Optimal Number of classes?

[RandomCitizenX]

After reading AeroDM's http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/307649-headed-rune.html thread and blog I found myself returning to some of my own projects. This in turn brought me back to a question I have been thinking about, In a class based system like D&D is it better to have a few very broad classes or to have a greater number of specific ones? I know I have personally been looking at it from a handful of broad classes based on something akin to the 4th edition concept of Power Source, but I want to hear some other opinions.

If you do favor more classes, at what point do you say "That's the right number of classes"?

 

[delericho]

There's no single answer to that question.

My preference would be a fairly small number of broad classes, coupled with a strong multi-classing mechanism. I think that would probably give a goodly amount of flexibility without requiring a huge number of very specific classes, and (perhaps most important in a level-based game) should allow characters to evolve over time without them being stuck forever in their one initially-chosen class.

But YMMV, of course.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[Wiseblood]

I would rather fewer classes. RC has about as many as I could ever need. My prefrence came about because of 3e and the enless splatbooks with numerous classes and prc's in each which became tiresome. Since this is the case it's more of a reaction to the bombardment from modern market strategies. Player Marketing Splatbook Fatigue or PMSF for short.

 

[WheresMyD20]

I'm not sure there is an "optimal" number of classes, but I do think that different rulesets have an impact on how many classes are viable.

The amount of customization available within each class has a major impact on the number of classes.

I think that in classic D&D (OD&D - AD&D 2e), the viable number of classes is larger than in modern D&D (3e - 4e). When there isn't much customization possible, you can add more classes in order to have more variety in character concepts.

When feats, skills, and powers are added to the game, I think you're better off with fewer classes. If you have a lot of classes combined with a lot of customization you can run into game balance problems and also issues of "sameness", where different class/customization combinations yield the same character concept, but with varying degrees of effectiveness.

 

[steeldragons]

Optimal number of classes?

26.

...What?...if you can't find something you want to play within 26 class options, then you probably shouldn't be playing D&D.

In a class based system like D&D is it better to have a few very broad classes or to have a greater number of specific ones? I know I have personally been looking at it from a handful of broad classes based on something akin to the 4th edition concept of Power Source, but I want to hear some other opinions.

If you do favor more classes, at what point do you say "That's the right number of classes"?

Why must it be one or the other? Both isn't an option? Isn't that pretty much what (most editions of) D&D has always been/had.

You have your "Broad classes": Fighter, Cleric, Magic-user, Thief.

Then you have a few "specific" types within each of those for those who want something a bit more "flavor specific."
Fighter: Barbarians, Rangers, Paladins
Magic-User: Specialists, (Sorcerers and Warlocks, <rollseyes> if you insist)
Thieves (or "Rogues"): Assassins, Bards
Clerics: Druids, "Specialty/Domain" priests...

D&D, pretty much from AD&D on (and/or the Companion set of BECMI) has had its "Broad classes" and it's specific options.

Now, granted, when you got into the various 2e splat books and the 3e "prestige classes" things got...ooooo just a bit out of hand, imho.

My homebrew world is essentially the following (though this has been tweaked and re-tweaked over the years):
Fighters (if you want something broad you can flavor however you like)

• Barbarians
• Paladins
• Rangers

Clerics

• Druids
• Shamans

Mages

• Specialists

Rogues

• Acrobats
• Assassins
• Bards

Homebrewed Monks

Homebrewed Psionicist Order

Homebrewed elvin paladinic sect

A few homebrewed specialty priest classes (The Daughters of Gilea, the Witch-Priests of Manat, etc...)

A few homebrewed specific magic-users (4 cardinal element specialists, the R'Hathi battlemage, etc.)

So...yeah, let's go with 26.

As delericho said, there is no single answer here. I would simply reiterate that there's no reason it has to be one (few broad) or the other (many specific).


Have fun and happy classing.
--Steel Dragons

 

[Gargoyle]

I'm in agreement with Wheresmyd20, and I'll add that I think I prefer more layering systems like feats, backgrounds, builds, themes, skills, paragon paths, and epic destinies for greater customization of a fewer number of classes.

I could get by in D&D with a fighter, rogue, wizard, and cleric, as long as I had ways to make them feel like rangers, paladins, assassins, etc.

However, some archetypes are too important to rely on layers. In D&D, I think the paladin rates its own class, just like there's got to be a Jedi class of some sort in a Star Wars game. Just because I could make a cleric or fighter into a paladin with layers doesn't mean it's the best solution.

You could say the same for the ranger and assassin, and even the monk. They all have a lot of history in D&D, and have been developed in lore and mechanics to be more than the weird niche classes that they started as. But without that history, I think you'd look at the assassin and monk and have the right to say "why is this here?" "Couldn't this best be done with a fighter or rogue with some layering systems to customize them?"

The best classes are built with the genre and setting in mind to create the most important adventuring archetypes. But the better your layering systems, the fewer classes you need to support your game.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I went with the core classes of Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, and Wizard. I added Wizard specialist classes, and mention Specialty Priests as a subset of Cleric (i.e., I encourage you to modify the Cleric to match your vision of the Power worshiped).

I'm on board with this, but I'd prefer to delete monk (wrong flavor) and make sorcerer a variant/specialty of wizard.

In addition, there are three optional psionic classes and three optional mutant classes.

Never in my game.

So, for my money, I prefer classes to act as strong archetypes, some of which are able to be modified for more flexible specifics. For example, I can make an Assassin or a Cat Burglar with a Rogue. Or I can make a Sword & Board Tank or a Swashbuckler with the Fighter. Sorcerers can become quite different from one another.

I very much like this philosophy. I don't see much point in making new classes when instead you can have mechanics to tailor within an archetype. Admittedly, I do like having 9-10 starting points; one can make a pretty strong argument that D&D only needs the "Big Four" base classes and tailoring from there.

Multi-classing (or similar mechanic) is still necessary to allow a blend of archetypes.

 

[pawsplay]

It really depends. For something like Pathfinder, where every class has a dense, specified progression, as well as a signature capstone ability, you could have almost an infinite number.

On the other hand, for something like True20, where each role is quite versatile and advancement is pretty freestyle, you are pretty much stuck with three to six classes, unless you can come up with a bunch of variant mechanics for new sorts of "powers."

 

[Ed_Laprade]

The pefect number of classes is zero. But if you have to have them, as the OP's question indicates, there are two ways to go, IMO. One is the already mentioned few broad classes with many options. The other is the somewhat mentioned many classes with good multiclassing rules. Otherwise you run the risk of most characters of a given class looking alike. YMMV, etc.