D&D General Which of these should be core classes for D&D?

[schneeland]

Here is the class list for Mansions and Minigiant
...
Note there are no subclasses in the game and each of the 25 classes are appropriately only 1 page of mechanics. Yup 30 of them.

While I'm personally more in the "less classes, but customizable" camp, this approach would probably work for me, too.
Not sure if I can make sense of all of them based on their names, though.

 

[Reynard]

I'm the exact opposite. I want few main classes and I want them to have subclasses and a lot of customisation.

I am for broad classes that essentially determine costs for categories of things, and then talents/feats/etc defining abilities bought a la cart. I think level gating through talent trees and prerequisites is useful, as is teeming, but in general I would like to see few classes and lots of customization.

 

[Minigiant]

I'm the exact opposite. I want few main classes and I want them to have subclasses and a lot of customisation.

My 30 class system has Tons of customization. But it is in the base game.

For example: The Knight class represents warriors from a honorable Military culture, class or caste.

A knight gets to pick 3 Knightly Weapons and 1 Knightly skill which rank those to Expert and later Master and Grandmaster. But you can choose whichever you like.

Longword, flail, lance and History for something modeled after a European style knight.
Longsword, shortsword, and longbow and idk Insight for something modeled after a Japanese style samurai.
Club, spear, longsword, and Religion for something modeled after an Aztec style eagle warrior.

 

[TwoSix]

I'm the exact opposite. I want few main classes and I want them to have subclasses and a lot of customisation.

That’s one of my other dream presentations.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

In theory I wouldn't actually mind as few 3 classes. As long as the bulk of the mechanics and customisation is in the subclass, and they're far far more impactful than the 5e subclasses are. Stuff like switching around what abilities you use for mechanics, or what type of casting you use.

I just get the feeling that a lot of the people asking for 3 or 4 classes also want barely any customisation and only minor subclass differences from them.

 

[TwoSix]

In theory I wouldn't actually mind as few 3 classes. As long as the bulk of the mechanics and customisation is in the subclass, and they're far far more impactful than the 5e subclasses are. Stuff like switching around what abilities you use for mechanics, or what type of casting you use.

I just get the feeling that a lot of the people asking for 3 or 4 classes also want barely any customisation and only minor subclass differences from them.

Best example I know of the 3-4 core class system working is Worlds Without Number. Still allows the OSR ideal of differentiation by description, but also has mechanical diversity with simple but meaty early game skill and focus (feat) choices.

 

[Reynard]

Best example I know of the 3-4 core class system working is Worlds Without Number. Still allows the OSR ideal of differentiation by description, but also has mechanical diversity with simple but meaty early game skill and focus (feat) choices.

WWN is a really great game, and happens to be running a KS for a new stock of offset printed books!

 

[Scribe]

Note there are no subclasses in the game and each of the 25 classes are appropriately only 1 page of mechanics. Yup 30 of them.

Yeah, this is a major consideration. Without subs or prestige classes, the class count has to jump really.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

5e is essentially the worst of both worlds for me. Few classes, and most subclasses don't really change how the core class plays much either.

It's why I love the artificer so much. Most of the power budget is in the subclass rather than the main class, and you get it piled on early too. Every subclass feels like a completely different class.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm basically creating a from scratch 'enemy creature' for my homebrew setting. Not playable at all.

Because it would suck for a player if they've thought of a cool orc character, then come along and find that in the setting all orcs are non sapient monsters. At this point, playable orcs are expected in DnD, to the point that they're becoming a PHB species.

I even consider gnolls to be on the wrong side of a losing battle. Gnolls have been playable in every edition apart from 5e. And even though in 5e gnolls are generic monsters, I suspect the player ire will begin to fall on them next due to their history of being a playable species.

Just because a heritage is in the core book doesn't mean every table is required to use it. If I was running a game with no playable orcs, then that's how it is.