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

[Sunseeker]

No, I think the point of 5e should be to move towards more inclusive classes with more build variety, allowing for more customization.

 

[TwoSix]

All a hundred of more classes does is replicate the issues of feats into classes. There is no way that is an improvement.

Well, I think the bigger organizational issue is that there will be hundreds of something. A crunchy game like D&D demands options, and its business model demands that those options be able to be produced continually.

In 2e it was kits.
In 3e it was feats, spells, and PrCs.
In Pathfinder it's a late offshoot of 3.5, the alternative class feature.
In 4e it was powers, class feats, Paragon Paths, and new class builds.

I believe OP's idea simply cuts through the subterfuge by saying that somewhere along the way, there is going to be a place in the system where you have to make a decision by wading through lots of options. Why not simply put that choice up front and package it in highly descriptive archetypal terms?

 

[mkill]

No thanks. One thing I really want to see is a reduction in option overload.

Really, nobody here has played the Feng Shui RPG? It's not that alien or far out, really. Feng Shui comes with 34 "classes" from Cyborg to Martial Artist and Everyman Hero, and each "class" is only one page, with a big picture in the middle. It's not option overload at all, you can easily play it as a Con game with people who have never seen it before. Each class is focused and simple enough that char creation can be done in 10 mins if you've done it before.

It sounds counterintuitive at first but having many classes but with clear focus and limited options does reduce the option overload.

If you have a total of 1000 options in the game, you can grouped them in 10 classes at 100 options or 100 classes at 10 options.

Say you get 5 of these options a level 1 and you want to make an illusionist.
In a 10-class system, you'd read through the class list, pick Wizard, and then start jiggling the 100 Wizard options until you get your illusionist. Then you redo the whole process for the Sorcerer and see what's better, sifting through another set of 100 options.

In the 100 class example, you quickly leaf through the class section until you find a guy / girl throwing illusions. You end up looking closer at the Beguiler and the Arcane Trickster. With 10 options each, it's quite fast to make one each and pick.

The reason the 100 class system is faster is that the classes represent clear archetypes. You don't need to read the "Pirate" class in detail to know that it's good at saber duels and seamanship. However, to pick between "Sly Flourish" and "Riposte Strike", you need to read both powers and understand what they do within the context of the combat system to make a decision. Making decisions at the class feature level requires much more system mastery than just picking a class as a whole.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I've been arguing or this exact approach of lots of classes, each of which are focused and simple, for quite a while. So, I totally support this proposition.

To address one complaint that is bugging me though... Why do people keep talking like this would result in "pregenerated characters" or a total lack of character uniqueness and customization? D&D has never been a game where class choice and class customization options were the end-all be-all of character choice.

Characters would have ability scores, class, race, theme, and potentially multiclass choices, as well as possibly skills, feats, equipment choice, and so on. Trying to add too much bloat and importance to customization within a class is unnecessarry when there are so many other choices to be made. If you combine the system [MENTION=55985]mkill[/MENTION] is proposing with a game where those other choices like race and theme are really important (not just a handful of trivial numbers), you get a LOT of customization while still keeping each element relatively simple and easy to use.

100 Classes
100 Races
100 Themes
100 Weapon Choices

That's 100 million distinct characters, before you even factor in ability score variation or the possibility of multiclassing. Sure, a more practical number is going to be somewhat smaller than that, but it is certainly much, much higher than just the number of classes.

 

[Mallus]

It's not a joke. I'm serious.

OK... I just wanted to be sure.

Or at least 50. Because that's how far the system will expand in 3-4 years anyway. So you might as well plan for it.

Now when you put it like this... well, it's an interesting point. Yes, the number of classes will grow. Probably be quite a lot, if the 3rd party support is strong. But if D&D Next follows the pattern established by the earlier editions, each additional class will be more and more niche/narrowly-focused. Less archetypal.

Which means there isn't a need to plan for them in the core system. The basic system needs to deliver the greatest utility to the greatest number of players in the smallest possible page count. Add classes with greater specificity on top of that over time.

I firmly believe D&D Next to stick to basics and push the idea of class = archetype. It's traditional, it's simple, and done right, it's plenty flexible.

As for newb-friendlyness: Depending on how you design this, it could be more newbie-friendly rather than less. Since each class is a clearly-defined chunk, you don't need to bake many options into the class itself, at least at first level.

But 30 or more is quite a lot of chunks.

[B]Swashbuckler[/B]
Proficiency with fencing weapons, main-gauche, buckler, light armors
Medium hp
Skill: Savoir Vivre (Cha) +3
Class features (pick 2): Taunt, Chandelier Swing, En Garde, 
    Riposte, Sword & Cape style, Dashing Swordsman

That's the entire first level. You'd need to read the 6 class abilities, pick 2 and understand the unique class skill, but that's it.

