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

[Celebrim]

I have difficulty reconciling that with your statement that "every complete RPG needs 1000 pages of rules."

Then I would encourage you to go read that thread again, because so many people were responding without listening to a single thing I said. I don't know how many people were going on and on about complex look up tables and other things irrelevant to my point.

The only way to truly allow complete flexibility of concept is via freeform narration and extremely light resolution methods. Once you start encoding specific mechanics, everything outside that mechanic becomes disallowed. (This is the essential conundrum raised by OSR fans against modern build-focused mechanics.)

I mean I feel we're in pretty close agreement here on the existence of the problem, except that OSR tends to be mimicking BECMI or 1e/2e AD&D rules when class constraints and narrowness of concept was at its worst. I mean these are frameworks that involved classes like Druid, Monk, Ranger, Cavelier, Thief, and Elf for crying out loud (and ultimately things like Bandit, Mariner, and Cook).

Fundamentally you seem to be arguing that relying on GM fiat (while claiming GM fiat is a light resolution methodology!) allows for more player control over their character than a rules framework. While I'm not particularly happy with the impact of say "weapon specialization" on the AD&D framework, at least it has some enforceable table agreement that "my character is particularly good at this one thing." So while we seem to agree on the problem, we are proposing radically different solutions. Indeed, OSR to me is a complete non-solution. It's just ignoring the problem by pretending that what the system didn't have the foresight to explore it didn't need.

Maybe we are thinking about different problems. To me OSR is loaded with this problem precisely because of the original materials lack of foresight. This is like the problem with defining "climb walls" as a siloed thief power. But even poorly designed modern systems lack that problem. So I don't think OSR lovers have much of a conundrum to raise.

 

[TwoSix]

Fundamentally you seem to be arguing that relying on GM fiat (while claiming GM fiat is a light resolution methodology!) allows for more player control over their character than a rules framework. While I'm not particularly happy with the impact of say "weapon specialization" on the AD&D framework, at least it has some enforceable table agreement that "my character is particularly good at this one thing." So while we seem to agree on the problem, we are proposing radically different solutions. Indeed, OSR to me is a complete non-solution. It's just ignoring the problem by pretending that what the system didn't have the foresight to explore it didn't need.

I wouldn't see it allows for more player "control". It simply allows for a greater amount of player "expression" over the narrative.

I mean, there's no right answer here, nor am I advocating for one. Every choice of class system (or lack thereof) comes with tradeoffs.

 

[Mind of tempest]

• Swordmage class w/ psychic powers subclass (Psi-warrior). Limited list of "use in combat" style powers.
• Monk subclass for your shaolin/wuxia monks with amazing "mind-over-body" powers.
• Psychic class w/ various discipline subclasses for the straight up "telepath/mind blasters" and "(various-)kineticists" and an "empath/healer." Lists of powers for each discipline, e.g. the mysterious "mind-reader" telepath character is not going to be able to do (or to the extent) the telekinetic "force mage" style character can. Either/both can engage in "psychic/mind-to-mind combat" in the Dreaming or Astral Planes, but the telepath will be at a massive advantage.

If one must...and I am on the fence for the most part (leaning toward "nuh-uh") about the whole "shapeshifting" as a psychic power. BUT, if one wants, I could see making a Shaman or, maybe, Druid subclass that is specifically a....what did they call them?...."psychometobolic?" (gods. terrible name.) But, if it were a "psychic/mental power" that opens the door for "mutant powers" style shapeshifting characters.

I have used shape-shifting psy powers in a game, I turned into a coffee cup and everything.

Each time a class is made, dozens of character concepts die. The more you silo abilities and powers, the more ways to play slip through your fingers. Rather than making more bad classes to cover niches left out by narrow rigid classes, you should be demanding more flexible classes.

one can't make endlessly flexible classes unless you want no setting integration or to go classless, we are damned either way

 

[Chaltab]

I don't think there's a 'right' number of classes in general but for the core game and supportable by WOTC I can't see consistent support for more than 20 or so without some getting seriously short-changed.

Even 5E with just 13 core classes tends to favor some over the others.

 

[Celebrim]

I wouldn't see it allows for more player "control". It simply allows for a greater amount of player "expression" over the narrative.

Player narrative has a tendency to be just color unless something validates it.

I mean, there's no right answer here, nor am I advocating for one. Every choice of class system (or lack thereof) comes with tradeoffs.

I won't disagree with that.

 

[Celebrim]

one can't make endlessly flexible classes unless you want no setting integration or to go classless, we are damned either way

Just to give an example of what I'm talking about, compare the flexibility of the 3e Paladin to the "Book of the Righteous" Holy Warrior. Now think about the fact that you could take the concept from the "Holy Warrior" class one step further, to create say 900 different customizable holy warriors for virtually every possible concept using no more than about 15 pages. So instead of getting 5 classes out of 15 pages, you get 900. That's not endless customization but it's a sufficiently large number that players will not get constrained within the lifetime of an average player - much less campaign, table, or group. And you don't have to worry about someone needing to invent the "anti-paladin" or make up a new specialized set of classes for every deity that comes up.

So, no, there isn't just no answer. These are design elements we've seen accomplished.

 

[Vaalingrade]

New classes only where existing ones do not do the job.

So... 5e?

 

[Neonchameleon]

The mystic also had some glaring problems: powers only scaled to the equivalent of 5th level effects. The subclasses tried to be a caster, a warrior, and an expert while failing at all of them.

The first part is weird. They reach fifth level powers at the same time the casters reach fifth level spells and then just ... stop. The second is why class roles are a good thing. The class that tries everything either does nothing or is completely broken.

So... 5e?

Being fair to 5e class design to get up to an evocative character from a standing start is one of its strengths.

 

[Minigiant]

I don't think there's a 'right' number of classes in general but for the core game and supportable by WOTC I can't see consistent support for more than 20 or so without some getting seriously short-changed.

Even 5E with just 13 core classes tends to favor some over the others.

That's more an issue of scheduling and favoritism.

You can support 20 classes equally if you choose to do so.

 

[cbwjm]

I don't think there's a 'right' number of classes in general but for the core game and supportable by WOTC I can't see consistent support for more than 20 or so without some getting seriously short-changed.

Even 5E with just 13 core classes tends to favor some over the others.

4e had this problem I think, though it may have also been due to the winding down of the edition. The rune priest in particular had little extra support for it. It may have been different had all of the 4e classes been released early on, but the later the release of a class naturally meant less support so the rune priest was sort of forgotten.