Class Glut?

[Sadrik]

We have 17 classes, have we hit class glut yet? If not when do you think we will? If you think we are already there what do you intend to do about it? And finally, if you think we will never get class glut, what is that "special way" it will be achieved?

 

[Mark]

Class Glut?

Really? Already a question? Isn't the new design of D&D rollouts meant to serve up a new PH every year? Won't they all be plump with new classes, races, powers and items?

 

[Rechan]

Not to go all edition-y on you, but 3e started with 11. So, being 17 in year two doesn't sound all that bad to me.

 

[Nebulous]

Yeah, but 4e is such a radical departure from 3e. We have powers scattered across 30 levels that are supposed to feel different, even if they are often very similar. What are ten new classes going to contribute? I'm not saying it can't be done, i'm just saying it will be tough.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

In my opinion the PHB2 classes were somewhat more complicated than the classes from the first PHB. I hope that the PHB3 classes will be even more different and stretch what can be done with the rules (in particular, I'm hoping for a Necromancer class that can control a handful of undead minions).

 

[Mark]

(. . .) in year two (. . .)

Is year one over?

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

When we start seeing redundant classes, only then will I consider there to be a glut of classes.

What will I do about it? Nothing. The base assumptions of 4E seem to be able to better handle new classes. Limited multiclassing and overlaying of PP and ED has solved the cherry-picking issues that popped up in 3E. Designers can focus on creating new and thematically interesting classes without having to look at all other class sub-systems to make sure multi-classing abuse doesn't occur. They only have to be sure that they are making a class unique enough to stand on its own.

I welcome any number of interesting class choices. And if they create uninteresting choices, those are easy to ignore.

 

[RefinedBean]

More classes. Always more. SCADS of 'em, classes far as the eye can see, until they get so redundant and we're sick of 'em that the next edition of D&D will finally, finally be a classless-system.

 

[Mad Mac]

I like all the classes they've put out so far. That said, the only extant class I'm still itching for is the monk. I'll give the other new classes a chance though, if only because Wizards really suprised me with the PHB2. The Avenger and Warden were new ideas that were executed very well, so the next batch of new classes may end up being better than I expect.

 

[filthgrinder]

In my opinion the PHB2 classes were somewhat more complicated than the classes from the first PHB.

I want to echo this. It seems like the classes in the first PHB were, "here is the basics" and PHB2 were, "got the basics, let's turn this out and see what we can do". So while you are filling the same "roles" you are doing them in more interesting ways. A barbarian is a melee striker, much like a rogue or a ranger, but it plays completely differently. A sorcerer and a warlock play really differently, when they are both using arcane spells to do damage.

I imagine that you'd follow that pattern and make the ways you fill the roles in more and more interesting ways.