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

[Shardstone]

I like the current setting and I think it's very close to my ideal: the 12 current base classes plus (potentially) 1 additional class per setting, like Eberron having artificers.

If there were actually 1 additional class per setting, I'd be over the moon. That'd be a fantastic set up!

 

[Corinnguard]

If there were actually 1 additional class per setting, I'd be over the moon. That'd be a fantastic set up!

The Artificer for the Eberron setting. The Blood Hunter class for Ravenloft? I know that the Blood Hunter was created by Matt Mercer's group for their Exandria setting, but it could easily fit in for Ravenloft.

 

[Shiroiken]

I separate the idea into core classes and setting classes. The core game only needs a few classes to create the types of fantasy tropes that fit into all (or at least most) games. Some ideas are instrumental to certain settings, however, and should be added as part of those settings. Of course, DMs are free to allow those setting specific classes into their own games, regardless of setting.

5E did a pretty good job with it's core classes, but could still probably drop several classes. I don't see the need for the sorcerer, which is just a retread of the wizard IMO. Warlock seems like a subclass of the wizard, and barbarian should be a subclass of the fighter. The Paladin could be a subclass of cleric and the ranger a subclass of druid too. I'm personally not a fan of the monk, but at least it fits it's own niche.

Setting classes like the artificer are good concepts, but I don't like how they tried to put them into the core game later. I generally disallow the artificer because it doesn't fit into the type of Greyhawk campaigns I run. Another setting class I could see added is the Psion in Dark Sun... assuming they ever figure out how they want it to work mechanically. If they ever wanted to do an eastern setting (like when they owned the L5R IP), they might create a shugenja class, which is kind of a mix between the cleric and wizard. Not familiar with other setting's needs for classes, but you get the idea.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I like the current setting and I think it's very close to my ideal: the 12 current base classes plus (potentially) 1 additional class per setting, like Eberron having artificers.

Going this route, I might pull the monk form the core list and put it in Kara-Tur (alongside ninja and samurai as variations of existing classes.)

Dark Sun gets psion, obviously.

 

[Shardstone]

The Artificer for the Eberron setting. The Blood Hunter class for Ravenloft? I know that the Blood Hunter was created by Matt Mercer's group for their Exandria setting, but it could easily fit in for Ravenloft.

Imma make a Slayer for Ravenloft. I have a Pendragon, I can put that to Dragonlance pretty easily. Then its just a matter of making classes for Ravnica (???), Theros (Oracle), Strixhaven (Sage), Radiant Citadel (Animist), Spelljammer (???), Planescape (???), and some 3PP settings I really like (Dragongrin, my own Scavenger, Crifoth, etc).

 

[el-remmen]

Four. Anything else is gravy.

 

[Shardstone]

Four. Anything else is gravy.

I love me some gravy now.

 

[GrimCo]

I don't care if they go into niche specialization, but I will say I think that 3.X was a unique case that 5E cannot replicate.

And thank god for that. End cycle 3.5 was full of bloatware. Dozens of classes and prestige classes, most of which were in "looks cool on paper, sucks in play" category.

There are dozens of 3PP and homebrew classes out there that are balanced, unique, and fun; most of them are not niche either. That proves that the 12 we have now only accounts for a single demographics taste, and that demographic is forced upon other demographics (unless you make or buy 3PP material).

That's what's 3pp and 1st party supplements for. To give you more stuff. But i would disagree that most of it isn't niche.

This is fine, btw. I don't hate WotC for this or think it is a bad decision for them. My opinion is that its fine how they operate, but I think they needlessly restrain themselves out of fear for a 3.X boogeyman, which is backwards thinking in my book.

3.x was mess. They kept churning new classes which were for the most part just derivatives of few core classes.

In the end, it's about tastes and how simple or complex you like your games.

 

[Corinnguard]

Four. Anything else is gravy.

How many flavors of gravy are we looking at? There isn't just one kind of gravy out there in RL.

 

[Shardstone]

Planescape - Factol (class that focuses on sabotage, manipulation, kinda' like a Rogue X Warlord with the main feature being different kinds of "Assets)

Spelljammer - Hmmm this'll take me a while.