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

[Gargoyle]

I would rather see fewer classes than too many. I can roll up a fighter in any edition, call him a barbarian, and roleplay him like one. Add in systems like skills, feats, and themes, and I can even make my fighter play much like a barbarian.

Does that mean that we don't need a barbarian? Yes. Does that mean we don't want a barbarian? No. I'd still like to have it as a separate class. It's a fun archetype and different enough from the fighter class to stand on its own. Besides, they've proven time and again that if certain classes aren't in the core rules, they're definitely going to be added soon, so why not make them core from the beginning?

Each class needs to be considered based on needs and wants of the players. There shouldn't be an arbitrary decision that "we need X number of classes", or even a more generalized "we need lots of classes" or "we need few classes".

I don't necessarily agree with the decision that "we need to support all the classes from all the player handbooks of every edition", but since one of their stated goals is to attract players of older editions, it makes some sense, and is not arbitrary. And I can't think of a class on that list that they wouldn't release at a later date anyway, so why not include them all now, (despite my personal preference for fewer classes.) ?

 

[mkill]

I don't like 4th Edition either and that's the primary reason I never played it.

If by "either" you imply that I don't like 4E, well, you are mistaken. I love 4E a lot, but I don't love it so blindly that I don't see where it has its flaws (hint: don't ask me about Tiefling horns and Eladrin eyes)

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.

I completely disagree with the above. But let's leave it at that, I just got a warning not to start edition wars.

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.

Well, that's easily avoided:
* Give each class different bonuses depending on how they distribute their abilities, with some kind of goodie for each
* give them enough flexibility with equipment as the archetype supports (as a swashbuckler, rapier, parry dagger, buckler and hand crossbow fit well, greataxe doesn't)
* give ample inspiration for creative backstories
(as long as you are an orphan and your parents were killed by orcs - just kidding)

 

[Sadras]

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.

My thoughts exactly! Hence the generic Wizard under the Magic User class in my previous post. I really hope WoTC is reading this - it makes the most sense by far and does have a sense of inclusion of all styles of play from all editions. I believe it would also make multi-classing easier with a greater selection of class features - spells and the like being another issue.

 

[Yora]

I fail to see any advantage from it. While there's the massive disadvantage of players needing to get familiar with dozens of classes and purchase big stacks of books only to be able to chose their character class.

A single 200 page book should be enough to make a character that somewhat aproximates every idea I could have for a character.

 

[Slander]

In fact, designing the game for 100 classes is not so hard to pull off. All you need is a common pool of abilities that classes can pick from.
...
A flexible, toolbox-like system that allows the developers to create many distinct classes makes it easy for players to do the same.

So why not let the players do so from the start, instead depending on the designers to get around to making a particular theme? Oh to be sure, the designers can, over time, come up with specific combinations from this hypothetical toolkit and call it "such & such". But if this toolkit were already built, why withhold it and shove it in a black box instead of taking the time to explain how to properly use the kit?

Unless the assumption is that the designers will do it right and only they should be trusted w/ the keys to the black box?

As an aside ... if you've got a hundred different classes iterating over the same powers ... why are you set on making a class-based game again?

 

[Mallus]

100 classes is unwieldy, unnecessary, and off-putting; too much information/too many choices. It's also the equivalent of putting a big red warning label on the new PHB: New Players, Keep Out! This could --- let me stress "could"-- only appeal to a small subset of mechanics-focused gamers (already a subset of the overall player base).

I have to ask the OP: is this a joke and did we all just fall for it? (no hard feelings if so...)

If not, well, let's just say if we run a competition for the worst ideas for D&D Next, this is a strong contender!

 

[Mercutio01]

Bear with me, as I'm brainstorming extemporaneously.

I'd be tempted to create 3 classes: Warrior, Magic User, Specialist. The necessary functions of hit stuff hard, cast spells, and use skills are rolled into those three. From those classes come the archetypes/concepts/themes/whatever-you-want-to-call-it.

So, from Warrior, you get Fighter, Barbarian, Warlord, etc. From Magic User you get Wizard, Warlock, Cleric, Psionicist, TrueNamer, etc. From Specialist you get Thief, Spy, Assassin, Monk, etc. There is also the third category of "class" called "Multiclass." In Multiclass you have themes like Swordmage (Warrior/Magic User), Bard (Specialist/Magic User), Druid (Warrior/Magic User), Soulknife (Magic User/Specialist), Scout (Warrior/Specialist), Ranger (Warrior/Specialist/Magic User).

