How many classes are enough?

[Runestar]

As many as it needs to let me represent my character concept properly in mechanical terms, IMO. If one class does the job, all the better. But if it cannot, then I see no reason to impose arbitrary limitations on how far I can multiclass.

Classes are a metagame concept to begin with. Fighters do not even need to have 1 lv in the fighter class. There is no shame in multiclassing between 2-3 base classes and 3-4 prcs if it will allow me to achieve my intended result, nor is there anything to feel proud about for staying in 1 base class all the way from lv1 to lv20.

There is such a thing as too many crappy classes (such as the samurai) or classes which are pointless past a few lvs (eg: marshal, swashbuckler prior to daring outlaw). But that is more a case of poor design rather than a case of class glut.

 

[Ariosto]

If it is more difficult to represent a character concept properly in mechanical terms in 3E than it ever has been for me in 0E or 1E, then I will prefer to alter 3E rather than to pound a square peg into a round hole.

Whether the concept itself is appropriate is quite another matter. Boss-of-the-Whole-Universe-Man, for example, is a concept you can play with for all of the single session it should take for you to get bored with it. If instead you're chomping at the bit for a second session, then we have no mañanas today; perhaps some other campaign might suit you.

 

[Lanefan]

How many classes are enough?

Depends what you want a class to do.

If you're looking to give mechanics to an archetype, you can probably get by with maybe 10-12:

Fighter (general heavy militia type)
Cavalier or Paladin (knight in shiny armour type)
Ranger (woodsy fighter type)
Thief (pick locks and pockets, sneak)
Scout or Swashbuckler or Archer or Monk (combination of Thief and Ranger, a no-armour light-duty fighter; class' name is irrelevant)
Assassin (combination of Thief and Fighter, sneaky killers)
Cleric (healer type that can fight)
Druid or Nature Cleric (combination of healer type and Ranger)
Wizard or Magic-User (spell slinger, no fighting)
Bard (magic-like effects through sound)

Anything else is just a flavour-based tack-on to one of those. I'm ignoring all the specialist classes of Cleric and Wizard; they're the same thing only with different spells, big deal. I'm also ignoring attempts to combine mutually incompatible types e.g. the stereotypical Fighter-Mage; I've come to the conclusion those can't be done in any edition without breaking either by being too good or too useless. And, I'm only looking at field-adventuring classes, as opposed to other non-adventuring class-like things such as Diplomat, Sage, etc.

If, however, you're looking for a class to mechanically (as opposed to flavourfully) reflect every little thing you want your specific character to do; or if you're looking for something you can break the game with, then an infinite number of classes still is not enough and never will be.

Lan-"fighters, like Baskin-Robbins, come in 31 flavours"-efan

 

[Ariosto]

That's a handy rundown of classics, Lanefan!

How about a Mowgli "raised by wolves" / Tarzan "lord of the apes" type?

Nutters scampered from shadow to shadow with squirrel-like agility ...

See, the dude is basically a rogue -- except that he also has an affinity for small, arboreal mammals.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

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

Huh, that's interesting. The 3rd ed downturn for me was all the PrCs. I kept on thinking "...And why aren't these new base classes instead, or alternate class features?"

For me, 'enough classes' depends on how rigid they are. If they're like the monk, about 100 is enough. If they're really generic, then two or three could conceivably be enough.

 

[Aus_Snow]

just two types

Yeah, that.

However,

a 3E or Pathfinder game,

or something based on that fundamental (i.e., d20) system, might 'need' 3. Or, indeed, three.

 

[Ariosto]

I just don't see why getting your "character concept" into play should be some kind of "rocket science" exercise demanding the purchase of a book for a key few pages. Maybe it's because most of 2E passed me like a ship in the night, but I can't get into that groove.

There's a "stuck in the box" thing often laid on 3E, but I don't see how it has to be that way. It provides a mule-load of tools, a machine into which you can put whatever weird combination of circumstances and come up (usually) with at least an approximation of a plausible answer. It does not follow that we must jump through a gauntlet of hoops, or accept effronteries to common sense, just because (thanks to the designers' foresight) we can. Is it not, after all, D&D?

[edit] Thanks for the pointers, Aus_Snow -- I will have a look!

 

[Particle_Man]

Unearthed Arcana has an optional system where there are three classes and various abilities are bought as feats.

Buy the Numbers was a point buy system where you could buy up abilities totally a la carte.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Unearthed Arcana has an optional system where there are three classes and various abilities are bought as feats.

Buy the Numbers was a point buy system where you could buy up abilities totally a la carte.

Both of those were actually decent, but needed a lot of DM adjudication.

Good potential for an interesting character, awesome potential for abuse

 

[Runestar]

I just don't see why getting your "character concept" into play should be some kind of "rocket science" exercise demanding the purchase of a book for a key few pages. Maybe it's because most of 2E passed me like a ship in the night, but I can't get into that groove.

Well, the easiest way would be to simply reflavour or handwave a lot of things. But that also tends to be the most unsatisfying, because then, your character may find himself not being to do what his backstory suggests he ought to be able to (or at least, not accomplish them well enough).

But as the class system in dnd has shown, it only goes so far in letting you replicate the numerous concepts out there (because of the rigid manner in which they are presented). If you want some new character concept, you may find yourself having to come up with a new class/prc of your own, or buying a new splatbook for those few precious pages.

That is why we have so many classes, numerous alternate class features for each one, and even more prcs/feats. Options. Though some are clearly better than others.