There are a full dozen classes in the D&D5 player book. While I do appreciate having options for customization, I think there are too many classes now and most of them don't need to be distinct classes.

For example, the sorcerer was only added in 3rd edition because of the way wizards cast spells. Wizards (as well as clerics and druids) had to prepare all their spells/slots in advance, whereas sorcerers could cast any spell known with any compatible spell slot. As of 5e, wizards (and clerics and druids) now effectively cast spells like sorcerers do but can swap out their spells known/prepared. Without the original mechanical distinction there's really no reason for sorcerers to exist beyond tradition (and to be a dumping ground for spontaneous casters converted from prior editions, like the favored soul being adapted to the divine soul sorcerous origin). I get that "inherent gift magicians" are a concept that people will want to play, but does it really need its own class and all these forced supplements for it?

The various subclasses scrape the bottom of the barrel very quickly when it comes to concepts, especially for any class beyond Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard. I really think the metaclass framework from 2e (basically those four classes I just named) would've been very useful here. Or maybe something like Spheres of Power & Might.

What do you think?

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on September 03, 2022, 07:46:09 PM
There are a full dozen classes in the D&D5 player book. While I do appreciate having options for customization, I think there are too many classes now and most of them don't need to be distinct classes.

For example, the sorcerer was only added in 3rd edition because of the way wizards cast spells. Wizards (as well as clerics and druids) had to prepare all their spells/slots in advance, whereas sorcerers could cast any spell known with any compatible spell slot. As of 5e, wizards (and clerics and druids) now effectively cast spells like sorcerers do but can swap out their spells known/prepared. Without the original mechanical distinction there's really no reason for sorcerers to exist beyond tradition (and to be a dumping ground for spontaneous casters converted from prior editions, like the favored soul being adapted to the divine soul sorcerous origin). I get that "inherent gift magicians" are a concept that people will want to play, but does it really need its own class and all these forced supplements for it?
...

What do you think?

Holy shit - I'm in complete agreement with BoxCrayonTales. RPG's truly bring people together.

Your right: Sorcerer's are supposed to be using powers given to them by their 'patron' but mechanically there's little difference because they still use the same spells list as wizards.

Clerics and "Divine Magic" is another false front. Same universal spell list. Yeah, yeah, this or that spell restriction, but who cares; its all fluff...

IF D&D was really gonna give distinct magic classes:

Wizards - would work largely as is.

Sorcery - would work like sorcery in the old d20 Conan game, or summoning in Lion and Dragon.

Clerics - would work the way they do in Lion and Dragon with Miracles, or miraculous abilities defined as 'feats/foci' they way they are emulated in Worlds without Number.

There should be 3 distinct and separate ways magic/sorcery/miracles are done.  We could easily do a 4th if we really want to break down how druids should work...

None of the mechanical differences I mentioned are anything new - it has all been done before by other games.

What does WotC do? One big spell list - kinda parceled out by class, but with plenty of crossover so no one type of "magic" user feels that they are less than any other magic class. i.e. Bland city.

"Official" D&D should be a better as a game than it is.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on September 03, 2022, 07:46:09 PM
There are a full dozen classes in the D&D5 player book. While I do appreciate having options for customization, I think there are too many classes now and most of them don't need to be distinct classes.

For example, the sorcerer was only added in 3rd edition because of the way wizards cast spells. Wizards (as well as clerics and druids) had to prepare all their spells/slots in advance, whereas sorcerers could cast any spell known with any compatible spell slot. As of 5e, wizards (and clerics and druids) now effectively cast spells like sorcerers do but can swap out their spells known/prepared. Without the original mechanical distinction there's really no reason for sorcerers to exist beyond tradition (and to be a dumping ground for spontaneous casters converted from prior editions, like the favored soul being adapted to the divine soul sorcerous origin). I get that "inherent gift magicians" are a concept that people will want to play, but does it really need its own class and all these forced supplements for it?

The various subclasses scrape the bottom of the barrel very quickly when it comes to concepts, especially for any class beyond Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard. I really think the metaclass framework from 2e (basically those four classes I just named) would've been very useful here. Or maybe something like Spheres of Power & Might.

What do you think?

