D&D General What is the right amount of Classes for Dungeons and Dragons?

[Shardstone]

Sorry, haven't watched any of those, so i'm not familiar with characters. Except FMA way back in the day. I was more thinking in line of concepts. FE Guts from Berserk when broken into concept is tough, resilient guy with big ass sword. So bear totem barbarian/champion fighter, GWM feat, max str and con, greatsword and medium armor.

Reskin and re-flavor things was always thing in D&D. Thing is, too many classes and they go into niche specialization. And then we get 3.x all over again.

I don't care if they go into niche specialization, but I will say I think that 3.X was a unique case that 5E cannot replicate. There are dozens of 3PP and homebrew classes out there that are balanced, unique, and fun; most of them are not niche either. That proves that the 12 we have now only accounts for a single demographics taste, and that demographic is forced upon other demographics (unless you make or buy 3PP material).

This is fine, btw. I don't hate WotC for this or think it is a bad decision for them. My opinion is that its fine how they operate, but I think they needlessly restrain themselves out of fear for a 3.X boogeyman, which is backwards thinking in my book.

 

[Jaiken]

Do you mean "for a new edition," as to be "in the PHB," as in initial publication/release?

I am inclined to think 13 is your very most/top for an initial outing. I would put your "base minimum" at 7 or 8. But I think a list of 13 is probably the best.

Gives you enough for people to say "Oo! Look at all the options/possibilities," including hopefully multiple avenues for various different character types, without getting into repetitive or redundant character types/classes. More than that and it'll become unwieldy and daunting for attracting "new" players - at least. If not simply impractical from a material/printing/page count perspective.

That covers all of the primary, secondary, I would argue gets into tertiary, major archetypes one would need.

Supplemental materials, whether that's online or printed, Unearthed Arcana - or other manuals, adventure modules/paths, "Champions of..." books, etc... then, can add archetypes/classes/subclasses/backgrounds/feats of any specificity and ever-narrowing spheres of character narrative ("the X warrior, of Y setting/species, Z province/kingdom/order, abc special abilities - but they're totally NOT the same as some already existing class options") ad infinitum/ad nauseum.

What You Need:

• Fighter - the Warrior. Combat Expert.
• Mage - the Wizard. Magic Expert. (Arcane Caster magic-working.)
• Thief - the Rogue. Skill Expert.
• Cleric - the Mystic. Support Expert. (Divine Channel magic-working.)
• Ranger - the Warrior + Rogue. Non-magic Skill Expert & Warrior Support.
• Druid - the Mystic + Wizard. Nature Magic (caster & channeler) support.

Then...

• Bard - the Mystic + Rogue. (def. NOT a so-called "full caster" with progression to match a Mage.)
• Paladin - the Warrior + Mystic (though for me, these really just need to be a specialty cleric/subclass)
• Swordmage - the Warrior + Wizard, really needs a better name, but the Fighter-Mage amalgam
• Warlock - the Wizard + Rogue, introduces "occult" or "forbidden" magics.

...and...

• Barbarian - too strong an archetype not to be included, alternate Warrior construct. Multi-archetype subclasses based on choice of Totem/Clan.
• Adept - nee "Monk," too strong an archetype (and game history) not to be included (though should have a shiolin-style/chi-driven subclass option). Multi-archetype subclasses based on choice of Martial Art/Style.
• Psychic - introduces psychic energy, nee "psionics", into the game, the psychic powers (NOT "spells") class. Alternate Wizard construct. Multi-archetype subclasses based on choice of "Discipline" (Power Focus/Suite).

With these, you could definitely play just about any D&D fantasy type of game.

For my own tastes, I would also want to see included (through supplements):

• Acrobat - a maneuverability rogue/entertainment expert (that isn't a Bard).
• Alchemist - an arcane skills expert. Makes magic happen without casting or channeling/no spells.
• Cavalier/Knight - a non-magic "Paladin" class.
• Rake - a non-magic "Bard"/coutier class.
• Swashbuckler - a maneuverability warrior, maritime expert
• Abjurist - abjuration & divinations wizard, the "protection/defense" magic expert.
• "Invoker/Cloistered Cleric/Theurgist" - a more castery/(Divine) magic-exclusive cleric.
• Illusionist - illusion & enchantments wizard, the "trickery/deception" magic expert.
• Necromancer - (too strong of an archetype to ignore) a "death/undeath/spirit" magic wizard.
• Shaman - the "Spirit World" channeler/magic-worker and shapeshifter.
• Thaumaturgist - the ceremonial/ritualist magician, Divine & Arcane magic casting wizard.
• Witch - a non-patron bound "occult" magic-worker with limited access to all other types of magic and supernatural powers.

From there yu can move into setting and/or species specific classes/archetypes...

