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

[loverdrive]

I prefer small number of quite narrow classes, preferably with zero overlaps.

Fighters doing fighting and nobody can best them at fighting, magic users doing magic and no one can best them and magic, all that jazz.

 

[Scribe]

I think there should be a design goal to make a warrior and a caster for every ability score if possible. It shouldn't be force but there should be an earnest attempt. So more than 10 classes would be a must.

• STR
  • Barbarian- Rage/Reckless Attack
  • Brute-Special Moves
  • Champion-Action Surge/Second Wind
  • Fighter*- Superiority Dice/Fighting Styles
  • Ranger* -Favored Enemy/Terrain, Hunter Styles
• DEX
  • Fighter*- Superiority Dice/Fighting Styles
  • Monk- Martial Arts/Ki
  • Ranger* -Favored Enemy/Terrain, Hunter Styles
  • Rogue- Sneak Attack/Cunning Action
• CON
  • Saint- Divine Gifts
  • Warden- Guardian Might
  • Warlock*-Invocations
• INT
  • Artificer- Infusion
  • Gish-???
  • Scholar- Field of Study/Coordinated Strike
  • Wizard- Wizardry Charges/Implements
• WIS
  • Beastmaster- Animal Companion
  • Cleric- Channel Divinity
  • Druid- Wildshape
  • Shaman- Spirit Communion
• CHA
  • Bard- Bardic Inspiration
  • Paladin- Aura/Divine Smite
  • Sorcerer- Sorcery Points/Metamagic
  • Warlock*- Invocations

I think you can fill these with subclasses, my list is similar (I think I posted it)

 

[MoonSong]

The sorcerer idea is fine. We just need to get the community to not see it as a discount wizard.

The 5e playtest had an idea where the sorcerer had spell like abilities similar to invocations based on their bloodline. The community didn't buy into the idea high enough to get over the very very high bar of acceptance needed to make the PHB.

I mean in 5e's dragon book, the one class with an OG dragon subclass gets no exclusive spells. It ties with the favorite Marcia: wizard.

/Rant

It was worse than that. It was well liked in th feedback. The problem were the wizard players nagging "where's mah SpellPoints!!" and the design team retiring sorcerer "because we can't work on the sorcerer when the default caster obviously needs more work"

That's why I can't get down with the "Few classes with a lots of build choices" option. Because the people who what it want build options that have almost nothing in common. And that point, you might as well created 2 different classes. How are X and Y the same class if X and Y have nothing similiar.

reminds me of the old "monk is a priest subclass" nonsense...

Sure, OK - that works.

The other issue I have with putting the whole list player-side like 3e and 4e did is that doing so sort of soft-discourages the DM from coming up with new or custom homebrew items. And where's the fun in that?

They weren't player facing in 3e and 3.5. On PF though...

 

[Vaalingrade]

It was worse than that. It was well liked in th feedback. The problem were the wizard players nagging "where's mah SpellPoints!!" and the design team retiring sorcerer "because we can't work on the sorcerer when the default caster obviously needs more work"

Which is why the answer is getting rid of wizards.

Once they're gone, the game is free of the whims and demands of wizard fans.

 

[payn]

Wizards are out now too? What's next?

 

[jmartkdr2]

If you dont want the system to limit your character concept, I think you would be happier with point buy...

This only works if all the options you can buy are well balanced against each other, which is really hard to do as a designer.

Otherwise you tend to get "you can play anything so long as it's a stealth archer" situations.

 

[TwoSix]

Otherwise you tend to get "you can play anything so long as it's a stealth archer" situations.

That's what I always used to play, but then I took an arrow to the knee.

 

[TwoSix]

Wizards are out now too? What's next?

Once wizards are gone, then you can ADD specialized necromancers, warmages, abjurers, etc. Honestly, each of the 8 schools could support its own class with multiple subclasses.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I think there's really a few systemic questions you need to ask about character creation and growth before making this kind of decision; every system weights these questions a bit differently.

1) How much differentiation between characters, mechanically, should there be at character creation? [Assuming everyone wants characters with different personalities, so just focusing on mechanical differentiation.]

A good microcosm of this question is: how many different kinds of magic are there?

When a wizard and a cleric both cast detect magic, are they doing fundamentally the same thing (the same essential gestures and words) with slight stylistic differences, to manipulate the same magical energies into roughly the same weaves, or are they doing two very different things: using two very different sets of materials to build different tools that happen to serve the same purpose?

If the former, it doesn't make as much sense to split casters into discrete classes by where they learned. If the later, you need at least one class per type of magic present in the setting.

I would say martial classes should be about as broad as caster classes, which could mean either "just two" or half a dozen depending.

Classes are really a means to an end for these questions; the real benefits to classes over point-buy is trope protection and dispersion of special abilities.

Also classes are easier to balance against each other, if you care about balance. Point-buy has exponentially more combinations to think about.

 

[TwoSix]

When a wizard and a cleric both cast detect magic, are they doing fundamentally the same thing (the same essential gestures and words) with slight stylistic differences, to manipulate the same magical energies into roughly the same weaves, or are they doing two very different things: using two very different sets of materials to build different tools that happen to serve the same purpose?

Agreed, although I was thinking of it more from a gamist perspective than a worldsim perspective.

A good number of players simply prefer low amounts of mechanical weight, and are fine with 2 human fighters being different merely because of how they're roleplayed (the OD&D perspective). But I could absolutely see a crunchier game where starting characters are pretty much tabula rasa and all the mechanical weight is leveraged in choices you make during the leveling/advancement process. (Not to keep bringing the game up, but Shadow of the Demon Lord is very much like this.)

Also classes are easier to balance against each other, if you care about balance. Point-buy has exponentially more combinations to think about.

Agreed. I don't NOT like point-buy, but classes have their own charm.