Optimal Number of classes?

[WheresMyD20]

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.

I agree that there are some archtypes, like the paladin, that are important to D&D. However, I think that a class like the paladin could be represented by a fighter with a specific feat chain (or similar customization mechanic). I generally think that unless a class is mechanically different enough from all the others that it warrants its own class, it should be layered on top of another class using customization.

For the paladin in particular, it was always tied to the fighter class until 3e. In OD&D it was described as a "special status" that very charismatic (17+) lawful fighting men could have. In AD&D, it was a sub-class of the fighter. In BECMI, it was a special class that lawful fighters could join upon reaching 9th level. In all three cases, paladins used the rules for fighters by default if there was no specific rule for paladins.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I think my preference is for four "Orientations": Martial, Arcane, Divine and Primal. (You could add in Psionic as well but I'm not really a fan of "Sci-fi" Psionics and what's left over can be subsumed by Arcane)

Within each orientation you can then choose from a heap of "class" abilities, roles and features and powers and themes and all the little blocks of advancement to fine-tune a character concept. In this way you can craft a character exactly how you want it with pre-requisites keeping things organized, in line and somewhat "balanced". In the back of the book, you could have pre-generated "classes" for all the regular AD&D to 4e D&D classes so if you wanted a defined set series of abilities you could do that too - the best of both worlds.

I think ease of switching between "orientations" should be varied but relatively easy overall - in this way you can "multiclass" and create the exact character you want but still have a good structure supporting a level-based structure. I would only have ten levels with each level fat with feats and features.

So yeah... that's what I would want.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[AeroDm]

I think the right number of classes is the fewest number of classes capable of satisfying your (and ostensibly your players') game needs. For me, simpler always trumps more complex because it allows you to evoke more depth to the individual elements instead of having the flavor lost in the flurry of stuff you have to handle.

As a result, the rules end up informing a lot of the decision based on where the power of the class is captured. If you have a game that has limited multi-classing (like 4e) then you are probably more justified in having more classes. This, of course, assumes that the class does most of the heavy lifting in granting powers and evoking the feel of the class. In a game with easy multi-classing (like 3e), too many classes just encourages absurd dipping to put together to most powerful build possible. This, in my opinion, happened to 3e near the end of its cycle.

If, on the other hand, the majority of power is held external to the class in feats or powers, then I'd prefer a handful of classes that imply basic tendencies. I vaguely recall basic classes in Unearthed Arcana that fit this bill--a warrior, expert, and caster with most power coming from feats.

(Thanks for the shout out, by the way. )

 

[Gargoyle]

I generally think that unless a class is mechanically different enough from all the others that it warrants its own class, it should be layered on top of another class using customization.

I look at it from a different angle.

If a heroic archetype is important to the setting, there should be a class devoted to that archetype. If the paladin archetype is important to the setting, and the class is too mechanically similar to the fighter, build a better paladin. Make the role and abilities of a paladin different enough from fighters to warrant an additional class. That's what has happened in the last few editions, IMO. But you could go back and do it with layers still, and have a fighter who calls himself and functions as a paladin if you want a minimalist approach, that's just not what I'd do in that case.

If it's not such an important archetype, lets say, the idea of an pirate class in D&D, I feel it would be definitely be better represented by layers. Some feats, a background, a theme, etc, and say Arrr now and then and you're a pirate. Of course, if the game was called Pirates of the Caribbean you might have multiple classes representing different types of pirates. You might have Swashbucklers, Pirate Captains, and Ghost Pirate classes. Whatever it takes to model the archetypes with unique, fun mechanics IMO.

In D&D, somewhere in between pirates and paladins there are classes like assassins, warlords, warlocks, etc. Some people love these classes and consider them important archetypes, some don't. That's subjective. IMO most of those should probably be done with layers. I like fewer classes.

 

[howandwhy99]

Optimal number? It simply differs in so many ways, to even games and players who don't care for classes.

I don't know the correct amount for any game, but here's how I break it down for D&D at least.

