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

[Minigiant]

You'll have to explain that for me.



"Infusions" are just enchant item spells. They have a long history in D&D. There is nothing particularly complex about the idea or which is particularly difficult for a spell to accomplish. There have been spells that turned mundane items into magical items for as long as I've been playing.

In fact, there is actually a very strong reason to have as spells things that would replicate the effects of magic items, because you are simplifying the system. You would not only no longer need to describe spells and magic items separately, as magic items could just reference the standard spell effect they produce, but you'd also simplify describing the crafting system for magic items.

It's not about complexity is about the flexibility of the spell casting system.

Spell casting system is Is written in a way that if you allow them to create magic items using spell slots the amount of spell slots a caster has will break the system in half.

"Oh it's simple" until you attempt to write the mechanics down.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

"Infusions" are just enchant item spells. They have a long history in D&D. There is nothing particularly complex about the idea or which is particularly difficult for a spell to accomplish. There have been spells that turned mundane items into magical items for as long as I've been playing.

In fact, there is actually a very strong reason to have as spells things that would replicate the effects of magic items, because you are simplifying the system. You would not only no longer need to describe spells and magic items separately, as magic items could just reference the standard spell effect they produce, but you'd also simplify describing the crafting system for magic items.

No. When you want to enable some particular archetype, don't make spells to enable that archetype. Make a class to do it. Why? Because every time you create a new spell that new spell will be evaluated not in the context of the intended archetype, an Artificer or Spellsmith or whatever you want to call it, but in the context of the entire pool of wizard spells.

Suppose you make 9 spells, one for each level, to represent an Artificer. Those spells will be absorbed by the wizard spell pool and subsequently disappear since there is no inherent siloing between these spells. They are amorphous class features made generic by their identity as spells available in a generic spell pool.

We can already imagine that there is, for example, enough spells to create, say, a Time Mage archetype. Except nobody does, because the time spells are part of the wizard spell pool. Making a thematic choice is possible, but suboptimal.

 

[Celebrim]

eh, i respectfully disagree, a warlord has an entirely different mechanical purpose than a fighter

I am not really sure how that is a rebuttal. "Leader of men in battle" is entirely within the province of the fighter. If you think Conan the Barbarian is a barbarian and not a fighter, then you neither have a clear understanding of "barbarian" or "fighter". Neither Warlord nor Fighter have a "mechanical purpose". The purpose of mechanics is to empower you to play a character. The character doesn't exist to serve the mechanics.

I refuse to accept the argument "Fighters are meant to be narrow in ability. They are only supposed to be good at hitting things with sharped sticks". For one thing, it's horrible for balance as it's a major contributor to only spellcasters being worth playing past a certain level, or the idea that to balance fighters with spellcasters we have to make the spellcasters.

A warlord is just a fighter that focus some of their martial prowess on leadership and tactical skill. That's not even really a matter of debate. That's just what they are. If you have to make them some separate class it's because you've poorly implemented support for leadership and tactical skill in your core system and now you're tacking those ideas on as an afterthought.

a warlord isn't just a 'smart/charismatic fighter' in the same way a rogue isn't just a 'sneakier more skillful fighter'

I think you could in fact make a strong argument that the rogue class shouldn't exist because it is just a sneaky skillful fighter. In fact, this is a very common position by people who think introducing the "thief" class was a mistake. I don't in fact do so, primarily because I don't know how in D&D to make a pure skill monkey class well balanced despite a lot of time thinking about it, but I do understand the argument. I think of the Rogue as a compromise class there you are taking a skill monkey class and giving it a combat shtick/silo that while it is difficult or impossible to justify in fiction, is an acceptable compromise given most people are so accepting of the "thief" as a core class at this point they probably won't question it and it does then allow playing a skill monkey. But I'm not about to argue that having a Rogue is a requirement, just that removing it is hard.

i also don't see the virtues in only ever implementing one magic system, variety is the spice of life, and if simplicity and fixing balance was really the goal then removing the current magic system would certainly do a ton more for that goal.

I don't understand this at all. Mechanical variety for its own sake is just silly. What you want is character concept variety that has mechanical support.

 

[Aldarc]

My advocacy (for D&D, specifically) is for a concept that's not really discussed (or I've not stumbled across it); robust character creation options prior to game start, followed by somewhat randomized, "roguelike" progression triggered by in-narrative discoveries.

Since I'm basically arguing for "neotrad in the front, OSR in the back", my advocacy is doomed to fail.