I'm not entirely sure how you'd implement this. I think each class would have options listed, suggested options for each theme, and then suggested blended options between classes for each Multiclass theme.

It's just a quick brainstorm, but that's closer to what I would like to see than a "Book of Classes." Ultimately, I suppose that's nearly identical to the OP's point.

I don't know; maybe that seems like it's getting too far afield from a class-based design system, and perhaps that's a problem in itself.

 

[Minigiant]

Nah.

It would take a lot of the rigid classes to grant all the possible character types. Many many books and articles would haves to be written and who knows how long it would take for the class that matches your idea to be published?

Which book would the draconic warrior show up? Or a beastmaster? Or a staff fighter? Or alchemist? Or a pyromancer? Or a fortune teller? First? Second? Eighth?

 

[mkill]

I would rather see fewer classes than too many. I can roll up a fighter in any edition, call him a barbarian, and roleplay him like one. Add in systems like skills, feats, and themes, and I can even make my fighter play much like a barbarian.

Does that mean that we don't need a barbarian? Yes.

Challenge Accepted.

Ok, let's define a barbarian: Shirtless dude in loin cloth, big sword / axe, limited speech pattern, tough as nails. At home in the wild. Angry and ruthless combat machine with little sense of self-preservation.

How do fighters work for this?

* Shirtless dude in loin cloth: Problematic. In OD&D, you'll be rolling up a new character soon. In AD&D / 3E, you can use Bracers of Armor. Gets you the looks, but suffers from the old problem that Fighters need a magic item to do anything they should be doing just because they are badass. 4E at least gives you your Dex bonus to AC, but still penalizes your AC for a style choice. I'm still waiting for the D&D edition where "shirtless dude in loincloth" is the right choice from game mechanics. Fail.

* Big sword / axe: Check.

* Limited speech pattern: Not tied to class. Check.

* Tough as nails: Check, with the exception of 3E (low saving throws!)

* At home in the wild: Handwaved in pre-2E, no skill system. Don't have AD&D Fighter NWPs at hand. Someone please check. 3E... why check, you don't have skill points for Survival anyway. In 4E, this is the Nature skill, class skill for Rangers and ... Wizards (WTF!?) Sorry Fighter, you fail.

* Angry and ruthless combat machine with little sense of self-preservation: Pre-3E - no matter how angry you get, you're still stuck with a basic attack. 3E: Not aware of any feats that would do this. Ok, there is power attack, but try an angry battle cry of "I estimate my target's AC at 22 with DR 5 so with my my main attack and the second at -5 a power attack +3 is mathematically optimal". 4E fighters have the battlerager. But with its fiddly temp hp mechanics, "battleaccountant" would be a more fitting name. Fail.

TL; DR: Sure, you can reskin a Fighter as Barbarian, but don't expect any D&D edition to support this properly, especially in the fields of going shirtless, being at home in the wild, and raging in battle.

 

[TwoSix]

Actually, it works pretty well if you don't think of a class as an entire career, but instead as almost a chain of feats with prerequisites and advancement options.

It would actually work better with a 3e style multiclass, as well as each class only being a small number of level long, so that characters have to multiclass to advance. Most classes are only 5 levels long. Some classes with stronger abilities have prerequisites that can only be attained with higher levels. The core of spellcasting (and other supernatural abilities, or even things like sword schools), is a unified progression that each class then modifies.

For example, you take 5 levels in Necromancer, and gain special abilities to raise undead, advance your spellcasting progression, and gain the ability to add necromancy spells to your spells known. 5 levels of Abjurer on top of that to add some magical wards and the ability to learn abjuration spells. Now your wizard (Necromancer 5/Abjurer 5) is totally different from someone else's caster (Cleric 3/Sorcerer 3/Transmuter 4).

I like the idea a lot, actually. Kind of like Warhammer's career system, but a lot more free-form. Character's would broaden their abilities by necessity instead of specializing, and the DM can easily narrow or widen the class pool as needed.