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

[Shardstone]

@Shardstone

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

It's not that I can't recreate them, because I could reflavor, but I wouldn't enjoy it.

Most JJK, Bleach, HxH characters I could not recreate and be happy with. It is difficult to recreate something like FMA style alchemy. I can't recreate Allomancy from Mistborne, nor the Weapon Skills from Elden Ring, nor the tool-focused warrior from Sekiro.

All of these things I can kinda' approximate, reflavor, or hack together, but that's different then having classes that cater to the ideas that I enjoy a lot. I find that vanilla 5E classes pay homage to a very specific kind of Fantasy, and while its billed as generic, it actually isn't, and instead forces all other Fantasty ideas to assimilate into it instead of creating new material in its open spaces to more easily activate these kinds of characters.

 

[Yaarel]

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

When reducing the base classes to four, it helps distinction and clarity, to give all of the mobile agility warriors to Rogue.

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.

The Bard is all about persuasion and guidance. I tend to have the mythologically accurate Bard in mind, that is a fate-speaking poet without a musical instrument. Also, it is clearly a kind of shamanic mage, including prescience, enchantment, shapeshifting, and protoscientific potions.

 

[Yaarel]

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.

Yeah. What players actually "do in an encounter" is where every mechanical design must come from and serve.

Flavor might be top down design. But mechanics must be bottom up design.

 

[GrimCo]

Sorry, haven't watched any of those, so i'm not familiar with characters. Except FMA way back in the day. I was more thinking in line of concepts. FE Guts from Berserk when broken into concept is tough, resilient guy with big ass sword. So bear totem barbarian/champion fighter, GWM feat, max str and con, greatsword and medium armor.

Reskin and re-flavor things was always thing in D&D. Thing is, too many classes and they go into niche specialization. And then we get 3.x all over again.

 

[Mind of tempest]

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.

do people not just grasp what a monk is? it works off a totally different way to gaining powers as it is based on a different idea of the divine entirely.

if you're looking for a light armour divine guy to be closer to the paladin try an inquisitor or a proper assassin.

 

[Corinnguard]

Too many classes to choose from leads to a case of choice paralysis. Which class do you want to be out of all the classes available in the RPG? Too few classes, and you have to do a lot more work trying to meet the character concept you want your character to be. If you reduce the classes down to Warrior, Expert or Adept (Arcane or Divine), you will need things like feats and/or multiclassing to turn that warrior into a Paladin or a Ranger.

This is a Goldilocks question.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Too many classes to choose from leads to a case of choice paralysis. Which class do you want to be out of all the classes available in the RPG? Too few classes, and you have to do a lot more work trying to meet the character concept you want your character to be. If you reduce the classes down to Warrior, Expert or Adept (Arcane or Divine), you will need things like feats and/or multiclassing to turn that warrior into a Paladin or a Ranger.

This is a Goldilocks question.

200 hundred is too many, -7 is too few

 

[steeldragons]

Do you mean "for a new edition," as to be "in the PHB," as in initial publication/release?

I am inclined to think 13 is your very most/top for an initial outing. I would put your "base minimum" at 7 or 8. But I think a list of 13 is probably the best.

Gives you enough for people to say "Oo! Look at all the options/possibilities," including hopefully multiple avenues for various different character types, without getting into repetitive or redundant character types/classes. More than that and it'll become unwieldy and daunting for attracting "new" players - at least. If not simply impractical from a material/printing/page count perspective.

That covers all of the primary, secondary, I would argue gets into tertiary, major archetypes one would need.

Supplemental materials, whether that's online or printed, Unearthed Arcana - or other manuals, adventure modules/paths, "Champions of..." books, etc... then, can add archetypes/classes/subclasses/backgrounds/feats of any specificity and ever-narrowing spheres of character narrative ("the X warrior, of Y setting/species, Z province/kingdom/order, abc special abilities - but they're totally NOT the same as some already existing class options") ad infinitum/ad nauseum.

