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

[cranberry]

As long as they can introduce classes that offer new play options, I don't see why there should be a limit.

However, when the classes start overlapping each other and start feeling the same mechanically with just a splash of flavor, that's when they should stop, imo.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

1, 4, or 14 are all valid options.

(I'd personally pick ~20).

 

[Daztur]

personally i never really understood advocating for this approach, it seems needlessly limiting IMO, you design and balance an entire mechanic and then you only let one class naturally access it, nobody else gets to play with the toy unless they buy into the class.

Well, because otherwise what's the point of having classes? You end up with random grab bags of disparate features that are hard to keep track of and don't add up to much thematically waves to rangers or you end up gilding the lilly and adding a bunch of stuff that a class doesn't need when they already have a core feature that gets the job done.

I play a lot of classless RPGs, but when I play one with classes I want them to have CLEAR areas of uniqueness.

 

[Daztur]

This is why there are (or should be) multiple games for different tastes. Ideally, WotC would pick one of those tastes and run with it, allowing those who don't share it to pick a different game and feel good about it.

Eh, a huge mainstream game like D&D always works best as a bit of a kludgy compromise (see 5e), D&D always does badly when they try to pick a specific taste and run with it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

They've tried it exactly once, and honestly 4e does a pretty good job of being the game it intends to be. It just wasn't the game enough people to suit Hasbro wanted.

Eh, a huge mainstream game like D&D always works best as a bit of a kludgy compromise (see 5e), D&D always does badly when they try to pick a specific taste and run with it.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Well, because otherwise what's the point of having classes? You end up with random grab bags of disparate features that are hard to keep track of and don't add up to much thematically waves to rangers or you end up gilding the lilly and adding a bunch of stuff that a class doesn't need when they already have a core feature that gets the job done.

I play a lot of classless RPGs, but when I play one with classes I want them to have CLEAR areas of uniqueness.

A class can still have a clear mechanical role and theme while drawing upon multiple kinds of mechanics, i'm not saying kludge every feature into every class whether it fits or not for the sake of adding mechanics but the classes each monopolise their assigned mechanics in a way that i feel is needlessly strict.

The Ranger doesn't even get it's own signature mechanics (unless like wizards you count hunter's mark as being worth enough to define the entire class around (i don't)), but you could seriously give it an injection of flavour giving it sneak attack, apropriate maneuvres and wildshape to really reinforce the identity of being the stealthy hunter of the wild.

Like, people say that metamagic used to be a mechanic that all casters could use but in 5e it's exclusively the sorcerer's thing, and there's no theoretical reason it couldn't return to everybody(in practice, sorcerer really does need to retain it in 5e as big brother wizard looms large and it's basically all it's got to call it's own), but you could give cleric careful spell reinforcing how they protect their allies, warlock subtle spell which supports them being sneaky tricksters, maybe wizard gets extend spell to show how they can craft their spells with more precision so they last longer...

do you see what i'm saying?

 

[FitzTheRuke]

My answer to the titular question:

18. The 12 we have in 5e plus Artificer, Swordmage, & Warlord, and three "Monsters" - Shapeshifter (Lycanthrope), Undead (Vampire), and Dragon.

 

[Minigiant]

Too structured. I'm talking Mutants and Masterminds.

A point-based classes system requires you to admit that some things are actually stronger than others and I'm willing to increase its cost compared to other things.

Never happening in D&D. Spellcasting would cost more points than people are willing to accept.

 

[cbwjm]

personally i never really understood advocating for this approach, it seems needlessly limiting IMO, you design and balance an entire mechanic and then you only let one class naturally access it, nobody else gets to play with the toy unless they buy into the class.

what do you really gain by only incorporating mechanics into one class? ranger, barbarian and hell, maybe even sorcerer would feel right at home using wildshape, couldn't a fighter, a cleric of war or paladin of vengance enter a battlefury Rage? have the monk using sneak attack and maneuvres...

i think there's far more interesting design to be gained by letting these sorts of things be distributed between all who might have them, you might even be able to establish class identities even better by doing that, rather than just having the one who's been deigned to use it as their special thing that's exclusive to them and only them.

A barbarian raging and turning into a bear/werebear would be pretty awesome. I also think your idea of a paladin of vengeance or cleric of war having a battlefury would be great.

 

[Micah Sweet]

They've tried it exactly once, and honestly 4e does a pretty good job of being the game it intends to be. It just wasn't the game enough people to suit Hasbro wanted.

Eh, a huge mainstream game like D&D always works best as a bit of a kludgy compromise (see 5e), D&D always does badly when they try to pick a specific taste and run with it.

A point-based classes system requires you to admit that some things are actually stronger than others and I'm willing to increase its cost compared to other things.

Never happening in D&D. Spellcasting would cost more points than people are willing to accept.

Plenty of point-based systems out there. No reason to assume D&D players couldn't handle such, and absolutely no reason to assume that the reason they wouldn't is because they love spellcastibg too much to pay for it. That just sounds like anti-caster bias to me.