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

[Frozen_Heart]

So if I want to play a gladiator or a duelist, is that a knight, a skirmisher, or a warlord?

Fundamentally, I don't feel fighter is such an overwhelmingly strong class that you need to silo out capabilities that all fighters might have to some extent to keep them from dominating over the other classes. Like when is the last time you heard someone say, "I'd like to play a spellcaster, but the fighter is just so much more versatile and powerful both in and out of combat that it just doesn't make sense to play a spellcaster."

It's weird because almost no concept gets cut down into smaller pieces than "fighting man" by people attempting to extend D&D and yet the reason mechanically you cut an archetype into smaller pieces is because the archetype would have too much stuff otherwise. So you could justify splitting cleric and wizard to avoid a single class with access to all the best spells, but I think you have a hard time justifying splitting "Good with a sword and shield" from "Good with a bow" or "Good at fighting and moving at the same time." You don't need a class for every weapon and every aspect of martial prowess, so that we have the "Porter" class that is good a carrying things and hiking and a "Slasher" class that is good with whips and so forth.

I feel the opposite. 5e has so many caster classes, and only 4 martial classes. If you want to try to play a low magic setting, you're out of luck, while this wasn't the case in other editions.

There isn't a single option for a support based martial this edition. Likewise, people are constantly asking for a 'magicless ranger', which fits perfectly into an overall skirmisher class.

As for what goes where, a duelist would be the swashbuckler subclass moved from rogue to skirmisher. That subclass doesn't function anything like it should due to being forced into rogue. Scimitar/Cutlass is a pretty classic weapon for them alongside rapier, while shield prof provides the 'buckler' part of the archtype. Multiple attacks also suits the archtype more than one super powerful strike.

As for gladiator, there are so many varied depictions of gladiators that they could go anywhere. Assuming the 'armour on one arm, trident or shortsword, and net or shield', once again the skirmisher class fits best.

 

[Remathilis]

So if I want to play a gladiator or a duelist, is that a knight, a skirmisher, or a warlord?

I mean, where do you go now? The fighter is terrible for lightly armored or dexterity combatants. It's really only good if you plan on being a plate-and-sword melee beater or an archer. To answer your question: gladiator is probably best handled by barbarian and duelist by rogue.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

To address the fact that I'd want to split a mechanic starved class, the solution I'd go for is simply.... give it mechanics. The same mechanics people have been asking for the entire of 5e.

A common maneuver system shared among all martials, which could even interact through multiclassing. Some maneuvers would be shared among multiple classes, others would be class exclusive. Just like spells, new supplements could add more maneuvers.

Which would also help even out the fact that casters get endless new content every book, while martials get nothing.

 

[GrimCo]

Or just bring back Bo9S Warblade. That was the Fighter. Yea, it was borderline supernatural, but who cares.

 

[Mind of tempest]

The only cap on class quantity is practical (in terms of things like page count and how many can be popular at a time and how many can be designed).

If I had my way, I'd invite a few more classes in. Probably break the Fighter and the Rogue up, maybe nix the Cleric, overall more classes, though.

what would be taking the clerics slots then?

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

I'd argue that end cycle 3.5, with weirdness like the Book of Nine Swords was less prone to extruded bloatware than early 3.5 that from memory started (after the PHB) with the Minis Handbook

 

[TwoSix]

I'd argue that end cycle 3.5, with weirdness like the Book of Nine Swords was less prone to extruded bloatware than early 3.5 that from memory started (after the PHB) with the Minis Handbook

I'll go further and say that "no PHB allowed" 3.5 would be better balanced than "PHB only" 3.5.

 

[Aldarc]

I'll go further and say that "no PHB allowed" 3.5 would be better balanced than "PHB only" 3.5.

At least you would get the Warrior, Adept, and Expert NPC classes. Yeah, that would be better balanced.

 

[TwoSix]

At least you would get the Warrior, Adept, and Expert NPC classes. Yeah, that would be better balanced.

To be clear, "better balanced" does not mean "actually balanced".

But you'd eliminate most of the Tier 1 classes (wizard, cleric, druid) and a lot of the lowest Tier classes (like fighter and monk) in one fell swoop.

You still have powerhouses like psion and archivist, but at least you have competitive martials (warblade and swordsage).

 

[Quickleaf]

So if I want to play a gladiator or a duelist, is that a knight, a skirmisher, or a warlord?

Fundamentally, I don't feel fighter is such an overwhelmingly strong class that you need to silo out capabilities that all fighters might have to some extent to keep them from dominating over the other classes. Like when is the last time you heard someone say, "I'd like to play a spellcaster, but the fighter is just so much more versatile and powerful both in and out of combat that it just doesn't make sense to play a spellcaster."

It's weird because almost no concept gets cut down into smaller pieces than "fighting man" by people attempting to extend D&D and yet the reason mechanically you cut an archetype into smaller pieces is because the archetype would have too much stuff otherwise. So you could justify splitting cleric and wizard to avoid a single class with access to all the best spells, but I think you have a hard time justifying splitting "Good with a sword and shield" from "Good with a bow" or "Good at fighting and moving at the same time." You don't need a class for every weapon and every aspect of martial prowess, so that we have the "Porter" class that is good a carrying things and hiking and a "Slasher" class that is good with whips and so forth.

I love your thought process here so much.

To the original question... for my non-OSR modern D&D, I think the number is close to 18 classes, partly due to niche and partly due to legacy.

Taking the existing 13 from WotC/Hasbro, with caveats, I am adding 5 classes...

For spellcasters, I am working on/adapting a Witch. There's always been some version of a witch floating around since 1e articles in Dragon magazine, 2e's witch kit, 3e's prestige classes / variant spell lists / third party classes, all the way through 4e's "witch" wizard subclass.

For half-casters, I have an Archivist & working/adapting a Swordmage. The Archivist is the closest to the "noncombatant PC who knows things" fantasy that I could find. The Swordmage (known as Duskblade or Spellblade in 3e) is distinct enough to warrant existence alongside rangers and paladins.

For martial PCs, I have a Duelist & Warden., both which trace back to the 1e DMG's alternate classes. The Duelist is a cosmopolitan warrior who relies on charm, quick-wit, and scathing retort; they build upon opportunity attacks & stances, and gets urban-based features echoing ones the ranger has. The Warden is a no-spells ranger, which I've hacked it to focus on ranged opportunity attacks, tracking & recon, invocation-style wildcrafts, with one subclass emulating the 4e warden.

For OSR D&D I think as few as 3 classes or even no classes is perfectly fine.