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

[Mind of tempest]

Every other class.

Arcana cleric? Wizard.
Death cleric? Let's say Paladin.
Forge cleric? Fighter.
Grave cleric? Maybe Paladin again.
Knowledge? Wizard.
Life? Paladin works.
Light? Wizard again.
Nature? You're a druid.
Order? Fighter.
Peace? Let's throw a Bard in here.
Tempest? idk, barbarian why not
Trickery? You're a rogue.
Twilight? Druid again
War? Fighter.

(these are all suggestions, I haven't given them more than a few minutes' thought, the idea is more the principle than the execution here)

Every class should have a basic level of healing/support functionality, and the gods of the campaign should be distributed among the classes, not given one class that cares about them while everyone else can just ignore it.

why get rid of the cleric and keep Paladin

I'd say more than one, and fewer than ten. It's less about archetypes and roles, and more about unifying all of the mechanics. I don't really need more than one way to swing a sword or cast a spell, but D&D gives us several of each and it makes the game harder to learn, harder to run, and harder to adapt to other systems.

To paraphrase Thoreau: "Our game is frittered away by detail. Simplify, simplify."

perhaps the problem is less with simplicity but with explanations perhaps, it needs better-built instructions.

Considering all the things 'simplicity' took away in the move to 5e, forgive me for having zero enthusiasm for letting it take more.

something are better the math is quicker for one but blind simplicity does not make things better it is knowing what is dragging a game down and what has to be complex for it to work.

 

[cbwjm]

why get rid of the cleric and keep Paladin

This is just my thought, they both represent the well armoured divine hero. If I really wanted to differentiate the two classes, I'd remove cleric and replace it with the priest, a lightly armoured (perhaps cloth wearer) spellcaster focused on divine magic. That's not something likely to ever happen in DnD though since the cleric is one of its iconic classes.

 

[Dire Bare]

It's not that D&D needs a certain number of classes . . . but the current roster covers fantasy archetypes fairly well. Adding another class that has equal "archetypal weight" to the existing classes is hard.

I'd like to see the artificer graduate to the PHB. I'd like the warlord and psion to make a return. And I'd like a shaman class. Beyond that, I can't think of a class D&D "needs" . . . at least, not to my tastes.

 

[Celebrim]

This is just my thought, they both represent the well armoured divine hero. If I really wanted to differentiate the two classes, I'd remove cleric and replace it with the priest, a lightly armoured (perhaps cloth wearer) spellcaster focused on divine magic. That's not something likely to ever happen in DnD though since the cleric is one of its iconic classes.

The bigger problem is always how other classes multi-class with a priest.

As for Paladin, the concept of the class has always been fundamentally flawed.

 

[cbwjm]

The bigger problem is always how other classes multi-class with a priest.

As for Paladin, the concept of the class has always been fundamentally flawed.

For the former, I'm not too worried how they multiclass with the priest. For the latter, I disagree.

 

[I'm A Banana]

why get rid of the cleric and keep Paladin

Paladin has good "knight in shining armor" vibes that make its narrative consequences less dependent on the deity. It's the kind of place that'd be a good home for a variety of "elite warrior" figures. Cavaliers, samurai, tribal champions, knights in shining armor, ronin, blackguards, death knights, dwarven thanes, shield maidens, etc., etc.

Cleric depends so much on the god and this "heal and buff" legacy that they don't have much of an identity apart from those two pieces. And if you distribute role responsibilities and you distribute your world's religion...you loose most of the reason for having the class.

The world still has priests, o'course, we just take the divinely powered adventurer and distribute it to classes that fit the actual vibes of the gods associated with the domains rather than one whose entire schtick is to cast spells themed to a kind of god.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It's less about archetypes and roles, and more about unifying all of the mechanics

I think archetypes and are why a lot of people actually play classes. Mechanics are mostly just there to support the archetypes in a way that's fun to play. Which is why you saw OD&D's quite elegant fighter/mage/gish triad diversify almost immediately, and continue to do so. If I'm playing a different archetype, I want my mechanics to reflect that.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Paladin has good "knight in shining armor" vibes that make its narrative consequences less dependent on the deity. It's the kind of place that'd be a good home for a variety of "elite warrior" figures. Cavaliers, samurai, tribal champions, knights in shining armor, ronin, blackguards, death knights, dwarven thanes, shield maidens, etc., etc.

Cleric depends so much on the god and this "heal and buff" legacy that they don't have much of an identity apart from those two pieces. And if you distribute role responsibilities and you distribute your world's religion...you loose most of the reason for having the class.

The world still has priests, o'course, we just take the divinely powered adventurer and distribute it to classes that fit the actual vibes of the gods associated with the domains rather than one whose entire schtick is to cast spells themed to a kind of god.

the first part is just fighter, hell it is a fighter-only thing.

 

[GrimCo]

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

Book of 9 swords was one of the few good splatbooks in late 3.5 era. Warblade and Crusader were imho much better versions of Fighter and Paladin. Crusader had, imho, one of the best ways for preparing manouvers which was highly in line with it's theme of getting powers from God. ( You made cards with manouvers and picked apropriate number of them, face down). You pray, God gives, but he gives you what he/she wants to give, not what you want. I used that method for clerics and their spells. Printed out spell cards and gave them to cleric player. What he drew is what he got prepared for that day. We had a blast

For instance, Truenamer was interesting concept for class, heavily inspired by Earthsea novels by LeGuin. But in play, it was wonky.

 

[Minigiant]

Here is the core issue.

Each class is supposed to have a unique mechanic or unique combination of two or more mechanics.

For example the barbarian is not a fighter.
The barbarian is the Rage class.
Barbarian is defined by Rage which is a Power up mode. It can be powered by raw arcane/divine/primal magic, ancestral or nature spirits, or their own mental instability.

The barbarian cannot go back into a fighter because The fighter does not have a class mechanic that is equal in importance as rage.

And that's typically what creates a new class.
If you're trying to make a new character archetype and you cannot either

A) Make it within one of the existing class features
or
B) Swap out one class features for another while maintaining narrative or gameplay balance

You see this in the "cloistered cleric archetype"

A cleric can choose between heavy armor and martial weapons or bonus cantrips and some magicky stuff. There is no need to make a blaster cleric class.

However if you try to make turn undead and wild shape swappable it typically doesn't work because then typically not made of the same power level or narrative importance. So most RPG attempts to combine cleric and druid feel unsatisfactory.