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

[ezo]

How many descriptors could be used before you start repeating yourself? If each descriptor is a potential subclass and there are a lot of them, then there is got to be a point where you will say to yourself, "didn't I already make this one?"

Yep, but it never seems to stop making new subclasses that are basically just different faces of similar coins.

 

[Mecheon]

There will be no new editions of Dungeons and Dragons, so we don't have to worry about those questions!

Once 5.5E's sales drop enough they'll start looking at how to get people to buy a whole new set of books, and that's when there'll be a 6E


Anywho count me on the more side and especially far, far away from the idea of 3 classes being enough. There's a reason the first thing 1E did was adding in new classes by the bucket-load, the 3 class paradigm only gives you the barest skeletons of further ideas. The three (or even less!) class paradigm just doesn't work to build interesting and mechanically successful characters with

I like the 15 idea because heck knows we've argued enough over time that 5E needs a psion and warlord as easy ins, and Blood Hunter is successful enough that its basically a base class

 

[Corinnguard]

Once 5.5E's sales drop enough they'll start looking at how to get people to buy a whole new set of books, and that's when there'll be a 6E

I wonder how long that would take. Especially now that we have 5e-adjacent RPGs like Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition and Tales of the Valiant around. Nothing hastens a new edition like a rival RPG or two. Especially two built using the 5e chassis.

 

[Celebrim]

Was wondering this when it comes to new editions of Dungeons and Dragons. How many classes are too many and how many are too little?

In my homebrew I have akashic, bard, champion, cleric, explorer, fanatic, feyborn, fighter, hunter, paragon, rogue, shaman, sorcerer, and wizard. That's fourteen classes and arguably I could do without akashic, bard, and feyborn. I have done away with monk. The rest have such strong niches and archetypal resonance that I can't see getting rid of them. I also have a couple of NPC classes one of which - the expert - I have always wanted to promote up to a PC class but can't find a way to balance them at high levels owing to a lack of combat schtick.

Anyway, D&D being what it is I have a hard time imagining less than 10 classes but think that more than 15 is probably too much and too dilute or too redundant. Too dilute is when you cut the classes into such narrow niches that they no longer have flexibility and in general you can no longer imagine a party composed entirely of that character class and still being diverse. Incidentally, 1e AD&D did this was paladin, ranger, monk and barbarian which is why I'd see revision of those concepts as proof someone is on the right track. Too redundant is when the classes are basically the same thing but differ almost entirely in mechanics and not concept. I would point to 3.X's prestige classes and 4e's very dilute and redundant core classes as examples of doing it wrong. I would also consider wanting warlord or psion as a class as proof you missed the point.

 

[Remathilis]

I wonder how long that would take. Especially now that we have 5e-adjacent RPGs like Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition and Tales of the Valiant around. Nothing hastens a new edition like a rival RPG or two. Especially two built using the 5e chassis.

I don't think D&D has much to worry about. Even Paizo, having literally been handed the best opportunity an RPG company could hope for, never was able to dethrone D&D. Neither Level Up or TotV have nearly the streak of good fortune Paizo did.

 

[Corinnguard]

Neither Level Up or TotV have nearly the streak of good fortune Paizo did.

Time will tell if they do or not.

 

[Clint_L]

Time will tell if they do or not.

Sure, but I think it's highly unlikely. As pointed out, Paizo had the combination of having the rights to use the rules from a successful edition of D&D at the same time that WotC put out their own, highly divisive version of the game.

I don't see any 5e product coming close to rivalling D&D in the fantasy genre. There's significant inertia on WotC's side. Everyone else are niche products.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I would also consider wanting warlord or psion as a class as proof you missed the point.

Care to elaborate on that? Given those are probably two of the three most requested classes to be reestablished (swordmage being the third) that people claim the niche is unfilled.

 

[Mecheon]

I wonder how long that would take. Especially now that we have 5e-adjacent RPGs like Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition and Tales of the Valiant around. Nothing hastens a new edition like a rival RPG or two. Especially two built using the 5e chassis.

Depends on how much money it makes for WotC's higher ups. If they're unhappy with performance and decide a new edition will bring more bucks, well. That's when it'll happen.

 

[Remathilis]

Time will tell if they do or not.

Paizo had WotC's Dragon distribution lists, WotC fumbled the roll out of 4e, and Paizo seized on the idea of keeping the prior edition alive rather than the radical overhaul WotC wanted. None of those are true this time around. KP and EP don't have any special access to WotC's former players, 5.2 is nowhere the level of changes 3.5 to 4e was, and the best the others are offering are slightly different variants of the same thing WotC is already offering. I won't leave open the option for WotC to shoot themselves in the foot, but I don't see any way TotV or LUp gets the traction that Pathfinder 1e got, and that was a best-case scenario for Paizo.