How many classes are enough?

[Particle_Man]

It's interesting that although the list is only 1 longer (<10%) than the PHB set, 75% of it is from elsewhere. How might the differences be characterized? Does this reflect some common theme, a distinctive kind of setting, more or less spell-casting, style of play, some particular fictional referent?

Since the first questions were answered, I will try to answer some of the rest.

The Knight I explained earlier, a Tank that can avoid the problem of monsters just avoiding him!

The Warblade is a fighter that can use maneuvers, some flashier than others, that lets them remain competitive at high levels.

The Swordsage is similarly a better version of the monk. It also uses special maneuvers.

The Crusader is a sort of Knight. It also uses special maneuvers. Can't grab people like the Knight, but harder to kill. Has a religious focus. Subs in well for the paladin.

The Scout is a cross between the ranger and the rogue, and can sub for both.

The Factotum I mentioned earlier. I left the bard in because the bard is a better face and party buffer. The Factotum is the jack of all trades nerd, who studies a little of everything. Like Cliff Clavin from Cheers but actually useful.

Duskblade - a fighter type with full BAB, arcane spells, and the ability to cast spells through his weapon while attacking with it. Nice mix. Elven flavour.

Beguiler - lots of illusions and enchantments, lots of roguish skills. Thus a good illusionist/thief.

Warlock - has spell-like abilities, usable at will, all day long. Yet it is not overpowered (arguably, at higher levels it is underpowered, but the ability to build magic items without knowing the prerequisite spells can mitigate that). It is much easier to prep a high level Warlock villain than a high level Wizard villain, if one is a DM. And with no slots, spell points, uses per day, etc., to keep track of, it is great for players that don't want to worry about that stuff and just want to zap things with magical energy.

Hope that helps.

 

[DreadPirateMurphy]

Enough for what?

Seriously, I think it is completely subjective. If I can't find an archetype that I want to play, then I don't play the game.

 

[Psion]

3.5 took a downturn for me when they started with the base class glut (and that 4e seems to be designed with this consideration out of the starting gate is a major minus for me). AFAIAC, the core, plus maybe 3-6 more to round out any specific topic the game may have (psionics, swashbuckling, knightly nobility, etc.) should be IT.

 

[SiderisAnon]

Six Is Enough

A while back, I created a custom 3.5 setting designed to be more generic for my home campaign. It included six character classes, and I felt they covered the possibilities nicely. However, these were not traditionally structured classes. Instead, you class determined your hit points, skill points, and save progression. You also got to choose from a pool of abilities, with three different pools in each class depending on the level of your character. Those classes that get spells get fewer ability choices.

There were three main classes: Warrior, skills, and caster. Then there were the hybrids which were half-and-half of two of those. With these, you can basically recreate any of the normal PHB classes.

They were the following six:
Warrior type with a lot of physical/martial abilities.
Balance of martial and skills.
Skillmonkey type with many of the traditional rogue abilities.
Skilled caster type with half the magic but a lot more skills.
Caster who was all about the magic and not much else.
Bladecaster who had a mix of magical and martial abilities.

I allowed the players to take levels in two of the primary classes without any penalty so that they could mix and match a bit to get the character they wanted. If an ability was available from both classes, it would stack between classes. (For instance, if you can have 1d6 backstab every 3 levels in the skill class and 1d6 backstab every 4 levels in the martial+skill, two levels in each would equal 2/3 + 2/4 and be enough to qualify for a die of backstab. You still had to buy the die, of course, with an ability slot.)

 

[Umbran]

So, if I were to start up a 3E or Pathfinder game, what would generally be considered an adequate selection of classes?

I have a handful of people, they only need a handful of classes. However, there are many other handfuls of people out there, and they probably would like different handfuls of classes than my folks do. The game has to present a great many more classes than are necessary for one group, to come close to satisfying all groups.

 

[Ariosto]

Thanks! That Wikipedia page is very helpful, not least in following the discussions here!

