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

[TwoSix]

Personally, I think it would be good to go with the four, strong base classes (wizard, warrior, rogue, and cleric).

From there, I'd design things to use basically alternate class features. Perhaps name certain packages as predesigned classes.

I think that's the interesting thing about this thought experiment. What the difference between a class with multiple alternative class features and multiple classes?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Ultimately, I'm interested more in a system that can elegantly expand than one that is elegantly contained.

Well, when we see a system that does so elegantly, we can talk about it. Hasn't happened yet, though.

 

[Kavon]

I think that's the interesting thing about this thought experiment. What the difference between a class with multiple alternative class features and multiple classes?

Hm, I would say that with a class with multiple alternative class features, you can attain the same thing as the multiple classes would have, except that the people who want to can pick and choose which things they want (which might not be present with multiple classes).

For the new players, the 'preselected combinations' are effectively the same as having multiple classes, to make their lives easier.
I, for one, would absolutely love to see options to mix and match abilities to make my own customized class (in the same line as was present in 2e skills and powers, but I'd like it to go even further than that).
Starting out with a preselected combination would just save time for me.

This would really come close to a classless system, though.. I guess it just depends on how you look at it. I'd say the 'preselected combinations' are the same as having a selection of classes.
To have it work, I suppose the customization options would go in a different chapter, to keep it away from the new players (or the players that would show alergic symptoms to such a thing ) to keep them from getting overwhelmed.

So, all in all, I guess I can agree with both sides here.. And in a sense I can see both sides working alongside each other.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Just as a note, having one class with ten different skill trees, instead of ten classes, allows you to have, say, a magic item that only works for members of that class. And then ten characters can use that item instead of only one.

I have no idea if anyone likes class-specific magic items, but this would be relevant to that.

 

[Sanglorian]

I'd wager real fiat money, and perhaps even gold/rare earths, that the percentage of the player base willing to read through a PHB with such a large number of classes is pretty small.

You don't need players to read through the PH cover to cover; if they browse the hundred pages of classes until they choose one they'd like to play, that's mission accomplished. And I can imagine flicking through and thinking, "Hey, I can be a Bard - or a Battlecleric - or a Beguiler - or a Berserker" would be a lot more exciting than squinting at which 1st-level wizard power seems the most like the kind a beguiler would be like.

That said, I also like the idea of broader classes where meaningful choices are broken up into stages. For example, choosing between cleric, fighter, wizard and rogue at first level, and then at second level your wizard chooses between necromancer, transmuter, etc.

Either way, what I'd like to see is meaningful choices (mechanically and in the fiction) of distinct and clear archetypes that don't take hours for indecisive/new players to make.

 

[NewJeffCT]

Personally, I think it would be good to go with the four, strong base classes (wizard, warrior, rogue, and cleric).

From there, I'd design things to use basically alternate class features. Perhaps name certain packages as predesigned classes.


Want a swashbuckler? Replace the fighter's shield and heavy armor class feature with Mobility Fighting to create a fighter that works in light armor. Perhaps, give up some of the heavy martial weapons for the Precise Strike ability.

Want a Saber Rake? Start with a Rogue, replace his augmented skill list with Mobility Fighting and replace Sneak Attack with Precise Strike. He'd be fairly similar to the Swashbuckler, but with some slightly different abilities (Evasion, for one). [This is an example of different ways of doing basically the same thing. Don't try and beat me over the head with how "inferior" the saber rake would be].

And so on and so forth to make Warlock, Driud, Ranger, Paladin, etc.

Also, you could leave the individual class "alternate abilities" available to those who want to construct their own special class - with DM's approval, of course. (There will always been different levels of tolerance for what constitutes "broken" - I say leave it up to DMs with some good advice on what should be generally acceptable and let them handle it for there. Short of sending game police, can't do much more than that.)

Creating a Bard and Monk might be a bit tricky this way, but it could be done - or simply make them a full class all themselves if need be.

I was just about to post this idea. Use the four base classes of Fighter, Wizard, Cleric and Rogue and then have different features for different types of classes within:

Fighter/Barbarian - a primitive natural fighter type who wears light armor and typically swings a big sword or axe. (typically uses features X, Y and Z, but loses features A, B and C)
Fighter/Ranger - a nature oriented fighter who specializes in tracking
Sub class - archer ranger
Sub class - two weapon ranger
Fighter/Paladin - a religious fighter with some holy abilities.
Fighter/Swashbuckler - a mobile fighter who attacks with light weapons and little to no armor
Fighter/Weaponmaster; Fighter/Slayer; Fighter/Defender; etc, etc

Similarly, with Wizard, you can go with Warlock, Necromancer, Illusionist, etc
and so on & so forth

 

[Sunseeker]

I was just about to post this idea. Use the four base classes of Fighter, Wizard, Cleric and Rogue and then have different features for different types of classes within:

