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

[Celebrim]

They took away that trope as they powered up the base magic user into the modern wizard.

The Wizard has to specialize to get fine control and only in their specialized school.

For the wizard to get fine control generally again You would have to hit it seriously with the nerf back which no wizard fan wants.

Sure but we are talking about some hypothetical perfect new edition which could incorporate new ideas like Monte Cook's built in metamagic where each spell had a powered up and powered down version that could be spontaneously metamagiked as one of three spell levels. Surely that would give us finer control than ever?

In general, spellcasters right from the start of playing with them have proven overpowered in play. They need some sort of restriction. Non-spellcasters need ways to counter magic. Magic has to be somewhat onerous to use. Wizards have to be crunchy and good with ketchup, or whatever. The pressure is always coming from certain parts of the player base to make magic "more fun" by reducing the restrictions, but then they also want it to be "more fun" without hitting it with a nerf.

At which I point them at Celebrim's First Law: "Thou Shalt Not Be Good At Everything".

 

[Celebrim]

Aside from balance concerns, what were opinions in the Mystic class? Because I thought it was a good way to implement a Psion. Packaging spells/powers into disciplines made sense to me, as it did give a different flavor and felt psionic to me.

I'm not familiar with it, but honestly I think that focus on the metagame to create flavor is dysfunctional. Flavor should be an artifact of things within the game fiction and not an artifact of things that don't exist in the game fiction.

There is a lot of this that is the Harry Potter movie problem. In the books, Hogwarts students wore the traditional garb of 19th century sanitized for children wizards - robes with pointy wizard "dunce caps" - because that was what the older wizards and witches wore. For the movies, the costuming was softened and modernized to look more like modern academic wear so that the characters wouldn't look so silly - exactly the way they look silly to "muggles" in the story. Likewise, in the book wand play involves chanting silly pig Latin phrases. Using magic with the silenced metamagic feat is considered very advanced and few wizards can accomplish it and only with certain special spells they've researched. A wizardly duel thus occurs at the pace of shouting out playground insults at each other. But this would look silly to muggles used to modern action movies, so almost invariably in action scenes there are periods where wand play gets speed up and simplified so that it looks more like gun play with semi-automatic firearms. Ostensible wizards are throwing blaster bolts at each other left and right without so much as saying a verbal component like "bang" because it looks cool.

That's the "flavor" and "feel" stuff we are discussing.

 

[DarkCrisis]

Fighter
Thief
Cleric
Wizard
Elf
Dwarf
Halfling

 

[Aldarc]

I think that expecting Psionics to get a full list of powers that are slightly reformatted spells like in 3.5ed is a challenge. And I'll agree that that implementation was really just spells with slightly different mechanics.

This is also a problem for Magic and Psionics, in general. Spells and psionic powers have to be written out and formalized to work in a game system.

Aside from balance concerns, what were opinions in the Mystic class? Because I thought it was a good way to implement a Psion. Packaging spells/powers into disciplines made sense to me, as it did give a different flavor and felt psionic to me.

I have been on record multiple times saying that I don't mind psionics as being spells and magic. However, I would prefer to see a tighter thematic focus than either the Wizard or Sorcerer offer while also offering something unique from both.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Oh, and just to illustrate what I am talking about with different mechanics, I started with GURPS. Spells in GURPS are very like D&D spells and you buy them individually and they are limited use (based on your stamina with each spell costing stamina points). The Telepathy psionics section started like this:

 

[Mind of tempest]

Is it? That is to ask is it the dumping ground, is it insane, and is it bad for the sorcerer?

So you openly admit that what you want is another caster? I'll address you to those claiming the psion wasn't a caster.

And the sorcerer is not dominating. They aren't even the only Charisma caster psionic option in D&D 5e. The OneD&D Great Old One Warlock is a genuine psionicist as well - and bards have always been pretty liminally psychic.

Are we maximalising the classes here?

the dominance of charisma and dexterity are the two most used stats this damn game pulling away from them is desirable.

not everything about aberrations should be psionic if you want a theme it is the comparison between madness and enlightenment a lotus covered in eyes as a symbol as it has meant both depending on where you stand.

caster as in the generic non-hitting things with metal dudes, if you mean another clone of the present options ideally no.

Of course not. The daft old muttering wizard with his musty books is too nerdy and not cool enough. I get it.

I do not think it is that sometimes you just want a different option.

In my game, Sorcerers have been given the Psionic niche. They are spontaneous casters. Spells that are particularly traditional "psychic" powers have been given the Psychic descriptor, and there are certain sorcerous heritages like Mentalist and certain feats that enhance your ability with spells that have the Psychic descriptor in ways that tickle player's ego.

The D&D wizard, which was an M-U, did have fine and deliberate control over magic. It's just that the early attempts to document what a wizard could do weren't as forward looking as they could be and prioritized simplicity in play and low word count over flexibility of mechanics. So they tended to packetize the narrative authority of magic in to a "spell" with very defined effects. But at the time, no one was thinking that this was creating a trop that magic users didn't have fine and deliberate control over magic.

spontaneous casters are not the inherent psionic nich, hell the rather different selection of spell types might be closer.
The Sorcerer is about genetic magic systems it is magic as the gift I find the present mechanics for it rather trash.
I do not get why you want to fuse a past concept you clearly do not care for into a class you seem to have some fondness for.