You already know what I think since we talked this on Guilded, but for the rest:

YES, totally agree, if you're going to add a class it needs to be mechanically different enough form the existing ones.

Like the different types of "magic" that Jaeger mentioned and that him and I already talked about on Discord.

Barbarian is a background for the Fighter, not it's own class.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 03, 2022, 08:49:54 PM
Barbarian is a background for the Fighter, not it's own class.

I actually think Barbarian is somewhat difficult to do right without making it a (sub)class or at least a class variant. The iconic barbarian runs out half-naked, hide armor at most, and tanks damage by sheer girth and force of will. I don't recall Conan ever wearing anything heavier than chainmail, and that only occasionally. But in most systems there's very little reason for a fighter to wear anything less than full platemail if he or she can afford it. You get some extra movement (provided you're not carrying a bunch of other equipment), which is nice, but not usually worth the lower AC.

The game I play has 6 classes: Berserker, Knight, Mystic, Rogue, Warrior, Wizard. With these six classes we can build the equivalent of any 3rd or 5th edition class or prestige class.  The big thing for D&D is that lots of classes have access to a small amount of magic (like the Paladin).  Building generic access to magic for ANY class (like a Rogue that wants to learn invisibility) is the best way to make sure that a small number of classes can cover the widest variety of 'archetypes'. 

For us, each of those classes approaches combat in a unique way - the Berserker gets extra damage when Raging, while the Rogue gets extra damage by Sneaking or taking advantage of someone that is engaged by 2+ other people (Sneak Attack) - and we give class abilities that are specific and helpful in that role.  Any other abilities outside of the class are selectable.  If you want to be a Ranger, you probably take Rogue or Warrior, then take an Animal Companion.  If you want to be a Paladin, you take Knight, and you take 'knows some spells' instead of (or in addition to) Animal Companion (if you really want a mount). 

So yes, I think ultimately, a small number of flexible classes is better.  But then how can you sell more books? 

Stars/Worlds without number has a better multiclass framework for this.

But yeah, I agree, I prefer minimalnumber, but customizable classes.

I personally think that in OSR games a lot of what other classes are trying to do would be better handled as in-game stuff instead of dedicated classes. Instead of making a class like Paladin or Warlock themed around an oath or pact... just have your character take the oath or pact and get benefits as long as you do what's required.

Proliferation of classes relates to both the quality of the playerbase and the complexity of the rule system.

• If you have a playerbase that is passive, or not-knowledgeable about the rules, or wants to treat a TTRPG as a CRPG, then you'll see a greater proliferation of classes
• If you have a design mentality that's intended to simplify, remove choices, or otherwise leans into homogenization of play options (such as excessive "balancing") then you'll see a greater proliferation of classes

5E/WOTC fall into both of these. I don't expect it to end because the bottom line is this is kind of a grognard issue.

Quote from: deadDMwalking on September 03, 2022, 10:04:16 PM
The game I play has 6 classes: Berserker, Knight, Mystic, Rogue, Warrior, Wizard. With these six classes we can build the equivalent of any 3rd or 5th edition class or prestige class.  The big thing for D&D is that lots of classes have access to a small amount of magic (like the Paladin).  Building generic access to magic for ANY class (like a Rogue that wants to learn invisibility) is the best way to make sure that a small number of classes can cover the widest variety of 'archetypes'. 

For us, each of those classes approaches combat in a unique way - the Berserker gets extra damage when Raging, while the Rogue gets extra damage by Sneaking or taking advantage of someone that is engaged by 2+ other people (Sneak Attack) - and we give class abilities that are specific and helpful in that role.  Any other abilities outside of the class are selectable.  If you want to be a Ranger, you probably take Rogue or Warrior, then take an Animal Companion.  If you want to be a Paladin, you take Knight, and you take 'knows some spells' instead of (or in addition to) Animal Companion (if you really want a mount). 

So yes, I think ultimately, a small number of flexible classes is better.  But then how can you sell more books?

Berserker & Knight are subclasses of Warrior, just like Barbarian is a background for Warrior/Fighter.

I take it that Mystic is the Cleric for edgy Atheists, while the Wizard is the Wizard.

So that system already has two Classes too many.

