how many classes is too many?

[Dethklok]

Look, I get the impression you really don't want to argue, and that's fine with me. But you said you didn't quite get what I was saying, so I'll elaborate.

You are right. Both balance and freedom should be pushed to certain extent otherwise you do get an un-enjoyable game.

Pushed? Maybe sometimes, but generally no, I don't think that's true. There are games which are unbalanced on purpose, like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and lots of games have players roll up their attributes, so that even characters of the same level have different amounts of power. Likewise many games don't give you the freedom to play different character types, like the rules-lite (and loads of fun) Kobolds Ate My Baby, where everyone plays a nearly identical kobold.

Every game has it's own players, it's about taste and what works for you.

I disagree with this sentiment. Yes, it is about taste. But some people have bad taste. Because some games are not very good, and others are downright awful.

People say this all the time about art; there are many words for bad art or literature, like "kitsch," "gimcrack," "trite," or "maudlin." But when discussing roleplaying games, the idea of taste is itself considered to be in bad taste. The irony of course is that gamers love heaping scorn upon awful games (like FATAL, about which you can read an excellent review here). But when it comes time to admit that making fun of bad games, on the grounds that they are much worse than other games, logically entails admitting that games differ vastly in how good they are, most gamers just don't want to go there.

If you don't agree with me on this, that's fine. Argue away. But this will be my last word in the thread.

 

[Andor]

Going back to the OP, I think you asked the wrong question.

Or rather my response to you is: What kind of world are you trying to portray?

The appropriate number of classes depends on the world you are trying to portray and the system you are using to portray that world with.

E.G: If you want a world with a clean and mechanically distinct arcane/divine magic split then you need at least two magic using classes, the Cleric and Wizard. (or Shugenja and Yamabushi, etc.)
If instead you have five distinct and mutually exclusive forms of magic which are mechanically distinct then you need at least 5 spell casting classes. Conversely you might have that same 5 schools/tribes/pantheons of magic users but lump them into the same class and differentiate tham in the fluff.

For example Monte Cooks Arcana Unearthed has 5 different spell casting classes that all use a single spell list (Green bond, Magister, Mageblade, Runethane and Witch,) they differ in spell progression, skills, BAB, secondary powers and Social role. This shows how you might reasonably split a single job (Caster) into multiple classes if the specializations or focuses are distict enough. One of those classes (Witch) is actually 6 different shades of the same thing but lumped into a single class (one of which wouldn't even agree that it's a magic-user in the same sense as the others.) This shows that even if the focus is different sometimes it's just not worth parting out a different class. However this division of classes is specific and sensible only to that campaign world. In another setting you might have to add another class, or ditch everything but the Magister.

Cyrano deBergerac and Miyamoto Musashi are both famed as swordsman and writers. Should they have different classes? Few classed games will put musketters and samurai into the same class, but YMMV. If unarmed combat is a focus of your game then perhaps every fighting style should get it's own class, otoh if your knowledge of and interest in the martial arts begins and ends with "The pointy end goes into the other man." then a single martial class may be appropriate. Or you may not see any need to differentiate between martial prowess and any other skill set.

 

[Lord_Blacksteel]

For example Monte Cooks Arcana Unearthed has 5 different spell casting classes that all use a single spell list (Green bond, Magister, Mageblade, Runethane and Witch,) they differ in spell progression, skills, BAB, secondary powers and Social role. This shows how you might reasonably split a single job (Caster) into multiple classes if the specializations or focuses are distict enough. One of those classes (Witch) is actually 6 different shades of the same thing but lumped into a single class (one of which wouldn't even agree that it's a magic-user in the same sense as the others.) This shows that even if the focus is different sometimes it's just not worth parting out a different class. However this division of classes is specific and sensible only to that campaign world. In another setting you might have to add another class, or ditch everything but the Magister.

I will second the motion here to peruse Arcana Evolved/Unearthed for anyone interested in alternate approaches to classes. There is a class for the heavily armored fighter (Warmain) and a separate class for the light fighter (Unfettered) and it works pretty well.

I think the basic split, assuming a game is going to have classes, is the classic D&D core four, possibly boiled down to 3 if you want to combine spellcasters - see Numenera. But I like the basic four because it opens up the option to provide an additional 4 classes in between the originals where you find things like the ranger, paladin, and monk. In general I think that's where a D&D type game starts.