By temperament and experience, I am inclined to something like the approach of SiderisAnon -- although I would probably keep all 11 of the PHB classes.

(A) Most of the additions seem bound up with particular world-system assumptions, and I prefer to shape the setting myself. I'm not seeing many real archetypes that resonate like most of the core classes.

(B) I might depict some types along these lines with variations on the basic classes (as, for instance, paladins and rangers derive from fighters). Others, though, might come in via prestige classes, feats, skills, or magical attainments (like magic items but not "items" per se).

I find the latter course generally more interesting. I prefer the "adventure" game to the "build" game.

By analogy, I don't think Conan, Kull, and Bran Mac Morn each needs a class of his own, much less another each for Thongor, Brak, etc.. For that matter, I don't really think the "barbarian" class is necessarily a better fit for all those fellows than the fighter -- although it may fit a recognized stereotype nonetheless.

In AD&D's World of Greyhawk setting, the Scarlet Brotherhood was an organization, not a new character class. I don't think it thereby suffered any lack of flavor.

I not only don't mind coming up with additions on my own but consider it part of the fun of D&D! I would be glad to work with a player who has a concept I think will enrich the campaign, just as I have since I started with the little brown books. However, if I wanted a wholesale "kitchen sink" melange then I would probably choose something like Encounter Critical instead of 3E. (Or Hero System or Mutants & Masterminds, for 3E-ish "crunch" with a really systematic treatment of "builds".)

Still, there are likely to be some general types that have become widely taken as normative among dedicated 3E players even if they are not so recognizable outside that context.

The 3E "tool kit" seems to me capable of handling an awful lot of individual customization. In particular, I am not keen on defining classes by minutia of combat tactics.

A lot of the added "classes" seem to me taxonomically more properly species, or even sub-sub-species. Are there popular common features that we can organize into new higher-order categories?

Pigeon holes are fine for pigeons, but I think adventurers deserve categories with more elbow room -- so that it's less the type than the particular character standing out and above the masses.

 

[Greg K]

I thought that I had posted this earlier. For myself it is 16+ 2 classes that I use strictly as NPC classes. Add to this Unearthed Arcana style class variants to customize classes and it is enough.

• Barbarian
• Bard
• Cleric
• Fighter
• Holy Warrior (Green Ronin's Book of the Righteous/ Holy Warrior's Handbook) or the spellless Paladin from Complete Champion
• Knight (Hong's variant of the OA Shaman w/ additional material support from Green Ronin's Cavalier's Handbook)
• Monk (OA Shaman)
• Psychic (Green Ronin's Psychic's Handbook)
• Ranger
• Rogue
• Shaman (Green Ronin's Shaman's Handbook)
• Sorcerer
• Thamaturge (Green Ronin's Book of Fiends)
• Unholy Warrior (Green Ronin's Unholy Warrior's Handbook)
• Warrior Mage (AEG's Myrmidon from Mercenaries)
• Witch (Green Ronin's Witch's Handbook)
• Wizard
• Wizard Specialist

 

[Ariosto]

As my last post was so wordy, I would like to highlight that I am VERY grateful for the insights offered so far!

If synthesizing the wide variety of preferences among published classes into a more generally applicable set of categories is feasible, then I would find that most helpful.

The accumulation of data such as "gotta have Class X" will be more helpful to me the more one can identify what it is about Class X that is distinctively appealing, and why.

I thank you all again for your patience in educating me about the many options out there!

 

[Ariosto]

Any thoughts concerning Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed?

A pile of books can be heavy not only on the bank account but on the back. As a Dungeon Master, depending on a player for access to a "rule book" is a prospect not to be entertained.

So, if there were one book that stood out as a "must have", then I would at least give it serious consideration.

 

[Greg K]

3.5 took a downturn for me when they started with the base class glut

For me it wasn't so much the addition of classes, but the classes and their abilities themselves.