# Is a question asking what WoTC-published, D&D 5e classes are available a viable Stack question?

Would a question asking about available classes published by WoTC, including archetypes/subtype (preferably including Unearthed Arcana if that doesn't put the question in jeopardy), be appropriate to ask here following the same principles made on the Where to find races and classes in 5e meta question?

There are a few problems I can see that might make such a question an issue and too broad though.

1. There are a lot more class options scattered throughout the available resources than there are races.

2. The inclusion of Unearthed Arcana material expands this list tenfold (I would really like to include this though, if possible).

3. New Unearthed Arcana material gets realised every month(?) or so which means the question would need to be updated more frequently than the one about races.

4. I don't believe we have these sorts of questions for previous editions (there is this one for 3.5e that is closed as too broad and heavily downvoted, though it is asking about both races and classes). Focussing too much on 5e could open the door to these types of questions for previous editions (which may or may not be a problem).

5. I'm not sure how well such a question would hold up over time.

It's done.

The question is here: What are the official, WotC-published classes and subclasses in 5e?

• Unearthed Arcana has no consistent schedule for whether it will include races, classes, or other rules. It is uncertain whether the race page would need to be updated less often with such an inclusion. – David Coffron Jun 21 '18 at 11:39
• The problem with 3.5e is probably that there is a hundred times more material for that than for 5e. Check the answer for the linked question about 3.5 - this is the pdf on the available races chet.kindredcircle.org/pdf/DnD3.5Index-Races.pdf - there are more elves there than there are races in 5e :P (this is exaggeration, to be clear) – HellSaint Jun 21 '18 at 19:04
• Suggest a separate question for UA/Playtest classes and features. That would also make a playtest tag appropriate for people seeking informed 5e playtest answers and questions. – KorvinStarmast Jun 21 '18 at 19:54

I don't have much of an argument to make other than

• the reasoning in the linked meta, and
• the good reception the two linked canonical-list questions have gotten.

But here it is, for people to vote for or against:

### About UA/unofficial classes and features

Have a separate question for them to both avoid clutter, and to also allow that question/wiki to fit with playtest tags, etc.

• Yeah, not much else to say here either. A single "canonical" question, with a (probably) community wiki answer that's kept up to date if any additional classes are released, seems fine. – V2Blast Jun 20 '18 at 7:17
• I've updated the question with a few points that might influence the reception of such a question on the main site. Please review this edit as it might require an update to your answer. – Purple Monkey Jun 20 '18 at 23:31
• Yeah... UA is a little tricky, maybe. But I think if it's clearly delineated (above and below an <hr>, perhaps?) and if in the first instance it's really thorough, people would probably maintain it. I.e. I'd suggest (from my experience) having the question post and currently-complete answer ready to post self-answer-style. But only time will tell.... – nitsua60 Jun 21 '18 at 3:12
• @nitsua60 I edited in a "UA separate question" line. If you like it, good. If not we can kill it. – KorvinStarmast Jun 21 '18 at 20:06