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

[EzekielRaiden]

I didn’t read the whole thread, but my approach to answer the question would be: as a DM, how many classes do I want to explain to a newcomer when they’re creating a new character?

So I’d rather we had the Big Four as basic classes, and then each of them branches out in other 4 at level 3 or something.

Plus unrestrained multiclassing for those that like to experiment with builds and veterans.

The main problem with this design is that it forces all of those "branching" classes to be saddled with the core mechanics of whatever they've branched off of, and that can be an enormous design burden. The Fighter, for example, is incapable of being a real Warlord replacement, for the same reason that it's incapable of being a real Wizard replacement despite having the Eldritch Knight subclass. There's just too much in the core class.

But if you strip those four core classes down to essentially nothing--so that they actually can accommodate 16+ classes' worth of design space--it becomes hard to justify calling them "classes" at all. Like...if you're actually free to explore whatever interesting design directions are worth exploring, how much can that base class even actually matter?

I get the interest in designing things for newer players. That's very important. But if you design the whole game so that everything is always geared for new players without regard for experienced ones, you get a game that has incredibly high churn--people get in quickly, do everything there is to do, and then get out quickly. It's extremely important to engage with all four critical parts of your audience: neophytes, casuals, ultra-serious hardcore players, and what I'll call "midcore" players who want enough to sink their teeth into but aren't deeply invested into charop or writing 10-page backstories.

But you know what else is important? Making sure that the things you design for new players aren't inferior to the things you design for long-term invested players. Supporting a wide range of archetypes, so players can do what they truly love, even if it asks more of them to do so. Supporting a wide range of playstyles. Etc.

"X classes that branch into Y" is one of those ideas that sounds amazing in the abstract; all the benefits of 16 (or whatever) classes, with none of the "bloat" or "excess". But in practice, it's an extremely difficult needle to thread, and it often fails before it even gets off the ground.

For me, this is part of why I completely disagree with the stereotypically antagonistic response to having roles and power sources. Roles help people pick classes based on what they want to DO, as a player. Power sources help people pick classes based on what they want to BE, as a character. By making it so you can quickly, cleanly, and succinctly summarize a class's thematics and mechanics with a two-word phrase, or a two-sentence description if you want to be specific, you can easily communicate what players need to know.

But of course, roles are "straightjackets" and oh so terrible for the game...

 

[Neonchameleon]

do you have a source to back up said speculations

Which speculations? That 5e is the most popular version of D&D in history? That the sorcerer is a reasonably popular class, making up just under 1/12 of all classes played? That Tasha's sold pretty well and has a much higher attach rate than the various psionic books in less popular editions? That the Aberrant Mind is more popular than the Clockwork Soul?

Are there any of those premises you disagree with?

also you seem to have no issue with the idea of the mystic but seem to have hostility towards the psion I am lost as to why could you please elaborate?

I have explained numerous times in this thread why the Psion as it has existed in multiple editions is a spellcasting wizard with the serial numbers filed off. Have you not been reading?

Meanwhile the Mystic isn't there yet but tries to do something other than spew 70 pages of spells all over the table while having wizard base stats. If you want wizard base stats, power point casting, upcasting and to cast psionic spells the Aberrant Mind is already there doing everything the Psion did.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Which speculations? That 5e is the most popular version of D&D in history? That the sorcerer is a reasonably popular class, making up just under 1/12 of all classes played? That Tasha's sold pretty well and has a much higher attach rate than the various psionic books in less popular editions? That the Aberrant Mind is more popular than the Clockwork Soul?

Are there any of those premises you disagree with?

I have explained numerous times in this thread why the Psion as it has existed in multiple editions is a spellcasting wizard with the serial numbers filed off. Have you not been reading?

Meanwhile the Mystic isn't there yet but tries to do something other than spew 70 pages of spells all over the table while having wizard base stats. If you want wizard base stats, power point casting, upcasting and to cast psionic spells the Aberrant Mind is already there doing everything the Psion did.

so your end goal would be a rather different idea for a psionic caster who clearly is not a wizard clone.
how would you define a successful psionic caster then what areas would it pull from stat-wise, thematically and what sub ideas for sublases in a vague sort of sense not like a functioning document more a premise?
I want to see your vision so I can grasp better what the argument is about.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The main problem with this design is that it forces all of those "branching" classes to be saddled with the core mechanics of whatever they've branched off of, and that can be an enormous design burden. The Fighter, for example, is incapable of being a real Warlord replacement, for the same reason that it's incapable of being a real Wizard replacement despite having the Eldritch Knight subclass. There's just too much in the core class.

