this quote from the D&D R&D team:

"Our main focus was on making a game where every class felt fun and no one overshadowed anyone else in all areas. Some classes are good at defense, others at offense; while others have lots of tricks up their sleeves. We broke the game down into three basic areas: exploration, combat, and interaction and used that as a guide. Each class had to be useful in each area in some way, but how they were useful had to vary."

Marasmusine (talk) 04:53, 15 July 2015 (MDT)

I think there are several mental states behind creating a bad class:

1. They think of the core classes as rigidly defined by their theme, but want to play a character with a theme not covered by a class description. As a result, they make a class that is nearly identical to a previously existing one, but re-skinned for a different theme. I think the vast majority of classes could be removed entirely if WotC just added a section to the end of each class description describing different themes and styles the class can cover mechanically. (For example, the fighter class can cover archers, samurai, and even mundane ninja!) In essence, this is a failure to use imagination.
2. They want to make a class which is more mechanically tuned to their personal ideal of how a theme should be explored, but ultimately create a variant of a previously existing core class. This happens a lot with spell casters and the classes with more nebulous themes, such as the ranger and bard. Often, these are created from a juvenile mindset that wanted to do something just slightly outside the bounds of the rules with a core class (Typically for balance reasons) and just won't give it up. Such minor tweaks are just that- tweaks. There is no reason to go dreaming up and building a whole new class just so you can have an elven monk in plate mail without penalties.
3. They want to make a class which can act as a cross-class for a campaign which does not use cross-classing rules, or so they can reach level 20 with the best parts of two classes combined. (I think this is actually a valid motivation, it just has a tendency to produce broken classes though, as the creator focuses on synergizing class abilities without counterbalancing them.) One thing to consider is that a similar effect can be achieved by making a new class specialization which incorporates the effects you'd like.
4. They want to make something incredibly specific to the exclusion of all else. While these classes often offer interesting style and mechanics, they are often severely restricting and dysfunctional in group play or outside of specific settings. Some creators treat this restriction as a counterbalance for mechanical power, reasoning "Oh, they don't get to do anything very often, so it shouldn't matter if what they can do is INSANE", but this actually makes the class worse, as it is now imbalanced AND unstable!

Overall, I think the biggest mistake many class creators make is that they fail to consider class individuality. A class needs to be both mechanically and thematically distinct enough that if you stand them up next to the other classes they stand out as an equal option, not an alternative to one of them. This is especially important for campaigns which include multiclassing, as having many slight variations of each class (as opposed to a wide range of standalone classes) makes it vary easy to minmax a bonkers character by just combining variants. --Kydo (talk) 15:47, 15 July 2015 (MDT)

All good points, thank-you. Marasmusine (talk) 13:20, 15 July 2015 (MDT)

This is why archetypes exist, though... right? --PrinceoftheAngels (talk) 17:24, 28 September 2015 (MDT)

So, I started working on a class design guide on my user page, but then got deeply side-tracked. Anyone still interested in working on said project? It's a really big topic, and I doubt I can cover it adequately alone. --Kydo (talk) 23:43, 17 October 2015 (MDT)

Still working on this guide project. Now located at User:Kydo/workspace/variant rules. --Kydo (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2016 (MST)

So... Yeah... Still working on this thing... Linked it on the main class page to try and attract some more voices. I don't want to be the be-all-end-all on any topic here. This stuff is supposed to be collaborative! --Kydo (talk) 07:20, 29 August 2016 (MDT)

Deleted classes?

What happened to summoner class

I have noticed that a few classes have dissipated recently. I could not find anything about them being deleted or a reason for there deletion. Two of the specific ones are summoner and forest knight. Please respond if anything about this is known. Thank you. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2601:194:100:c8b3:ac07:6112:e50c:90ef (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts.

I can see a Summoner (5e Class) right there. Forrest Knight (5e Class) had a bunch of maintenance templates and a delete template that was unaddressed for over 2 weeks, but if you want to fix it up, we can restore it for you. --SgtLion (talk) 07:20, 16 October 2015 (MDT)

I deleted forrest [sic] knight after two weeks notice. The deletion rationale was 'Still an excruciating read. "causes enemy opponents to suffer a negative 4 to there hit die rolls last for 4 rounds " - what?!' and there was a needsbalance template that highlighted the poor way its animal companion was handled. It can be restored, but be aware that significant work would need to be done on it. Marasmusine (talk) 07:36, 16 October 2015 (MDT)

Me and other people cant see the summoner class. It does not show up, the link you posted worked however it is still not visible on the normal page.

