Thoughts: 4 Classes + Talent Trees?

[Minigiant]

I could see something like talent trees working with the modular design.

Take the fighter. The base fighter starts with all martial and simple weapons, all armors, and lots of HP.

Add backgrounds. Barbarians and more HP for tribal fighters. Rangers and bows for wilderness fighters. Duelists and rapiers for upper class fighters.

Bump up the complexity, the base fighter gets 4th edition Combat Superiority and Combat Challenge. Or take Berserker for Rage. Or Inspiring Word with Warlord.

Corrin, Fighter from the Bear tribe

Corrin, Fighter from the Bear tribe (Fighter base, Barbarian background)
More HP, Lose heavy armor

Corrin, Fighter from the Bear tribe (Fighter base, Barbarian background, Berserker substitution)
More HP, Lose heavy armor
Gain Rage, Lose Combat Superiority

Corrin, Fighter from the Bear tribe (Fighter base, Barbarian background, Berserker substitution, Elf theme)
More HP, Lose heavy armor
Gain Rage, Lose Combat Superiority
Gain spells, Lose shields

Corrin, Fighter from the Bear tribe (Fighter base, Barbarian background, Berserker substitution, Elf theme, FR campaign)
More HP, Lose heavy armor
Gain Rage, Lose Combat Superiority
Gain spells, Lose shields
Swordmage bonuses, Lose ranged weapons

 

[Ferrous]

Yup, this is the best model for both basic character builds for quick play but allows further complexity if you want it.

I would actually add Bard to the big 4 classes to get a fighter/magic user archetype which boths harks back to OD&D's Elf class, and allows Hexblades, Bladesingers et al with tweaking.

So a Fighter coud have the "Sell sword" archetype out of the box but be customised to either a Knight, Barbarian or Ranger with appropriate choices, which is more elegant, stops multiclassing wonkiness and requires less system mastery.

 

[mkill]

I think there should be as many classes as fit into the system as long as

* the class represents a distinct fantasy archetype (bookish wizard, rely-on-your-wits rogue, power-of-music bard...)
* the playing style feels distinct (stand in the front and put an axe to their face, unleash the power of ancestral spirits, kill them with your mind)

Of course, that's no a clear rule what should be an independent class and what is not. Game design is an art, not a science.

4th edition had something like 40 classes, which went too far. Many classes would have worked better as different paths with different roles within one class, such as Fighter and Warlord, or Warden and Barbarian. This would have reduced much of the class and feat bloat.

However, if you try to force all fantasy archetypes into just three or four classes, you end up either with a game that can't map to all previous D&D characters out there (think Psion and other exotic classes), or you end up with bloated, generic classes that have either too many variant mechanics or not enough interesting ones.

For example, I'd rather have a bard with interesting music mechanics, rather than something that is nothing but a wizard with instruments as implements. Bards could have access to Wizard spells across class boundaries, but it's much easier to handle both as developer and player if both are marked as distinct classes.

 

[Minigiant]

Another thing, I don't think the commonly concepts of characters brought in with 3rd and 4th edition can be handled with just 4 classes. Sorcerers are not just Charisma based wizards anymore. A monk is more than just a unarmed fighter. I think we will need at least 2 for each "power source".

Fighter- Traditional warrior
Rogue- Unconventional expert
Cleric- Priest blessed with spellcasting
Paladin- Channel divine power into self
Wizard- Trained academic magic user
Sorceror- Naturally gifted arcanist
*Monk- Warrior transformed through mental focus and discipline
*Psion- Mental reality warper

 

[Ferrous]

I think that you can have a Bard with "interesting music mechanics" whilst still having small number of base classes. Indeed in the Bard class the music mechanics are often distinct from the spell casting. If "interesting music mechanics" was a feat chain then you could also add it to other classes so you could then make a warrior bard or skald for example.

For me a sorceror is a subclass of magic user with some advantages and some disadvantages. I think that a monk class could easily be built from a cleric base with the clerics prayers providing the monks magic like abilities.

 

[Estlor]

Well, if you recall, once upon a time (2nd Edition), D&D almost had this. You had the classes grouped into Warrior (Fighter, Paladin, Ranger), Rogue (Thief, Bard), Priest (Cleric, Druid) and Wizard (Mage, Specialist, Wild Mage, Elementalist).

Granted, this was more about a loose grouping of similar classes (you know, those things we call Roles now) than true Class + Talent Tree structure, but there were common things about them. All three warriors got good armor proficiencies and the most weapon proficiencies to assign out of the box. Same hit dice. Same THAC0 progression.

It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to create a class called "Warrior" that gets 15 + Con hit points at 1st and 6/level, +2 Fort, proficiency with simple and military weapons and proficiency with cloth, leather, hide, chain, and scale. Then at level 1 you choose Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin, or Warlord and get different class abilities because of it. If you don't like a class in scale armor (like, say, a barbarian), just give them class abilities that makes you want to wear hide that, should you say, "Nah, I really want to wear scale," you just miss out on them.

Then you have one class that defines a weaponmaster, berserker, holy knight, or skilled soldier.

 

[darkwing]

I'll say 2 things:

1) I *really* like the way Skyrim builds your class as you go.
2) I'm not sure how I feel about D&D becoming more like Skyrim.

Maybe there's room for a different RPG brand or an alternate ruleset for D&D that implements that method of character power advancement. Of course I'd play it if it were the core rules also but I don't really think that's what the design team is currently going for.