As for selling more books... Make good settings.

I've mentioned this a bunch of times every time that the subject even remotely comes up, and BoxCrayonTales already covered much of it, so I'm not gonna repeat everything, but YES! There are WAY too many classes, and Sorcerers are the most redundant class in 5e.

If it were up to me there'd only be three classes: Warrior, Specialist and Mystic. I'd do away with the artificial Arcane/Divine distinction, and ALL customization would be done through Feats (yes, FEATS), and maybe Subclasses (which would probably grant Feats you can pick individually anyways, but they get more immediate access to them). Differences between different types of casters would be handled with traditions, similar to Shadowrun Hermetic Mages and Totemic Shamans, which grant bonuses to magic related to their traditions, but all basically have access to the same magic.

Quote from: VisionStorm on September 03, 2022, 10:50:50 PM
ALL customization would be done through Feats (yes, FEATS),

Counterpoint: if I wanted to play GURPS, I'd play GURPS.

More seriously, I view character customization through feats, advantages, subclasses or similar as highly overrated. I'm not saying it can't be done well, or that it's wrongfun to like those kinds of games, but I reject what I see as the widespread assumption that it has to be done at all.

Quote from: VisionStorm on September 03, 2022, 10:50:50 PM
I've mentioned this a bunch of times every time that the subject even remotely comes up, and BoxCrayonTales already covered much of it, so I'm not gonna repeat everything, but YES! There are WAY too many classes, and Sorcerers are the most redundant class in 5e.

If it were up to me there'd only be three classes: Warrior, Specialist and Mystic. I'd do away with the artificial Arcane/Divine distinction, and ALL customization would be done through Feats (yes, FEATS), and maybe Subclasses (which would probably grant Feats you can pick individually anyways, but they get more immediate access to them). Differences between different types of casters would be handled with traditions, similar to Shadowrun Hermetic Mages and Totemic Shamans, which grant bonuses to magic related to their traditions, but all basically have access to the same magic.

It only feels artificial because it's the exact same mechanic.

I disagree, Warrior, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard is perfectly fine.

I do agree that customization should be handled by subclasses, Backgrounds (skills) AND FEATS, YES! FEATS!

Just ask Jaeger.

Just not the, ALSO bloated, mess of Skills and Feats 3.0 and 5e have.

Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on September 03, 2022, 10:53:47 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on September 03, 2022, 10:50:50 PM
ALL customization would be done through Feats (yes, FEATS),

Counterpoint: if I wanted to play GURPS, I'd play GURPS.

GURPS has no classes that I know of, and Advantages have variable cost if I recall correctly (never played it, only skimmed the rules ages ago). The beauty of Feats is that they all cost the same, so you don't have to waste time calculating costs, or money pinching with BS Disadvantages to cover your costs. Also, Subclasses could be made to cover most of your feat selections (like a preselected deal, and maybe they could include a suggested progression path), then a "blank" subclass could be included for people who want full blown customization. So people who don't want to bother with feats could just pick a subclass.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 03, 2022, 11:05:48 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on September 03, 2022, 10:50:50 PM
I've mentioned this a bunch of times every time that the subject even remotely comes up, and BoxCrayonTales already covered much of it, so I'm not gonna repeat everything, but YES! There are WAY too many classes, and Sorcerers are the most redundant class in 5e.

If it were up to me there'd only be three classes: Warrior, Specialist and Mystic. I'd do away with the artificial Arcane/Divine distinction, and ALL customization would be done through Feats (yes, FEATS), and maybe Subclasses (which would probably grant Feats you can pick individually anyways, but they get more immediate access to them). Differences between different types of casters would be handled with traditions, similar to Shadowrun Hermetic Mages and Totemic Shamans, which grant bonuses to magic related to their traditions, but all basically have access to the same magic.

It only feels artificial because it's the exact same mechanic.

I disagree, Warrior, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard is perfectly fine.

I do agree that customization should be handled by subclasses, Backgrounds (skills) AND FEATS, YES! FEATS!

Just ask Jaeger.

Just not the, ALSO bloated, mess of Skills and Feats 3.0 and 5e have.

