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

[Minigiant]

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.

Yes, lifestyle and education could be a race or theme. You can make an aristocratic race, class, or theme.
But one of the iconic aspects of D&D is that it is a class based system. A class is a collection of abilities that create an archetype.

Many of the issues with classes was forgeting this or making the collection system incompatible. Some classes were not a big enough collection of aspects (fighter was just weapons and armor for a long time). Other had a too big of a collection (most casters).

Laser focused classes can also be made more akin to skills system if done incorrectly. The higher your Evoker skill class is, the more damage your blasty spell is. There are many pencil and paper and video game rpgs that go this route. I hope D&D will not to go this route and I doubt it will. I like my multifaceted classes.

 

[TwoSix]

Yes, lifestyle and education could be a race or theme. You can make an aristocratic race, class, or theme.
But one of the iconic aspects of D&D is that it is a class based system. A class is a collection of abilities that create an archetype.

That's a perfectly good definition, and is probably what D&DN will go with. I'm just not wedded to it, and like to explore other options.

 

[mkill]

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

D&D is supposed to be a game with mass appeal (among the nerdier population). It has to be accessible to the many many casual gamers out there, and the fresh blood who get the books for Christmas from their uncle. If you hang out in RPG forums and discuss game theory, you're one of the 20% that do 80% of the RPG talk online.

For players like you and me, the flexibility and options, the tweaking and repackaging, the blank sheet build what you want classes can come with later splatbooks, DMG toolkits, dragon articles and what have you. For the PHB, think about what would appeal to players who would only ever buy the PHB and be completely happy with it.

Do they need over 100 feats? 107 pages of spells? Do they want to spend an hour browsing back and forth in the book until they have a full char on their sheet, uncertain whether this is what they wanted in the first place?

I understand that this feels to restrictive to you, but not every gamer feels that way. The game needs to serve both.

 

[Yora]

D&D is supposed to be a game with mass appeal (among the nerdier population). It has to be accessible to the many many casual gamers out there, and the fresh blood who get the books for Christmas from their uncle.

And that's why you need 10 classes that allow for optional customization, and not 100 classes. 100 classes are not accessible, as for to make a decision which one you want, you have to learn all 100 of them.

 

[Sanglorian]

And that's why you need 10 classes that allow for optional customization, and not 100 classes. 100 classes are not accessible, as for to make a decision which one you want, you have to learn all 100 of them.

But as we've said before, when there are 10 classes you don't just have to learn the classes, you have to learn the feats, skills, spells, talents, powers or alternative class features that you must use to make the character you want. That is even less accessible, because it requires system knowledge to understand whether those character options will help you turn your Rogue into - say - a Raider or your Wizard into a Pyromancer.

You mention optional customisation, suggesting that each of the 10 classes would have a default build. But by the same token, 10 of the 100 classes could be identified as 'archetypal' so players could just read those 10 if they weren't interested in all the character options open to them.

 

[TwinBahamut]

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.

I'll completely disagree. Sure, you could combine them, but you lose something in doing so. A heavily armored soldier trained to fight shoulder-to-shoulder with his fellows and fight off a giant horde of foes has nothing in common with the debonair swashbuckler who is trained to fight in 1-on-1 duels. Neither has very much in common with the guy who crashes through his foes while riding an elephant. Calling all of those things a "fighter" and giving them the exact same mechanics is a complete failure of class design. These are concepts that are more different than the Ranger and the Rogue, or the Wizard and the Sorcerer (which you leave separate for nothing more tradition).

Also, "class-feature switching" is a poor justification for not creating new classes. If you swap out major class features, it isn't even the same class anymore. It would be much easier to explain and use if "alternate class features" were presented as totally different classes. It could be more flavorful and mechanically interesting, as well.

 

[Yora]

But as we've said before, when there are 10 classes you don't just have to learn the classes, you have to learn the feats, skills, spells, talents, powers or alternative class features that you must use to make the character you want. That is even less accessible, because it requires system knowledge to understand whether those character options will help you turn your Rogue into - say - a Raider or your Wizard into a Pyromancer.

In that case, why not have a free pdf of 100 premade characters? The same advantage, if there is one, for players who want to have a finished package, but it still allows other players to make their own custom characters.

Though I have to say this is a very strange discussion, since I believe almost anyone here is sure it's not going to happen anyway.

 

[Minigiant]

I'll completely disagree. Sure, you could combine them, but you lose something in doing so. A heavily armored soldier trained to fight shoulder-to-shoulder with his fellows and fight off a giant horde of foes has nothing in common with the debonair swashbuckler who is trained to fight in 1-on-1 duels. Neither has very much in common with the guy who crashes through his foes while riding an elephant. Calling all of those things a "fighter" and giving them the exact same mechanics is a complete failure of class design. These are concepts that are more different than the Ranger and the Rogue, or the Wizard and the Sorcerer (which you leave separate for nothing more tradition).

To me, those three characters are just the same as D&D has always treated them: fighters of different specialization/feats/attacks with a different choice of skills. All three use the proficiency, advanced combat and basic skill systems only. They don't have divine spell, arcane spells, sneak attack, favored enemy, open lock, disable traps, or bardsongs. They just have weapon, armor, attacks, and a few basic skills.

Also, "class-feature switching" is a poor justification for not creating new classes. If you swap out major class features, it isn't even the same class anymore. It would be much easier to explain and use if "alternate class features" were presented as totally different classes. It could be more flavorful and mechanically interesting, as well.

Class feature swapping (or addition which is better) would facilitate the creation of archetypes that require a little extra. Instead of making a whole new class to make a warrior with a spellsword, just make a spellsword system and do whatever is needed to get it be it feats or gold or skill trained or a special theme. If you want to make a 4E style defender, take a fighter and take the defender feats/attacks. Want an arcane arcobat, make a sorceror and that the feat to get sneak attack equivalent to a rogue ⅓ your level.

 

[CleverNickName]

Sounds good to me...just as long as they don't try to stuff all 100 of them into the core rules. I would like to see only 1d4+2 classes in the core rulebook, and the rest of them in splatbooks and supplements.

 

[Sanglorian]

In that case, why not have a free pdf of 100 premade characters? The same advantage, if there is one, for players who want to have a finished package, but it still allows other players to make their own custom characters.

By the same token, there could be 100 classes accompanied by a free pdf guide on how to custom classes and create your own. This would provide the same advantage for players who want to make their own custom characters.

Dungeons & Dragons is, for better or worse, a class-based game and I think it's better to have useful, distinctive out-of-the-box character archetypes than leave that to the players.

Though I have to say this is a very strange discussion, since I believe almost anyone here is sure it's not going to happen anyway.

Perhaps not, but I've found it a compelling one. mkill and others convinced me.