Pre-d20: There are 3 primary classes with 1 NPC class tacked on later as a PC class. Each of the initial 3 has an entire game system devoted to it: the combat system, the magic system, and the clerical system. Each system overlaps sufficiently to make working together beneficial to players of each class. But then there are many sub-classes, classes which fall more or less in one of the core classes and systems. Each sub-class has perhaps a little bit more scope than the core or maybe a little bit less. For some, part of the initial system-defined core class scope is left out, some may have more included, some may have the sub-class overlapping into another core class system. Some may have all three. It's very flexible. Psionics, when included, trades in powers and out others by each core class rather than being a class or class system in and of itself.

3e d20: There are 11 core classes with 2-3 optional psionic classes. Many more core classes would be constructed later, but psionics began the idea of new classes falling under different systems. Notably, all classes, regardless of definition, are geared for equal participation and effectiveness in a combat game, although a lot of activity not normally performed in combat is still included. Beyond the core classes, prestige classes were created (something perhaps only the Bard class was before). The number of prestige classes published is far more than the number of core ones. And while optimal numbers may differ by group, perhaps this is a case where too many could be seen as an impediment to running the game.

4e d20: Back to 4 core classes: controller, defender, leader, striker. They remain as combat classes, but now focus on the scope of combat each class excels at. Sub-classes are now called classes and a large number has been printed with varying themes built. with thematic combat powers the game retains something of the original classes: martial, arcane, and divine. Primal was added and so too was psionic. Being thematic, these differ mainly in description than game play, but I believe they do tend to group along common configurations of powers outside of the roles/classes (but I'm not sure here).

It's hard to say how many classes are optimal in any of the above cases. Maybe more should be added, maybe fewer? It's really more of a group and DM decision, of course. I do believe there is an upper limit to what anyone can currently handle in terms of options. I mean there's something to more options than can be played in a lifetime, not to mention having more options than can be read in a lifetime. Single digits are probably best in the end, but then I would allow sub-class variations either published or customized by the player.

 

[LightPhoenix]

In my opinion, the optimal minimum number of classes is equal to the number of significantly different mechanics you want your classes to have. It's in the idea of significance that you'll arrive at a more granular or less granular system.

Using 4E as an example:

Basically, there are two broad mechanics: weapon attacks and implement attacks. Is it excessive (ie, non-optimally minimal) for there to be a Ranger and a Fighter when both are basically weapon-users? Is there really a difference between the Invoker and the Wizard?

You can make the classes less granular by introducing more mechanical categories. Classes are broken down by combat role and each has a generally unifying mechanical theme. Psionics uses power points. Essentials has alternate leveling schemes. So on and so forth.

You can turn the dial to naught and say that classes are restrictive and we'll have a non-class system. You can also turn the dial to eleven and say that any character concept should be its own class and have its mechanic. Neither is qualitatively wrong, it's all a matter of preference.

Now personally, I feel there's only a few basic categories: melee/ranged, offense/defense/support, maybe combat/non-combat. So my optimal minimum is somewhere between 6 and 12. Again, those are the categories I find significant, and definitely opinion.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Optimal number: 3

Fighting-man, Magic-user, Cleric

Anything more is bloat.

 

[Jhaelen]

Optimal number: 3

Fighting-man, Magic-user, Cleric

Anything more is bloat.

Actually, I consider the Cleric to be part of the bloat (since it's basically a magic-using fighting-man), so it's more like two.

And if you prefer the line between magical and mundane to be blurry, you end up with a single class which is basically identical to not having classes at all.


Imho, it's impossible to give a concrete optimal number of classes without defining what constitutes a class. Is a class just a bundle of 'powers' and 'abilities' or does it also qualify as an (adventurer) archetype? Does the system allow for multi-classing or are there additional elements that are used to shape a character (e.g. backgrounds, feats, themes, etc.)?

The answers to these and similar questions will affect what would be an optimal number of classes.

 

[Smoss]

I really liked the direction they took with Star Wars Saga with less classes and more options (A soldier class that could be used in many ways. or multi-classed with the others).

For a 4e style game, that might come to a Defender, Controller, Striker, and Leader class - four classes with multiclassing available to make a more hybrid class.

My final personal preference, however, was how I made my system. Classless. The option to become anything and grow in any direction.
Smoss