How many classes do you prefer in a RPG?

[Jack Daniel]

Six is a good number. You need to cover the defender, the damage-disher, the sneak, the healer, the tank, and the gish. Fighter, monk, thief, cleric, mage, bard. Or some variation thereof. Everything else is just icing that can be roleplayed.

 

[Creamsteak]

1, 2, 4, 8, 16, or 32. I'm a big fan of powers of 2.

 

[jdrakeh]

None. I prefer skill-based RPGs because they allow for great character customization (eac skill is a variable). That said, Rolemaster and D&D3x are both hybrids of skill and class systems, and in those instances, a core set of five or six classes works well.

 

[Delta]

I'm big on the "7+/-2" rule. That's a quick psychological rule-of-thumb for how many options people can retain in their short-term memory to select from. My own interpretation is that 9 is beyond the capacity of lots of people; 7 is manageable by most people but takes some work; 5 is doable by everyone and simple and fun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magical_Number_Seven,_Plus_or_Minus_Two

So I'd say no more than 5 for a game that's fun for everyone. I voted 4 because I'm a classic D&D junkie.

 

[Drowbane]

The number doesn't matter to me. As long as I can sit down and play with a "build" that fits my concept. Class or Point Buy, both have thier merits and flaws.

In current 3.5 (my group does gestalt) I can make just about anything I could want.

With Point Buy, I want as few flaws as possible. Every PB System I've played has been rather easy to break... so I avoid them currently. (I hear HERO 5th is good, but its a big damn book... not ready to absorb that much ).

With Class based I prefer some flexibility. To this end, in 3e, I have tossed out "class skills" so that you can have a stealthy or knowledgable Fighter without wasting so many skill points. I think I might like 4e just for this reason (flexibility).

 

[Brother MacLaren]

7, if you count Dwarf, Elf, and Halfling as classes.

 

[Jack Daniel]

7, if you count Dwarf, Elf, and Halfling as classes.

8 if you add Mystics from the Masters Set or the Rules Cyclopedia.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

8 if you add Mystics from the Masters Set or the Rules Cyclopedia.

Yeah, so the "right" number would have been stopping at 7.
Mystic? Headsman (also Masters Set)? I believe the proper phrase these days is "OMGWTFBBQ!?"

 

[MarauderX]

None, Zero, Zilch, Zip.
I prefer games that utilize point-buy systems allowing characters to be built around skills and/or skill sets, like the Hero System (i.e. Champions) does.
I'm none too fond of level based progression either.

Same reasoning here too.

 

[drothgery]

I voted 6, as that's what would be in "Dave's 4e D&D" (cleric, fighter, noble, ranger, rogue, wizard), but I've never been too consistent on this. I thought the 3-class setup in True20 was compelling in theory, though not so much in actually reviewing the rules. SWSE got the setup right for Star Wars, I think (though I have a house rule proposal that nukes the Jedi class). But in 3.x D&D, I've always liked toying with WotC's new base classes.

So I guess I'd really say the 7 +/- 2 theory works for what should be available for any given game, but you might vary the actual classes allowed even from one D&D campaign to another.