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

[TwoSix]

All of the classes.

Diversity is goooood.

Seriously. Your 65. Forced into retirement. Wtf are you going do? Sit in the rocking chair?

I say virtual reality systems plus EVERYTHING DnD

User name checks out.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Based on the post I was responding to, I would assume so, but its just 2 (of the many) branches we can take in terms of design.

Look at the Elf in Shadowdark, vs the Astral Elf in 5e. Both reflect the "Elf" trope/archetype.

The same thing with Class options. Personally, I've come to a point where I hate multiclassing, I think its bad for the game, and I dont particularly like mix and match mechanics.

If it advocates for anything in that argument I’d’ve thought my post advocates against multiclassing, as there’s now inherent access to other class’ features built in, so there’s no need to take those levels to get that stuff.

Simplicity, elegance, and if you want that Sneak Attack? Play a Rogue/Thief.

Restrictions, inflexibility, if i want Sneak Attack I have no other choice but to play a rogue and take everything else that is packaged alongside those levels, would it not be more simple and elegant to be able to take Hunter Ranger or Shadow Monk and it be part of their natural abilities?

Both are valid, I'm just increasingly not interested in the complex approach.

i agree, but i think we diverge on what we are considering a bigger source of complexity.

 

[Stormonu]

One of the things I like about most other modern roleplaying games is that, at best, you're building a starting package, and then essentially from there all options are available as your character advances from there. D&D and its clones is pretty much the only RPG that I can think of that still silos/pigeonholes you into a box with limited abilities to branch out. Then makes you multiclass with a poorly thought out system to fill in any concept gaps.

But, for D&D that is something I don't want to change. Well, except multiclassing. Multiclassing needs to go away as it exists now.

Just give me a full psion class and a fighter/mage hybrid class that I don't have to multiclass to do (eldritch knight does NOT hack it) and I'll shut up.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

I'd honestly prefer feat based multiclassing. Taking feats to pick up the signature features of other classes (like pathfinder 2e).

 

[Scribe]

i agree, but i think we diverge on what we are considering a bigger source of complexity.

I guess, but I'm not sure how I can square a 'build a bear' package of feats an abilities as less complex, than just having bespoke classes?

Assuming I follow your line of thought that is.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Better game to, for, by whom? Pushing for market dominance is what every for profit company does as any dollar going to someone not you, is a dollar you dont make.

I'm sure that for the definition held by Wizards, the next 5.5 Edition is the best game they could make, and better than 5e.

By MY definition, I'll happily send my money to Shadowdark, because thats a better game to me.

I sincerely doubt that every gaming company, let alone every company everywhere, is pushing hard for market dominance just like WotC. And there is zero reason to believe that the corps over in Renton prioritize making the best game they can publish at all. They are IMO simply too big and too publicly-owned to care about anything but getting richer. A lot of companies are like that, but not all companies, and not all gaming companies.

 

[Micah Sweet]

One of the things I like about most other modern roleplaying games is that, at best, you're building a starting package, and then essentially from there all options are available as your character advances from there. D&D and its clones is pretty much the only RPG that I can think of that still silos/pigeonholes you into a box with limited abilities to branch out. Then makes you multiclass with a poorly thought out system to fill in any concept gaps.

But, for D&D that is something I don't want to change. Well, except multiclassing. Multiclassing needs to go away as it exists now.

Just give me a full psion class and a fighter/mage hybrid class that I don't have to multiclass to do (eldritch knight does NOT hack it) and I'll shut up.

Level Up has those things.

I assume you don't care who gives them to you.

 

[Corinnguard]

I'd honestly prefer feat based multiclassing. Taking feats to pick up the signature features of other classes (like pathfinder 2e).

Level Up takes a slightly different tack when it comes to multiclassing and feats.

From the Adventurers' Guide: Pursuing more than one class can sometimes open up new opportunities and strategies, or expose an adventurer to something that permanently changes them. At certain levels every class gives you the Ability Score Improvement feature and adventurers with certain class combinations may optionally choose unique Synergy Feats in place of their Ability Score Increases if they meet certain prerequisites. Most synergy feats require class levels in specific classes, or have other synergy feats as prerequisites forming small synergy feat trees. You can take each feat only once, unless the feat’s description says otherwise.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I guess, but I'm not sure how I can square a 'build a bear' package of feats an abilities as less complex, than just having bespoke classes?

Assuming I follow your line of thought that is.

ah, i think i'm seeing the disconnect, i'm less advocating for full 'build-a-bear' and more for various mechanics just being shared between classes more, at least where it makes sense to share them, some access might be more on individual subclass basis or feature choice, but still built into the class design, no more intricate than a warlock picking both pact and patron.

 

[ko6ux]

1, 4, or 14 are all valid options.