I think that expecting Psionics to get a full list of powers that are slightly reformatted spells like in 3.5ed is a challenge. And I'll agree that that implementation was really just spells with slightly different mechanics.

This is also a problem for Magic and Psionics, in general. Spells and psionic powers have to be written out and formalized to work in a game system.

Aside from balance concerns, what were opinions in the Mystic class? Because I thought it was a good way to implement a Psion. Packaging spells/powers into disciplines made sense to me, as it did give a different flavor and felt psionic to me.

the system needed a balance overhaul and a better tutorial.

 

[Neonchameleon]

the dominance of charisma and dexterity are the two most used stats this damn game pulling away from them is desirable.

Dexterity and Wisdom I'd have called the dominant stats. Well them and constitution. I'm more than happy to split-stat warlocks and sorcerers into a choice of Intelligence and Charisma. People dump Charisma; they almost never dump Wisdom or Dexterity.

The Sorcerer is about genetic magic systems it is magic as the gift I find the present mechanics for it rather trash.

Did you mean generic magic systems or genetic as in bloodline? Because sorcerers being about Bloodlines is a Pathfinder thing that has never been an explicit part of D&D and can stay out of D&D.

 

[TwoSix]

Dexterity and Wisdom I'd have called the dominant stats. Well them and constitution. I'm more than happy to split-stat warlocks and sorcerers into a choice of Intelligence and Charisma. People dump Charisma; they almost never dump Wisdom or Dexterity.

The amount of classes in 5e that prioritize Charisma, and the fact that those classes synergize quite well, is why Charisma is generally viewed as a dominant stat in 5e.

 

[CleverNickName]

Here is the core issue.

Each class is supposed to have a unique mechanic or unique combination of two or more mechanics.

For example the barbarian is not a fighter.
The barbarian is the Rage class.
Barbarian is defined by Rage which is a Power up mode. It can be powered by raw arcane/divine/primal magic, ancestral or nature spirits, or their own mental instability.

The barbarian cannot go back into a fighter because The fighter does not have a class mechanic that is equal in importance as rage.

Eh, if you say so.

The barbarian can be a Fighter, in the same way that a "battle master" can be. Both will give you that 'unique mechanic' you mention, whether we're talking about Maneuvers or Rage. It really just boils down to how important you want/need that rage ability to be in your campaign.

Just spitballing here, but the Barbarian could be condensed into a Fighter subclass.

Spoiler: Barbarian Subclass

Maybe something like this?

At 3rd level: learn Rage, Unarmored Defense, and/or Danger Sense. (Player's choice?)​

At 7th level: learn Fast Movement and/or Feral Instinct​

At 10th level: learn Brutal Critical and/or Relentless Rage​

At 15th level: learn Persistent Rage​

You could give all of these features to the player at each level, or you could let the player choose their favorite from the list, it really just depends on what you're looking for.

This is just off the top of my head; it could use some polish but my point is, it can be done well if this is the sort of thing you are looking for.

A better option, in my opinion, would be to let a Fighter select the subclasses of other classes as archetypes:

Spoiler: Totem Warrior as a Fighter subclass

Like, say you roll up a Fighter and choose the Totem Warrior "Path" at 3rd level:

At 3rd level: gain the Rage ability in addition to Spirit Seeker.​

Done. All other subclass features of the Totem Warrior are applied normally thereafter.

Again, just sketching stuff out...needs polish but that's the gist of it.

I understand why people want dozens of classes and subclasses, I really do. And given the dozens (hundreds?) of subclasses available already, with more added every year, it's clearly the most popular opinion. But some of us would prefer a more modular, unified approach.

 

[Aldarc]

Eh, if you say so.

The barbarian can be a Fighter, in the same way that a "battle master" can be. Both will give you that 'unique mechanic' you mention, whether we're talking about Maneuvers or Rage. It really just boils down to how important you want/need that rage ability to be in your campaign.

Just spitballing here, but the Barbarian could be condensed into a Fighter subclass.

Spoiler: Barbarian Subclass

Maybe something like this?

At 3rd level: learn Rage, Unarmored Defense, and/or Danger Sense. (Player's choice?)​

At 7th level: learn Fast Movement and/or Feral Instinct​

At 10th level: learn Brutal Critical and/or Relentless Rage​

At 15th level: learn Persistent Rage​

You could give all of these features to the player at each level, or you could let the player choose their favorite from the list, it really just depends on what you're looking for.

This is just off the top of my head; it could use some polish but my point is, it can be done well if this is the sort of thing you are looking for.

A better option, in my opinion, would be to let a Fighter select the subclasses of other classes as archetypes:

Spoiler: Totem Warrior as a Fighter subclass

Like, say you roll up a Fighter and choose the Totem Warrior "Path" at 3rd level:

At 3rd level: gain the Rage ability in addition to Spirit Seeker.​

Done. All other subclass features of the Totem Warrior are applied normally thereafter.

Again, just sketching stuff out...needs polish but that's the gist of it.

I understand why people want dozens of classes and subclasses, I really do. And given the dozens (hundreds?) of subclasses available already, with more added every year, it's clearly the most popular opinion. But some of us would prefer a more modular, unified approach.

I would point out, as a supplement to your post here, that Warriors in fair number of video games have something akin to "rage/fury/adrenaline/etc." mechanics. A Barbarian/Berserker may even be a specialization or talent tree for the Warrior. So it is not as if a Barbarian would be out of place on a Fighter.