D&D General What is the right amount of Classes for Dungeons and Dragons?

[Yaarel]

I'm back to four: fighter, wizard, thief, bard. If you need something other than that, multi-class or use the sufficient skill system, or grab a feat.

That would make the D&D Monk a kind of "thief" tho.

Maybe: knight, athlete, wizard, and bard?

 

[overgeeked]

Look, Neon, we don't say the B-word, or else one shows up...

And here he is. I was thinking four is the right number of classes for a streamlined version of 3e (plus 4e healing and recharges): the sacred fighter, cleric, wizard, and thief. But the cleric is already a multiclass, so we whittle that down to overgeeked's fighter, rogue, wizard. There, now each aspect of D&D is covered: combat (first), larceny, and magic. But what about talking? What about gathering information? Negotiating? Out-running the guy carrying the (not-table-) harp?

I'm back to four: fighter, wizard, thief, bard. If you need something other than that, multi-class or use the sufficient skill system, or grab a feat.

To me the bard’s a multiclass. Basically the definition of the concept.

Besides, if you stick with the three core classes, the abilities break down perfectly and the subclasses/specializations become obvious. Fighter STR CON. Mage INT WIS. Rogue DEX CHA.

 

[Shardstone]

Trying to determine the "right amount" of classes is obviously a trap.

What I'd like to see for a reinvented/retooled D&D is class as the top level carrier of unique mechanics, with narrative and diegetic identities being carried at a more distinct "subclass/archetype" level.

Have a long rest neo-Vancian casting class. Have a short rest pact magic class. Have a maneuver class. Have an all passives class. Have a pet class. Then divide all the popular archetypes between those classes as subclasses.

These need stories. People don't want 4E that is mechanics first, they want 5E that is story first followed by unique mechanics.

 

[Shardstone]

Lots of boring answers in this thread.

My taste cry out for more classes. There is no limit to the Fantasy archetypes in contemporary fiction. If you look at contemporary Urban Fantasy, High Fantasy, genre-blending Fantasies, and then look to the East with Animanga, Manwha, and then open up to different cultura expressions of myth, you can truly make classes and mechanics endlessly. The only restriction that ought exist is a core number of classes popular in Americana and the EU, and then have an endless outpouring of classes in campaign settings, big adventures, and supplements in the future.

Anyone who thinks that 4, 8, or 12 classes can constrain the vast number of magical and heroic ideas + the huge amount of mechanics 5E can handle has a shrunken view on the idea of Fantasy. I can't even make my favorite characters from contemporary Fantasy fiction in D&D as is, let alone from anything Animanga related. And for a game that clearly wants some of that pie, see the Monk, that's a failure of the classes.

This doesn't mean 5E is a failure, nor is the PHB. But to my standards, the goal D&D has cannot be met with 4, 8, or 12 classes. I do not want to play a game where I have to pretend like Barbarian and Fighter is a sensible division but Warlock and Witch isn't, or that Warden and Ranger isn't, or that Confessor and Cleric isn't. Fortunately, there is a huge amount of 3PP material to help me out, and of course I make my own materials, but that's an aside.

 

[Yaarel]

Where there are Eight Aptitudes, the four basic classes are:

Strength-Constitution: Fighter
Dexterity-Agility: Rogue
Charisma-Wisdom: Bard
Intelligence-Perception: Wizard


(In this context, the Dexterity Monk and Ranger and the Agility light-armor Fighter and Ranger, are kinds of Rogue. The Cleric is a kind of Bard without the cosmology baggage. Note the Sorcerer is a kind of Bard, and the Druid would instead be a kind of alchemical and knowledgeable Wizard with perceptive animalistic magic.)

These four correspond to the Five Folk Band tropes.

Smart Folk: Wizard
Heart Folk: Bard
Strong Folk: Fighter
Rebel Folk: Rogue
Jock Folk: well-rounded generalist, multiclasser

 

[overgeeked]

Lots of boring answers in this thread.

