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

What type of class design do you prefer?

  • Few classes with a lots of build choices

    Votes: 53 62.4%
  • Lots of classes with narrow build choices

    Votes: 32 37.6%

Undrave

Legend
This is something I've noticed a lot around here, with people complaining that we have too many classes. It got me to thinking what kind of design people prefer.

Do you prefer to have a small number of class, but that they can be designed into almost whatever you want through the uses of multiple choice class features, subclasses system, feats, and so on.

OR

Do you prefer to have lots of smaller classes with a more narrow design. Classes that can be sum up with one or two specific 'thing' they do, and that do it well.

Personally, I'm not a fan of classes like the 5e Wizard that try to do EVERYTHING. I feel like, if you pair things down to a few classes and just throw the complexity in the classes themselves, might as well go for a point build system. The fun of classes is in the restriction and siloing of ability, IMO. It's why I liked the roles in 4e and how, for exemple, the Fighter didn't need design space to be a Striker or an Archer in addition to being the front line defender, it could be an amazing defender.

But what do you guys think?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

payn

He'll flip ya...Flip ya for real...
My favorite approach is 3E/PF. I do think there is a ton of work to do to make it more balanced and functional, but I love the endless possibilities. I like multiclassing, prestige classing, and especially archetypes. So, I guess this puts me in the lots of class bucket?
 



Part of me wants to say the first because conceptually it's a nice idea, but long experience with class-based games strongly, really, really strongly suggests more classes with narrower designs works a hell of a lot better in the long-run, and is a lot easier for designers to work with too. If you only make a few classes and screw one of them up, that's a much bigger issue as well.
Depends on what "few" means. How few we talking? I'm leaning toward the few with broad build options, but my "few" may be a little bit north of 10.
Can't speak for the OP but I suspect "north of 10" is intended to be "many".
 

Greg K

Legend
Snowflake unicorn. I want about 20 classes- each with subclases, several with customizable feature, and further optional customization via feats and skill points

edit: Regardig fullcasters, for starters, imo, the Cleric needs a much smaller general base list (and split into two or three classes) and wizards need to be broken down into more thematic classes or have more thematic spell lists based upon school/specialization
 
Last edited:

Personally, I'm not a fan of classes like the 5e Wizard that try to do EVERYTHING. I feel like, if you pair things down to a few classes and just throw the complexity in the classes themselves, might as well go for a point build system. The fun of classes is in the restriction and siloing of ability, IMO. It's why I liked the roles in 4e and how, for exemple, the Fighter didn't need design space to be a Striker or an Archer in addition to being the front line defender, it could be an amazing defender.
Wizard is certainly one of the worst class designs in 5E. It almost feels like something from another edition, or a poorly-conceived fanwork.

Not that it's not powerful. It just doesn't fit well with the other classes, particularly the approach it takes to subclasses is not good.
 




Remove ads

Top