I'm going to disagree in large part here and say that if they were to actually try (they haven't) the tier 1 and 2 5e fighter, with a little work, could be about as good a replacement for the warlord as it is for the 4e fighter.

The first thing you need to do, of course, is to take the fighting style and turn it warlord-y so the warlord is able to consistently warlord and can be outfought by the fighter. I'm not sure whether you want:

• Fighting Style: Direct the Strike
• Fighting Style: Inspiring Word (bonus action 2/short rest, the target can spend a hit die and adds your proficiency modifier to the hp recovered)

You then need a Tactical and an Inspiring subclass. And a Bravura subclass that if you make Inspiring Word your fighting style doesn't have to take it; a bravura fighter works just fine.

Of course this is Minimum Viable Product stuff. And still far further than 5e has gone.

But if you strip those four core classes down to essentially nothing--so that they actually can accommodate 16+ classes' worth of design space--it becomes hard to justify calling them "classes" at all.

You could just call them Defender, Leader, Striker, and Controller?

For me, this is part of why I completely disagree with the stereotypically antagonistic response to having roles and power sources. Roles help people pick classes based on what they want to DO, as a player. Power sources help people pick classes based on what they want to BE, as a character. By making it so you can quickly, cleanly, and succinctly summarize a class's thematics and mechanics with a two-word phrase, or a two-sentence description if you want to be specific, you can easily communicate what players need to know.

But of course, roles are "straightjackets" and oh so terrible for the game...

Agreed

 

[Neonchameleon]

so your end goal would be a rather different idea for a psionic caster who clearly is not a wizard clone.
how would you define a successful psionic caster then what areas would it pull from stat-wise, thematically and what sub ideas for sublases in a vague sort of sense not like a functioning document more a premise?
I want to see your vision so I can grasp better what the argument is about.

My vision says that 5e has comfortably the best psionics D&D has ever had because there is no One True Way to be psychic any more than there is to use magic. And that psionics are frequently but not always Space Magic.

That the Soulknife is a great low level telepath for a psychic spy - and that it covers Psylocke but not Professor X. That psychics from some of the most famous fictional universes (Babylon 5 and Warhammer 40k both explicitly spring to mind and Stranger Things implicitly - and even Marvel 616 for Jean Grey and the Phoenix Force) are frequently entirely thematically as well as mechanically appropriate to stat as GOOlocks using the OneD&D version.

And that 95% of the space covered by the Psion other than the Int/Cha argument (I'd ideally like both sorcerers and warlocks to flex their casting stat anyway) and a very few spells is covered by the Aberrant Mind already - and the Aberrant Mind does it in about two sides without vomiting 70 pages of spells all over the game the way historical Psion's have.

Adding a Psion on top of what already exists therefore would make the entire game meaningfully worse - harder to master and more confusing. While adding nothing of value other than to a few people with a squid allergy. And not only would the Psion mess up the game, it would mess up psionics by claiming dominion over what was already there as the One True Psionic Class.

The Mystic on the other hand doesn't have these problems. It is psionic but it's not saying I Am The Psionic Class. It isn't a wizard/sorcerer with the serial numbers filed off and the same hit points, proficiencies, armour, and very similar spell slots other than spell point casting (which the Aberrant Mind already has). It is doing its own thing in its own way rather than trying to invalidate what came before and the disciplines are worth exploring.

I don't think an extra class is needed - but that doesn't make one desirable. However any new classes shouldn't take a steaming dump on what came before.

 

[CreamCloud0]

The Mystic on the other hand doesn't have these problems. It is psionic but it's not saying I Am The Psionic Class. It isn't a wizard/sorcerer with the serial numbers filed off and the same hit points, proficiencies, armour, and very similar spell slots other than spell point casting (which the Aberrant Mind already has). It is doing its own thing in its own way rather than trying to invalidate what came before and the disciplines are worth exploring.

okay, i knew nothing about the mystic before and i know just as little after reading your post, so i agree with what @Mind of tempest is saying, your post has told me NOTHING about what the mystic actually DOES or how it does it and what makes it unique and different, not just another wizard clone like you're claiming the psion is, which ironically to your argument, i can much easily see the distinction for that my mind between it and the wizard.

 

[delericho]

Was wondering this when it comes to new editions of Dungeons and Dragons. How many classes are too many and how many are too little?

