kill the bard!
First Post
As this is my first post, let me start by saying hello.
I'm a longtime fan of rpgs. My genre of choice is fantasy, though I don't have a particular favorite system. Like a lot of you, I'm following the development of D&D Next. The various articles relating to the classes are of special interest to me, but lately I've been asking myself the question, "how many classes is too many classes?"
To me, there are two approaches one can take when making classes for an rpg. You can go with fewer classes that cover the varying roles/archtypes, or you can go with many classes that overlap mechanically but offer a variety of themes.
In D&D, for example, we have quite a few classes (almost a dozen as of last count). But if we stripped the classes down to their core function we could get that number down to seven or fewer. At the basic level, there isn't a huge difference between a fighter and a barbarian, a rogue and a monk, a wizard and a sorcerer, or even a paladin and a cleric. Sure, class-specific mechanics can change how they play, but they don't really change what they do.
But thematically, those classes are very different from one another. While a fighter and a barbarian are both dangerous combatants, one relies on martial training while the other utilizes brute strength to emerge from combat victorious. A rogue is typically a lightly-armored melee character; a monk is typically a lightly-armored melee character. The wizard and the sorcerer both have access to the same spell list, the difference between being the way the master the art of magic and how many spells they can learn or cast.
So I'm wondering how you all feel about this. Do you prefer fewer classes that each fill a unique role? Or do you prefer more, thematically-varying classes, even if it means overlap in function?
I'm a longtime fan of rpgs. My genre of choice is fantasy, though I don't have a particular favorite system. Like a lot of you, I'm following the development of D&D Next. The various articles relating to the classes are of special interest to me, but lately I've been asking myself the question, "how many classes is too many classes?"
To me, there are two approaches one can take when making classes for an rpg. You can go with fewer classes that cover the varying roles/archtypes, or you can go with many classes that overlap mechanically but offer a variety of themes.
In D&D, for example, we have quite a few classes (almost a dozen as of last count). But if we stripped the classes down to their core function we could get that number down to seven or fewer. At the basic level, there isn't a huge difference between a fighter and a barbarian, a rogue and a monk, a wizard and a sorcerer, or even a paladin and a cleric. Sure, class-specific mechanics can change how they play, but they don't really change what they do.
But thematically, those classes are very different from one another. While a fighter and a barbarian are both dangerous combatants, one relies on martial training while the other utilizes brute strength to emerge from combat victorious. A rogue is typically a lightly-armored melee character; a monk is typically a lightly-armored melee character. The wizard and the sorcerer both have access to the same spell list, the difference between being the way the master the art of magic and how many spells they can learn or cast.
So I'm wondering how you all feel about this. Do you prefer fewer classes that each fill a unique role? Or do you prefer more, thematically-varying classes, even if it means overlap in function?
