D&D 5E What 5E needs is a hundred classes

[Sadras]

Instead of making a system where the combat, skill, and magic system are so incompatible that you need to literally make a new class for it to work.

No one said the system for combat, skills and magic would be incompatible. There would be shared class features between the various classes. And its not like new classes dont already exist - remember we had kits, prestige kits, now we have paragon and epic destinies nevermind a myriad new base classes. All we are suggesting that we focus our classes at an earlier stage - and instead of providing lists of powers and feats as well as paths/kits -now we just have class features to choose from. ONE LIST!

An Archer would naturally be more proficient with a bow than a Knight, whom latter would naturally be more skilled in mounted combat. Sure there would be shared class features between the two as they are both "fighters" but each would have class features specific to their class.

Same with spell-casters. Conjurers, Sorcerers, Wizards, Witches and Warlocks could have the same spell lists, maybe bar a few spells, but there would be differences between them all through the class features. Nothing different to what we have now.
The class features could accentuate mechanic and descriptive differences between the classes and some class features would be shared amongst the lot.
For instance - very briefly:
Warlocks defile the area around them - due the source of their power (specific class feature)
Spellcasters able to create Potions, Powders & Ointments (shared class feature)

Archers range increment increases by x (specific class feature)
Characters speed increases by x (shared class feature)

Essentially they could incorporate feats, paragon/epic path powers and general class features - all under the heading class features.

 

[Minigiant]

Firstly mkill does state in one of his posts we stick 30 classes right of the bat into the 1st PHB. So there will not be a waiting period of years for the 4PHB. I would imagine the most popular and most iconic classes would be available within the 1st PHB.

What if you don't want to play a tired old stereotype but have accepts of it in the book?

The first PHB would have a spiked chain but no chain fighter?

The PHB would have two handed weapons but no way to make ranger or rogue able to specialize with them?

Secondly the system/mechanics for class design with its listing of class features could be made available in the the PHB, DMG or even an Unearthed Arcana allowing DMs and Players to custom design their own classes. Which would allow you to make the class you'd prefer to play.

Then why don't you just have 10-15 starting classes and let player pick and choose everything they wish to add? Then all new classes would be entirely new concepts rather than filling gaps the original classes left behind.

Another benefit of this 100-class approach
The system with above presentation would allow more class flexibility at an earlier stage than the previous editions. Remember we had to wait for the Fighters and Rangers Handbooks in 2nd Edition nevermind the Skills and Powers which came much later.

But you'll have to Wait months and buy more books to make your character or Beg your DM to let you make the perfectly reasonable character you want. Make no sense working backwards to me.

How about fixing customization instead of waiting for your concept to come out.

I have no problem with the 100 class approach if you get all 100 of the concepts the game engages you with at start.

[MENTION=6670763]Yora[/MENTION] Cant XP you now for your comment

 

[Sadras]

If you can make modifications to a bard to make it like a skald, then you don't need 100 classes but only those core 30.

Maybe. But focused classes are much better than a mismatch of skills to try make it a skald. Lets be honest here - 2nd, 3rd and 4th Ed couldn't do this. They all relied on kits, prestige kits and paths.
Focused classes remain true to the concept from the start and are simpler to create than having to do all the work.

We did also mention that the mechanic for class creation could be placed within the PHB, DMG or the Unearthed Arcana - so youre not going to wait.

 

[Mercutio01]

Maybe. But focused classes are much better than a mismatch of skills to try make it a skald. Lets be honest here - 2nd, 3rd and 4th Ed couldn't do this. They all relied on kits, prestige kits and paths.
Focused classes remain true to the concept from the start and are simpler to create than having to do all the work.

We did also mention that the mechanic for class creation could be placed within the PHB, DMG or the Unearthed Arcana - so youre not going to wait.

You will never be able to make a focused class that does everything I want it to. I have more concepts for characters rolling around in my head than there are possible class combinations out there, and I think attempting to nail them all down is folly. Not to mention that focused-classes means they won't be nearly as customizable. Say you make a skald core class, but it has some abilities I don't want where the bard does. The uber-focus classes would have to come with some seriously robust multi-classing rules or else you are forcing a person to play a class that doesn't match up with the idea in their head.

I still think that a small core class list with robust multi-classing rules would be much better than a miles-long list of static classes trying to fill every niche imaginable.

 

[Sadras]

What if you don't want to play a tired old stereotype but have accepts of it in the book?

The iconic classes have to remain - you cant just throw them out because you're tired of the old generic fighter. Thats not the primary goal of D&DN.

The first PHB would have a spiked chain but no chain fighter?

I'm a little confused with this question, which PHB gave you a chain fighter from the get go? Perhaps you are talking through the use of Feats?