Is it for flavor purpose and fulfilling certain archetypes? Having certain roles be fulfilled?

For D&D specifically, 15 - the ones in the 2014 PHB plus Assassin, Warlord, and some sort of Mageblade class. That is, all the classes that have been in a (first) PHB of any edition of the game to date (where the Mageblade is the old "Elf" class from BECMI).

For a non-D&D game filling the same niche? There's no right answer - you can do it with three (warrior, rogue, caster), six (one per attribute), twelve (see the PHB), twenty, a hundred... or even no classes at all.

 

[Delazar]

For me, this is part of why I completely disagree with the stereotypically antagonistic response to having roles and power sources. Roles help people pick classes based on what they want to DO, as a player. Power sources help people pick classes based on what they want to BE, as a character. By making it so you can quickly, cleanly, and succinctly summarize a class's thematics and mechanics with a two-word phrase, or a two-sentence description if you want to be specific, you can easily communicate what players need to know.

But of course, roles are "straightjackets" and oh so terrible for the game...

I would actually like a DnD that asks me:

- What do you want to do (choose one):
-- Protect my friends
-- Do a lot of damage
-- Support my friends
-- Hinder the enemies

- How do you want to do it (choose one):
-- with weapons
-- with arcane magic
-- with divine magic
-- with psionic magic

OK that's your class! Isn't it a bit what Dagger Heart is trying to do?

On the matter of having few base classes, and then branching out, I think Dragon Age and Shadow of the Demon Lord have been quite successful at it. Doing the same for DnD wouldn't be that difficult.

 

[Mind of tempest]

My vision says that 5e has comfortably the best psionics D&D has ever had because there is no One True Way to be psychic any more than there is to use magic. And that psionics are frequently but not always Space Magic.

That the Soulknife is a great low level telepath for a psychic spy - and that it covers Psylocke but not Professor X. That psychics from some of the most famous fictional universes (Babylon 5 and Warhammer 40k both explicitly spring to mind and Stranger Things implicitly - and even Marvel 616 for Jean Grey and the Phoenix Force) are frequently entirely thematically as well as mechanically appropriate to stat as GOOlocks using the OneD&D version.

And that 95% of the space covered by the Psion other than the Int/Cha argument (I'd ideally like both sorcerers and warlocks to flex their casting stat anyway) and a very few spells is covered by the Aberrant Mind already - and the Aberrant Mind does it in about two sides without vomiting 70 pages of spells all over the game the way historical Psion's have.

Adding a Psion on top of what already exists therefore would make the entire game meaningfully worse - harder to master and more confusing. While adding nothing of value other than to a few people with a squid allergy.

I do not have a squid allergy I have a sorcerer allergy.

The Mystic on the other hand doesn't have these problems. It is psionic but it's not saying I Am The Psionic Class. It isn't a wizard/sorcerer with the serial numbers filed off and the same hit points, proficiencies, armour, and very similar spell slots other than spell point casting (which the Aberrant Mind already has). It is doing its own thing in its own way rather than trying to invalidate what came before and the disciplines are worth exploring.

I don't think an extra class is needed - but that doesn't make one desirable. However any new classes shouldn't take a steaming dump on what came before.

okay, I will rephrase my question on the mystic towards an improved form along with a rough party role, subclass idea and ideas on improving the casting black themes(I call the custom selectable spell topics blocks).

 

[Neonchameleon]

okay, i knew nothing about the mystic before and i know just as little after reading your post, so i agree with what @Mind of tempest is saying, your post has told me NOTHING about what the mystic actually DOES or how it does it and what makes it unique and different, not just another wizard clone like you're claiming the psion is, which ironically to your argument, i can much easily see the distinction for that my mind between it and the wizard.

The point is I do not really care. Adding something like the old psion makes the game worse. Adding literally nothing at all is preferable to adding a Psion to the game because the Psion is an attempt to declare One True Way for psionics to be (as well as making them more like casters than psychics). And as of the OneD&D playtest psionics are in a far far better place than they have been at any previous time in D&D history.

I have pointed out repeatedly how all the Psion was was someone with base wizard/sorcerer stats that cast spells point spells that are frequently clones of wizard spells. And got 70 pages of this nonsense. The Mystic neither has wizard/sorcerer base stats nor spells that have full spell blocks and are frequently clones. If you think that makes it more of a clone I want to see your reasoning.

And I have pointed my vision which is a range of subclasses (as we have now) is better than This Is The One True Way Of How Psychics Are.