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

[Remathilis]

.D&D has 3 main mechanics. Attacks (melee and ranged), spells and skills. And that's class trifecta. One class for each of 3 main mechanics.

I cannot understand the desire that the D&D class list fits on a Post It note. Why do we want only three possible ways to play the game?

 

[Celebrim]

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.

A warlord is just a smart and charismatic fighter. If you can't build a warlord from a fighter, then you've implemented fighter wrong. Likewise, a psion is just a type of magic-user. If your existing magic-user classes can't cover a psion, then you've implemented them wrong. Alternatively, if the reason for wanting a psion is just to have alternative magic mechanics, then you are just introducing system complexity and balance problems for no good reason.

 

[TwoSix]

Alternatively, if the reason for wanting a psion is just to have alternative magic mechanics, then you are just introducing system complexity and balance problems for no good reason.

Having different mechanics for the sake of novelty and variety is reason enough, to my mind.

Surely a few of the thousand pages of required documentation for a RPG can be spared for a secondary magic system.

 

[Celebrim]

Having different mechanics for the sake of novelty and variety is reason enough, to my mind.

Surely a few of the thousand pages of required documentation for a RPG can be spared for a secondary magic system.

Secondary magic systems unnecessarily increase the complexity of the system design. You end up documenting the same things twice. That doesn't make running the system easier in the GM; it makes it harder.

You want GMs looking up things in the documentation because the fiction is complicated and they want rules support and clarification, and not because the system itself is complicated. "But I wanna use mana points!" is not an adequate reason to add a class. Either have all the classes use mana points or have them all use spell slots.

Support making the fiction novel and varied; not the mechanics.

 

[Minigiant]

A warlord is just a smart and charismatic fighter. If you can't build a warlord from a fighter, then you've implemented fighter wrong. Likewise, a psion is just a type of magic-user. If your existing magic-user classes can't cover a psion, then you've implemented them wrong. Alternatively, if the reason for wanting a psion is just to have alternative magic mechanics, then you are just introducing system complexity and balance problems for no good reason.

The Warlord and Psionicist can be combined with the fighter and the wizard if designed for it.

The issue is that typically there is outside factors that keep these classes from being broad enough.

 

[Remathilis]

Secondary magic systems unnecessarily increase the complexity of the system design. You end up documenting the same things twice. That doesn't make running the system easier in the GM; it makes it harder.

I've tried saying this, but people wanted to keep pact magic...

 

[Minigiant]

Secondary magic systems unnecessarily increase the complexity of the system design. You end up documenting the same things twice. That doesn't make running the system easier in the GM; it makes it harder.

You want GMs looking up things in the documentation because the fiction is complicated and they want rules support and clarification, and not because the system itself is complicated. "But I wanna use mana points!" is not an adequate reason to add a class. Either have all the classes use mana points or have them all use spell slots.

Support making the fiction novel and varied; not the mechanics.

Secondary subsystems exist when the primary subsystem doesn't provide the fantasy.

For example infusions allow for characters to have magic items as a class resource. This is impossible as a spell. So an infusion class would have to be created to make an item based character.

 

[CreamCloud0]

A warlord is just a smart and charismatic fighter. If you can't build a warlord from a fighter, then you've implemented fighter wrong. Likewise, a psion is just a type of magic-user. If your existing magic-user classes can't cover a psion, then you've implemented them wrong. Alternatively, if the reason for wanting a psion is just to have alternative magic mechanics, then you are just introducing system complexity and balance problems for no good reason.

eh, i respectfully disagree, a warlord has an entirely different mechanical purpose than a fighter, a warlord isn't just a 'smart/charismatic fighter' in the same way a rogue isn't just a 'sneakier more skillful fighter'.

i also don't see the virtues in only ever implementing one magic system, variety is the spice of life, and if simplicity and fixing balance was really the goal then removing the current magic system would certainly do magnitudes more for that goal than the harm a secondary magic system for a single class would do.

 

[TwoSix]

Support making the fiction novel and varied; not the mechanics.

Sorry. Not only no, but hell no.

 

[Celebrim]

Secondary subsystems exist when the primary subsystem doesn't provide the fantasy.

You'll have to explain that for me.

For example infusions allow for characters to have magic items as a class resource. This is impossible as a spell. So an infusion class would have to be created to make an item based character.

"Infusions" are just enchant item spells. They have a long history in D&D. There is nothing particularly complex about the idea or which is particularly difficult for a spell to accomplish. There have been spells that turned mundane items into magical items for as long as I've been playing.

In fact, there is actually a very strong reason to have as spells things that would replicate the effects of magic items, because you are simplifying the system. You would not only no longer need to describe spells and magic items separately, as magic items could just reference the standard spell effect they produce, but you'd also simplify describing the crafting system for magic items.