Someone accidentally deleted the categories at the bottom of the page. I'll see if I can fix that for ya'. Also, please sign your comments on the talk pages by typing four tiles, like this: ~~~~ which would get something like: --Kydo (talk) 23:35, 17 October 2015 (MDT)

Done! --Kydo (talk) 23:39, 17 October 2015 (MDT)

why do people kepp deleting classes the bright lord and battlemage classes were recently deleted

Please see Template:Delete/why for some details as to why pages are occasionally deleted. It is also possible that, as above, someone deleted the category tags at the bottom of the page, preventing the link from appearing on the class list. The battlemage, by my recollection, was made by someone purely to convince a DM that it was OK to play, was never completed, and the OP actually didn't even end up using it, deciding to play a standard class instead. Bright Lord (5e Class) is right here. The category tags are missing from the bottom of the page. I'll just fix that for ya'. --Kydo (talk) 11:13, 31 October 2015 (MDT)

Ok, it's back in the list. Sorry you missed the deletion on Battlemage. Admin can restore deleted pages, but by my memory, that particular class would need a LOT of work. It was a long ways away from being complete, and covers ground already covered by the Eldritch Knight archetype and crossclassing a Fighter with any type of spellcaster. Any editor would be hard-pressed to explore the idea of a spellcasting fighter in a manner not already done by the core official content, on a mechanical level. --Kydo (talk) 11:20, 31 October 2015 (MDT)

Prestige Classes

Since the first prestige class appears to be a rune scribe, it also appears that the rules are similar to multiclass rules. However, I was wondering if we chose to have a prestige class, can we reach the 20th level in either classes? or do we loss that option once we chose to have a prestige class? Plus, if I have a prestige class, where can I add it? Azernath (talk) 13:44, 25 October 2015 (MDT)

A prestige class is identical to a normal class, except it has restrictions like classes from earlier editions. One of those restrictions is that your character must already be level 3. As such, the only way to access them is through multiclassing, which means you cannot reach level 20 in either class once this is done. At the end of the day, total character level still has a hard limit of 20. Epic level rules do not exist yet. --Kydo (talk) 15:43, 25 October 2015 (MDT)

Can someone hit me up with a link to this prestige class so I can prepare a preload, index etc. Marasmusine (talk) 11:25, 31 October 2015 (MDT)

UA Rune Magic Prestige Class I don't think it really needs its own preload- they really are nearly identical to standard classes with the added feature of having prerequisites. It would make more sense to add a "Prestige Class" tag to the standard preload, with a comment saying to delete it if it's a full class, and an optional prerequisites section, then just adding a prestige classes category to the classes page. --Kydo (talk) 12:04, 31 October 2015 (MDT)

I can't believe that I know something about D&D that Marasmusine didn't know, it must be an anomaly in the fabric of reality. :) Azernath (talk) 09:56, 4 November 2015 (MST)

Class Requests

I would love to play a class based around a golgari necromancer but am not any good at homebrewing myself i was wondering if someone with with some free time would homebrew a golgari lich class.(golgari is the black and green magic the gathering guild from return to ravinca)--216.56.162.2 09:59, 4 February 2016 (MST)

What makes a Golgari necromancer or lich different from a normal necromancer or lich? Is it possible to just make a generic class to represent the same thing? I'm much more interested in material that can fit into many games and is generic enough that you can rewrite the fluff to make it represent many types of the same idea. (For example, the corebook fighter can be a knight, a wrestler, an archer, even a red-mage of sorts!) Making something incredibly specific to a given inspiration source is usually unsuccessful, as there is very little appeal outside of a limited audience. I do find it interesting that nobody has made a generic class of this sort for 5e yet. Necromancers have been a genre favorite since they appeared as playables in the mid-90s fantasy VRPGs... Although, they seem to resonate with the least mature demographic therein. --Kydo (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2016 (MST)

How about a lich prestige class, we do have a good idea how to make one based on the unearthed arcane. Azernath (talk) 10:52, 5 February 2016 (MST)

a lich of any kind would be great. --24.208.40.15 12:02, 21 February 2016 (MST)

Started one up. Anyone interested in developing this idea, please join me at Necromancer (5e Class), because I am terrible with magic. --Kydo (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2016 (MST)

I never saw a part of a wiki dedicated to homebrew so eager to delete and diminish other poeples work and wanting so much to delete stuff they don't like. Its homebrew. Give everyone a break. If you are only going to let it pass the Classes that only you like it, then just forbid people from making new classes already.