I don't like dealing with different mechanics for magic/super power type stuff. They needlessly complicate things, and are ultimately about making artificial distinctions between different magic approaches, with the exception of stuff like Spellcasting vs Ritual Casting. Plus the Arcana/Divine distinction was pretty much made up by D&D. Real life mystical traditions don't make a hard distinction between the two, and invariably acknowledge some type of divine presence, even if they're "wizard" traditions, like Hermetic types.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on September 03, 2022, 07:46:09 PM
While I do appreciate having options for customization, I think there are too many classes now and most of them don't need to be distinct classes.

I disagree completely- I want even more classes, in pretty much every game I run.  Pathfinder in particular I was able to use all but a few classes (the ones in the Advanced Class Guide all were too hybrid for my tastes, and should have been spinoffs of existing classes).  5ed and PF2 both seem like a huge step backwards from Pathfinder 1.0 and to a lesser degree 3.5.

There are basically two schools of thought when it comes to classes.  One of them makes the points that only the really big differences that are insurmountable need to be classes- fighter, wizard, cleric, for instance.  Later philosophies add rogue to that.  The other tries to map a unique mechanical set to every fantasy.  In the design philosophy you are discussing, a character you envision describe as a well trained assassin who works for a divine order that has several sacred places it defends near oceans could be any of a fighter or cleric, or definitely a rogue if you have it, and if the chracater in question is supposed to have some divine spells and be well trained in sneaking places you might try a dual class solution to map to that.  The resultant character may not actually be that effective if you go this path, or you may simply try to built him optimally and simply use the background as fluff.  On the other hand, I would advocate for a special class, subclass, or prestige class that implements all the things that character would entail- possibly a ranger-esque terrain set to beaches with some bonuses there, some proficiency with sneaking around but not as much as a full rogue, and some types of granted spells. 

So I want more classes, and I want them to get more and more specific.  In some cases, players and DMs will change the intention of a class (a character trying to make a magical girl might in 3.X might end up with Incarnum or with Nine Swords), but I would not want that "refluffing" to occur.  I would want the character class developed to match the design.

Here's a test to see how far you are on this axis:
1- You don't need a rogue because everyone should be able to sneak around.  A nonmagical rogue should be built as a fighter in a system with fighting-man, magic-user, and cleric.
2- You don't need a paladin because you have a cleric, who is a holy warrior.
3- You don't need a paladin because you can multiclass fighter and cleric.
4- You don't need a druid because you have a cleric.
5- You don't need a ninja because you have a rogue.

I disagree with all of these strongly.  Others will disagree with some and defend everything below a certain point.  Your specific one- about not needing a sorcerer because you have a wizard- probably falls around (4).  The druid does have more pedigree than the sorcerer, however.

In the specific sorc/wiz thing you bring up, I'm going to fight you on the idea that they are particularly good matches for each other.  It's true that the spontaneous thing in 3.X is not relevant in 5ed, with the classes being divided into "you can change from a list every morning" and "you can never change your list" (and the wizard getting access only to the arcane spells he has in his book, versus the cleric and druid having access to all of them each morning). But this is a unique detail of 5ed, and I doubt we will actually see all future versions of mainstream RPGs abandon Vancian traditional casting as thoroughly as 5ed did.  Pathfinder 2, for instance, still has Vancian wizards and Final Fantasy 1 style sorcs (the original final fantasy gave you the equivalent of spell slots based on your level- that was how they implemented D&D's Vancian system on an 8 bit NES).  But even if you forget about that, the character fantasy has become very rich, with wizards in 5ed having the ability to specialize in a school, and sorcerers in 5ed having a choice of bloodlines that power them.  Pathfinder 1.0 also had this choice with the types of wizards, assigning for the first time a set of unique powers to enchanters, evokers, etc.  And both Pathfinder editions do a WONDERFUL job with sorcerers, having a variety of interesting and diverse blood powers.

I would never give up any of that to go back to just the AD&D wizard, with roleplaying expected to fill that giant chasm.  Oh, yea, my guy gets his magic from a dragon, but there's zero mechanical impacts from that.  He has to study his book just like the Harry Potter ripoff in the corner over there.  I guess I specialized in evocation so I get a +1 to my save DC on fireball!