Class Granularity

[Kahuna Burger]

Unlike those who like a middle ground, I would be ok with either extreme but not the middle ground. Either give me enough classes to find the one that really looks like what I want, or give me a close to point buy system so I can build it myself. The 3x strategy of a moderate number of classes that are not quite broad enough to do what I want without gimping them completely is what I don't like.

 

[Hjorimir]

I voted for high, but what I really want is medium. I really don't want low either, though. I think one of the strengths of D&D has always had was the class model. Each class lends itself to different things and that helps foster an interdependency amongst the players.

I've run True20 and I think it's a great game overall, but characters start looking more and more alike as the levels go on. Once character abilities overlap, I find that it is really the players with the stronger personality take over due to the decreased interdependency.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

In a game with classes, I want lots of granularity, with lots of classes doing very specific things.

For something more customizable, I don't play a class based game.

I know, not a lot of help in the discussion.

 

[WyzardWhately]

I'd be pretty glad with fewer base classes and differentiation done with selection of talents, paragon paths, etc. Like Druid and Paladin would probably be Paragon Paths. Monk would most likely be an optional base class.

 

[Mr. Wilson]

I voted for High, but I'd prefer middle as well if we're talking fantasy. Other systems, YMMV. Somewhere between 9 and 12 classes feels right, anything less than that opens for some wanky mechanics as you try and shoehorn certain ideas into classes, anything more seems like overkill (especially towards the end of 3.x, really, is the scout anything more than a ranger/rogue hybrid?).

Tanks:
Fighter
Paladin
Barbarian

Controller
Wizard
Warlock
Warlord

Leader
Cleric
Druid
Bard

Striker
Ranger/Archer Class
Rogue
Sorcerer

I'm not sure about the specific breakdowns in my catagories, and could be talked into moving some around (Warlord feels more like a leader, but I couldn't think of which other class to move from Leader back to Controller), but 12 makes for enough variety IMHO.

 

[Incenjucar]

Out of curiosity, then, do you think the initial classes are different enough?

I couldn't say at this particular point, considering they haven't released the rules, but the core classes, at least, sound different enough.

With that "mutant" example above, I'm working on something of that nature for my own setting, and I've seen fit to split them into two classes, a striker and a defender. If you'll pardon the references, the Juggernaut and Spiderman have completely different roles, and it would be over-complex trying to fold them together in to one class, even if they're both defined by freaky physical alterations rather than actual trained skill.

Similarly, a fighter and a ranger, though both dudes with weapons and armor who beat the snot out of you, are about as similar as Captain America and Green Arrow.

The problem is when you're making separate classes for The Hulk and The Thing, because one gets mad and gets Rage, and the other gets mad and starts complaining, and they both smack you around for it, that's too granular.

(Believe it or not, I'm not really that in to comics. )

 

[1of3]

I have no problems with many classes, as long as they are

1) distinctive in flavor
2) distinctive in concept
3) well-crafted.


My problem with 3.5 is not the number of classes but the percentage of those classes sucking is too high. Take Favored Soul. - Spontaneous Divine Caster without any flavor. That's all it is. Or Warmage - terrible.

Or take Duskblade and Hexblade. Sure they have distinctive flavor, one is elvish, the other Darker Than Though. But they lack in concept. Both are just fighters with spells-casting.

Then many of the 3.5 classes are badly crafted. Many you only want for their first three levels, then switch to another core or prestige class. (I know the solved the pretige class thing in 4E.)

Of course, there are additional classes in 3.5 that I really like. Like Warlock or Archivist.


So I'm not sure what to vote for. Just give me fine classes. I don't care about the number.

 

[sinecure]

I think it should be a small number of basic classes. Like they are doing in 4th edition, but there they call them roles. So only 4 classes is perfectly fine with me since they only have 4 roles in combat. I'd be interested if they could do something with roles outside of combat too. They seem to be ignoring that.

One great thing they are doing is adding tons and tons of new classes besides those 4 roles. So we get ever expanding class choices and power choices like martial, arcane,and divine. That's cool. I like that the game can expand, but you can still know your role.

What I'm really praying for is easily built homebrew classes. It's like, if one of my players wants to be an archer, but the Archer Class from Complete Archer isn't what he wants, we should be able to make one without feeling like we can't. That was one of the most sucktastic things of 3rd edition. You couldn't make anything for yourself without feeling like you screwed it up. At least one of my players always says my homebrew stuff isn't balanced or shouldn't be included because I don't know what I'm doing. It's stupid because the same player will come right back and demand he should be allowed to play some really rule bending class WotC just published. Maybe that sells books, but it bugs the hell out of me. That's why I pray 4th edition actually makes building classes something we all can do.

Also, not just classes, but spells and magic items and other stuff too. But for the class question I think we're okay.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I think it should be a small number of basic classes. Like they are doing in 4th edition, but there they call them roles. So only 4 classes is perfectly fine with me since they only have 4 roles in combat. I'd be interested if they could do something with roles outside of combat too. They seem to be ignoring that.

I don´t think out of combat roles are very important. I rather think that out of combat stuff should mainly be free and should not directly affect combat.

In point buy that´s my biggest grief: usually you buy imbalanced combat options with out of combat penalties. And if you are the only one who doesn´t you are usually way underpowered.

For out of combat i prefer something like a point buy (skillpoint) system, with some combat role related preferances. But nobody should restric the fighter if he/she wants to be a part time sage. (his stats will usually make sure he is not as good as a wizard who focuses on that)

 

[KarinsDad]

With 4E, I view it as a 4x3 matrix at the moment:

Roles:
Striker
Defender
Controller
Leader

Power Sources:
Divine
Arcane
Martial

I suspect that within a year or so, the Psionic Power Source will be added which will make it a 4x4 matrix. WotC will then add in at least one additional Role at some point (we should have a thread on predictions for that, I predict Sidekick as a party role in a future book ) and possibly another Source or two. So, I suspect 4E will get up to 25 classes or more at some point.


Personally, I understand the business need to do this. WotC will need to sell more books for players (not just DMs) for 4E. But, I would be content if it never gets beyond the 4x4 with Psionics. 12 classes is a good number. 16 is pushing it. More will be a mess of synergy conflicts and probably lack of good balance.


I will also have an issue with 1000 more new feats and talents and spells and rituals and magic items being released with splat books (not that I cannot just ignore them myself, but my fellow gamers will want to use them, sigh).