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

[TwinBahamut]

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?

I'm not sure if this is exactly what you are asking for, but here is a large list of classes that work better in the 100 class format than the 10 class format. I'll add some notes to those concepts that need a little elaboration.

Soldier (frontline military warrior)
Warlord (military commander)
Guardian (warrior who primarily protects allies)
Fencer (a duelist specializing in advanced weapon use)
Gladiator (duelist + flashy/dirty fighting)
Slayer (duelist vs. giant monsters)
Beastmaster Ranger
Trapmaster Ranger
Archer
Thief
Assassin
Alchemist
Cavalier (heavy cavalry)
Outrider (light cavalry)
Beast Cavalier (poor name, but cavalry using mounts that fight)
Elemental Mage
Summoner
Necromancer
Zone/Barrier/Trap Mage (or maybe each is its own class)
Illusionist
Warlock
Holy Cleric
Dark Cultist
Invoker
Runepriest
Druid (wildshape focus)
Shaman (spirit companion)
Musical Bard (ally buff/heal type)
Musical Bard (enemy debuff/damage type)
Jack-of-all-Trades Bard
Illusion Ninja
Elemental Ninja
Combat Ninja
Paladin
Hexblade
Monk
Swordmage (armored warrior who casts spells)
Duskblade (warrior who imbues weapon with magic)
Spellblade (warrior who creates a weapon out of magic)
Arcane Archer
Berserker
Warden
Psion
Psionic Warrior
Artificer

And so on.

Sure, it is not 100 classes exactly, but it is far more in the order of 100 than 10. I could probably break more of these into their component parts, in fact, or come up with more given some more thought.

The simple truth is that I could name unique mechanics that only belong to that class for each of these classes that I just listed. Really good multiclassing (better than what D&D usually has) or really complex class customization could cover some of these, but nowhere near all of them. The set of Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, and Cleric are not the primary colors that some people make them out to be. If you want to treat a character archetype properly, you need to break down classes to this level and build them from scratch. Anything else is either too complex, too restricting, or both.

 

[Sanglorian]

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.

You would still have the option of multiclassing, taking a few levels of Sailor or Privateer, a level of Bard and a couple of levels of Sage or Master. Which of your examples from published fantasy change in a way that couldn't be reflected by multiclassing?

(I should add that my ideal system would have feats, but they would be rare sd only acquired after first level. So maybe that would provide the character choice you are looking for.)

 

[Minigiant]

*snippy snap*

Now I ssee/

And now I see why ~15 classes with a good multiclassing system would be fine. Many of those classes could be combined. Other could generally be tied for a skill roll.

Fighter (all forms of tradition combat: Str Melee, Archery, Armor, Finesse, Mounted, Unarmed)
Rogue (Sneak attack, non-magical Alchemy, Mechanical traps)
Cleric (Divine spells, Divinity Channeling)
Wizard (Arcane spells)
Ranger (Hunting, Non magical Nature & Dungeoneering skill)
Barbarian (Rage. Raw Ability Scores)
Druid (Druid spells, Magical Nature & Dungeoneering skill)
Sorcerer (Spontaneous Arcane magic)
Bard (Bardsong. Bardic lord)
Assassin (All things deadly: sneak attack, poison, spells, weapons)
Warlock (At-will magic)
Monk (Martial arts, Inner focus)
Paladin (Direct divine power)
Psion (Psionics)


Then have other non-archtypical things like Artifice, Weapon magic, as well as everything else above could be added as class feature switching.

 

[mkill]

Just had a look at the official 3E list of Prestige Classes. Excel says there are 712 unique entries in there. Seven hundred and twelve. So even if you plan for 5E to have 100 classes, you have to whittle down that list 7:1.

Or in other words, just take the 30 or so core classes of 3E as base. Then, take the PrCs, remove the 90% crap (Sturgeon's Law) and rebalance them in a way that they work from level 1, and you have a system with 100 classes.

 

[Minigiant]

Just had a look at the official 3E list of Prestige Classes. Excel says there are 712 unique entries in there. Seven hundred and twelve. So even if you plan for 5E to have 100 classes, you have to whittle down that list 7:1.

Or in other words, just take the 30 or so core classes of 3E as base. Then, take the PrCs, remove the 90% crap (Sturgeon's Law) and rebalance them in a way that they work from level 1, and you have a system with 100 classes.

But like you said, 90% of the PrCs are plumbing issues.

And I disagree that there are ~30 aspects of D&D that deserve their own classes. After a point, many are tweaks of existing classes, hybrids of them, or minor usages of the skill system.

 

[mkill]

And I disagree that there are ~30 aspects of D&D that deserve their own classes. After a point, many are tweaks of existing classes, hybrids of them, or minor usages of the skill system.

One reason I started this thread is that I want to get away from this "deserve a class" mindset. In the end, a class is just a package of abilities for your PC, an advancement table, and a suggested background. In other words, a template for building a PC.

It's weird that in D&D, the templates have taken on a mystic life of their own. Players talk of "the" Fighter or "the" Wizard as if these were mystic entities on their own.

Has anyone here played in a party that was composed exactly of "the fighter", "the wizard", "the rogue" and "the cleric"? And how long did it last until at least one player got tired of it and switched to something else?

 

[Mercutio01]

Has anyone here played in a party that was composed exactly of "the fighter", "the wizard", "the rogue" and "the cleric"? And how long did it last until at least one player got tired of it and switched to something else?

I have. The campaign lasted years.

One reason I started this thread is that I want to get away from this "deserve a class" mindset. In the end, a class is just a package of abilities for your PC, an advancement table, and a suggested background. In other words, a template for building a PC.

I guess my response is why push for this kind of bloat at the outset of a new game? Wouldn't something like Pathfinder's archetypes fit your goal better?

 

[Yora]

In the end, a class is just a package of abilities for your PC, an advancement table, and a suggested background. In other words, a template for building a PC.

then why force pre-packed packages on the players? Why not pack these packages yourself?

 

[Minigiant]

One reason I started this thread is that I want to get away from this "deserve a class" mindset. In the end, a class is just a package of abilities for your PC, an advancement table, and a suggested background. In other words, a template for building a PC.

A class isn't just a package of random abilities. They are an assortment of associated features that encompass a particular occupation, lifestyle, or education.

For example, when I hear people say "A ranger is a two weapon warrior", I RAGE! Why would a twf class even exist? And why is it a ranger? A twf warrior walks into a forest and gets eaten by a bear because of his lack of stealth, survival skill, or animal handling skill. These things are iconic, or in your words mystic.

It's weird that in D&D, the templates have taken on a mystic life of their own. Players talk of "the" Fighter or "the" Wizard as if these were mystic entities on their own.

Has anyone here played in a party that was composed exactly of "the fighter", "the wizard", "the rogue" and "the cleric"? And how long did it last until at least one player got tired of it and switched to something else?

Twice. I was rogue once and the cleric the other.

Did an alt iconic game too. Barbarian, bard, druid, sorcerer.

 

[TwoSix]

A class isn't just a package of random abilities. They are an assortment of associated features that encompass a particular occupation, lifestyle, or education.

That's one definition, but it doesn't have to be the only one. Lifestyle and education fit just as well under Race or Theme, after all.