• The Dragon Guardian (dragon-riding/-communicating amazo-draco-warrior)
• The Hell Knight (demon-hunting abjurer-rangers)
• The Nature Warden (a "Green Knight" champion of Nature)
• The Dwarven Defender
• The Elfin Bladesinger
• The Gnomish Magi-Tinker/Artificer
• The Orcish Blood-Brute (totally nooooot a barbarian <eyeroll>)
• The Shadowcasters of Ick.
• The Wutzit of Wherever.

etc... unto the ends of the multiverse...

My initial question is for future editions. I personally want more classes that fit more fantasy tropes.

 

[Mephista]

I mean... it depends on the design goals. There's a lot that depends on the overall system and stories the game is intending on telling.

Personally, I'm happy with a system of 9 - Fighter, Paladin/Cleric merge, Barbarian/Warlock (!!) merge, Rogue, Artificer, Ranger/Druid merge, Bard/Psychic merge, Elementalist, Necromancer/Witch merge.

Each class can have multiple variations that allow you to feel different, based on weapons options and chosen abilities.

 

[payn]

And this is how we know that 3e was born from the '90s zeitgeist.

NO LIMITS! EXTREME CLASSES! CANT TELL ME WHAT TO DO!!!!!

Fun fact- the definition of irony is 20k people in a concert, all shouting in unison ... Eff you I won't do what you tell me!

The correct answer is the correct answer.


Also, no more books.

 

[Aldarc]

If I had my way, every single base class would have its own unique mechanic. Ideally, different magic classes wouldn't even share spells.

Wizards would use the neo-Vancian system as it is.
Clerics would make skill checks to invoke domain-specific effects.
Druids would use Hit Die to power shapechanges and activate natural invocations.
Fighters would have maneuvers.
Etc., etc.

I would find something like this interesting, though maybe not with this particular configuration.

There are different spellcasting orders in Invisible Sun - noting here that all characters in IS are mages - and they each cast spells differently. Vancians memorize prewritten spells, using cards of different levels to fill a box representing their memory storage. Makers craft magical items and calculative flowcharts. Goetics summon angels, demons, spirits, and such to bargain for favors. Weavers weave together spell word descriptors for effects. It makes spellcasters feel far more different than they do in D&D.

 

[Shardstone]

Exactly. “This is a fighter but with a big two-handed sword” and “this is a fighter, but with crazy armor and a shield” aren’t distinct enough for separate classes. Wizard but explained slightly differently also isn’t distinct enough. I get the desire for mechanics for everything, but that’s how we get the splat bloat most everyone complains about.

You show your ignorance in this post for the things I mentioned them by reducing them to very simple and stupid incarnations "fighter with sword vs fighter with crazy armor." If you actually knew what the things I mentioned were, bothered to look them up or do the barest amount of research out of the small bubble that is enworld, you'd know how absolutely absurd it is for you to compare my post to the things you mentioned.

 

[Vael]

Q: What is the right number of classes?
A: There isn't ... points to thread as the obvious reason why

For myself, however, I'm more or less in alignment with 5e. Or at least, what 5e has done feels the best for DnD. I'm happy to be not in the bloat of classes in 3.5, 4e and Pathfinder, and I'm not into paring this list down. Partially because the classes I like to play the most are at the top of most cut lists and also ... there's a lot of homogeneity in classes already, this gets reinforced by making fewer of them.

Could one make a "Mage" class that combines Bards, Sorcerers, Wizards and Warlocks? Sure. But I'm not convinced that it could be done in a way that preserves the play experience and flavour of each of those classes, doesn't look hideously complicated and actually improves the game. Multiclassing would be easier, I guess, but a la carte multiclassing is something that annoys me and radically cutting down the number of classes for that is a little like burning a steak to improve the taste of the pan sauce.

 

[CreamCloud0]

i'd probably say a handful more than what currently exists, 5 or so, there are a few concepts that while technically represented probably need their own design space to truly come into their own, i'd also probably put fighter, monk and barbarian all into the blender together, blitz them up and re-portion them out as like, agile skirmisher, heavy warrior and super-skilled fighter archetypes each with individual subclasses for the prior three's themes.

-warlord
-psion
-swordmage
-shapeshifter
-tamer/summoner

 

[Corinnguard]

As long as you can come up with a class concept that is distinctly and clearly different from those that came before it, then you can add as many as you want to your game. If the concept contains elements that are too similar to those belonging to another class, then it's best to treat that new concept as a potential subclass of the latter.

Pathfinder 1st edition's Advanced Class Guide has a Class Builder chapter that talks about how to go about creating a class. It's where I learned about class concepts.

 

[Laurefindel]

I like the current setting and I think it's very close to my ideal: the 12 current base classes plus (potentially) 1 additional class per setting, like Eberron having artificers.