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

[Sadras]

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.

Okay. You do realise, if you have been following the thread from the beginning, that within the Classes - there are Class Features to choose from and whatever you wish to incorporate or ignore - discuss with DM. The Class Features could list combat styles, weapon proficiency, amrour proficiency and special manuevers with chosen weapon styles - Light though not at all as expansive as the power lists. This is my concept.
Ideally I would like at least an Archer Class and a Myrmidon Class in the first Handbook.

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.

Sounds like a Multi-Classed Barbarian-Specialist Mage (both of which I would have incorporated within the first PHB). And he probably has picked up a nature skill. No prob. As for Fire Giant - sry only discussing Classes here.
As for the rest all are doable - remember I suggested around 30 classes initially. Secondly we also, in earlier posts, said this these classes are not to be confused with THEMES and/or BACKGROUNDS as per the 5E news we have already heard. Its in the earliers posts - dont really want to repeat it all again.

So essentially you choose your class with selected class features, theme and/or background as well as skills. Its quick and enough to be unique from someone elses.
Look I understand this is not everyones cup of tea - just looking at your characters I think we would have a problem with races in the 1st PHB.
Where I am all inclusive in classes - I find I am less so with races, at least in the 1st PHB.

 

[Minigiant]

My point is that it make no sense to both have 100 laser rocked narrow classes AND have a deep multiclassing system.

The second part invalidates the reason for having the first part. If I can multiclass a Barbarian and Wizard then take a nature theme, why make a "Minigiant/Rage Mage" class? You only need one or the other.

Wouldn't it be easier to take the aspects of D&D adventureing (combat, sneakiness, arcane, divine magic, paladin powers, nature skills...), make those into distinct classes, and design them in a way where multiclassing and customization works?

 

[Yora]

I think the optimal number of classes is 8 to 12. More than that are just repitions of things that already exist.

 

[Mallus]

You don't need players to read through the PH cover to cover; if they browse the hundred pages of classes until they choose one they'd like to play, that's mission accomplished.

What if the prospective player wants an overview of all the available class options? This doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

A list of 10 is easier to digest than a list of 30 to 100. In the end, this is question of information design/presentation. More choices are not automatically better, especially if beginner-friendliness is a consideration.

Either way, what I'd like to see is meaningful choices (mechanically and in the fiction) of distinct and clear archetypes that don't take hours for indecisive/new players to make.

Me too. I just want the list of meaningful choices to be of a manageable size.

 

[TwoSix]

What I think everyone agrees on:

1) Every character has a built-in prowess for some combat and non-combat utility. This is measured by skills, attack bonuses, ability scores, hit points and defenses.

2) Other mundane and supernatural abilities should be pooled by archetype.

3) Every character should have some ability to access abilities from outside of his archetype, although this sharing could have either lesser or greater restrictions.

4) Gaining abilities is restricted by a metagame resource. In D&D, this is levels. More levels equals both more abilities and greater strength of those abilities.

So, the question becomes how tightly or loosely to pool abilities. D&D has always advocated a fairly tight leash over ability gain, so I assume this will continue into D&D Next.

Now it's easy to assume that a game with 100 "classes" would have tight controls over ability gain. But that may or may not be the case, depending on how classes are constructed.

As a hypothetical example, what if there were a "class" for each different kind of magic spell. A Fireballer class, a Teleporter class, a Cure Light wounds class. That would seem kind of limiting, right?

But what if I said that it had 3e style multiclassing? That's a bit more open, right? And each level in the class improved the base spell a liitle bit, but most of the effectivess derived from overall level? So a Fireballer 5/Teleporter 5 could keep up with a Fireballer 10. It's more open still. And what about if I said there were 100 levels, and you usually gain 3 or 4 each session?

TLDR
Basically, what I'm saying is that "class" is a mechanicless term, unless you give it one. Most of this discussion is wasted without a definition of class. Better to try to decide
1) What abilities are there?
2) How do they group together?
3) How tightly or narrowly do I want them dispersed?
4) What construct will give me the options I'm looking for?