Another approach that I haven't seen mentioned in the thread is the D20 modern take: Take your attributes and tie a class to each one Strong Hero, Smart Hero, Tough Hero, etc. This is probably better as a generic approach and makes for an easy way to boil a concept down into a class.

 

[Celebrim]

Going back to the OP, I think you asked the wrong question.

Or rather my response to you is: What kind of world are you trying to portray?

The appropriate number of classes depends on the world you are trying to portray and the system you are using to portray that world with.

I agree very strongly with this point, but don't strongly agree with your examples.

I believe that there is at most a 1 to 1 correspondence between classes and archetypal roles characters can have within the imagined world. There might be fewer classes than archetypal roles, but there are never more than that.

And the number of true archetypes is always small. And further, the number of classes most all be small for mechanical reasons.

If you look at your examples, even within your examples you have a tendency to hedge your assertions. First you assert something, then you in a few sentences tend to hedge - ok, maybe not.

Whether a class fits into your list depends on whether it is really core to the myth of your world. If you find you have some concept that is core to the myth of your world that can't be easily done by a class on your list, you have to add the class or alter an existing class mechanics be broad enough to encompass the concept. Whether you go with a broad class or narrow one depends on how out there the concept is and how centrally placed it is.

For example, your world might feature as an essential characteristic characters that do battle with origami and paper planes. Or your world might feature as an essential characteristic characters that can kill with jokes, or who transform parts of their body into plants - growing vines, taking root, sprouting thorns, or covering themselves with bark. It's possible your existing magic using class is flexible enough to cover those concepts well and make it intuitive to make such a character, but you haven't really made the concept archetype in doing so (players will be tempted to dip into areas outside the concept) and its probable that existing magic using classes just don't really have the options you'd need built in and the cost of providing them is about the same as the cost of creating the class. If you want every village to have multiple paper folders, then it might well be a class in its own right.

Most settings would have no need for those concepts to be archetypal. Characters of that sort might exist, but they aren't important to the identity of the world and they aren't just running around everywhere. Fitting the unique concept into a well designed flexible spell-caster would probably work perfectly well and probably would be even better than providing a narrow class (and then finding yourself needing an infinite number of narrow classes to the same standard).

Likewise, you might have races that are so different than human norm - a race of naked mole rats that share a group mind when in close proximity to each other, or a bodiless race of living daydreams - that normal classes don't really fit with what is most special and important about those races. So you might have quasi-racial classes that have to do with exercising and developing the skills that are unique to that race.

Personally, I don't think that on the whole Arcana Unearthed worked that well. It had some really novel game concepts, but the classes themselves for the most part fell pretty flat for me. It was an interesting exercise in creativity to eschew any of the usual broad and flexible archetypes from generic fantasy and instead create an entire world with nothing but specific and novel archetypes, but I think it also showed just how powerful of a hold the convention archetypes have over the imagination. And I think it also shows just how cluttered the world would get if you tried to drop them in together with normal archetypes - something I don't think a lot of people tried to do for intuitive reasons. Ultimately, a good list of classes lets you take pretty much any literary figure and immediately class him successful.

The above esoteric classes I invented on the spot may sound cool, and in some ways they are, but I don't doubt that for many they'd just fall flat and others would quickly lose interest. Both the Arcana Unearthed and I have created class concepts that you'd almost never choose as the ideal class when trying to fit in some literary character that plays large in our imagination. Monte's book is like a fantasy book for a world other than our own that has different myths than ours. Two or three unique archetypes might have worked better than a whole palate of them.

Few classed games will put musketters and samurai into the same class...

Well, I would. I can't think of what to differentiate them on. And if you wanted to differentiate them on some sort of internal magical ability - 'ki' let's say - that was highly important to your world, then I think you'd be better off with a generic martial magic hybrid. After all, even in Japanese anime or Wuxia - at least of the sort where 'anyone who is anyone can leap over tall buildings in a single pedaling bound- it's not uncommon for western themed characters to also possess the same sort of internal power.

 

[Andor]

I agree very strongly with this point, but don't strongly agree with your examples.

