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%

steeldragons

Steeliest of the dragons
Epic
These choices are too limited/limiting. There is no reason it has to be one or the other. Equally, there is no reason "narrow list with narrow choices" or "wide open with tons of choices" need be the only alternatives. You can easily have a list that is "both and"... all things to all people with the limitations simply placed by the player and how "in depth" or "shallow" (mechanically or narratively or "layers"-speaking) they want their character's class structure to be.

The game allows for PCs who are the "simple," some might say "basic," archetypes: Fighter, Cleric, Thief/Rogue, Mage/Wizard. Subclass options allow further detail, establishing a narrowing of the class' narrative while simultaneously specifying their features to suit the archetype. Then there are feats and skills, backgrounds and other elements of the character creation process that can further specify/narrow in on a very specific, even to "one-of-a-kind," character...and, by virtue of the adding of endless available options and new subclass specifics/specialists...your single class could generate a dozen different characters off the same chassis.

Par ejemplo...

Basic Class: Fighter.
Class "thing": Best at Combat. SIgnature features: some kind of Second WInd/stamina thing to keep you in the fight longer/-est, attack and damage bonuses, more attacks than other classes can have, some kind of situational things: battlefield control, situational interaction bonuses, save bonuses or improvements.
Primary Ability: Strength.
---> a specialist subclass: The Cavalier [Fighter]. Class thing: Fighter that's highly trained in specific techniques, education, and styles of combat. Signature feature: "Code of Honor" grants special "knightly" flavorful features. Add some feats, backgrounds, thematic archetypes, skill choices and you're:
------> Jouster/Dragoon/superior mounted combatant
------> Herald/Rallying leader type
------> Military commander/tactician
------> super-Defender, absorbing damage and taking attacks for his allies
------> add some barbarian trappings and dressings and you have some great would-be warlord chieftain who dreams of assembling a warriors' horde to rule their chaotic native lands with Order and virtuous rules.
------> Noble [chivalric] Knight sworn to king and country, Samurai, wandering knight errant, honorbound warrior with a personal code/no allegiance to any land or liege, a stable boy with a heart of gold and high ideals of conduct from a benevolent lord in whose keep he grew up, and, and, and...

But you only need get into those levels/layers of specificity if you want. It doesn't make your character "better" or give them "more stuff" than someone who is a straight Fighter with no subclass or archetypes or feats or anything.

So you have a Fighter Class.
And a Cavalier class.
All of the rest is...personal choice and options, coloring and fluff...all the fun stuff.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
I'm fine with there being some SAD classes. However would prefer them to be very simplistic and their builds/subclasses being mostly specialization within the class and ribbons.

STR- Champion
DEX- Scoundrel
CON- Warden
INT- Arcanist
WIS- Priest
CHA- Elementalist

Complex classes that broaden their options or break limitations should require a secondary score to power it. Fighters who become Eldritich, Psi, Rune, Circle, Ward, or Echo Knights would need INT. Wizards who become War Mages and Bladesingers would need DEX or need CON to be Master Necromancers. Their options would be very narrow and very focused on a single fantasy archetype.

Then you have Monks and Bards who have a collection of abilities each with their own foci that you mix and match.
 

BrokenTwin

Biological Disaster
If I'm playing a game with classes, I want each class to have a unique mechanical gimmick that it does that the other classes don't. Leveling up that class should unlock refinements and expansions on what the character can do with that gimmick. Otherwise, I'd rather have a freeform system, with suggestions to take XYZ abilities if I want to evoke specific character concepts.

Personally, I like Shadow of the Demon Lord's system, where you take three different classes (called Paths) as you level, so each character is a mix-and-match bag of different abilities. Two Warriors (the novice martial path) can be very different mechanically based on their Expert and Master paths.
 

Undrave

Legend
These choices are too limited/limiting. There is no reason it has to be one or the other.
Hehehe, I made the poll as simplified as possible to stimulate conversation. I didn't want people to just me all wishy wash and go for 'the best of both worlds'. I wanted people to speak up about how the choices I offered didn't really express their preferences well enough.
If I'm playing a game with classes, I want each class to have a unique mechanical gimmick that it does that the other classes don't.
That's my philosophy as well! I want the class to have a mechanical impact.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
I voted lots of classes with narrow build options - but I only would go that route if multiclassing is banned due to being to wide a build option.
 

Jaeger

That someone better
I was going to reply and agree to some quotes, but after reading all this to the current point some things became clear:

1: Some people don’t really want a class system. They would be better served playing a game that gave them a starting archetype, and then had totally free-form advancement from then on.

Chaosium has obviously missed a step in never giving magic world a proper setting/supplement push...

2: Robert Schwalb would have made a lot of players happy if the system he uses in shadow of the demon lord was the default 5e class system.
 



Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
Er...yeah...maybe...whatever that is... :)

Does it have the nature-based abilities of a Ranger though, e.g. tracking, herbcraft, etc.?

Why should it? That's kinda the point of this thread?

The Ranger and the Warden are different archetypes. However since they both use treebark, many fans believe they must be the saame class and you should be able to build them from the same starting point.

It's similiar to those who say the warlock and cleric are the same even though the 3e, 4e,and 5e versions are nothing alike.
 

Remove ads

Top