It might help if we knew what page you were talking about. Marasmusine (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I've was looking for a Homebrew class based on the Monster Hunter series, but couldn't find one. I have no experience with Homebrew whatsoever, and was hoping for some help to build the class I wanted to build.Tthe balancing issues would be an issue, I presume. Would that be possible? It would have versatility depending on which weapon the character's using, like the game mechanics. If it's possible, I'd like to see it. --Nickolas 22:45, 21 January 2018 (EST)

Perhaps try the Monster Slayer ranger subclass from Xanathar's Guide to Everything? — Geodude671 (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 01:15, 22 January 2018 (MST)

hey, i am looking for a half caster that uses the wizard spell casting style, so he/she would have a spell book and such. i want it to be just as versatile a fighter as say paladin or ranger, both are half casters and have a d10 hit and most weapons and armor starting. this is mainly for me wanting the spell book aspect of the wizard as there are a lot of int spell casters on here. on a side note if possible a relation to a familiar would be cool but not necessary at all. please and thank you for your consideration.--Lord Survival (talk) 14:31, 14 June 2018 (MDT)

Not exactly a request for a class but more of a request for help. I have recently decided it would be fun to play some sort of class that centers around shapeshifting, not like a changeling or Druid but more along the line of Living Weapon (5e Class), morphing your body and appendages to fight as opposed to shapeshifting into a dragon or something. The only problem with living weapon is it’s a bit too specific, only allowing you to produce weapons as opposed to shapeshifting mostly freely. I am willing to create the class, but I’m not all that experienced and I would like it too be up to an acceptable standard for the wiki. I was wondering if there’s a way any of the more experienced homebrewers could help? If so, I’m sure the class would turn out a lot better than it would with me alone on it.--Randomperson1212 (talk) 16:00, 24 November 2019 (MDT)

Trouble with my Class Idea

I have an idea for a character class, basically they can do amazing things if threatened, like pull a magic weapon out of his pack that wasn't there before and goes away as soon as he puts it back, or can have insanely lucky things happen to them, like tripping and falling right before a giant steps where he was going to run, without having to consciously think, "I want this to happen!" or "I want a magic weapon!" More like, "I sure hope there's something useful in this pack," and there is. Note this only happens when they are in danger. Other than that, they have minor psionic abilities (per the Mystic class in Unearthed Arcana, but they get them much later) and a couple of more futuristic abilities, like "Plasma Rays" (2 ranged attacks, 1d4 fire damage) and the archetype-exclusive "Great Big Ball of Antimatter" (1 ranged attack, 1d10 necrotic damage, may additionally attack user) and "Antimattter Strike" (1 melee attack, 1d4 necrotic damage). The ONLY armor they are permitted to wear is studded leather armor. They have three archetypes: one that focuses on being a big tank that can take hits, with a "Force Field" ability (your basic invisible shield), a "Big Whopping Cannon" eventually replacing "Plasma Rays," melee weapon proficiencies, Path of the Immortal and the Soul Knife psionics and more armor options/proficiencies; one that is focused on moving sneakily, thief-like, and discovering information, with a "Cat Foot" ability (moving effortlessly and soundlessly and always landing on one's feet), Darkvision, Nomad and Awakened psionics, and no armor at all while using these abilities (except the psionics and Darkvision); and one that focuses on rewriting the world around them, with psionics as their pencil, and deadly antimatter attacks as their eraser, with a "Create Small Object" ability (exactly what it says on the tin), the fore-mentioned antimatter abilities replacing any weapons, Wu Jen and Avatar psionics, and the ability to create their own special armor set at will. The trouble is, I can't think of a good name for the class or the archetypes, or how to implemet the various psionics without it becoming broken or OP. --2601:14E:C000:83A0:FD22:3CAD:3D77:9D30 14:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I can't think of any good names for that off the top of my head. You can emulate that idea in a balanced way by copying the mechanics of other classes or level-appropriate spells, and reskinning them to represent something else. For example, give them the halfling lucky trait as a class feature and have it stack with the lucky trait in some minor way. Then use a random chart for their lucky-rummaging-items. Have the chart expand with more versatile or powerful items as they gain levels. The archetypes you describe don't sound like they fit the theme of the base class though, and could almost be their own class premises! Perhaps give them a wild-magic style caster archetype with unpredictable spell results- like the wizard from the D&D cartoon! --Kydo (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Ability Speciality Categorisation?

