How Many Classes Do We Really Need?

Cleric
--Druid
--Priest

Fighter
--Paladin (which I would make "must be LG" or at least "L" but since we know that Alignment is likely to be just an optional module group-by-group, this would not be included in the class presentation)
--Ranger
(we already know that Barbarian is going to be created through BGs and Themes. I suspect things like the Warlord and Cavalier/Knight type specialists will also.)

Mage
--Sorcerer (I hate the distinction of "wizard v. sorcerer" but its a moot argument at this point and too many people have whined and cried over needing non-vancian magic for the rest of my lifetime.)
--Warlock (again, not something I want, but necessary for the later edition crowd. I would go for a "Witch" class myself.)

Rogue
--Assassin (which I would make "must be Evil" but see above regarding Alignment. Also, it is entirely possible that Assassin will be through BGs and Themes and not a class of its own.)
--Bard

I think that's enough to get everyone started. I'm sure this won't be the list. But, for me, it is more than adequate to get rolling.
--SD

steeldragons said:

Mage
--Sorcerer (I hate the distinction of "wizard v. sorcerer" but its a moot argument at this point and too many people have whined and cried over needing non-vancian magic for the rest of my lifetime.)
--Warlock (again, not something I want, but necessary for the later edition crowd. I would go for a "Witch" class myself.)

Click to expand...

Exactly, ask non-sphincter puckering, fantasy role-players (and other similar types) the difference between a wizard, sorcerer, warlock, necromancer, witch etc, there will not be much difference between the answers at all.

"Mum, what's the difference between a wizard and a sorcerer?"

I guess we could apply this to all classes: Warrior (barbarian, fighter, paladin, ranger etc).

I guess where to draw the line?

I think warden, shaman, invoker, avenger (already is), and warlord could just be themes.

First my most controversial theory is that the rogue doesn't need to be a class so much as a fighter specialty.

Fighting Man
- Fighter
- Rogue
- Barbarian
- Ranger
- Cavalier (virtue rather than god-centric Paladin as in 4e)

Cleric
- Invoker
- Priest
- "Healbot"

Monk
- Monk
- Thief (not quite the same as a rogue)
- Assassin
- Shapeshifter

Wizard
- Illusionist
- Evoker
- Diviner
- Enchanter
- Nethermancer *
- Abjurer
- Summoner
-- Necromancer
-- Demonologist
-- Artificer

Multiclass Packages:
Bard (Priest/Illusionist)
Paladin (fighter/cleric)
Battle Cleric (cleric/fighter)
Druid (Priest/Summoner)
Alchemist (Artificer/Shapeshifter)
Witch (Nethermancer/Shapeshifter)

* 4e term for the cursing half of the Necromancy school.

Wizard specialisation rules: You can learn any spell but if it isn't in your specialty school it takes up a slot a level higher. You may also tightly specialise in which case you can learn two schools at the right slot and no others. Some spells are in multiple schools, with different text - for instance an Artificer's fly creates a magic carpet, whereas a summoner summons something winged to attach to everyone's back. The effect is the same. Or something - you are only at full effect in your specialist schools anyway.

Note that the Monk is much more movement-focussed than the Fighting Man. And wizards seldom dare turn people they actually like into animals (turning enemies into frogs on the other hand is much more normal).

i also think ranger could be a theme

Grimmjow said:

I think warden, shaman, invoker, avenger (already is), and warlord could just be themes.

Click to expand...

Total, I mean, there was an Avenging Paladin build in the 4th Ed PHB 1, so they made an un-armoured more avengy Paladin or something (reaching...)?

Please no one bring "Roles" into this.

And the Runepriest and Seeker, oh dear.

I am not saying we should have 4 classes: Priest, Rogue, Warrior and Wizard (not that that would be a bad thing), I like a variety of classes, but let's keep a lid on it (no Saboteur or what-have-you).

Really, I don't there is a specific answer to this question. Its a matter of should not could. I mean, you could reduce yourself to 3 base classes: Fighter, Expert/Specialist, and Caster, and let the themes and backgrounds carry all the weight of differentiation (or the skills and feats/talent they circumscribe.) True20 did alright with that idea. The big question is should you do such a thing?

To me, that answer depends on other questions like:

• Does it make it easier for new players to grasp?
• Is character creation quick and somewhat intuitive?
• Does it feel like D&D when you're done?
• Does it make a character sheet easier to read\use?
• How does it affect party composition?
• If you're designing a new "class", can you fit all the D&D tropes into this scheme easily?