I would be on board with this.

 

[Celebrim]

No. When you want to enable some particular archetype, don't make spells to enable that archetype. Make a class to do it. Why? Because every time you create a new spell that new spell will be evaluated not in the context of the intended archetype, an Artificer or Spellsmith or whatever you want to call it, but in the context of the entire pool of wizard spells.

Suppose you make 9 spells, one for each level, to represent an Artificer. Those spells will be absorbed by the wizard spell pool and subsequently disappear since there is no inherent siloing between these spells. They are amorphous class features made generic by their identity as spells available in a generic spell pool.

We can already imagine that there is, for example, enough spells to create, say, a Time Mage archetype. Except nobody does, because the time spells are part of the wizard spell pool. Making a thematic choice is possible, but suboptimal.

I get where you are going here, but there is no need to silo things off in separate classes. Just give every class a certain number of picks for what they want to be good at. That pick then encourages you to follow your thematic choice because spells that fit your thematic choice are now more effective in some manner. The more inferior a thematic choice might normally be, the strong the benefit that a pick in its favor can be. So if you want to have a Time Mage archetype then think what advantage you can give to a mage (whatever the class) with a Time Mage pick that gives them advantage of some sort on spells with the "Time" descriptor. Granted, Time Mage is very hard concept to support because non-linearity and time travel things get all wibbly wobbly very quickly which is why "Precognition" or "Prophesy" is such a hard thing to support. But "Lightning Mage" as a pick that encourages your to mostly focus on lightning magic isn't really hard at all.

A lot of the problem comes from the fact that historically at design these problems were poorly considered. For example, the rogue is very tacked on to AD&D because AD&D lacked a unified skill system. Warlords in turn are tacked on because leadership or tactical ability was not considered in the 3e attempt at a unified skill system and well written feats to support "I'm a battlefield leader" weren't considered. So when the 4e warlord showed up, it was paradigm changing for people, but only because of the former silence on the concept. But it's just as tacked on and problematic as the 1e thief. And so forth.

 

[CreamCloud0]

You'll have to explain that for me.

I don't understand this at all. Mechanical variety for its own sake is just silly.

mechanics are meant to vaguely provide an experience replicating what actually using them would be like, therefore you want different mechanics that work differently to replicate concepts that feel different, people don't want psions to use spellcaster spell/slots mechanics because psions aren't meant to be spellcasters, getting a psion with spellcasting mechanics is like asking for the salmon but getting the steak, and being told 'well if we served more than just steak it would introduce needless complexity to the kitchen' but the tell you what you got is satisfactory because your steak is cut into the shape of a fish.

What you want is character concept variety that has mechanical support.

and you'd want that mechanical support to be apropriately designed to replicate the concept it's for right? so you'd need variety in your mechanical support to appropriately apply to your concept variety

 

[Celebrim]

mechanics are meant to vaguely provide an experience replicating what actually using them would be like, therefore you want different mechanics that work differently to replicate concepts that feel different, people don't want psions to use spellcaster spell/slots mechanics because psions aren't meant to be spellcasters

Psions absolutely are spellcasters. In fact, pretty close examination of them finds they have exactly the same lore as wizards with just some very minor variations in the costuming. This is hardly surprising since in the real world "psychic" was just traditional wizard-y magic redressed in a pseudo-scientific garb to try to give it some legitimacy, and it is actually "psychic" and not psionic that is the origin of D&D psionic tropes. I mean it's as big of a misnomer as "longsword" and "plate mail".

That they have different mechanics is a result of the tacked-on nature of psionics in 1e AD&D. It has nothing to do with the lore, and everything to do with player expectations of having a mechanical system that isn't spell slots.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Basically video games realized, single-player or not, that a lot of magic healing and support utility can easily be put on the mage. There was no reason that it needed to be a separate class. And when you expand classes beyond the three, what often happens is that instead of having a Cleric, the Paladin analogue becomes the armored holy magic-wielder.


Fun fact: "God" is referenced a number of times in the cleric spells of the Warcraft: Orcs & Humans game manual. However, over subsequent games, "god" was removed from human religion as it more generally became the "Church of the Holy Light."