Is there a way to have lists at the bottom of the complete class list that describe the most important ability score (or scores) for each class, in the same way you can sort Races by size when trying to find one? Unfortunately, I don't have the faintest idea how to implement that.

Ability scores are not a field in the 5e class template, so we can't sort by them. They are only suggestions in the quick build. The way 5e classes are, there isn't really a "prime ability score" (at least, if they are designed well). A fighter can work well with a high Str, Con, Dex or Int. I have a great warlock character with Charisma 10. Marasmusine (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2018 (MDT)

I agree some kind of sorting system is necessary. There are almost as many classes as races and they have multiple catagories. Even a simple sort like caster/non-caster would work. Oddgeon (talk) 12:36, 31 October 2018 (MDT)

That's a much more reasonable solution. We could sort the classes by none, third, half, and full spellcasting. Any other options? --Green Dragon (talk) 12:01, 1 November 2018 (MDT)

How is that? --Green Dragon (talk) 23:34, 5 November 2018 (MST)

Looking good. Oddgeon (talk) 10:46, 6 November 2018 (MST)

Can't Find My class

So I made my first class today and posted it to the homebrew; and I wanted my sis to check it out, but she couldn't find it. I told her where it should be, and she sent me a screenshot, but it wasn't in the picture. Is there a waiting period for new posts before they can be seen by other people? The class is the "Alchemist" class. PunnyDM12 (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2018 (MST)

Gunslinger Variants

Do we "really" need so many gunslinger classes?

There are so many gunslinger classes because people keep making them for their games. If there are some that you find which are {{abandoned}} or such, then please add the appropriate maintenance templates. --Green Dragon (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2019 (MST)

Redesigning The 5e Class Page

While I do like what was done when reformatting this page to a hub for smaller list pages, after thinking it over, I do have misgivings about categorizing classes by type. This is because, for the most part, 5e has gotten rid of the arcane/divine dichotomy between classes and has shied away from categorizing classes. Looking at the categories, it would seem that there would be mechanical differences between classes of differing types when really there are no mechanical differences between how you gain your power in 5e. Instead, classes simply have flavor differences(that you can change/homebrew) between each other rather than having features that change based on what type of class it is. Regardless of those reasons though, categorizing all classes similar to say artificers as arcane classes may or may not be true and will inevitable lead to some classes being improperly categorized.

Currently, the only real distinction between classes in 5e is whether a class is a martial or spellcasting class. Even then, paladins and rangers tend to act like martial classes despite the spellcasting. Plus, subclasses can make official and homebrew martial classes into gishes and spellcasting classes into spellcasters who can wade into melee range. Besides that, subclasses also have varying different themes and flavor differences in addition to giving features that may make the class play differently(a martial class can be made into a healer, ect.). Because of this, and several other reason, I do not believe there is a neat way to categorize classes based on the type of class.

Overall, due to the numerous reasons above and the messy nature of categorizing classes by type, I believe the section is not needed, especially since categorizing classes this way does not resemble anything official.--Blobby383b (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2020 (MST)

I agree. I have tried categorizing classes by type and I have found that quite a number of them ended up in places I was not happy with. I think it would work better if we change the Classes by Type section to 'Classes by Archetype' or Classes by Core Type' or something. There are already three items in the list that are built like that because I could not figure out which of the other grouping to put them in: Healer, Rogue, and Commoner. I propose converting that column to a list of the 22 tags I have used. It removes one probably needless level of complexity. Arquebus (talk) 11:21, 29 November 2020 (MST)

I agree that using the 22 tags is better than the general categories which don't really work. The tags should help users find a suitable class quicker, and sorting through 22 tags is not a major hurdle if they want to find what they are looking for. --Green Dragon (talk) 11:29, 29 November 2020 (MST)

I would agree as well, tags seem to be a better way to organize the classes. Most of the tag names look to be ok, though I believe the 5e Mystic Classes name could be changed to 5e Psionic Classes as the mystic class has been abandoned by WotC and I believe psionic is a better term for classes of this type(as they have physic powers/use psionics). Besides that, I believe 5e Yookoohoo Classes could also be changed to 5e Shapeshifting Classes as yookoohoo is a name for a shapeshifter in a specific fantasy setting, while shapeshifting is more generic.--Blobby383b (talk) 12:35, 30 November 2020 (MST)