That's actually a neat write-up/nice level of complexity. Would be great if the number of core classes were kept small, or if this wasn't part of the base game, ie a kit or a template. But if this is a base class, and their total number is 30 or more, you're still talking about about a hell of a lot of work just to get an handle on the game's basic character options.

Plus, the player needs to know what the class features actually do. 6 starting class abilities multiplied by at least 30 classes = 180 named abilities representing distinct mechanical benefits/penalties. (OK, probably a little less because of classes sharing abilities, but still...).

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.

A few years ago, allowing humans to multiclass was considered a strong contender for the worst ideas for D&D Next.

It was considered a terrible idea by people who turned out to not reflect the sentiments of the majority of the D&D community.

All a hundred of more classes does is replicate the issues of feats into classes. There is no way that is an improvement.

Bingo!

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Well, I think the bigger organizational issue is that there will be hundreds of something. A crunchy game like D&D demands options, and its business model demands that those options be able to be produced continually.

In 2e it was kits.
In 3e it was feats, spells, and PrCs.
In Pathfinder it's a late offshoot of 3.5, the alternative class feature.
In 4e it was powers, class feats, Paragon Paths, and new class builds.

I believe OP's idea simply cuts through the subterfuge by saying that somewhere along the way, there is going to be a place in the system where you have to make a decision by wading through lots of options. Why not simply put that choice up front and package it in highly descriptive archetypal terms?

Well, now you are talking sales and marketing instead of good game design. That's another issue. I think that is one of very few things that would cause me to opt of 5E, unread. "Hey, we know this is a bad idea, but we need some way to spread out our stuff to sell you more books. So we'll take one of the few things that has been kept relatively under control thus far, and milk it for all its worth. Now, how many do you want?"

It's one thing to know that if I buy enough used cars, eventually some salesman will rip me off. It's another thing entirely for some such salesman to advertise that he will combine all of my ripping off in one convenient, easy experience. Why go all over town to be ripped off a little at a time when you can do it all in 10 minutes at Shifty Bob's Horseless Carriage Emporium?

Or, I'd much rather that the designers have ideals that they fail to live up to, rather than abandon the ideals on the grounds that they aren't perfect.

 

[Mengu]

To address one complaint that is bugging me though... Why do people keep talking like this would result in "pregenerated characters" or a total lack of character uniqueness and customization?

Not sure about others, but I wasn't using pregenerated characters as a term for lack of customization. It's just one possible starting point, something simple, that Bob who never played D&D before, could pick up the Dwarf Slayer character and be ready to play. After playing him once or twice, he decides he likes dwarf, but wants to be tougher, so he forgoes some offensive options on the character for defensive options, and voila, you have just the right amount of customization for Bob.

Meanwhile system master Jim's character dies, and he spends the next 7 days messing around with new character concepts from scratch, ignoring the pregenerated character module, and finally builds his new character Ace, that uses card magic to divine the fortune of his allies, cuts his enemies to pieces with flying card tricks, conjures a wall of cards to form a defensive wall for his allies, and produces a card shield to block blows against himself. His stereotype is not in any book, but he has managed to cobble it together with all the character creation rules at his disposal.

 

[Stormonu]

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.

 

[TwoSix]

Well, now you are talking sales and marketing instead of good game design. That's another issue. I think that is one of very few things that would cause me to opt of 5E, unread. "Hey, we know this is a bad idea, but we need some way to spread out our stuff to sell you more books. So we'll take one of the few things that has been kept relatively under control thus far, and milk it for all its worth. Now, how many do you want?"

It's one thing to know that if I buy enough used cars, eventually some salesman will rip me off. It's another thing entirely for some such salesman to advertise that he will combine all of my ripping off in one convenient, easy experience. Why go all over town to be ripped off a little at a time when you can do it all in 10 minutes at Shifty Bob's Horseless Carriage Emporium?

Or, I'd much rather that the designers have ideals that they fail to live up to, rather than abandon the ideals on the grounds that they aren't perfect.

For WotC and D&DNext, good marketing and design have to be the same thing. They don't have the luxury of designing in an aesthetic vacuum.

Also, I don't see it in quite so antagonistic terms. D&D is never going to be a game where they release all the character options in the core book and only release adventures and setting books from there on. I mean, it isn't greedy to create and sell what's in demand. And player oriented splat books sell well, which means a portion of the market likes them. I'll freely admit I'm in the camp that loves new crunch.

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

 

[Stormonu]

Well, now you are talking sales and marketing instead of good game design. That's another issue. I think that is one of very few things that would cause me to opt of 5E, unread. "Hey, we know this is a bad idea, but we need some way to spread out our stuff to sell you more books. So we'll take one of the few things that has been kept relatively under control thus far, and milk it for all its worth. Now, how many do you want?"

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.