What You Need:

• Fighter - the Warrior. Combat Expert.
• Mage - the Wizard. Magic Expert. (Arcane Caster magic-working.)
• Thief - the Rogue. Skill Expert.
• Cleric - the Mystic. Support Expert. (Divine Channel magic-working.)
• Ranger - the Warrior + Rogue. Non-magic Skill Expert & Warrior Support.
• Druid - the Mystic + Wizard. Nature Magic (caster & channeler) support.

Then...

• Bard - the Mystic + Rogue. (def. NOT a so-called "full caster" with progression to match a Mage.)
• Paladin - the Warrior + Mystic (though for me, these really just need to be a specialty cleric/subclass)
• Swordmage - the Warrior + Wizard, really needs a better name, but the Fighter-Mage amalgam
• Warlock - the Wizard + Rogue, introduces "occult" or "forbidden" magics.

...and...

• Barbarian - too strong an archetype not to be included, alternate Warrior construct. Multi-archetype subclasses based on choice of Totem/Clan.
• Adept - nee "Monk," too strong an archetype (and game history) not to be included (though should have a shiolin-style/chi-driven subclass option). Multi-archetype subclasses based on choice of Martial Art/Style.
• Psychic - introduces psychic energy, nee "psionics", into the game, the psychic powers (NOT "spells") class. Alternate Wizard construct. Multi-archetype subclasses based on choice of "Discipline" (Power Focus/Suite).

With these, you could definitely play just about any D&D fantasy type of game.

For my own tastes, I would also want to see included (through supplements):

• Acrobat - a maneuverability rogue/entertainment expert (that isn't a Bard).
• Alchemist - an arcane skills expert. Makes magic happen without casting or channeling/no spells.
• Cavalier/Knight - a non-magic "Paladin" class.
• Rake - a non-magic "Bard"/coutier class.
• Swashbuckler - a maneuverability warrior, maritime expert
• Abjurist - abjuration & divinations wizard, the "protection/defense" magic expert.
• "Invoker/Cloistered Cleric/Theurgist" - a more castery/(Divine) magic-exclusive cleric.
• Illusionist - illusion & enchantments wizard, the "trickery/deception" magic expert.
• Necromancer - (too strong of an archetype to ignore) a "death/undeath/spirit" magic wizard.
• Shaman - the "Spirit World" channeler/magic-worker and shapeshifter.
• Thaumaturgist - the ceremonial/ritualist magician, Divine & Arcane magic casting wizard.
• Witch - a non-patron bound "occult" magic-worker with limited access to all other types of magic and supernatural powers.

From there yu can move into setting and/or species specific classes/archetypes...

• The Dragon Guardian (dragon-riding/-communicating amazo-draco-warrior)
• The Hell Knight (demon-hunting abjurer-rangers)
• The Nature Warden (a "Green Knight" champion of Nature)
• The Dwarven Defender
• The Elfin Bladesinger
• The Gnomish Magi-Tinker/Artificer
• The Orcish Blood-Brute (totally nooooot a barbarian <eyeroll>)
• The Shadowcasters of Ick.
• The Wutzit of Wherever.

etc... unto the ends of the multiverse...

 

[Corinnguard]

200 hundred is too many, -7 is too few

Whereas 13-15 is just right.

 

[overgeeked]

Sorry, haven't watched any of those, so i'm not familiar with characters. Except FMA way back in the day. I was more thinking in line of concepts. FE Guts from Berserk when broken into concept is tough, resilient guy with big ass sword. So bear totem barbarian/champion fighter, GWM feat, max str and con, greatsword and medium armor.

Reskin and re-flavor things was always thing in D&D. Thing is, too many classes and they go into niche specialization. And then we get 3.x all over again.

Exactly. “This is a fighter but with a big two-handed sword” and “this is a fighter, but with crazy armor and a shield” aren’t distinct enough for separate classes. Wizard but explained slightly differently also isn’t distinct enough. I get the desire for mechanics for everything, but that’s how we get the splat bloat most everyone complains about.