Now, I don't know the answer to these questions vis-a-vis 5e. The big determining factor should be the fun/feel of the game, not adherence to an elegant game architecture. Especially since they're going for a rather specific (if hard-to-define) feel for it. If having 3 or 4 "base" classes with tweaking works best, they should go for it. (Hey, 2e did alright with a similar, if poorly executed, idea.) If having 20 classes and 20 themes works best...do that. If having 8 themes and 30 classes works best...do that.

Or the most annoying answer:

1) The Adventurer.

I considered this question when attempting to come up with a list of alternate classes for d20 Modern.

Here was my guideline: identify all the ways any given character would seek to solve a deadly and immediate problem. What skills or talents are they able to apply in order to survive in a harsh and hostile world that is trying to kill them at every turn? Thus, for each distinct method or archetypical set of talents that might be employed, let's build a class around it.

D&D 4E came close to this with their "character roles" paradigm (controllers, leaders, defenders, strikers), but my classes took this to heart--the class list I came up with was intended to be a complete list with no hybridized classes added later on. (Role hybridization was to be handled with multiclassing.)

My list was also influenced by the circumstances of the game setting, which precluded magic and high technology, but adapted to a fantasy setting they would probably look something like the list below.


Chosen - he survives simply by having lots of pure dumb luck, or a personal destiny. No spellcasting ability is assumed, but the class may have access to certain supernatural abilities designed to rescue the user from a bad situation. Concepts: this is the sort of character simply proves nigh-impossible to kill or cripple, but not because they are good at anything or because they have special powers. They're just fated to survive whatever trouble comes their way.

Guru - he survives by applying his considerable knowledge of a wide range of topics from alchemy to religion. No spellcasting ability is assumed but may have some simple supernatural powers. (A significant portion of Gurus will probably be NPCs.) Examples: alchemists, experts, spellthieves, factotums, sages.

Leader - he survives by leading, managing, and manipulating other people. Spellcasting ability optional, and may possess some additional supernatural charismatic abilities. Examples: bards, aristocrats, warlords.

Mage - he survives by his unique gift of understanding of how to manipulate and harness the eldritch powers of arcane magic. Spellcasting ability is assumed. Great intelligence or powerful force-of-personality helps but is not required; so-called 'idiot savants' able to wield arcane spells (that is, mages with average or even deficient intelligence and charisma) should be viable character builds. Examples: wizards, sorcerers, necromancers, illusionists, warlocks.

Mindwalker - he survives because of his natural psionic ability. Concepts: psion, psychic warrior, wilder, ardent, divine mind.

Priest - he survives by virtue of the divine powers bestowed on him by his deity, patron spirits, or his true faith in his ethos. Spellcasting ability assumed and is divine in nature. Examples: clerics, druids, shamans, oracles.

Thief - he survives by stealing, pillaging, and operating outside conventional norms of society. No spellcasting ability is assumed, but may have some simple supernatural powers. Examples: rogues, assassins.

Warrior - he survives by killing and breaking things as efficiently as possible. Some may have a few supernatural abilities on the side, but they are not the norm. Examples: fighters, barbarians, rangers, monks, cavaliers, inquisitors.

Worker - he survives because he is willing and able to perform simple labor and toil for others. (The vast majority of members of this class would be NPCs). Concepts: commoners, henchmen, minions, children.

This is the "long list" of classes I would implement. Any hybrid concepts can be mixes and matches of two or more of the above. For example, "gishes" (as in the Pathfinder class Magus) would be Warrior/Mage hybrids. I would also prefer a class mixing method that would be more effective than simply stacking class levels and more involved than 4E's methodology.

Drat, I forgot about the warlord. It kind of depends on how many unique abilities he ends up with - could be a theme, could be a class.

[MENTION=6670763]Yora[/MENTION]: Which 8?

Ratskinner said:

[*]Does it make it easier for new players to grasp?

Click to expand...

True, but that cuts both ways. It advises against too many classes (option overload) as well as too few.

Thinking it over some more, here's a list I think might work:

Fighter (themed to ranger or barbarian)
Rogue (themed to assassin)
Priest (themed to cleric as well as lots of pantheon and domain options)
Wizard (themed to specialties, though hopefully not advanced themes. And I do hope they get unique spells.)

Paladin/Champion (I think the LG version should be the only 'paladin', but that other divine champions should be possible.)
Druid
Bard (though I'd prefer to see them more 'druidic' than 'sorcerer')
Sorcerer (themed to warlock)
Monk

Possibly the Warlord.

That's 10 classes, of which the bard and the warlord maybe aren't necessary.