D&D 5E What 5E needs is a hundred classes

[nightwalker450]

Before 100 classes... I'd rather have classless system. But that's not D&D.

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, I gotta admit I'd prefer a narrower number of classes that are customizable. 10 (ish) base classes and then kits/themes on top is flexible enough to cover pretty much anything anyone wants to make.

 

[Sadras]

So why do you want so many classes? - To keep each of them focused.

Bleh! Cant give you XP, but on the otherhand

+1
This
Yes, yes and more yes!
Was thinking on something very similar...for focussed design AND simplicity, but more on the lines of
A handful of basic iconic classes, with a 100 or so Class Concepts [NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH BACKGROUND THEMES]
For instance. A Magic User Class with 20 Class Concepts
Wizard (generic magic user) - tome reading/learning spell caster
Sorcerer - innate spellcaster
Warlock - sold soul for spell-casting power
Witch - Hexes & Curses and a little Nature
Specialist (i.e. Necromancer, Shadow, Elementalist) - specialist Wizard
etc.

So each Class Concept would have features to choose from and would allow for customization. Thereby allowing uniqueness in design- nevermind the multi-classing function, background themes and skills (if wanted)

Class Concepts could also have "cute" features to choose from - i.e. For a Warlock
Due to the nature of the spell source - the spells would defile life around the spell caster or slowly defile/age the caster or even brighten (even make translucent) the caster's skin [over time of course]. The idea being that the class feautures would not all necessarily have to be mechanically inclined.

Oh, and also getting rid of Feat Lists - not really necessary at all with Class Concepts to choose from and just makes drawing up a character less painful with less lists. Sry admittedly my personal preference for numerous reasons.

 

[delericho]

I don't think this is a bad option, so long as the niche classes aren't rules heavy. A niche class with a few class abilities and a list of existing spells / maneuvers / powers is a perfectly reasonable way of handling a narrow concept that isn't addressed head on by one of the broad classes.

I'm torn on this one. If the archetype really is that narrow, there comes a point where it maybe shouldn't be covered at all, because it's just not worth the effort.

Alternately, if the designers come up with something that isn't covered, they should perhaps broaden their thinking to another half-dozen or so related niche classes, and then write that up as a new 'broad' class.

But, yeah, ultimately if you have that one concept that just doesn't fit, and assuming that it's something that's worth including, then I can see the utility of dropping in a niche class just for that.

Prestige classes (and, to a certain extent, paragon paths and epic destinies) are examples of this.

I'm really not a fan of Prestige Classes. And while Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies were somewhat better, I still would not shed a single tear if they were to disappear. IMO, the features granted by those paths should mostly just have been added to the "general powers" lists for the appropriate parent classes.

One of the problems with early 4e is that each class had to have its own complete list of powers.

Absolutely.

If WotC had organized powers the way spells were organized in 3.x, we would have seen a shorter and more effective rune priest that relied heavily on cleric and paladin powers (and maybe some arcane "runes"?).

I find myself wondering if the Runepriest shouldn't have been an offshoot of the Artificer concept. And I've been in favour of an Artifice power source (with associated classes) for some time now.

 

[Janaxstrus]

There are two* ways to build a class-based system. Either you have a few, broad, customisable classes, each covering a wide range of characters, or you have a huge number of narrow and focussed classes, each tied to a very specific niche.

My preference is very much for the former. In fact, I'm almost inclined to say that the 5e idea of including all core classes from every previous edition is too many - Barbarian and Ranger should be combined; Cleric and Paladin should be combined; Fighter and Warlord should be combined (and perhaps with the Bar/Rgr); and Sorcerer, Warlock and Wizard should be combined.

(That would give nine classes: Assassin, Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Rogue, Wizard, with an optional tenth for psionics.)

That way, when creating a character, a player just has to choose from a fairly small and manageable number of options, safe in the knowledge that he can customise his character later.

Why would you suggest that assassin be a base class?
Isn't the default assumption of D&D (in general) that PCs are non-evil? Seems odd to have an evil only class as one of the very few base classes, while removing some iconic ones like Paladin and Ranger.

 

[mkill]

After thinking about this a bit more, I even think that an edition of many, focused classes will also allow the designers to keep the iconic classes (fighter, wizard, rogue, cleric) focused and polished.

Fighter: All weapons, all armors, basic attacks, gets tougher and hits harder

Rogue: Moves silently, climbs walls, picks pockets and backstabs.

Wizard: Spends an hour each morning to memorize spells. Can learn any arcane spell ever.

Cleric: Heavy armor, shield, mace, bless & healing spells.

If you keep these four classes tied to the concepts above, you can get a clean writeup with a heavy old-school feel.

You don't need too many feats and fiddly bits in there. Want a light-armored fighter? Switch to Swashbuckler. Want defender role marks? Go Guardian. Want to focus on slinging fireballs? Go Warmage. Want a Cleric in robes who calls flame strikes with a holy symbol? Go Priest.

Heck, you could even make a very old-school "core basic set" that simply takes the system as is, but only lists the first 10 levels of these four iconic classes.

Why would you suggest that assassin be a base class?
Isn't the default assumption of D&D (in general) that PCs are non-evil? Seems odd to have an evil only class as one of the very few base classes, while removing some iconic ones like Paladin and Ranger.

And another reason to have as many classes as possible: Fans of class X tend to get VERY angry if their favorite is not included in the PHB. Haters of class X complain too, but then they are also happy if it's included because it gives them something to bitch about.

 

[Yora]

I don't see where previous editions are better at "play an idea that does not have it's own class". In fact, that is something that 4E is particularly bad at. A flexible, toolbox-like system that allows the developers to create many distinct classes makes it easy for players to do the same. If it's easy to develop for, it's easy to house-rule.

I don't like 4th Edition either and that's the primary reason I never played it.
In AD&D, there were so few abilities at all, that much more things were left to be defined and filled out by the players and DMs. As a fighter, you decide what scores to put into which abilities, what equipment you want, and what your backstory is.
With 100 classes, it's predefined in what order you put your abilitiy scores from hihest to lowest, what equipment you will use, and what your backstory is.

 

[avin]

I would rather have 100 classes than allow some multiclass unbalancing combos.

 

[delericho]

Why would you suggest that assassin be a base class?
Isn't the default assumption of D&D (in general) that PCs are non-evil? Seems odd to have an evil only class as one of the very few base classes, while removing some iconic ones like Paladin and Ranger.

An oversight - I started with the list of all the classes from all the PHBs from all the editions, and then took out the ones that I'd folded into another class. Assassin should probably have been merged with Rogue, but I didn't think of it at the time.

 

[Frostmarrow]

I'm currently playing Hunters 2 on my iPad. (A turn-based shooter). In it each character has two "classes" with five iconic feats each. Each level a character gains one feat in either class. At 10th level a character can have all five plus five feats.
If you do not want to spend feats in one of your classes you can buy generic feats instead, including weapon proficiencies, attack bonus, damage bonus, bonus to crit range, healing kits, or stimpacks. A combination of classes comes with a title: for instance a character with the classes Combat and Survival is a Terminator.

In D&D it could look something like this: Pick two of defender, striker, leader and controller. All combinations comes with a fancy title. A character with defender and controller is clearly a Fighter, right? If I chose these I can pick feats from defender or controller equally or I can emphasize one of the two and enhance it with generic (numeric bonuses) feats. At anytime I allowed to "respec" at a cost.

I really like this system. The only problem is that it is clearly too small in scope to encompass everything D&D. I don't mind the multi-classing by default base line as there are numerous branching paths to pursue when developing your character further.