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

[TwoSix]

These need stories. People don't want 4E that is mechanics first, they want 5E that is story first followed by unique mechanics.

You put the story in the subclasses. And you present the subclasses as the primary layer, even though they’re contained in a larger top level category.

Make classes more like class group in 2e. Shared mechanics and progression are contained within that level, specific diegetic mechanics are at the subclass level (which could be called “class”, if you want, what things are named isn’t really relevant to the design).

 

[Shardstone]

Aight I got a list I'm going to work on. These are less one-to-one for the settings and more inspired by them.

Theros - Oracle
Planescape/Ravanica (due to similarities) - Agent
Ravenloft - Slayer
Spelljammer - Nomad
Radiant Citadel - Animist
Greyhawk - Conqueror
Witchlight/Feywilde - Mesmer
Dragonlance - Pendragon

This has thread has led to a fun project, thanks guys.

 

[Mind of tempest]

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.

we are not merging the bard with anything that is just immoral.

 

[Shardstone]

Of course, we also have the Mike Mearls Patreon which tells us that classes don't have to have subclasses, and that 5e could actually handle a second style of class where you have menus of features instead of a subclass. He has his Psyker as an example.

Since the lead designer of 5E came up with this idea, I'm going to move forward as if its legitimate. And if it is legitimate, that means that you could make a "Menu-Style Class" for each of the base 12 concepts and come up with 12 radically new classes, or do what Mearls did with the Psyker and create new class ideas using this menu-stlye as a design paradigm.

The base book having 12 or 13 is whatever. There is just so much room to expand 5E; the conservative design ethos repeated on this forum IMO only holds the game's potential back.

 

[Aldarc]

These need stories. People don't want 4E that is mechanics first, they want 5E that is story first followed by unique mechanics.

It amazes me that people think that 4e wasn't interested in story, because 4e oozed with story; however, 4e often did so through its heavy use of themes. A lot of the story for 4e classes was actually in the power sources themselves. If we are told, for example, that a hypothetical new class uses the Primal power source, we will already have a good grasp of how the class will fit in the surrounding World Axis mythos before we know a single thing about the class mechanics. The Primal power source means more than "they use nature magic." It means something for how these classes view and interact with the cosmos. This was the thing about how 4e tied world-building, power sources, and classes together that I found to be absolutely genius.

This has been my mini-mini-TED Talk.

 

[Mephista]

we are not merging the bard with anything that is just immoral.

Embrace the sin!

 

[TwoSix]

It amazes me that people think that 4e wasn't interested in story, because 4e oozed with story; however, 4e often did so through its heavy use of themes. A lot of the story for 4e classes was actually in the power sources themselves. If we are told, for example, that a hypothetical new class uses the Primal power source, we will already have a good grasp of how the class will fit in the surrounding World Axis mythos before we know a single thing about the class mechanics. The Primal power source means more than "they use nature magic." It means something for how these classes view and interact with the cosmos. This was the thing about how 4e tied world-building, power sources, and classes together that I found to be absolutely genius.

This has been my mini-mini-TED Talk.

The problem is people often think it's illegitimate to build up a concept mechanics-first, and then layer on narrative identity onto that mechanical skeleton. That's why you so often see people resistant to reskinning classes to fit character concepts.

Ironically, even though a bunch of 4e classes were designed mechanics first (we need a primal striker, or divine controller, etc), they managed to build a stronger sense of class identity than corresponding classes in other editions via class mechanics and specific powers.

There's no question a 4e fighter has a more clear, coherent identity than any of its other fellow fighter cousins in other editions. Not being able to make an archer fighter, as a frequently raised example, reinforces its concept. As mentioned in another parallel thread, specificity reinforces identity.

 

[Baron Opal II]

Well, depends.

I tend to go with, depending on campaign type and expected length;

Three: Fighter, Magician, Specialist

Seven: Fighter, Magician, Cleric, Rogue, Druid, Spellsword, Monk

Twelve: Assassin, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Magician, Monk, Ranger, Rogue, Paladin, Sorcerer, Spellsword

 

[Kobold Avenger]

The number I think should be around 15 or 16, there's already 13 with PHB classes + Artificer.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Embrace the sin!

that would be an immortal sin it would be beyond the nine deadly sins it would be a hyper lethal sin.