The PHB would have two handed weapons but no way to make ranger or rogue able to specialize with them?

Firstly as far as I know, and I admit I'm rusty, since I mostly DM and dont read alot of the PHB info, specialization is only privy to fighters in all editions.
Secondly Mutli-Classing allows one to choose other class features from other classes. So a Rogue/Ranger proficient in 2-H weapons would be possible.

Then why don't you just have 10-15 starting classes and let player pick and choose everything they wish to add? Then all new classes would be entirely new concepts rather than filling gaps the original classes left behind.

Historically speaking that has never worked, maybe to a degree with Skills and Powers, however the Class bloat has. You only got the character focus you wanted when the class, kit, prestige or path actually appeared.

But you'll have to Wait months and buy more books to make your character or Beg your DM to let you make the perfectly reasonable character you want. Make no sense working backwards to me.

I have no problem with the 100 class approach if you get all 100 of the concepts the game engages you with at start.

You do realise that sometimes DMs wait months and years for their preferred settings or monsters. Thats part of edition growth - its not all in your face at the start. Thats an unrealistic expectation. I think you need to give me an example of what you can play now with one of the current editions that wont suit the model I am proposing because I feel like im going around in circles here.

How about fixing customization instead of waiting for your concept to come out.

Fair enough - should they go with this concept, I would prefer the customization model to be available - to allow players/DMs to create the characters they wish to play without waiting for the printed originals.
It would provide the support and guidance of the concept which would allow player/DM creativity and collaboration for creating their own class features.
Remember older editions permitted and sometimes promoted character/DM participation in creating house rules, new spells and the like.
It worked then - it can work now.

 

[Sadras]

The uber-focus classes would have to come with some seriously robust multi-classing rules or else you are forcing a person to play a class that doesn't match up with the idea in their head.

Ive mostly answered this post in a previous post of yours. You're assuming that muliti-class features are difficult in this concept - I'm proposing they are easier and more flexible - as they should just be a class feature swap with a few limitations obviously - as in do you meet the requirements, how many times this could be done and with how many classes.

As for 15 core with bus loads of modifications/feats/paths/whatever.
Well all I can say is - Id rather say im playing an Abjurer or a Conjurer or an Elementalist than a Wizard or Id rather say I'm playing a Beastmaster than a Ranger, or I rather say I'm a Myrmidon or Knight than a Fighter...its cooler its more specific reflecting a true representation of my character.

 

[Sanglorian]

I think one reason for the disconnect we're having is that people are imagining different levels of customisation from the get-go. For example, when I think about the Knight class, the Barbarian class, the Berserker class, etc., I'm not imagining that the Knight can only use lances, the Barbarian can only use greatswords, the Berserker can only use axes, etc. I'm imagining that each of those classes would be proficient in most weapons and that Knights would be able to go sword-and-board, or two-hander, and would be wearing anywhere from chain to full plate. Likewise, I'm not imagining that the Bard class would be forbidden from taking Knowledge skills or the Rogue forbidden from putting poison on its weapons.

What I am imagining is that the Barbarian would be pre-customised in terms of abilities. So all Barbarians would have Panther-Like Grace and Eyes of the Hawk (or whatever). Not that they would be banned from fighting with two-handed weapons (because we're saving that for the Berserker) or banned from taking Knowledge (nature) (because we're saving that for the Ranger).

 

[Mercutio01]

Ive mostly answered this post in a previous post of yours.

Uh...you haven't. I just checked through the quote history, so maybe you're confusing me with someone with a similar username?

You're assuming that muliti-class features are difficult in this concept - when I'm proposing they are easier and more flexible - as they should just be a class feature swap with a few limitations obviously - as in do you meet the requirements, how many times this could be done and with how many classes.

If you think balancing thousands of flexible ability options across 100 possible classes is easier than across 5 or 10 or 15, I've got a bridge to sell.

As for 15 core with bus loads of modifications/feats/paths/whatever.
Well all I can say is - Id rather say im playing an Abjurer or a Conjurer or an Elementalist than a Wizard or Id rather say I'm playing a Beastmaster than a Ranger, or I rather say I'm a Myrmidon or Knight than a Fighter...its cooler its more specific reflecting a true representation of my character.

First, I said 3 up-thread. 3 core classes - warrior, magic-user, specialist. Every character concept out there can be legitimately created from those three bases.

Second, having a limited number of classes prevents you from calling your character something else because...? That argument is a non-starter for me. It seems rather silly. My current character in a PF game is a fighter with the Dragoon archetype. But I call him a samurai. The samurai class wasn't what I wanted mechanically (at all) and with a good selection of feats, weapons, and armor I managed to create pretty much what I had in my head, but there's no way I'm picking a class I don't like just to get the name of the class. It's silly.

