D&D General What kind of class design do you prefer?

[Undrave]

When I see build, I think of

Race + Class/Archetype + Attributes/Skills -> Feats + Prestige Class + Multiclass.

If you have those kinds of options all as part of the baseline game, you have a system that allows for a wide range of builds and the creation of 'builds' becomes a mini game all on its own.

I'm not a fan of free for all multi class myself, but I'd rather not excise all choices completely. Just reign them in.

Like, instead of a generic Mage you have specialist classes like you can pick the Pyromancer, and at first level you automatically get Dancing Light and Control Flames as cantrip, then you pick 1 out of Create Bonfire, Firebolt or Produce Flame. Then for your level 1 spell you get like... 5 or 6 options, top, all thematic to pick a few from. Just enough that no two Pyromancer are 100% alike, even if you already know the kind of shenanigans they will get up to just by knowing what they are.

 

[Charlaquin]

Few classes with many options.I like being able to build characters as I go, rather than having all the decisions already made by the time I start playing. Many classes with few options doesn’t allow for this, because you pick your class and that’s basically it. On the other hand, having too many options, especially if they’re interdependent, re-creates this issue from the opposite direction. 3.5e had this problem, where requirements for certain feats and prestige classes were so precise that if you didn’t plan out your build choices from 1st level, you were liable to accidentally lock yourself out of later options.

For this reason, I’m a fan of branching decision trees. Start from a small handful of base classes. Give each of those base classes a small handful of subclass options. Give each of those subclasses a small handful of options like fighting styles or whatever. And based on those choices, have a small handful of options to choose from as you level. Ideally you’d make one choice from only 3-5 options at every level.

You know. Like 4e.

 

[TwoSix]

I really dislike the notion of ”builds”. So neither. Roll stats, pick a race and class, then start playing inside of 5-10 minutes. You decide what gear to buy and what magic items to keep.

Yea, but that would lean towards the second option. Look at how many classes were designed in the 0e/1e days, when classes had fixed, unalterable progressions.

 

[Yora]

Wrong options: My vote goes to few classes with little customization options.
Any time you define an ability specific to one character, it reduces the flexibility of everyone else.

 

[Yaarel]

Wrong options: My vote goes to few classes with little customization options.
Any time you define an ability specific to one character, it reduces the flexibility of everyone else.

Do you mean a few classes plus feats that any class can take?

 

[Yora]

No, I mean something like four or five classes that have two or three distinctive abilities.

 

[Ancalagon]

I find that "builds" are bad for the game. You have people who are more invested in chargen than the game itself. The game becomes just a tool, an operation to "test/prove/showoff" their build. A bit like photographers more interested in what their camera can do vs taking good photos.

 

[overgeeked]

What even is a 'Build'? In any case, you would prefer narrower classes without choices, then?

Nope. No classes or a few very broad classes. And instead of lists of mechanical widgets to pour over, you either define your character by what you actually do, learn, or acquire in game or you loosely define your character yourself using imagination instead of pulling from a finite list of options, no matter how long.

Like, you would just pick your aesthetic and then have very few things to decide as you level up. Including spell lists. You'd "I want to play a great archer" and then BOOM, pick the Archer class. "I want to be a ninja" BOOM! Ninja class! "I want to use magic to heal people" and then BOOM there's a class for that. Then any choices are minor (think Totem Barbarian totem choice in term of complexity here).

No. Kinda the opposite. What's the main thing you do in the game? Pick one: fight, use magic, sneak around. Everything else is just a reskin of those three, really.

Yea, but that would lean towards the second option. Look at how many classes were designed in the 0e/1e days, when classes had fixed, unalterable progressions.

Maybe. My preference is a classless game or a few broad classes. Fighter, caster, thief are all you need. Every other class in the game is some variation of those three, or a reskinned multiclass of those three.

 

[overgeeked]

I find that "builds" are bad for the game. You have people who are more invested in chargen than the game itself. The game becomes just a tool, an operation to "test/prove/showoff" their build. A bit like photographers more interested in what their camera can do vs taking good photos.

It's become the "invisible" fourth pillar of the game. People seem more invested in the "character build" pillar than actually playing the game, or in some of the pillars that are actually detailed in the game itself.

 

[payn]

Some folks are not just capable of doing both, but really enjoy it.