D&D General What kind of class design do you prefer?

[overgeeked]

Thats fair. I'm not telling you your preferences are invalid, or that you have not had issue with different players who emphasize different avenues to engaging with the game.

I've been told by a few folks around here across multiple threads that what I care about either:

A: Doesnt matter.
B: Is wrong and ruins the game.

I just dont believe things are that clear cut.

Well, different people like different things. And as much as the "common wisdom" and game companies try to deny it, some styles of engagement are diametrically opposed to each other, some preferences are diametrically opposed to each other, or however you want to say that. Some people love optimization, others hate it. Some people love roleplaying, others hate it. Some love lore, others hate it. If one of us loves a style that the other hates, we're not going to enjoy playing together. Not every gamer needs to have a place at every table. That's just not how it works. It's all preferences, so there's no objective right or wrong, sure...but some people simply don't enjoy certain styles of play or engagement. And they don't have to. They get to like and not like things just as much as you get to like and not like things.

 

[Scribe]

Well, different people like different things. And as much as the "common wisdom" and game companies try to deny it, some styles of engagement are diametrically opposed to each other, some preferences are diametrically opposed to each other, or however you want to say that. Some people love optimization, others hate it. Some people love roleplaying, others hate it. Some love lore, others hate it. If one of us loves a style that the other hates, we're not going to enjoy playing together. Not every gamer needs to have a place at every table. That's just not how it works. It's all preferences, so there's no objective right or wrong, sure...but some people simply don't enjoy certain styles of play or engagement. And they don't have to. They get to like and not like things just as much as you get to like and not like things.

Yes, not everyone can function at the same table, 100%.

They can however, engage with the same game, just differently.

A game which can embrace all the various ways to engage with it, will have a certain level of success, and its likely higher than one which intentionally disregards whole branches of the player base.

 

[Undrave]

I find that "builds" are bad for the game. You have people who are more invested in chargen than the game itself. The game becomes just a tool, an operation to "test/prove/showoff" their build. A bit like photographers more interested in what their camera can do vs taking good photos.

That feels like some badwrongfun to me

Nope. No classes or a few very broad classes. And instead of lists of mechanical widgets to pour over, you either define your character by what you actually do, learn, or acquire in game or you loosely define your character yourself using imagination instead of pulling from a finite list of options, no matter how long.

Then that means no spells. You can't cut off discrete mechanical options for everybody BUT the casters and expect some kind of balance. Imagination has a bad tendency to punish the mundane more than the magical.

In any case, at that point you don't need D&D, you need a leaflet with some rules and MAYBE some monsters... Do you even need numbers at all? Why roll for stats?

I'm sure there's plenty of games like that out there, but that sounds like it would be just as much 'not D&D' as the super crunchy 4e was deemed 'not D&D' by the masses...

It's become the "invisible" fourth pillar of the game. People seem more invested in the "character build" pillar than actually playing the game, or in some of the pillars that are actually detailed in the game itself.

It's the only pillar you can engage away from the table and thus is not reliant on getting everybody's schedule to coincide, of course people will have fun with it. This invisible fourth pillar also includes the discussions we're having here on this forum. The 'fourth pillar' is basically any time you can have fun with the game without sitting down at a table to play it. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

Thats fair. I'm not telling you your preferences are invalid, or that you have not had issue with different players who emphasize different avenues to engaging with the game.

I've been told by a few folks around here across multiple threads that what I care about either:

A: Doesnt matter.
B: Is wrong and ruins the game.

I just dont believe things are that clear cut.

This. When you have trouble playing a regular session, engaging in some char gen is a way to keep invested in a game you love.

 

[Shiroiken]

Generally fewer, with a bit more variety of options. The Barbarian, Paladin, and Ranger could have easily been folded into the Fighter, while the Druid could have been folded into the Cleric (which I'd rename Priest). While trickier, I think a revamped Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard could be folded into a single Mage class. Theoretically the Bard could be folded into Rogue and Monk into Fighter, but I feel that's pushing things a bit too far.

 

[schneeland]

I voted fewer classes with more customization, but actually a few classes with moderate customization is perfectly fine (I don't miss the insane amount of feats from 3e too much) and even little customization works quite well.
The core question for me is anyway if classes/archetypes are clear cut and distinct from one another - not only mechanically, but also conceptually. If a ranger is basically a fighter with a bow who is good at scouting, then there's no need for a ranger class. Personally, I think most of the things I look for in a D& game could be expressed via the our classes fighter, thief, wizard, cleric or a mixture of those (either via multi-classing or advanced/prestige classes). If such a clear cut is achieved, I probably wouldn't mind many classes too much either.

 

[cbwjm]

I think I'd prefer less classes than more with options for builds in each. It's what I love about the current subclass system or the old character kit system of 2e, a base class modified by kit/subclass.

I'm not sure what the optimum class number is though, I do feel like sorcerer, wizard, and warlock could be condensed into a single class and I've seen a system (some 5e, osr feeling system) where the cleric and druid were condensed into a single class.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Jokes about Wizards aside, I don't think all arcanists can be condensed unless you're going to have class variants with just a whole other casting system.

Sorcerers are historically an attempt to escape the homework aspect of having to pick spells daily and Warlocks are an attempt at a simplified casting system.

As much as I'd love to see a singular arcane class, we all know the one casting system standing would be Vancian and to that, I say thee nay.

 

[Minigiant]

Neither.

I just want all the base premises and balance necessities of the game covered.

If you can do it in 3 wide classes or 20 narrow one, I don't care.

 

[Ancalagon]

That feels like some badwrongfun to me

I was a bit concerned about that when I made my post, yes.

If people want to do that and have fun with it, sure, great. Same way people can obsessed over cameras and not photos.

But while it doesn't have to be disruptive at the table, it can be, I've seen it in person. And I sort of wish all that effort that was spent on better character build/cameras was instead focused on better roleplaying/photography.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

I've not selected either on the poll. As honestly both work.

Rather than 5e's 'few classes with narrow build choices'.