Fighter/Barbarian - a primitive natural fighter type who wears light armor and typically swings a big sword or axe. (typically uses features X, Y and Z, but loses features A, B and C)
Fighter/Ranger - a nature oriented fighter who specializes in tracking
Sub class - archer ranger
Sub class - two weapon ranger
Fighter/Paladin - a religious fighter with some holy abilities.
Fighter/Swashbuckler - a mobile fighter who attacks with light weapons and little to no armor
Fighter/Weaponmaster; Fighter/Slayer; Fighter/Defender; etc, etc

Similarly, with Wizard, you can go with Warlock, Necromancer, Illusionist, etc
and so on & so forth

I agree, to this end if might be better to use terms like "fighter", "wizard", ect... in more general senses. A "fighter" would just be a build that takes bits from each sub-class. A "wizard" would be a caster who doesn't specialize in a specific type of magic. But we could in general refer to a "fighter" as being any sort of martial build.

Similiar to the way "roles" are used, but instead referring to a preferred playstyle. A "fighter" is someone who wants to physically hit things without the aid of magic(most of the time), a "wizard" is someone who wants to cast spells.

 

[haakon1]

Traditional classes

I prefer 3.5e rules, but I've also run a lot of AD&D (1st Edition if you must).

I think of it as six basic types of classes, most with several variants. I don't really want more than this (unless it's optional/prestige classes), and I'd miss any of these if they were not somehow available.

Warrior Classes:
-- Warrior (NPC base class)
-- Fighter (PC base class)
-- Ranger (PC alternative base class, combat and skills)
-- Paladin (PC special class, special religious background)
-- Barbarian (PC special class, outdoors and special cultural background)

Expert Classes:
-- Expert (NPC base class)
-- Rogue (PC base class)
-- Monk (PC special class, special attacks and background)
-- Assassin (PC prestige class, special attacks and background)

Jack-of-all-Trades Classes:
-- Adept (NPC base class)
-- Bard (PC base class)
-- 1st Edition style Bard (PC multiclass build)
-- Thermaturge (ah, wrong spelling, whatever -- PC prestige class)

Arcane Caster Classes:
-- Wizard (PC base class)
-- Sorcerer (PC alternative class, spells work differently)

Divine Caster Classes:
-- Cleric (PC base class)
-- Druid (PC special class, different spell list and special abilities)

Background Classes:
-- Commoner (NPC base class)
-- Aristocrat (NPC base class)

 

[mkill]

Want a swashbuckler? Replace the fighter's shield and heavy armor class feature with Mobility Fighting to create a fighter that works in light armor. Perhaps, give up some of the heavy martial weapons for the Precise Strike ability.

I want the same - but I want the designers to pre-assemble the package and give it to me as a ready-to play package. Instead of starting with a blank sheet that says "fighter", I want to start with a complete archetype that says "swashbuckler" and add maybe a "noble" or a "buccaneer" background or switch some abilities around.

This was one of the things that turned me off of 4E; the way the first two rounds of core books were broken made me feel that at realease I was only getting half the game I previously had.

After the splatbookfest that was 3E? With PHB2, DMG2, and MM5, and at least two rounds of class-specific splats?

I agree that the 4E PHB should have had shorter class entries, more races and classes, and fewer walls between the classes, but the strategy wasn't that different from the previous edition. The only difference is that with 3E, you already had all the books on your shelf.

Fighter/Barbarian - a primitive natural fighter type who wears light armor and typically swings a big sword or axe. (typically uses features X, Y and Z, but loses features A, B and C)
Fighter/Ranger - a nature oriented fighter who specializes in tracking
Sub class - archer ranger
Sub class - two weapon ranger
Fighter/Paladin - a religious fighter with some holy abilities.
Fighter/Swashbuckler - a mobile fighter who attacks with light weapons and little to no armor

But that's basically this list of classes...

Barbarian - a primitive natural fighter type who wears light armor and typically swings a big sword or axe.
Archer Ranger - a nature oriented fighter with a bow who specializes in tracking
Two weapon ranger - dual-wielding fighter
Paladin - a religious fighter with some holy abilities.
Swashbuckler - a mobile fighter who attacks with light weapons and little to no armor

You just put the Fighter label on all of them. What advantages does that bring for the player at the table?

 

[drothgery]

But that's basically this list of classes...

Barbarian - a primitive natural fighter type who wears light armor and typically swings a big sword or axe.
Archer Ranger - a nature oriented fighter with a bow who specializes in tracking
Two weapon ranger - dual-wielding fighter
Paladin - a religious fighter with some holy abilities.
Swashbuckler - a mobile fighter who attacks with light weapons and little to no armor

You just put the Fighter label on all of them. What advantages does that bring for the player at the table?

The emotional satisfaction some people get out of calling their character a 'fighter'? I don't really get it either, but many players are apparently very hung up on class names. So although I'd prefer a lot of classes, I'm reluctantly okay with a smaller number of classes and a bunch of subclasses/builds/whatever that are classes all but in name.