D&D General There seems to be three types of classes in DND.

[CreamCloud0]

druid should be a subclass of a presently non-existent class as giving any abilities on top of wild shape and full spell casting is insane, it would be the wild-shaped themed subclass.

i certainly think they could've split druid into two proper classes between 'the wildshape/shapeshifter class' and 'the primal fullcaster'

 

[payn]

classes built to have many ideas in them with wide possible implementation.

Should be the goal for all classes.

classes that are more limited in scope but need a full class budget to work like paladins.

I dont think this is true at all. In fact, Paladin should be a prestige class but that cat is not going back in the bag.

classes that rationally should be subclasses of something but no one seems to know what? whatever we have decided ranger is.

I feel this would more accurately help class design if not every class tried to have endless subclasses and knowing where an idea needs a new full class to best implement it.

Nope, i'm good with the designs currently.

 

[Charlaquin]

classes built to have many ideas in them with wide possible implementation.

classes that are more limited in scope but need a full class budget to work like paladins.

classes that rationally should be subclasses of something but no one seems to know what? whatever we have decided ranger is.

I feel this would more accurately help class design if not every class tried to have endless subclasses and knowing where an idea needs a new full class to best implement it.

That’s two types

 

[Minigiant]

Ooh, now here we have the spicy take. Because it seems to me that this group is purely arbitrary, merely a function of each individual player's sentiment.

It's arbitary in the way @Mind of tempest said it but it's not a arbitary category.

Hunter
Beastmaster
Gloomstalker
Drakwarden

Those are concepts just shy of being big enough for full class status but also too big to be implanted in any other "complete" class.
You can't jam Hunter or Beastmaster into another class without breaking the game.
This is why none of those "Only 3 or 4 Classes" have beastmasters or hunters in them.

So they were jammed together in a semi-complete half caster chassis under a Wilderness Knowledge theme.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Yes, though I would personally subdivide these into "classes that have a core theme, that can be expressed many ways" vs "classes that do not have a core theme, or fail to actually support the core theme they're supposed to have."

Fighter fits into the former group. There are lots of ways to be a warrior of grit and thews, but ultimately they're all going to be doing similar things. Wizard is in the latter group. It either straight-up doesn't have a core theme ("problem-solver" is NOT a core theme, sorry!), or it does but does absolutely nothing to actually support it (academician unlocking magical secrets through research and development.)


Which is where most classes should be, albeit without too many limits on scope. As folks around here have, at times, been so fond of saying: limitations breed creativity. Of course, the better version of that phrase is that good limitations breed creativity, because not all limitations are created equal. A well-designed class has good limits on its scope, which spur on creativity in gameplay expression, rather than curtailing it.


Ooh, now here we have the spicy take. Because it seems to me that this group is purely arbitrary, merely a function of each individual player's sentiment.

That's one of the (several) reasons why I'm pretty opposed to class reductionism. I don't find that reductionism actually provides that much in the way of benefit--particularly when D&D is so ridiculously profligate with other areas of its ruleset, like the spell list--but it quite clearly has serious costs.

To trot out another cliche phrase, people like to say "less is more," but what they mean is "if you can get equivalent results with fewer tools, use fewer tools." You have to give up less than you're getting. Otherwise, less is in fact less.


100% absolutely yes. The problem is, as I've argued elsewhere, when you do this, you're going to find that D&D is already short about 5 new classes, and could need as many as eleven (with a very generously-cast net). Probably somewhere between 5 and 9, depending who specifically you ask.

E.g. three shoe-in class concepts that have strong thematic expression but which have, to one degree or another, been called out quite frequently as not getting enough via subclasses: Warlord, Swordmage, and Psion. We've all seen more than a few people call for each of those, I'm sure.

my point is something are far too small idea-wise to make a class out of or were built in the wrong order hence my druid idea.

Should be the goal for all classes.

I dont think this is true at all. In fact, Paladin should be a prestige class but that cat is not going back in the bag.

Nope, i'm good with the designs currently.

given prestige classes are hard to get to work in most dnd versions it seems like a bad idea, who wants to wait for many levels to play the thing they wanted to?

it is true that all classes should ideally be capable of truly vast sub ideas many can't as it either makes the incongruent design-wise.

 

[Mind of tempest]

That’s two types

fair point it is more of a mix of describing what is(which is the three types of class) and what should be(the two properly functioning areas)

It's arbitary in the way @Mind of tempest said it but it's not a arbitary category.

Hunter
Beastmaster
Gloomstalker
Drakwarden

Those are concepts just shy of being big enough for full class status but also too big to be implanted in any other "complete" class.
You can't jam Hunter or Beastmaster into another class without breaking the game.
This is why none of those "Only 3 or 4 Classes" have beastmasters or hunters in them.

So they were jammed together in a semi-complete half caster chassis under a Wilderness Knowledge theme.

that is far better than I can articulate in written words but yeah that is what I mean somethings presently need to be utterly reassembled into a correct idea so they can become something truly great.

 

[bedir than]

In the latest playtest they present Four class "Groups": Warrior, Mage, Priest, and Expert.
I don’t know if it’s going to be official any day. But you can build subclasses based on these groups to allow a range of style.

This was in the earliest UAs for 2024 D&D, but has long been abandoned.

 

[Tonguez]

Generic - Fighter, Rogue, Scorcerer
Should be a subclass - everything else

 

[Mephista]

I'd say the three types of classes are...
Pure Martial (Fighter, Monk, etc)
Full Spellcaster (Wizard, Cleric, etc)
And Mixed (Paladin, etc).

You then have Power Source - divine , primal, arcane, tool.

This gives us a nice 4x3 spread, with sorcerer or wizard as an outlier.

 

[payn]

my point is something are far too small idea-wise to make a class out of or were built in the wrong order hence my druid idea.

given prestige classes are hard to get to work in most dnd versions it seems like a bad idea, who wants to wait for many levels to play the thing they wanted to?

it is true that all classes should ideally be capable of truly vast sub ideas many can't as it either makes the incongruent design-wise.

The issue is you are speaking for all with your assumptions. I actually like the way prestige classes have worked. Particularly how they are something to work towards and have a link to the setting. I found the issues to be the exception with their design. So, you are not going to reach some simple 3 part philosophy because preference is at the heart of many of these issues.