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

[Minigiant]

First, there's nothing wrong with the fighter being the simple class. That's the role it has always had. If you want an unsimplified fighter, pick a subclass to do it. Battle Masters and Eldritch Knights are two fighters that are not simple.

I never said there was anything wrong with the fighter being a simple class.

I said trying to make the fighter both a simple class and a complex class at the same time is bad design. It's doom to failure unless you are willing to completely open yourself up to possibilities which the designers weren't because they had a traditional design paradigm to follow.

The Battlemaster is still simple and unsatisfactory to those who want complex fighting because the Fighter the designers put the power elsewhere.

The EK doesn't do complex "fighting".

It's a bad game design. Better objective game design would be to have the fighter be simple and another class complex.

Second, why would you replace a broad class with an even broader adventurer class? Especially when a class named adventurer would cause confusion since every PC is an adventurer.

Adventurer Category of Classes.

The classes are Brute, Healer, and Warmages/Blaster.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Adventurer Category of Classes.

The classes are Brute, Healer, and Warmages/Blaster.

So... where's the 'good at 'fings what ain't breaking 'fings an folk' group?

 

[Hatmatter]

I said trying to make the fighter both a simple class and a complex class at the same time is bad design. It's doom to failure unless you are willing to completely open yourself up to possibilities which the designers weren't because they had a traditional design paradigm to follow.

Yo, Minigiant, I love you dude and your engineering-oriented, tinker-till-it-sparkles determination. But, "doom[ed] to failure"? Perhaps a little hyperbole there?

Not trying to stifle communication and the free-flow of ideas on these boards...I love it!!! But, I wonder sometimes if people are playing Monopoly with their cousin's brother and sister and thinking, "why is it always a clockwise path, more of the boardspace would be opened up if player tokens could travel counter-clockwise!" or "why can't players break other players out of jail!"

Anyway, just joshing around. I love it everyone, keep iterating until your system shines. I wish I could play at your tables.

 

[Minigiant]

Yo, Minigiant, I love you dude and your engineering-oriented, tinker-till-it-sparkles determination. But, "doom[ed] to failure"? Perhaps a little hyperbole there?

Not trying to stifle communication and the free-flow of ideas on these boards...I love it!!! But, I wonder sometimes if people are playing Monopoly with their cousin's brother and sister and thinking, "why is it always a clockwise path, more of the boardspace would be opened up if player tokens could travel counter-clockwise!" or "why can't players break other players out of jail!"

Anyway, just joshing around. I love it everyone, keep iterating until your system shines. I wish I could play at your tables.

Not hyperbole.

It's like the Druid Wildshape problem.

There are 2 groups who want 2 opposing things.
There is absolutely no way to please both groups with one thing without cracking a golden egg or sacred cow somewhere else.

Except with Fighter, it's like 7 groups because we arbitrarily put them together into one big class.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

First, there's nothing wrong with the fighter being the simple class. That's the role it has always had. If you want an unsimplified fighter, pick a subclass to do it. Battle Masters and Eldritch Knights are two fighters that are not simple.

Vehemently disagree. Just because Gygax designed it as the class for people "not actually serious about D&D" (his words, not mine) doesn't mean it's mediocre design should continue to monopolize the whole "fighting man" archetype 50 years later. There simply isn't enough space in a subclass to make the fighter interesting or worth playing IMO. It amounts to 3 levels worth of subclass features in the levels people actually play, shackled to a weak core class designed for some imaginary player whose brain would melt when faced with more options than "hit it" and "hit it again".

And what about those who want a simple class to blast stuff, or be a heal bot? Where's the potato caster? The druid is new player catnip because of the idea of shapeshifting into animals and an utter poopshow in play, with the complexity of using parts of statblocks from another book with ablative THP stapled onto a full prepared caster. A number of our kids play with us, age 8-12, and I would love more expanded simple options, particularly a non-caster shifter class.

 

[Maxperson]

Vehemently disagree. Just because Gygax designed it as the class for people "not actually serious about D&D" (his words, not mine) doesn't mean it's mediocre design should continue to monopolize the whole "fighting man" archetype 50 years later. There simply isn't enough space in a subclass to make the fighter interesting or worth playing IMO. It amounts to 3 levels worth of subclass features in the levels people actually play, shackled to a weak core class designed for some imaginary player whose brain would melt when faced with more options than "hit it" and "hit it again".

A few things.

First, there are other fighting men out there if you want complex. Barbarians and Paladins are fighting men with more complexity.

Second, the limited subclass influence is somethin I agree with you on. It's a 5e issue, though, not a Fighter issue. Subclasses should have been 8-10 levels worth of the character's abilities.

Third, there NEEDS to be a simple option for those who want simple. You can add complexity with subclass, but you really can't take away base class complexity with subclass. Fighter is that class.

And what about those who want a simple class to blast stuff, or be a heal bot? Where's the potato caster? The druid is new player catnip because of the idea of shapeshifting into animals and an utter poopshow in play, with the complexity of using parts of statblocks from another book with ablative THP stapled onto a full prepared caster. A number of our kids play with us, age 8-12, and I would love more expanded simple options, particularly a non-caster shifter class.

Warlocks are the simple caster. Blasty blasty and a very few spells to cast from a VERY limited selection.

More classes like the simple shifter class you mention would be cool, but unlikely to ever happen. WotC has shown themselves to be highly allergic to putting out new classes, with only one being released in 10 years.

 

[Minigiant]

A few things.

First, there are other fighting men out there if you want complex. Barbarians and Paladins are fighting men with more complexity.

Second, the limited subclass influence is somethin I agree with you on. It's a 5e issue, though, not a Fighter issue. Subclasses should have been 8-10 levels worth of the character's abilities.

Third, there NEEDS to be a simple option for those who want simple. You can add complexity with subclass, but you really can't take away base class complexity with subclass. Fighter is that class

That's why there should be 2 classes.

Either make Fighter the complex class and invent a simple Brute class

OR
Make Fighter the simple class and make a complex Warblade

Making both in the same class would require killing sacred cows, inadequacy on one side, or complete loss of identity as the sides lose any common aspects. Something has to give

 

[Vaalingrade]

Yo, Minigiant, I love you dude and your engineering-oriented, tinker-till-it-sparkles determination. But, "doom[ed] to failure"? Perhaps a little hyperbole there?

No, it checks out.

The reason the fighter has issues is because it was built to accommodate the Champion, which means it's not robust enough to fully accommodate actual good subclasses. Everything gets shoves up to unreasonably higher levels because it can only be a allowed to be so much better than 'crit slightly more' and 'is okay at jumping'.

 

[Maxperson]

That's why there should be 2 classes.

Either make Fighter the complex class and invent a simple Brute class

OR
Make Fighter the simple class and make a complex Warblade

Making both in the same class would require killing sacred cows, inadequacy on one side, or complete loss of identity as the sides lose any common aspects. Something has to give

You cut out the most important bit in there.

"More classes like the simple shifter class you mention would be cool, but unlikely to ever happen. WotC has shown themselves to be highly allergic to putting out new classes, with only one being released in 10 years."

 

[Minigiant]

You cut out the most important bit in there.

"More classes like the simple shifter class you mention would be cool, but unlikely to ever happen. WotC has shown themselves to be highly allergic to putting out new classes, with only one being released in 10 years."

That part doesn't matter because

90% of D&D and D&DClone designers, WOTC or not, think the same.

Other RPGs failed at this too.

I mean how many other people in this thread put a simple warrior class and a separate complex warrior class on their list?

Or is everyone just copying the same structures over and over.