How Many Classes Do We Really Need?

hafrogman · Apr 27, 2012

DEFCON 1 said:
If Druids for some reason do not get classified as a nature god specialty priest (and instead are their own special case where they get their power from nature itself), but are still considered a Divine class... then the game is basically redefining what Divine means. It no longer means your power is granted to you from a GOD, but rather that your power is granted to you from someone or something.

Interesting fact for consideration (Not much consideration, to be fair, but it's amusing to me at least): I've been looking through my old D&D books in an effort to get my head into the same place as the designers, and I came across this interesting passage in my Mentzer BD&D.

A cleric is a human character who is dedicated to serving a great and worthy cause.

*snip*

A cleric's spell powers come from the strength of the cleric's beliefs.

Now, I'm almost certain this was because it was published in the wake of the anti-D&D craze, but the words 'Gods', 'Dieties' and even 'Immortals' don't actually make an appearance in the cleric's description.

I'm not saying that this is the direction I personally want to take with the game, but one could argue that clerics (and possibly druids) are divine because of their faith, and not the gods. The warlock's pact is not based on faith, but on a bargain.

Minigiant · Apr 27, 2012

My main questions when it comes to classes are:

1) Is is a common archetype for a D&D adventurer?

2) Can you make a decent representative of that archetype wiout the process being too complex?

If you answer Yes to the first but No to the second, you need a new class.

For example, if you only had the core four: Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard.

Baker? No. Not a common D&D archetype.

Necromancer? Yes it is a common D&D archetype. Yes it can be made with a wizard or cleric.

Warlock? Yes to the first. The second.... not really. Needs a class

Ranger? Common archetype, check. Simple composite of the four four... Depends who you ask.

Yora · Apr 27, 2012

The Shadow said:
Which 8?

Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Bard, and still room for one more. Maybe Barbarian or Paladin.

Savage Wombat · Apr 27, 2012

I don't see a reason to include "sorcerer" myself.

I don't see a need for any class to exist solely to reserve name-space. When 3e wanted a class that used spontaneous casting, using the name "sorcerer" was fine. But when 4e came out, they didn't need to make a class named "sorcerer" because there was no call for it. Yes, they'd attached a lot of fluff to the term in 3e, but it was driven by the class mechanics. 4e had to invent a new class concept for "sorcerer" simply because people wanted to port the name and "innate magic" fluff from 3e.

In 5e, where any wizard would seem to be able to discard Vancian casting for other choices, sorcerer doesn't need to be anything other than a theme for the wizard. Don't make up a new class just because "sorcerer" was a box you could check in previous editions.

I suspect Warlock could be handled the same way, if the feats are built correctly. Maybe even Warlord.

Minigiant · Apr 27, 2012

The Shadow said:
Easy enough. The core rules can present a Ranger that is later revealed to be a Fighter with the Wilderness background and the Hunter theme (or whatever), while the core Fighter is revealed to instead have the Soldier background and Slayer theme.

Can the Fighter (Wilderness Hunter) charm, calm, and rear animals? Or heal himself and remove poison? Or move silently and hide well? Or exude harsh temperature and disastrous weather? Or detect, avoid, or (if push comes ti shove) confront roaming magical beasts, wonderful fey, and savage tribal humanoids?

If so i'm fine with it. If not, you need a ranger class.

Repeat with every common D&D adventurer archetype.

DEFCON 1 · Apr 27, 2012

Minigiant said:
Can the Fighter (Wilderness Hunter) charm, calm, and rear animals? Or heal himself and remove poison? Or move silently and hide well? Or exude harsh temperature and disastrous weather? Or detect, avoid, or (if push comes ti shove) confront roaming magical beasts, wonderful fey, and savage tribal humanoids?

If so i'm fine with it. If not, you need a ranger class.

Or you just need a Fighter / Druid multiclass.

steeldragons · Apr 27, 2012

The issue of boiling it down to the "core four" (which I have no issue with really. Too many years playing BECM/B/X, I suppose) and then saying, Well we could boil it down to three: Fighter/Martial guy; Expert/Specialist guy; Magic guy...seems to stop short for no good reason.

