how many classes is too many?

[Jhaelen]

The bare minimum one could have is 2. Caster or Non-caster...since the rogue/skill monkeys would initially fall under "non-caster" types.

Umm, I guess you mean the minimum is two for a system that has classes? Well, that's obvious.
Otherwise it's not quite correct: If spellcasting is a skill (or set of skills) like any other, there's no reason to differentiate between casters and non-casters. There's actually plenty of systems that work like that, some that retain the 'class' concept (typically, choice of class controls how expensive the different skills or skill groups are to purchase or advance) and some that don't.

I actually tend to prefer systems that treat spellcasting and weapon (and possibly armor) proficiencies as skills. It's one further step towards standardizing game mechanics.

As mentioned, I still prefer it if a system offers plenty of 'classes', since class-less systems tend to overwhelm beginning players with all the available options. Class-less point-buy systems also seem to encourage min-maxing behaviour, which I dislike.

 

[Fetfreak]

Class-less point-buy systems also seem to encourage min-maxing behaviour, which I dislike.

Or if the system is well made it could use it as an advantage.
I never liked in D&D how a fighter or a wizard can easily min-max.
If the system favors balancing skills, stats and abilities instead of boosting a small number, there wouldn't be min-maxing behavior.
Those who do min-max would have a significant advantage in one skill or ability but would be at extreme disadvantage in other fields.

 

[Alzrius]

As mentioned, I still prefer it if a system offers plenty of 'classes', since class-less systems tend to overwhelm beginning players with all the available options.

Given that games like D&D and Pathfinder already require fairly hefty books full of rules to learn to play, I don't think that point-buy character-generation systems are that much more complex than classed systems are. Now, the manner of presentation does count for a lot, but that's largely independent of what it's presenting. Likewise, enthusiasm and having someone to help walk you through the process are also more important, I'd say, than the complexity of the rules unto themselves.

Class-less point-buy systems also seem to encourage min-maxing behaviour, which I dislike.

I don't like min-maxing either, but I think that class-less systems are actually better in this regard.

The reason I say that is that there's a zeitgeist in contemporary game design (no, not the EN Publishing campaign saga, though I've heard that's quite good) that says that the GM should play no part in a player designing their PC. I don't think that's true, and that's doubly so when using a class-less system, since a class-less system can potentially allow you to build anything. The GM needs to be part of the process, denoting which powers (or combinations of powers) aren't available, analyzing what PC builds are disruptive, and otherwise taking an active, not passive, role in making the game fun for everyone...which sometimes means saying "we need to talk about your character."

It's true a point-buy system can allow you to completely eschew things you don't think work for your character concept, focusing only on what does, but min-maxing is fundamentally a player issue, I think. You can't design a system that encourages free-form building while also having it defend against any and every possible build that could be min-maxed (particularly since that term means different things to different people).

 

[Nytmare]

I just want to throw in with the fact that a classless system does not automatically mean that it's a broken, point buy, min max paradise.

 

[Jhaelen]

I just want to throw in with the fact that a classless system does not automatically mean that it's a broken, point buy, min max paradise.

Example, please
All point-buy systems I've seen so far make min-maxing easier than it is in D&D.

And it's not _only_ a player issue:
Personally, I enjoy creating fairly optimized characters without losing sight of what a character's supposed to represent. But when I find easily abusable combinations while analyzing character-builiding options in a game, I will look for an excuse to use them. I _will_ point them out to my GM, though, to give them fair warning that I consider it 'problematic', as in 'broken'. If she's fine with it, I'll go ahead with it. My reasoning is something like: "Well, If I'm not going to abuse it, someone else will, so better me than them."

If the system, however, appears balanced (at least superficially to the degree I'M willing to invest time to investigate), I'll focus on fleshing out the archetype I have in mind, although I'd never create a character I'd consider 'unplayable'.

 

[Nytmare]

Classless does not mean point buy.

Dread, Dogs in the Vineyard, Mouseguard, Call of Cthulhu... There are a lot of them out there.

 

[delericho]

In the core rules, you probably want somewhere between 7 and 12. You want them simple enough that the core concept of each can be described in a sentence or two, and you want them distinct enough that people don't hear the descriptions and then ask "so, what's the difference between a Cleric and a Paladin?"

In supplementary materials - as many as you want. People will use them, or not, as they see fit. The supplements are also the place for more complex concepts, more niche concepts, or finer distinctions than are possible in the core.

 

[ExploderWizard]

It depends on the game and how characters are created as a whole. If characters are fully conceived and built with allocated resources, a larger variety of classes will be needed to cover the range of things players may want to build. If characters are generated, then a only a very few strong archetypes are needed to cover the basic functions of gameplay. The latter method is the "box of chocolates" approach of OD&D. Each game will have different levels of information available to a PC before actual play begins. The number of classes available is related to the sliding scale of how much of this do you want defined at creation vs how much do you want to develop after play begins.​

 

[Alzrius]

Personally, I enjoy creating fairly optimized characters without losing sight of what a character's supposed to represent. But when I find easily abusable combinations while analyzing character-builiding options in a game, I will look for an excuse to use them. I _will_ point them out to my GM, though, to give them fair warning that I consider it 'problematic', as in 'broken'. If she's fine with it, I'll go ahead with it. My reasoning is something like: "Well, If I'm not going to abuse it, someone else will, so better me than them."

That's not an issue with the system, though. That's a combination of your GM not doing anything about problematic builds - or, alternately, her identifying them as not being problematic, which is probably somewhat self-fulfilling, since she's crafting the campaign that ostensibly takes that into account - and you not being able to resist utilizing combinations that you admit you think are over-powered.

As I noted above, point-buy character generations systems offer more freedom and more combinations, which admittedly do make them, on paper, more open to abuse. Players who are more into the idea of playing a particular character than "winning" the game, as well as active and engaged GMs, are the answer to this.

 

[Jhaelen]

Classless does not mean point buy.

Dread, Dogs in the Vineyard, Mouseguard, Call of Cthulhu... There are a lot of them out there.

True. And I agree that Runequest and its derivates, e.g. Call of Cthulhu is one of the few systems that (probably) cannot be abused. I'm less sure about games derived from The Burning Wheel. I think you can definitely pick a sequence of character paths resulting in a more powerful character without any system-inherent balancing factors.