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

[Lanefan]

Since D&D used 6 attributes, I would prefer if there was at least one class pre ability score.

Ideally I'd go 3 classes per ability score just for variety's sake.

Heh - on reading your first line I was about to suggest 2 classes per score; and then I saw the second line where you suggest three. So I'll take the average.

The one thing I'd add to a two-per-score setup would be a couple of classes that kinda need at least three or four good scores if not more in order to work well. Once that's done, we end up with a rather 1e-like class list at 2 per score:

STR - Fighter, Cavalier
INT - Wizard, Artificer*
WIS - Cleric, Druid
DEX - Thief, Assassin
CON - Ranger, Barbarian
CHA - Paladin, Sorcerer**
ALL - Bard, Monk

* - Artificer can be replaced with Illusionist, Necromancer, or some other arcane class for a more 1e-like feel; [ETA] or psionicist.
** - Sorcerer can be replaced with a Cha-based arcane class e.g. Necromancer if you don't want spontaneous casting in the game.

And yes, the idea here is that Bard and Monk are gated behind some rather strenuous stat requirements across the board in order to make them less common.

 

[el-remmen]

To give a more serious answer, I'd prefer four basic classes: Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Rogue - and everything else be a subclass you choose at third or 5th - with an add on psionicist fifth option. Each class would have four possible sub-classes for a total of 16 (or 20) different possibilities.

For people like me, who like slow advancement with characters being shaped by in-game events over builds, you start at 1st level and by 3rd (or 5th) you start to specialize to become a druid or a paladin or a ranger or a warlock - or keep the generic class.

For those who like to choose from the beginning and like more "heroic fantasy" feel of powerful characters the game can start at 3rd (or 5th) and folks can choose which subclasses they want from the get-go.

 

[Minigiant]

Heh - on reading your first line I was about to suggest 2 classes per score; and then I saw the second line where you suggest three. So I'll take the average.

The one thing I'd add to a two-per-score setup would be a couple of classes that kinda need at least three or four good scores if not more in order to work well. Once that's done, we end up with a rather 1e-like class list at 2 per score:

I choose 3 to avoid forced grid filling.

D&D has a lot of STR, DEX, and CHA classes. You would be hardpressed to get a weapon class using anything but those 3 scores. Monk, Ranger, Rogue, and half of Fighters could end up in Dex alone. Then you have all the traditional warriors in STR. You would have 5-7 classes in STR and Dex alone.

As for CON, you would be really forcing it to put anything but Warlock or Sorcerer there. And you really only want to do one of them.

---

This is why the "only need 3 classes" or "only need 4 classes" ideas for D&D come out looking silly and just wishes. Because many D&D archetypes are so different that even pondering putting them together destroys the concept of the whole.

How can you combine the Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger, and Paladin if 3 of the classes have different prime attributes, spell lists, maneuver lists, and ribbon features? Your grandparent class becomes either meaningless or overly important. Youll either fail to broaden the class or just create new classes anyway as 2 members of a class would have nothing in common.

 

[schneeland]

How can you combine the Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger, and Paladin if 3 of the classes have different prime attributes, spell lists, maneuver lists, and ribbon features? Your grandparent class becomes either meaningless or overly important. Youll either fail to broaden the class or just create new classes anyway as 2 members of a class would have nothing in common.

I would say, it's certainly possible, but you end up with a different game, much more akin to either older editions of D&D or something like Dungeon Crawl Classics (for those in favour of such a design this is probably an intended effect).

 

[Minigiant]

I would say, it's certainly possible, but you end up with a different game, much more akin to either older editions of D&D or something like Dungeon Crawl Classics (for those in favour of such a design this is probably an intended effect).

Well that's my point.

Old D&D and games like DCC are not.

"Few classes with a lots of build choices"

They were.

"Few classes with no build choices"

Of the top of my head, I can't think of any game that starts with 3-4 classes that actually broadens enough to build a large suite of D&D style archetypes.

 

[Lanefan]

I choose 3 to avoid forced grid filling.

D&D has a lot of STR, DEX, and CHA classes. You would be hardpressed to get a weapon class using anything but those 3 scores. Monk, Ranger, Rogue, and half of Fighters could end up in Dex alone. Then you have all the traditional warriors in STR. You would have 5-7 classes in STR and Dex alone.

Ranger was a CON class in 1e, no reason it can't be again. Just drop all that two-weapon crap and have it become more of a tank.

Monk is one that IMO needs all six stats to be at least vaguely good and thus avoids being tied to just one stat.

So, what would your three-per-stat list look like?

This is why the "only need 3 classes" or "only need 4 classes" ideas for D&D come out looking silly and just wishes. Because many D&D archetypes are so different that even pondering putting them together destroys the concept of the whole.

How can you combine the Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger, and Paladin if 3 of the classes have different prime attributes, spell lists, maneuver lists, and ribbon features? Your grandparent class becomes either meaningless or overly important. Youll either fail to broaden the class or just create new classes anyway as 2 members of a class would have nothing in common.

Just four classes is too few, I agree. But anything more than about 15 is already getting into too-many territory.

 

[payn]

If two weapon rangers are wrong, I dont want to be right.

 

[Lanefan]

If two weapon rangers are wrong, I dont want to be right.

IMO two-weapon stuff should be the purview of Rogues, Thieves, and other Dex-based classes.

Rangers should not be a Dex-based class.

 

[Minigiant]

Ranger was a CON class in 1e, no reason it can't be again. Just drop all that two-weapon crap and have it become more of a tank.

The 0e-1eRanger actually didn't do anything with CON though.It just had a requirement.

Monk is one that IMO needs all six stats to be at least vaguely good and thus avoids being tied to just one stat.

Monk is multiple stat but all 6 wouldbe hard to design.

So, what would your three-per-stat list look like?

Just remaking D&D archetypes is:

STR
Barbarian
Champion
Fighter*
DEX
Fighter*
Monk
Ranger
Rogue
CON
Warlock
INT
Artificer
(Halfcaster)
Wizard
WIS
Beastmaster
Cleric
Druid
CHA
Bard
Paladin
Sorcerer

Then to recreate old popular ideas or fill in missing ideas, you can get 1-5 more classes.

You really can't shrink down to less than 15 classes and not kill one of the now modern class archetypes. D&D, PF, or whatever has always failed at one of them because it tries to combine concept sunder the same class and failed.

And that's all before you get to idea D&D avoids before it is still working on basics like psions and INT/WIS/CHA based warriors ouside of paladin.

 

[Scribe]

So, what would your three-per-stat list look like?

I was just looking over this today, I don't think I had 3 per though.

(Note: This requires some tweaking of classes that I'm working on)

Str: Barbarian, Fighter
Dex: Rogue, Monk
Con: Warlock, Ranger
Int: Wizard, Psion, Gish
Wis: Cleric, Druid, Warlord
Cha: Bard, Sorcerer, Paladin

Those are my core classes. If you needed to fill it out? I guess Artificer, but I'm really not a fan yet. Then, I don't know really if anything else is missing?