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

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

You're so close....

You make magic and combat both "skills" and then add them to the skill list, then you only need one class. You want a mage? Invest in magic casting skills. You want a warrior? Invest in weapon and armor skills. You want a thief? Invest in exploring skills. You want a priest? Invest in religious skills and either magic or combat to taste. Want a bard? Put one skill point in everything.

When you boil classes down this far, it's pretty much worth it to finish the job and go classless.

I feel that works for martial, I feel less convinced about magic using classes. I don’t feel like all of those are skill based. Though I understand the appeal

 

[Remathilis]

I feel that works for martial, I feel less convinced about magic using classes. I don’t feel like all of those are skill based. Though I understand the appeal

2nd edition psionics made powers work like proficiency checks; you roll to see if the power works and if it does, you spend the appropriate number of power-points and the effect happens. Additionally, you could crit and fumble their powers. Such a system could be redone into a skill system-based magic. Just spitballing.

That said, I don't actually think a classless D&D would be desirable, but if you're going to cut classes down to less than four, you might as well start looking at it.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Being fair to 5e class design to get up to an evocative character from a standing start is one of its strengths.

Yes, the Bard and Warlock exist. But then again, so do the other classes -- and they usually don't get to even be their character concept until level 3... at which point there are no more choices to make to develop those characters unless spells.

Because spells is the only tool left in the design box now that we've simplified everything else away.

 

[Minigiant]

Yep. Pick all the spellcasting themes you want the game to support, divide them into logical piles, and then build classes and identity around those piles.

Like what M:tG did, or WoW mostly does with its caster classes.

One of the real issues as proved by the 2024 playtest, is that wizard players want everything.

The Sorcerer, Warlock, Psion, Elementantist, Witch, etc classes suggest soloing off a chunk of spells to being class exclusive and determination of power based on exclusive spells.

It's a real fight in the community to say "Here is a spell with a powerful magic effect for its slot. It's balanced because we designed it for only this class to get it" and stick to not handing it out.

For example to me, the Psion is defined by it getting Telekinetic and Telepathic features early than most casters do. Adding those types of spells to the wizard spell list would break them.

You'd need to break up magic further into more parts.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Yes, the Bard and Warlock exist. But then again, so do the other classes -- and they usually don't get to even be their character concept until level 3... at which point there are no more choices to make to develop those characters unless spells.

Because spells is the only tool left in the design box now that we've simplified everything else away.

Class and subclass not being part of the same trenche and overwhelming new players is one of the good parts of this.

And I absolutely agree about the level 4+ development being feats and spells being disappointing.

 

[Aldarc]

I feel that works for martial, I feel less convinced about magic using classes. I don’t feel like all of those are skill based. Though I understand the appeal

2nd edition psionics made powers work like proficiency checks; you roll to see if the power works and if it does, you spend the appropriate number of power-points and the effect happens. Additionally, you could crit and fumble their powers. Such a system could be redone into a skill system-based magic. Just spitballing.

That said, I don't actually think a classless D&D would be desirable, but if you're going to cut classes down to less than four, you might as well start looking at it.

Skill-based magic can be fun. I used to play True 20 (and Blue Rose) as my go-to games back in the 3.X days. There was the magical Adept class, and they picked their powers as they leveled up. You roll for magical success, potentially against Fatigue. You didn't get the massive number of spells that a D&D wizard does, which is a good thing IMHO.

One of the real issues as proved by the 2024 playtest, is that wizard players want everything.

The Sorcerer, Warlock, Psion, Elementantist, Witch, etc classes suggest soloing off a chunk of spells to being class exclusive and determination of power based on exclusive spells.

It's a real fight in the community to say "Here is a spell with a powerful magic effect for its slot. It's balanced because we designed it for only this class to get it" and stick to not handing it out.

For example to me, the Psion is defined by it getting Telekinetic and Telepathic features early than most casters do. Adding those types of spells to the wizard spell list would break them.

You'd need to break up magic further into more parts.

Again, keep in mind that if @TwoSix and I had our way with things,* there likely wouldn't be a wizard. Or if it did, it would be a far more focused wizard, perhaps like the WoW Mage.

* Let's call this a side-project from the potential diagetic progression model we have occasionally mentioned.

 

[Minigiant]

Class and subclass not being part of the same trenche and overwhelming new players is one of the good parts of this.

And I absolutely agree about the level 4+ development being feats and spells being disappointing.

To me, D&D would be 100% better if they siloed off 2-3 classes as simple beginner classes.

Video games aren't afraid to include beginner classes.

A Brute Class
A Healer Class
An Arcanist Class

All three are simple "I do X" classes with a simple resource to deal more damage, heal, or cast a spell.

 

[Hatmatter]

To me, D&D would be 100% better if they siloed off 2-3 classes as simple beginner classes.

Video games aren't afraid to include beginner classes.

A Brute Class
A Healer Class
An Arcanist Class

All three are simple "I do X" classes with a simple resource to deal more damage, heal, or cast a spell.

Hi Minigiant!

This is not too different from the Sidekick PC classes the Expert, the Spellcaster, and the Warrior. As a player acquires more familiarity with the game, the PCs can transition to one of the thirteen classes. It works well and is a nice way to turn D&D into a beginner-friendly version a bit reminiscent of Basic D&D (especially optional rules like feats and multiclassing are not used).

 

[Minigiant]

Hi Minigiant!

This is not too different from the Sidekick PC classes the Expert, the Spellcaster, and the Warrior. As a player acquires more familiarity with the game, the PCs can transition to one of the thirteen classes. It works well and is a nice way to turn D&D into a beginner-friendly version a bit reminiscent of Basic D&D (especially optional rules like feats and multiclassing are not used).

De sidekick classes are made to be sidekicks to the main castles.

What I am suggesting is full powered classes that are made deliberately simple quit few choices after initial setup, outside of subclass.

Think the champion fighter except for that's the base class and it gets even more critical hit threat range increases.

Or the 3e Warlock.

 

[Remathilis]

One of the real issues as proved by the 2024 playtest, is that wizard players want everything.

The Sorcerer, Warlock, Psion, Elementantist, Witch, etc classes suggest soloing off a chunk of spells to being class exclusive and determination of power based on exclusive spells.

It's a real fight in the community to say "Here is a spell with a powerful magic effect for its slot. It's balanced because we designed it for only this class to get it" and stick to not handing it out.

For example to me, the Psion is defined by it getting Telekinetic and Telepathic features early than most casters do. Adding those types of spells to the wizard spell list would break them.

You'd need to break up magic further into more parts.

The fundamental divide in this thread is the people who want a dozen specialized casters with unique effects and abilities and the people who want one singular "I use magic" class that does everything and let's the player figure it out. The current game tries to support both by having a wizard who can do 80% of the game's magic and then a bunch of niche casters that can do a fraction of that, with some unique effects not given to wizards (like healing or nature spells) which only serves to make the wizard too good at everything but their specific weaknesses and everyone else suck unless they have access to those specific strengths.