I agree with you as well. Unearthed Arcana is however a good example of a place to look to see someone teetering on the edge of collapsing the classes into a few strong archetypes but not quite doing so because of either an impulse to stick in a favorite fictional archtype (I'm looking at you Oathsworn) or simply because it's D&D.

There are several classes in UA which encompass distinctly different playstyles under a single class with multiple options. (Akashic, Champion of X, Totem Warrior, Witch.) And there are others which could easily have been folded together but were kept distinct not so much for mechanical reasons as for Mythic ones (Greenbond and Magister frex.)

I believe that there is at most a 1 to 1 correspondence between classes and archetypal roles characters can have within the imagined world. There might be fewer classes than archetypal roles, but there are never more than that.

And the number of true archetypes is always small.

Here I'm going to disagree with you. Not that the number of Archtypes is small, that's true, and I agree that de Bergerac and Musashi should be the same class. However it is perfectly valid to split out classes for mechanical reasons as well as mythic ones. It depends on the system and what you're trying to achieve. I think the use of game mechanics to portray the world is an underrated aspect of game design. The game engine represents the physics of the game world in a very real way.

My go to example for this one is Glorantha. If you're not familiar with this grandaddy of RPG worlds it's a Mythic reality where multiple contradictory things can be true and belief can change the world, although doing so is not safe, easy, or foolproof. There are three distinct sorts of magic in Glorantha. Spirit, Godly, and Mysticism. The original Runequest game from the 70's was a fiddly, complicated game typical of it's time with percentile based skills that only improved through in game use and some other oddities. Each magic system was portrayed with completely distinct mechanics. Spirit magic was quick and useful but not terribly powerful and you needed a Shaman handy to learn more. Shamans had fetches and were always active on the spirit plane, kind of like a mage in shadowrun with his astral perception jammed permantly on. Priest and devotees of the gods has to literally sacrifice stat points to aquire their spells, but divine spells were big, powerful, and do not fail. Mysticism was a complex skill system based form of magic where apprentices were useless but great mages could do almost anything.

And Runequest was later pointed to as an example of why overly mechanistic game design was bad. After all this is a grand mythic world, and it's stories do not match well to the ration counting, encumberance figuring mechanics of the original system.

The new version Heroquest is a narrativist system that dispenses with the bean counting and it a wonderful, evocotive system with a simple universal resolution mechanic. The effect of which is that all three magic systems are now completly identical in play with only some fluff guidelines to differentiate them. Et tu narritivism?

So my 2¢ is that classes should be used for two reasons.

1st is to showcase mythic or archtypal differences for the players. If Druids worship of the Old Gods or Beast Spirits is distinct from the New Gods or High Ones that Priests serve then Druids and Priests should be distinct classes.

2nd, I do think it's valid to have classes for mechanical reasons. Iron Heros for example has, what, 13 classes whose archetype all boil down to ass kicker? The game exists to revel in mechanicaly distinct was to kick ass and that's ok. Likewise late in 3es run there were several books which showcased classes developed because someone wanted to try out some nifty mechanic they thought of. And I personally love Binders, Totemists and Crusaders.

However it is very easy to go overboard on number 2. There really is not any valid mythic or mechanical reason for both Wizards and Wu-Jen to exist in a game world, they both represent the same archtype, and there is no apparent reason for their spell lists to be so distinct and exclusive. It would have been better to note the cultural differences and have some new spells and note that physical isolation has led to divergent lists, but that the two groups could swap spells if they ever met. Likewise there is not really any reason to have an Unfettered, a Harrier, A Swashbuckler, a Dervish and a Scout all in the same world. A Light mobile fighter is at best one archtype and if you need several mechanically distinct ways to protray people who all have the same job, fighting style and training then you probably screwed up your mechanics somewhere.

D&D worlds that try to fit in too many classes, like the insufficiently Forgotten Realms, end up a messy hodgepodges with no usefull nythic identity and endless indistiguishable swarms of badguys de jour.

If I were to make my own 3e world these days (which I'm mulling over) I'd go through the massive list of existing 3.5 classes and decide which classes I wanted in my world and what they are doing there. Do you really need Paladins, Soulborn, Crusaders, Samurai and Knights all in the same world? Probably not.