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

[SKyOdin]

[MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION]
Bloat is bloat.

All 100 classes does is remove the feat chapter to make make the class chapter bigger.

Literally moving Weapon Finesse from the back of the feat chapter to the front of the class chapter.

100 classes with 3 class features each is the same as 300 feats is the same as 20 classes with 15 class feature options sizewise.

Except that there is a world of difference between what you can do with a feat versus what you can do with a whole class. Just slapping Weapon Finesse on and calling it a new class would be a horrible idea. If you make a dedicated Duelist class for example, you could give it unique, comprehensive mechanics that can't be replicated with the feat system. So there really is no comparison between feats and classes.

The amount of customization that can be done with 3E/4E feats is rather pitiful, really.

 

[Minigiant]

Except that there is a world of difference between what you can do with a feat versus what you can do with a whole class. Just slapping Weapon Finesse on and calling it a new class would be a horrible idea. If you make a dedicated Duelist class for example, you could give it unique, comprehensive mechanics that can't be replicated with the feat system. So there really is no comparison between feats and classes.

The duelist wouldn't be summed up with one feat. It would be multiple ones. Any class feature that can't be transformed into a couple feats and doesn't refer to another system such as spell casting... shouldn't be a class feature.

The amount of customization that can be done with 3E/4E feats is rather pitiful, really.

That was because 3e feats were bad and 4e feats where just minor tweaks.

 

[mkill]

This is going back and forth with no side really convincing the other. I think both sides have made their points at this stage, we are just repeating what was said before.

Mhh.

I need to think about this. Let's take a big step backwards.

What are the requirements of a good solution?

* Tradition
No matter what you do, this is D&D. There has to be a Fighter, a Mage, a Rogue and a Cleric, and they have to "feel right" at the game table

* Newbie-friendliness
If a non-gamer friend wants to join the hobby, it must be possible to hand the PHB to them and they are able to make a character on their own

* Customizability
Players who are willing to invest time and effort to master the system must be able to build exactly the character they imagine (within the very broad limits of D&D fantasy)

Did I miss one?

Regardless of the details, the ideal D&D game shoud score high on the three criteria above.

Tradition is probably the hardest to do right, because every gamer has a different idea of how each class feels right. A lot of it has to do with which edition you grew up, but it is also more general about gaming style, genre preferences etc.

Newbie-friendliness is all about making the rules accessible, easy to understand and straightforward (something experienced gamers can appreciate too). However, you don't want to include too much handholding, as part of the gaming experience is also figuring things out on your own. In general, strong archetypes help newbies understand what a character is expected to be and do even if they don't grok the rules yet.
Choices should be few, but meaningful and visible: "pet tiger or pet alligator" is cool and immediately understood. "+1 QFT on natural 17+ or +2 GTFO when dual-wielding" is not.
The trick is to guide the newbie all the way through the character creation process without overwhelming him or her with options. These options can be there - if you look for them.

Flexibility is all about these options. Some gamers, lets call them tinkerers, like their RPG like a box of legos. You can build anything, if you put the right bricks together.

There are four enemies of the tinkerer
- the purist, who believes that PCs should only exist in the small subset that is "true D&D"
- the newbie, who gets confused by too much choice without guidance
- the freeformer, who just wants a basic ruleset and improvise the rest
- and the munchkin, who loves a flexible game but sees options as an equation to solve for the most powerful PC he can build

None of the 5 is wrong, it's just quite hard to make them all happy at the same gaming table.

...

Mhh, I'm not sure where I'm going with this. I'm at a point where "how many classes should there be" is just a facet of larger game philosophy questions.

 

[Grazzt]

Why should I need to wait till a certain level before I can play the class I want to play (prestige classes)? The reason for making 100 classes is to focus and specialise your character from the get go to enable players to play the character they want to play sooner.

Feats (done correctly), not more classes or prestige classes can solve this "problem"

 

[TwinBahamut]

Bloat is bloat.

This is a terribly over-simplistic way to look at things. You are basically arguing that a raw quantity of options is bad regardless of all other variables or mitigating factors, and that limiting the raw number of options is of a higher priority than ensuring a certain level of quality and ease-of-use of those options. I'll totally disagree.

People who perceive the problem of "class bloat" to simply mean "there are too many classes" are not looking at the problem carefully enough. It is possible to have a lot of classes and have bloat, sure (this happened in 3E). It is also possible to have a lot of classes and not have any bloat. Class bloat occurs because many classes are produced without advance planning, organization, niche protection, and quality control. It is not a necessary consequence, it is a symptom of bad planning and poor presentation of information. With a bit of forethought and good development of concepts and mechanics, it is easily possible to create a large number of classes without running into the problems associated with class bloat.

Of course, I still feel that "feat bloat" or other forms of unchecked expansion of character customization options would be a far worse problem than "class bloat". If you have rigid classes, then you always know where to look up information you need during play. If you have a large range of options taken from several different books, all relevant to your character, then it hurts mid-play usability. The two forms of "bloat" are simply not equivalent.