I tend to think that shapeshifter and shapechanger are more a fantasy race terms than a fantasy class term. Yookoohoo is the best I could come up with. I don't know of anything that is both generic and not a term related to a race. I have no solution for this. I like the change from mystic to psionic. Arquebus (talk) 02:04, 1 December 2020 (MST)

I am also thinking I would like to change the 'Sorcery' tag to something else. It is too close to sorcerer. Perhaps something like 'Energist' or something. I have been using the tag for those class that source magic 'energy' from something outside the character, that ususally do not have anything like 'sorcery ponits', and that usually do not have a spell level table. Arquebus (talk) 02:20, 1 December 2020 (MST)

From my understanding, shapeshifting isn't inheritably tied to being part of a race. Either way, perhaps a deeper dive into shapeshifting is needed. As for changing the name of the 'Sorcery' tag, I have a few ideas but nothing I am sold on yet. The names I am considering are: conduit, invoker, and conjurer.--Blobby383b (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2020 (MST)

There is a 9th level spell called Shapechange. It very closely approxiimtes what the classes that shapechange by magic do. I think I will propose [[Category:Shapechanger Tag]] for shapeshifting classes, and maybe start retagging the creatures with the 'Shapechanger' tag to 'Shapeshifter'. Arquebus (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2020 (MST)

Maybe shapeshifter for classes Is better. The Doppenganger in the monster manual is described as a shape changer. Arquebus (talk) 20:43, 2 December 2020 (MST)

Ideas to replace 'Sorcery Tag':
 Channeller Tag - a bit better than conduit, sounds like they might actually do something with the power they are channelling
 Conduit Tag    - Sorcery is more than a conduit
 Conjurer Tag   - sounds like a wizard
 Controller Tag - sounds like a bureaucrat
 Bender Tag     - sounds like elemental magic only
 Energist Tag   - sounds lame
 Invoker Tag    - sounds like a wizard
 Mage Tag       - sounds too generic
 Natural Caster - sounds like a druid
 Power Tag      - sounds like a superhero
 Talent Caster  - sounds like a sorcerer since talent comes from inside.
 Shaper Tag     - sounds like a polymorpher
 Weaver Tag     - sounds like a commoner, makes silk stockings too

Arquebus (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2020 (MST)

I am now leaning toward 'bender' Arquebus (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2020 (MST)

Out of all of these possible names, I think I am leaning towards the channeler or invoker tag name. I don't think either is perfect, though they are a notably better than the sorcery tag name which was a bit ambiguous about its exact meaning.--Blobby383b (talk) 14:44, 4 December 2020 (MST)

Some ideas:

"Natural Caster"

"Talent Caster"

Not sure if they are too long. --Green Dragon (talk) 11:53, 8 December 2020 (MST)

I think talent caster is better, although I am now leaning strongly toward Channeller. Arquebus (talk) 14:37, 8 December 2020 (MST)

I have been noticing that some classes seem to be of a different type than variant or mashup. These classes seem to be base classes that have subclasses that could each be considered a different mashup or variant. For example the Tough Commoner I built, and the Shinigami, Variant. I'm thinking of calling them '5e base class' and making a 5e base class category. Arquebus (talk) 14:37, 8 December 2020 (MST)

I assumed that was whatthe dilettante and/or nonvariant class categories were for. While we're on the topic of how many categories should exist, the second column from the left is completely redundant save for the mashup page, that would easily be at home in the far left column. I have such an edit raring to go, I figured someone might be able to point out if I was missing something. --Ref3rence (talk) 14:46, 8 December 2020 (MST)

I think we need to retain at least the 'mashup' and 'nonvariant' items from the second column. Each item in the left column is broken down into variant, mashup, and incomplete lists, so they do cover 'variant' list. Would you put the 'mashup' and 'nonvariant' selections at the bottom or the top (of the first column)? Arquebus (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2020 (MST)

Nonvariant is already under Other Classes, and I was planning on moving mashups above it. —Ref3rence (talk) 17:57, 8 December 2020 (MST)

Sounds good Arquebus (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2020 (MST)

I think there's possibly too much subjectivity in how to classify a class as a variant of an official class. Would a single feature like with an aura instantly make you paladin? That's up to the editor. Thus this would create a lot of confusion and disagreement. Personally, I wish we still had the 4e power sources to go by (Arcane, Divine, Martial, Shadow, Psi, Primal). But I guess 5e is too messy for that.--Yanied (talk) 14:17, 31 December 2020 (MST)