Also, why does an Abjurer have to be a special class rather than just a specialized wizard who focuses his spell selection on Abjuration spells? 100 classes with one specifically called an Abjurer seems to be adding needless complexity.

 

[Minigiant]

The iconic classes have to remain - you cant just throw them out because you're tired of the old generic fighter. Thats not the primary goal of D&DN.

Never said throw out classes. I said you have to add more. How many warrior class would be in the first PHB? You can make a heavy armor/sword and shield, light armor/sword and shield, heavy archer, light archer, heavy dual wielder/ light dual weirder, heavy two hander, light two hander, heavy polearm, light polearm, heavy single weapon, light single weapon, heavy chain/flail, light chain/flail, heavy thrower, light thrower, heavy unarmed, light unarmed, heavy double weapon, light dual weapon

18 class concepts without a single spell or skill set mentioned.

I'm a little confused with this question, which PHB gave you a chain fighter from the get go? Perhaps you are talking through the use of Feats?

Yes feats. Two feats and I have Whirly Pearly my Dex based chain fighter.

You do realise that sometimes DMs wait months and years for their preferred settings or monsters. Thats part of edition growth - its not all in your face at the start. Thats an unrealistic expectation. I think you need to give me an example of what you can play now with one of the current editions that wont suit the model I am proposing because I feel like im going around in circles here.

There's Minigiant. His mama was a fire giant barbarian and his pops was a wizard. When they went missing, he grabbed his dad's spellbook and his mom's dagger (which to him was a greatsword) and went on a journey to find them. But as he was a sheltered half-giant barbarian conjurer, he did not know the ways of the forest under his mountain and was lost for a year. There he picked up a bit of nature skills to survive. Minigiant, the seven foot five nature wizard wielding a greatsword and a bad temper.

Or Prince Seven, seventh born of the a small religious kingdom. Like all royals and noble children, he is a trained cleric. When the kingdom was conquered by invaders, he flees to an industrial nation. There he trains as a rogue and joins a guild. When his guild sends their thieves to steal the secrets of others, he is sent as the healer and face.

Or Sir Derrick, the sneaky anti-assassin of the king. Derrick can kill in quickly with whatever method works. His deadly sneak attack. His high damage spells. Or a powerful slash of his falchion. For those who threaten the king must be dealt which swiftly.

What specialized class are they?

 

[Sadras]

Uh...you haven't. I just checked through the quote history, so maybe you're confusing me with someone with a similar username?

Apologies I am - confusing you with Minigiant - hence the 15 base classes. As for your three. Well I suggested four (my 1st post in this thread), never liked grouping divine powers with Magic Users. but thats neither here nor there.
My idea is 4 Primary Class - and then Class Concepts/Kits whatever you wish to call them to cover the rest.

...I've got a bridge to sell.

I like that. Probably will steal it.

Second, having a limited number of classes prevents you from calling your character something else because...? That argument is a non-starter for me. It seems rather silly. My current character in a PF game is a fighter with the Dragoon archetype. But I call him a samurai. The samurai class wasn't what I wanted mechanically (at all) and with a good selection of feats, weapons, and armor I managed to create pretty much what I had in my head, but there's no way I'm picking a class I don't like just to get the name of the class. It's silly.

Class Features of your Samuria Class - dont like them. Here is the Class mechanic in the DMG or PHB or Unearthed Arcana, change the Class Features to suit your needs, discuss with DM. Done!

Also, why does an Abjurer have to be a special class rather than just a specialized wizard who focuses his spell selection on Abjuration spells? 100 classes with one specifically called an Abjurer seems to be adding needless complexity.

Okay I used that as an example for naming purposes - but my 1st post in this thread listed Specialist Wizard as one Class. I could change the Class names of Abjurer, Conjurer and Elementalist in my example to Warlock, Witch and Wu-Jen. Does that make it more clear to you?

Personally I dont want my Warlock functioning like a Witch functioning like a Wizard or Wu-Jen. They are intrinsically different. Thematically and mechanically. They would have shared Class Features yes, some shared spells - but I would want them to have different Class Features. So if the PHB elaborated on each, giving a descrip with base class features and possible suggestion of others to select from - I would not say no to that.
Should you not agree with a given Class Feature or wish to incorporate your own - discuss with DM (this is a standard rule for every edition).

4 Basic Classes - sure, but what about the rest. How is D&DN then catering for class to any edition after the printing of 2E Class Handbooks and after?

Unless you going to use a point system like in Skills and Powers you are never going to get the customization you want. The system would have to be similar to White Wolf's Traits and Flaws points system.
Although then I'd suggest, throw out all the D&D systems and adopt White Wolfs system - its actually better anyways. But then again - thats not what D&DN is about