The argument could be made you need two classes: Caster and Non-caster. Magic-using/Not-magic-using. And then create to the nine hells and nine heavens everything off of that.

That works for a lot of people and a lot pf games. But it's not "D&D".

It's like, in cooking terms. Do you want Balsamic Vinegar? Vinegarette? A Balsamic reduction? Or some burnt solid blackness at the bottom of the pot that won't pour?

D&D is a class based system. Lament it as the day is long if you wish. But that's what it is. Making it something else is making it "not D&D." Take your "build points" and go home. D&D has classes. Fantasy archetypes that are strong enough to warrant a specific class.

If some of them are "specialized" well...so what? That's what the game has always been. Four broad open categories that you can make your own. Or these other (usually in the neighborhood of 8-12 more) "sub-classes" that get all kindsa cool powers and extra abilities at the expense of others. Specific archetypes that are understood and spark the imagination.

No, D&D doesn't...it can't...allow for a written out class for every permutation of your imagination. Personally, I don't think it should. It is D&D. Play and enjoy...BEND what you can to suit your needs! Make what you can from it...what your group/DM allows...or, to put it perhaps a bit too bluntly, play something else.

We didn't have the options "back in the day". Now you do! Rejoice in the choices!

Because your paladin can't be the paladin you want to play (with all of the bells and whistles but none of the restrictions) or your assassin doesn't have the shadow-magic powers you want it to have does not mean D&D MUST make a class to suit your needs. Homebrew it or play something that does let you play that character...like some other version of D&D that DOES have it!

If 12-15 choices isn't enough...than maybe D&D isn't your game. Nothing wrong with that. Play what you like. It is about having fun, after all.

I sincerely hope 5e gives everyone what they want...the OPTIONS to make up whatever they might want. But, again, the possibilities are infinite! You can't expect a class-based game to have everything you want in it...the best it can do is come close. And that should not try to be by offering seventy-teen-hundred distinct classes with all of their own rules.

--SD

Yora · Apr 27, 2012

Savage Wombat said:
I don't see a reason to include "sorcerer" myself.

Sorcerer is an alternative spell system for wizards. I hate vancian casting, so wizards, druids, and clerics all should come with an option to use a different magic system.

GM Dave · Apr 27, 2012

Pathfinder has

11 original classes

8 additional classes (in Advanced Player's Guide, Ultimate Combat, and Ultimate Magic).

2 dedicated semi-classes (Ninja and Samurai which are different enough to get full write ups from level 1 to 20).

4 third party classes covering Psionic classes

And, I still feel there is room for more classes since they are all bringing different and unique builds to the game.

There are several builds in 4e that I would like to see become versions in PF. The Avenger, Warden, Shaman, Vampire, Invoker, and Essentials Ranger Hunter.

You can often put things into groups but just because you put apples, oranges, and pears in the same group does not mean that they should be taken as a whole. Each has a marvelous and different quality all its own.

I mean, I like the occasional glass of orange juice but the only pear juice that I like is made into cider.

steeldragons · Apr 27, 2012

GM Dave said:
There are several builds in 4e that I would like to see become versions in PF. The Avenger, Warden, Shaman, Vampire, Invoker, and Essentials Ranger Hunter.

(bolding, mine)

OK! I know this might not be the thread for it...but I've thought this for so long, I have to say it SOMEwhere...

VAMPIRE IS NOT A CLASS!!!!

Vampirism is a DISEASE! An affliction! A curse! ANYONE can be...become...be turned into...a vampire!

It's not something you do (a class) it's something you are or become in the course of play (preferably avoid becoming at all costs!)

I do not give one whit how popular Twilight is...or Buffy (though I am a HUGE Buffy fan from waaaay back!) It has NO PLACE in a list of "classes."
That's Twilight and/or Buffy and/or Angel...not D&D!

That goes for werewolves (-rats, -boars, -tigers, -bears) also.

We have some indication that werewolf and vampire will both be "themes" or "backgrounds" that can be built onto a character in 5e. That is...at least tolerable...You weren't "born a vampire" but have become one before play starts. I can see that...and it has the added advantage of being easily dismissed with a "No, you can't take that."

But to make it all its own CLASS?! No way! Madness I tell you, MAAAADDDDNESS!

--SD