Or even battle roles. It would be a more rigorous process and there would be fewer tags, but I think it less confusing than these tags. Like why have a cleric and healer and not just healer, since healer is the larger category by definition of just being a medic, religious or not? And the sorcery + sorcerer tags being coexistent is very irksome.--Yanied (talk) 11:26, 7 May 2021 (MDT)

I second the motion to replace these nebulous tags with battle roles. I initially agreed with the idea of the tags because navigating one massive page was impossible, but having 25 different pages is just as daunting for someone who doesn't frequent the wiki, while combat roles can be readily understood and makes "choosing a place in a party", for lack of a better term, much easier. We could probably throw in one of the admin bots to replace certain "theme" tags with "role" tags, but we should probably decide what tags to go with first. I suggest the following:

• Damage Tag (Classes that prioritize DPR): Barbarian, Gunslinger, Monk, Psionic, Rogue, Sorcerer, Sorcery, Warlock, Wizard
• Tank Tag (Classes that prioritize AC, saving throw bonuses, damage type resistances, bonuses against conditions/magical effects, hit points or healing on self): Beast Master, Fighter, Paladin
• Support Tag (Classes that prioritize AC, saving throw bonuses, damage type resistances, bonuses against conditions/magical effects, hit points or healing on others): Alchemist, Cleric, Healer
• Utility Tag (Classes that aren't combat focused, prioritize debuffing other creatures, or prioritize increasing mechanics not increased by support): Artificer, Bard, Druid, Necromancer, Ranger
• Other Tag (Classes that cover all or none of the above): Commoner, Dilettante, Shapeshifter

I'm really interested in what others think about this idea, and even more interested in seeing this implemented.--Ref3rence (talk) 22:10, 7 May 2021 (MDT)

I do like the idea, though I do believe that for the community as a whole, the battle role tags are less useful than class theme/flavor tags. I say this because I believe the battle role tags will appear more to veterans/optimizers than casual players of 5e. In addition, classes in 5e are very complex and most are not easily assigned to a battle role(ie most classes have decent damage, some squishy classes can somewhat tank with spells/other features but are not tanks, ect.). However, the damage/tank/support roles are used in a ton of other games and is a useful if extremely boring way of categorizing classes. Because of these things, I believe adding the battle role tags could be done, but if done they should not outright replace the class theme tags.--Blobby383b (talk) 12:20, 10 May 2021 (MDT)

I second the notion of having flavor tags alongside battle role stuff. At least a “tends towards arcane/divine/psionic/mundane/other” kinda thing, minimum. Battle roles are cool and all, and would certainly help people look for certain things, but people(namely me) do look for more than just mechanical specifics. --SwankyPants (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2021 (MDT)

Battle roles seem to me to be something a player would use when trying to fill out a role in the party. I am a little skeptical that the complexity of many classes would fit perfectly into the roles. Rather, I see that they would be useful if somewhat vague reference. --Green Dragon (talk) 00:32, 20 May 2021 (MDT)

Battle roles would impose some more objectivity rather than why a beast master theme exists but not a general companion class tag. 5e is not the best edition to have roles, necessarily, but there are general roles you can assign some core classes. The subclasses are what make roles tricky, since they diversify a class. 4e uses a combination of flavor via power source, combined with roles to define a class, which helps as a heuristic.--Yanied (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2021 (MDT)

I think the most important role of tagging, at the end of the day, is to easily let users find the content that they're looking for. That's why I'm for more tags rather than less, because they let different kinds of people easily find the content they're looking for. I do know people that think of classes as an assortment of mechanics tied together with flavour, and role tags would help them find what they're looking for without having to guess where to look for "support types" or "tanking types". Most classes can't be perfectly described with just a single role, but again, I don't think the point of a tagging system is minute categorization. It would be a user-oriented system, so it'd only need to be accurate enough. vladulenta (talk)

Tags and Templates

The new class template does not seem to have the word Tag attached to a class category. I was hoping to build the class tags like the race tags where the word Tag is attached to a race type. If we want to do races and classes differently that's fine, I guess, but it could get confusing. Arquebus (talk) 14:07, 18 December 2020 (MST)

Hello, moderators.

I am finally ready to have my Gri-Gri Mystic (wokan) class listed as a finished Mystic class variant, but apparently there is not Mystic tag, although apparently there used to be a mystic tag, because it still registers are a valid tag when placing my class on the "classes tending toward Arcane" list.

I would change the code myself, but I fear that I might mess something up, so I ask that the Mystic tag be included in the class list.

Thank you --El Tres (talk) 00:25, 9 February 2021 (MST)El Tres