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

[TwoSix]

No limit. Also, more subs, archetypes, and prestige.

Agreed. People got burned out on prestige classes because they became just another level of build complexity. They need to be returned to their original idea of being "narrative loot". You don't choose to become an Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil, you find a very rare grimoire in an ancient ruin that gives you the keys to pursue that path.

 

[fuindordm]

As many as needed to support distinct play experiences and unique mechanics that support players in exploring D&D in a different way.

Currently, I consider that only the following are truly distinct:

• Cleric (divine full spellcaster) could package Druid
• Barbarian (martial with rage)
• Bard (mixed full spellcaster)
• Fighter (martial with maneuvers and more attacks / crits)
• Paladin (weird divine magic, code of behavior and smite) could package Monk
• Rogue (martial with mobility and SA) could package Ranger
• Warlock (weird arcane magic, beholden to entity)
• Wizard (arcane full spellcaster) could package Sorcerer

For example, Monk could be a reskin of paladin with armor & weapon restrictions as part of their oath, and spell slots replacing ki. Druid could be a reskin of the Nature cleric with a channel divinity power for wild shape. Etc.

What could be added

• Summoner - a class that relies more on companions than its own abilities.
• Warlord - a martial support character/strategist
• Psion - if their 'spells' are very different from arcane and divine spells.

 

[TwoSix]

Ack, no. One of my least favourite parts of D&D class design is how almost everyone is either full caster, half caster, or non-caster. And how it all uses levels and slots.

I don't mind wizards using spell levels and spell slots because of how arcane wizarding magic is supposed to be. But I consider it a huge plus that warlocks don't. And I'd like paladins to not have them at all - instead they get extra hit dice and can burn their hit dice to Smite, to Lay On Hands, and for a tiny handful of other magical effects. I'd rather bardic magic was something else again.

If I had my way, every single base class would have its own unique mechanic. Ideally, different magic classes wouldn't even share spells.

Wizards would use the neo-Vancian system as it is.
Clerics would make skill checks to invoke domain-specific effects.
Druids would use Hit Die to power shapechanges and activate natural invocations.
Fighters would have maneuvers.
Etc., etc.

 

[GrimCo]

I don't mind wizards using spell levels and spell slots because of how arcane wizarding magic is supposed to be. But I consider it a huge plus that warlocks don't. And I'd like paladins to not have them at all - instead they get extra hit dice and can burn their hit dice to Smite, to Lay On Hands, and for a tiny handful of other magical effects. I'd rather bardic magic was something else again.

3.5 Warlock was distinct cause he didn't have spell slots. That's what made him different. He had invocations as at will spell likes and eldricht blast was separate spell like ability similar to rogues SA. It scaled with warlock level.

I think bard would be interesting built around similar chassis. Copy invocations and call them songs or whatever.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

No limit. Also, more subs, archetypes, and prestige.

And this is how we know that 3e was born from the '90s zeitgeist.

NO LIMITS! EXTREME CLASSES! CANT TELL ME WHAT TO DO!!!!!

Fun fact- the definition of irony is 20k people in a concert, all shouting in unison ... Eff you I won't do what you tell me!

 

[Li Shenron]

Was wondering this when it comes to new editions of Dungeons and Dragons. How many classes are too many and how many are too little?

Is it for flavor purpose and fulfilling certain archetypes? Having certain roles be fulfilled?

I would not worry too much about fulfilling specific roles, but rather at enabling enough variety.

More precisely, I would first of all provide more classes than the expected number players so that a group doesn't end up in a situation where two players need to play the same class or players that are faster at choosing class limit too much the choice of slower players. With the assumption that 3-5 players is what most gaming group end up to, that would mean at least 7-8 classes.

Then I'd probably add a few more to increase character variety on the long term, although this can also be achieved with things other than classes, depending on the system.

At the same time, I would not try not to add a new class unless it is different enough from the existing ones in both narrative and gameplay. I would always want all classes to be treated equally in terms of options and opportunities, so introducing more classes and then neglecting them (not providing more or less the same amount of options as the others) feels a bad idea to me. That is also why typically I am not really in favor of adding classes after core books, because then such classes do not really get enough attention to be on par with others.

That said, I suppose my loose range would be 7-15 and my sweet spot would be 10-12.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

As to my answer- there is no correct answer as to the number of classes.

Whatever it is, there will be people claiming that there are too many, and have been since the LBBs.

And others screaming that they obviously left off the most important class/archetype whatever, and that shows how WoTC is intentionally disrespecting the community.

 

[TwoSix]

And this is how we know that 3e was born from the '90s zeitgeist.

NO LIMITS! EXTREME CLASSES! CANT TELL ME WHAT TO DO!!!!!

Fun fact- the definition of irony is 20k people in a concert, all shouting in unison ... Eff you I won't do what you tell me!

 

[Yaarel]

Lumping and splitting each come with benefits and costs. The optimal balance between them is often a matter of taste.

Aiming for twelve or thirteen seems useful. But this might including consolidating similar classes (Ranger and light armored Fighter, Sorcerer and Wizard), as well as adding new classes.

 

[GMMichael]

There are three classes. Fighter, rogue, and wizard. Everything else is a multiclass or reskin, or rules tweak of those three.

. . . I'd rather bardic magic was something else again.

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.