 

[Mercutio01]

Of course, I still feel that "feat bloat" or other forms of unchecked expansion of character customization options would be a far worse problem than "class bloat".

And I feel the opposite. Having a new class that necessitates a new character in order to use is of less value to me than a new feat which I could take next time I level up. (EDIT: Incidentally, I rarely plan out a build from beginning to end, and even when I do, I never follow it exactly. Rigid classes prevent organic growth without some serious flexibility in options. And, as I say repeatedly below, rigid /= flexible, and cannot, because they are exact opposites.)

If you have rigid classes, then you always know where to look up information you need during play.

And a rigid character, by definition, is inflexible. Sure the "Slayer" won't look like the "Archer," but every single "Archer" in a rigid class system will, by definition (again), look like every other archer. In a looser structure system any one "Fighter" will not look like any other "Fighter" because of the customization of a looser structure. Indeed, "Fighter" could be a "Slayer" or "Archer" simply from choosing different options within the structure. And, later, when the Fighter, who has previously chosen some "Slayer" options, decides to broaden his abilities, he isn't stuck with only the options in that a "Slayer" class would rigidly prevent.

If you have a large range of options taken from several different books, all relevant to your character, then it hurts mid-play usability. The two forms of "bloat" are simply not equivalent.

And I'd rather have more options in mid-play than simply doing the same thing over and over again.

The only way a "100 classes" system works, for me, is if I can build my own class* without ever being forced to use a "rigid" class that someone else designed. No other person's design goals are ever going to match up 100% with my own, and rigidity is at odds with flexibility, literally.

*Ideally, even if the 100 system model was used (and I have no reasons to suspect it would), it would ship with detailed instructions for how to create your own. Your "Fighter/Mage" may have more "Fighter" than what I'd want (maybe what I really want is a "Mage/Fighter"), which either necessitates a whole new class, or the tools for me to alter/build my own. And that means flexibility, not rigidity.

 

[mkill]

Sure the "Slayer" won't look like the "Archer," but every single "Archer" in a rigid class system will, by definition (again), look like every other archer.

Ok, here is how I'd do the archer, tell me if this would work for you:

Archer

light armor, medium hp, all weapons, fletcher skill

Level
 1| precise shot, 2 archery tricks
 2| archer path (see below)
 3| far shot, shot on the run
 4| archery trick
 5| path ability
 6| twin shot
 7| archery trick
 8| path ability
 9| blind shot
10| master trick (improved version of one archery trick)

- feats are built-in (with a note that the DM can allow to switch them around)
- archery tricks are the equivalent of encounter powers (but you can try them more than once per combat at a penalty

Archer Paths:
* Animal Companion: Animal handling skill, animal companion from the Beast Master class
* Battlefield archer: Endurance skill, chain mail proficiency, 1 fighter combat trick at lvl 2, 5, 8
* Arcane Archer: Arcana skill, imbue arrow, limited access to sorcerer spells (see page XX)
* Marksman: Stealth skill, additional archery trick at lvl 2, 5, 8
* Woodland Strider: Wilderness skill, limited access to druid spells

- "Limited access to <class> spells" is defined in the basic rules to save space. Many classes will have this buit in or as an option.
- I kind of like making a big style decision at level 2. At that point, you've played the PC a bit and know the direction he wants to go. It also makes the first level-up feel special. However, others like to have all their important abilities at level 1...

 

[Stormonu]

Personally, I'd rather it not be a build over more than 3 levels, and not necessarily something that has to be taken in consecutive levels.

For me, an Archer "subclass" (tacked as an option to fighter), might look something like this:

Archer
- trade Heavy Armor Proficiency for Quick Shot
- trade Light & Heavy Shield Proficiency for Archery Talent
- starting weapon proficiency: Bows, Crossbows, one other of choice
- You start proficient in Craft (Woodworking) or have the proficiency Fletcher.

Quick Shot: In place of a Move action, you can make an extra attack with Bow or Crossbow at a -2 penalty to hit.

Archery Talent: You gain one archery related feat for free. Ignore ability requirements, but you must obey all other prerequisites. Choose from - Precise Shot, Far Shot, Shot on the Run, Twin Shot, Blind Shot, Rapid Shot, Sniper's Shot, Disarming Shot, Pinning Shot, Reflexive Shot, ..., ..., ..., etc.


You can take the Archer subclass at any level. In doing so, you must forgo any other subclass you have already taken (This is just to keep someone from adopting half a dozen subclasses. At best, I don't think anyone should really ever have more than three "subclasses" - and that's probably pushing it)

 

[Steely_Dan]

I would prefer fewer classes (I liked 2nd Ed's grouping style).

Also, how to play a Fighter/Magic-User/Thief in 5th Ed.

 

[mkill]

[MENTION=52734]Stormonu[/MENTION]: What is the advantage of your version? I don't see any, just extra work. And even though it's more complicated, your archer covers only 1 archetype, where mine covers yours and four others.