In Warcraft 2, clerics are replaced by Paladins, and we get more about "the Light." In Warcraft 3, we still have the Paladin, which maintains the whole bit about "the Light." We also get the elven priest, which really becomes more of a light-armored mage with healing and some utility. By the time that we finally get to World of Warcraft, the Priest has shifted to a more generic mage focused on "the Light" and "the Void," with their magic power being fueled by conviction. In some ways, the contemporaneous Warcraft Priest is something between a mix of a Cleric, a Psion, and a Jedi Counselor. I admittedly quite like it. But the role of the heavily armored holy representative of the Light was taken by the Paladin. Then in WoW: Cataclysm we also saw that it was possible for there to be Void Paladins but we have not been able to play one.

If I could, I probably would make a Priest or Mystic as a light-armored spellcaster because I think that the identities and aesthetics of the Cleric and Paladin in D&D overlap a little too much.

the priest works of principles of conviction and understanding compare to an arcane caster is all in on intellect and rational processes.
no idea how their druids work for that matter.

Fighter, Cleric, Thief, Magic-User.

Personally, I like some variation on those too: Ranger & Paladin, Druid, -, and Warlock perhaps.

So, whether that’s 4 or 7-8, is yeah, open to interpretation. But I see it as fundamentally 4.

the four are the classics but I do not see why we should be shackled to the classics?

I think because everyone read the question as “what’s the lowest number of classes I need for D&D?”

the last time we thought on those lines we got 4e and that was complained about.

Also, cause with four broad classes, you can mix and match to make pretty much any concept you want and still keep game relatively simple.

Althoug, i would stand by that cleric and magic user are one class, cause they use same basic mechanic, spellcasting. Slots, levels, spells. Only difference is in fluff, not so much in crunch.

I do not think the parameters would work in practise

Probably because some people look at some of the classes, and think they are a variant of another class.

Barbarian- a Fighter with serious Anger Management Issues.
Bard- an extroverted Wizard who likes to put on a performance.
Cleric- Kobold Press has a divine version of the Wizard known as the Priest. So a cleric is really a priest who learned the ways of the Fighter in order to go spread the faith while being armored up.
Druid- a back-to-nature priest.
Fighter-as is.
Monk- a really introspective Fighter known using their hands and feet in combat. Pathfinder 1st edition has the Unarmed Fighter archetype. Fighters with this archetype have been known to dress up as monks.
Paladin- a Fighter who has learned some ways of the Priest while being a zealous defender of their faith.
Ranger- a Fighter who operates in the wilderness and learned some of the ways of the back-to-nature priest.
Rogue- as is.
Sorcerer- a Wizard whose magic stems from a distant supernatural ancestor.
Warlock- a Wizard who has made a pact with a supernatural being in order to use magic.
Wizard- as is.
Artificer- a Wizard known for their technological prowess.

So all of this is a bit of class reductionism. However, each of these classes are based on a specific concept that sets them apart from one another. When you think of the word, Ranger, you are thinking of someone like Aragorn, not Gimli, who happens to be a Fighter. And while Gandalf isn't technically a wizard, he's probably the first person who comes to mind when you think about Wizards.

look I think Druid is a subclass just not of cleric and monk is not a fighter that would be saying subzero is the same as Conan the Barbarian.

 

[Corinnguard]

The purpose of mechanics is to empower you to play a character. The character doesn't exist to serve the mechanics.

It's more like the mechanics for a particular class exist to serve the conceptual idea behind that class. When someone is officially designing or homebrewing a character class, the first thing they must come up is a concept that distinctly and clearly makes it different from the other classes in the RPG. From there, they have to figure out if current mechanics in the RPG can support it as is or if it needs further refinement. And that further refinement might require the invention of new game mechanics to support the new concept.

As for the character, it might not exist to serve the mechanics, but it does have to work with them.

 

[Celebrim]

the priest works of principles of conviction and understanding compare to an arcane caster is all in on intellect and rational processes.

No. You can perfectly well have a priest of the god of rational thought.

The difference between a priest and a wizard is what the source of the spells are - external power or internal power. The priest is acting as a servant to some external power that grants them spells to use in furtherance of the external power's goals. The D&D wizard as it's been come to be understood studies natural process to try to master them and uses their intellect and refined mental prowess and willpower and knowledge to create seemingly supernatural events.

Druid really shouldn't even be a class. It's too narrow and too confining and carries to much secondary baggage. The obvious proof of that is druids historically were confined to one small area of the world, and though we can't say much about them because the historical record is so thin, we can say that we shouldn't have a base class with such a narrow costume. The actual class is Shaman, which is a class about halfway between priest and wizard in its conception and represents animistic or occult magic where you make bargains or pacts with magical beings and use spells to command them. So you have external power, but lack the priestly concept of service to that external power.