My taste cry out for more classes. There is no limit to the Fantasy archetypes in contemporary fiction. If you look at contemporary Urban Fantasy, High Fantasy, genre-blending Fantasies, and then look to the East with Animanga, Manwha, and then open up to different cultura expressions of myth, you can truly make classes and mechanics endlessly. The only restriction that ought exist is a core number of classes popular in Americana and the EU, and then have an endless outpouring of classes in campaign settings, big adventures, and supplements in the future.

Anyone who thinks that 4, 8, or 12 classes can constrain the vast number of magical and heroic ideas + the huge amount of mechanics 5E can handle has a shrunken view on the idea of Fantasy. I can't even make my favorite characters from contemporary Fantasy fiction in D&D as is, let alone from anything Animanga related. And for a game that clearly wants some of that pie, see the Monk, that's a failure of the classes.

This doesn't mean 5E is a failure, nor is the PHB. But to my standards, the goal D&D has cannot be met with 4, 8, or 12 classes. I do not want to play a game where I have to pretend like Barbarian and Fighter is a sensible division but Warlock and Witch isn't, or that Warden and Ranger isn't, or that Confessor and Cleric isn't. Fortunately, there is a huge amount of 3PP material to help me out, and of course I make my own materials, but that's an aside.

I think there’s a difference between the fictiin and the mechanics. There’s infinite fictional space for classes and archetypes and sources. There’s not infinite design space for classes and archetypes and sources.

 

[Shardstone]

I think there’s a difference between the fictiin and the mechanics. There’s infinite fictional space for classes and archetypes and sources. There’s not infinite design space for classes and archetypes and sources.

I disagree with the bolded. While there isn't literally infinite design, there's a lot more then what we have now.

 

[GMMichael]

That would make the D&D Monk a kind of "thief" tho.

Maybe: knight, athlete, wizard, and bard?

The monk's a fighter who eschews armor. And weapons.

To me the bard’s a multiclass. Basically the definition of the concept.

I'd define the bard as the persuader who is very likely to carry a musical instrument. The official bard might be the gal-who's-almost-good-at-everything, but that's a boring concept for a class.

Besides, if you stick with the three core classes, the abilities break down perfectly and the subclasses/specializations become obvious. Fighter STR CON. Mage INT WIS. Rogue DEX CHA.

This is nice support for three classes. But I lean toward, "what will the characters do in an encounter?" They'll fight, hide, ensorcel, or talk their way through it.

 

[GrimCo]

@Shardstone

Out of curiosity, what character concepts from modern fantasy or anime/manga you can't recreate in past/current D&D?

 

[jmartkdr2]

I think each new kind of magic should get its own system - clerics shouldn't cast like wizards who shouldn't cast like druids, etc. I think sorcerer currently represents multiple kinds of magic, so lumping them together isn't really a good idea. Dragon magic shouldn't work like wild magic which shouldn't work like shadow magic, etc.

I therefore think each kind of magic should get it's own class at least, or more than one depending on how it interacts with other systems like combat.

So to start: Arcane gets wizard and artificer, divine gets cleric (white mage really) and paladin, primal gets druid and beastmaster ranger and warden/primal barbarian, dragon magic gets sorcerer and dragoon, fiendish magic gets warlock and hexblade, wild magic gets wild mage, shadow magic gets shadowcaster, rune magic gets runesmith. Bards either get their own kind of magic or the ability to dabble in multiple other types. Qi gets the mystic and monk. So that's 17 before we get to martials.

Martials should be broken down equally narrowly; I could go by source again (grit, rage, finesse, technique, pure skill) but I prefer a more fighting-style oriented design since I think those capture fantasies better: heavy (str-fight and nonmagic barbarian), swashbuckler, archer, assassin, swordsage, bastion, warlord. Obviously the names need work.

Which nets us 24 classes.

I'd also really want to use PF2-style archetypes (which are class-independent) as a way to add even more flexibility to the mix; they're the best way to add a bit of magic to a martial or up the martial-ness of a half-caster, while also adding mixed-style warriors, skill specialists without trying to make a non-combat class in a skirmish game, and even more niche options as desired.