Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FinalSonicX" data-source="post: 5892829" data-attributes="member: 63787">I think either extreme of how many classes to include will dissatisfy me and lead the game to be either too top-heavy or feeling too bland.I've heard a lot of people talk about classes being put into traditional restrictions like the LG Paladin or the Good-aligned Ranger, and they often say things like "crusaders of other gods or alignments can get their own class". This seems reasonable on its face but I have an issue with it because A. a lot of the time these classes end up flavored for a pantheon people might not even use and B. It causes a lot of needless repetition for what is effectively the same class with a few modifications. If we include a class for every character concept we might have (here's the lightly armored fighter, here's the heavily armored fighter, here's the two-weapon fighter, etc.) then we're going to end up with a ton of books and difficulty coming up with a decent sense of balance for class power and also difficulty distinguishing what makes the classes unique.On the other end of the spectrum, reducing all classes down to just the classic 4 (or even 3 if divine casters are somehow relegated to the mage position!) which are then fleshed out by feats/themes/whatever will cause a problem in my opinion, particularly when it comes to class identity and replicating older edition feels. With too many optional features, it's possible that class-defining abilities will span across classes and thus dilute the class itself. There's also the possibility of overloading the player with options. Not only that, but there are concerns about mixing and matching classes or overlap where Themes or Backgrounds are created with one or two classes in mind but when applied to other classes results in strangeness.I think the solution is to include a class for every core concept D&D has seen (and that includes Rangers and Barbarians and other types of classes which people think have "identity" issues). These classes need to have distinguishing features since that's why we have the class system in the first place. Once we establish the role of each class, feats help us distinguish the details which might span across classes (TWF, 2H, Sword and Board, Animal Companions, etc.). From what I can tell, 5e is headed in this direction. I sure hope they keep a good sense of balance between the uniqueness of the classes and the openness and customization options provided. On top of all of that, it's possible that the open-ended options to emulate old classes might not be flavorful enough so the "Paladin is a cleric/fighter!" chant might result in Paladins who feel less like Paladins and more like Fighter/Clerics. If you see where I'm trying to go with all of this.So basically, I'd say we should avoid cutting down the class list, but we also should not be aiming to expand it much unless we really think there's some kind of missing character concept that can't be fulfilled in whatever system emerges in 5e. Instead, we should try to be generalizing a few eccentric aspects of classes that seem unnaturally tied to the classes (TWF for Rangers, for instance) and emphasize what makes each class special.</blockquote>

Verification