 

[Sanglorian]

What if the prospective player wants an overview of all the available class options? This doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

The choice isn't between a dozen classes that contain 'all the available class options' in a few pages each and a hundred classes that contain 'all the available class options' in one page each. Because to access the class options of those dozen classes you need to look at the feats that are necessary to turn your fighter in a knight, or the skills that are necessary to turn your fighter into a ranger, or the alternative class features that are necessary to turn your fighter into a berserker, or the powers that are necessary to turn your fighter into a warlord.

Not only do you need to read those character customisation options, you also need to understand their game effects - is being able to make attacks of opportunity when you are attacked a good feat for a swashbuckling Fighter to take? Yes, in fact, it is - but you need to have a lot of game savvy to realise that.

Whereas it's obvious that the Swashbuckler one-page class will be a good choice if you want a swashbuckling fighter, and you don't need to understand the game mechanics supporting that class to realise it.

A list of 10 is easier to digest than a list of 30 to 100. In the end, this is question of information design/presentation. More choices are not automatically better, especially if beginner-friendliness is a consideration.

I agree with you that more choices is not necessarily better. I would prefer one momentous, character-defining choice of class at the start of play rather than a series of cascading choices of class, class talents/alternative class features, feats and spells.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I liked the bard´s handbook kits from ADnD 2nd edition. The base bard was spilt up into 4 focussed concepts. You had some choices in skills and weapons and you had to fullfill some requirements. That worked great.

So, as long as we have a base type guy with fixed all round abilities, i would not mind more focussed subclasses. Way better than chosing feats. I really miss the days, where you just leveled up, rolled a dice for hp (which i would not mind not coming back) changed some numbers and were fine for a while.

 

[Sadras]

If I can multiclass a Barbarian and Wizard then take a nature theme, why make a "Minigiant/Rage Mage" class? You only need one or the other.

I have no idea where you came up with the idea that I was suggesting a "Minigiant/Rage Mage" class. PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE I SAID THAT!!!

You have Multi-classed the Barbarian (a class) and the Wizard (a class) and perhaps have trained in nature or have the nature theme, that's all. I think you are confusing the 100 classes with EVERY possible COMBINATION OF CLASSES which is not what we are saying. NOT AT ALL!!!

Please reread the thread.

 

[Mercutio01]

I agree with you that more choices is not necessarily better. I would prefer one momentous, character-defining choice of class at the start of play rather than a series of cascading choices of class, class talents/alternative class features, feats and spells.

And I disagree completely as I want a character that can grow and change organically as he grows up.

For instance, in my life so far (turning 33 in May), I have been a Naval Officer, a high school teacher, a published poet, and a college professor. My life is not defined by the decision I made at 17 (Navy ROTC scholarship) and my whole life is not adhering to a strict class progression that can never vary.

In a similar fashion, many of the characters I planned out made different changes from my initial thoughts as stories in game changed my goals. In fact, I have never played a character that has stayed exactly as I intended at creation.

I absolutely prefer a series of cascading choices/talents/alternate class features/feats/spells/skills that I can organically shift back and forth through as my character levels up.

EDIT - I'd like to point to various characters in published fantasy that do just that. Bilbo, Luke Skywalker, Han Solo, Drizz't Do'urden, Catti-Brie, Elminster, Gord the Rogue, John Carter, Elric. Just to name a few.

 

[Minigiant]

I have no idea where you came up with the idea that I was suggesting a "Minigiant/Rage Mage" class. PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE I SAID THAT!!!

You have Multi-classed the Barbarian (a class) and the Wizard (a class) and perhaps have trained in nature or have the nature theme, that's all. I think you are confusing the 100 classes with EVERY possible COMBINATION OF CLASSES which is not what we are saying. NOT AT ALL!!!

Please reread the thread.

I must be confused somewhere. Or blind. Probably the latter and the former.

Can someone who is pro-100 classes give me a sample list of most popular classes?