Quote from: deadDMwalking on September 04, 2022, 09:01:50 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 03, 2022, 10:46:33 PM

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.

No.  That's basically completely wrong.  The berserker gets rage while the knight gets Designate, and the Warrior gets special abilities that work when making attacks like Disarm and Trip.  The reason they're different classes is that we have very different mechanics that make them feel different when you play. 

A Mystic is not at all like a cleric.  They're more like a Binder.  Clerics are just wizards that take healing spells.  Mystics have bound spirits that cast spells foe them. They're a different class because they have different mechanics that make them feel different. 

If we could make fewer classes and maintain their uniqueness, we would have.  The best way to make sure that people can't select abilities like Sneak Attack and Rage is to make them mutually exclusive.  By making it part of the class, you can't double up.

Except you can double up. There are plenty of examples of cherry-picking levels to get specific abilities, in specific sequences, to give stackable effects that very likely were never imagined during pre-pub play tests.  This seems ridiculous as well as diluting the flavor of each class.

For example, explain to me how it makes any in-game sense to build a character with the following progression: Fighter (tower shield specialist) -> alchemist (vivisectionist) -> monk -> fighter (4 levels) -> rogue (thug) -> stalwart defender -> rogue (2 levels) -> fighter (4 levels) -> alchemist (2 levels) -> fighter (2 levels).   This build was designed for a single goal: turning you into a wall of steel.

That's like saying "I'm an engineer doctor lawyer truck driver barista pro athlete." Even Buckaroo Banzai only had 4 professions - and he had to be a polymath to do it - and it wasn't for a singular goal.

Find a way to prevent dipping of the toe to get specific abilities, and you might not need to worry about all of the classes.

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?

Fuck, yes.

Beyond the initial four, I can understand having Bard as a Jack-of-all-Trades but Master of none. Otherwise they are just masturbatory mods of the initial four.

Quote from: deadDMwalking on September 04, 2022, 09:01:50 PM
If we could make fewer classes and maintain their uniqueness, we would have.  The best way to make sure that people can't select abilities like Sneak Attack and Rage is to make them mutually exclusive.  By making it part of the class, you can't double up.

Rage and Sneak Attack are already mutually exclusive by virtue of you not being able to sneak around while foaming at the mouth with Rage. You could go as far as to declare that you can't take any actions that require finesse or concentration while raging, then that pretty much prevents you from sneak attacking flanked enemies while raging.

You also already can't have both abilities if the game doesn't allow you to multiclass, which would be the only way that locking those abilities behind different classes would prevent people from having both, as your post implies. Not that I care personally. As long as you "pay" for them somehow I don't care what abilities your character has. Splitting your levels across different classes would be a way to "pay" for them. Turning those abilities into Feats would be another.

You could also treat different class variants as Subclasses of a core class, which is what a Berserker essentially is to a Warrior, conceptually speaking.

Quote from: jeff37923 on September 05, 2022, 01:32:12 AM

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?

Fuck, yes.

Beyond the initial four, I can understand having Bard as a Jack-of-all-Trades but Master of none. Otherwise they are just masturbatory mods of the initial four.

And the cleric can even be thought of in terms of a combination of the fighter and mage, providing a support role where they're not particularly good at all of those but good enough to provide support (particularly magical healing unique to them). https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FighterMageThief

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


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 started a 5e campaign/dungeon crawl with only the 4 core classes (Fi,Cl,Ro,Wi)and 4 core races(Hu,Dw,El,1/2) due to the insane creep of both in 5e where you might as well be playing in Zootopia instead of a fantasy realm.  The reduction of complexity leads to the expansion of Outside of the Box thinking. Or as some of you shade tree can say "Run with what ya brung"

The players can learn that there is so much you can do with the "basics" instead of having to go off into Tiefling Warlock or a Aaaroka Artificer in order to achieve maximum potential.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on September 05, 2022, 09:45:05 AM

Quote from: jeff37923 on September 05, 2022, 01:32:12 AM

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?

Fuck, yes.

Beyond the initial four, I can understand having Bard as a Jack-of-all-Trades but Master of none. Otherwise they are just masturbatory mods of the initial four.

And the cleric can even be thought of in terms of a combination of the fighter and mage, providing a support role where they're not particularly good at all of those but good enough to provide support (particularly magical healing unique to them). https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FighterMageThief

The cleric is such a "doesn't really fit into a box" concept.  If we are looking at it from the traditional European medieval origin, then it's really 3 different things - you've got your village vicar types trying to keep the people on the straight and narrow while giving them something to look forward to; you've got your noble-born bishops who are likely pious in name only while juggling a hidden family and wheeling & dealing at court or jockeying for position to become a cardinal; and then you have the wandering holy man who can work miracles and become canonized as a saint types. None of them really fit into the standard cleric. The "monk toiling away copying down manuscripts for 3 hots and a cot" doesn't even enter the picture.

And that is the case for pretty much *every* class. Sub classes and kits and prestige classes and archetypes exist in the various iterations of D&D because it is a class-based system.

Break it apart and make *everything* skill-based. Give "packages" if skills at 1st level to represent the cost of entry into the "class." Then give that class a bucket of skill points to pick from a very narrow list at every level after that, with restrictions (no more than x points in any one of these skills). At that point, you really only need worry about how the packages are bought and you don't have to worry about the quantity of classes. I'd eliminate the difference in the number of skills you can be proficient in based upon class.

I'd also eliminate the different hit die by class and make it a function of your STR and CON modified by Athletics.  Why can't there be a Wizard triathlete who is in better shape than a beer-swilling barbarian? Or for that matter, recognizing that "barbarian" can be anything from a viking to a pygmy headhunter - and their "abilities" are vastly different.

Quote from: 3catcircus on September 05, 2022, 10:31:12 AM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on September 05, 2022, 09:45:05 AM

Quote from: jeff37923 on September 05, 2022, 01:32:12 AM

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?

Fuck, yes.

Beyond the initial four, I can understand having Bard as a Jack-of-all-Trades but Master of none. Otherwise they are just masturbatory mods of the initial four.

And the cleric can even be thought of in terms of a combination of the fighter and mage, providing a support role where they're not particularly good at all of those but good enough to provide support (particularly magical healing unique to them). https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FighterMageThief

The cleric is such a "doesn't really fit into a box" concept.  If we are looking at it from the traditional European medieval origin, then it's really 3 different things - you've got your village vicar types trying to keep the people on the straight and narrow while giving them something to look forward to; you've got your noble-born bishops who are likely pious in name only while juggling a hidden family and wheeling & dealing at court or jockeying for position to become a cardinal; and then you have the wandering holy man who can work miracles and become canonized as a saint types. None of them really fit into the standard cleric. The "monk toiling away copying down manuscripts for 3 hots and a cot" doesn't even enter the picture.

And that is the case for pretty much *every* class. Sub classes and kits and prestige classes and archetypes exist in the various iterations of D&D because it is a class-based system.

Break it apart and make *everything* skill-based. Give "packages" if skills at 1st level to represent the cost of entry into the "class." Then give that class a bucket of skill points to pick from a very narrow list at every level after that, with restrictions (no more than x points in any one of these skills). At that point, you really only need worry about how the packages are bought and you don't have to worry about the quantity of classes. I'd eliminate the difference in the number of skills you can be proficient in based upon class.

I'd also eliminate the different hit die by class and make it a function of your STR and CON modified by Athletics.  Why can't there be a Wizard triathlete who is in better shape than a beer-swilling barbarian? Or for that matter, recognizing that "barbarian" can be anything from a viking to a pygmy headhunter - and their "abilities" are vastly different.

Congratsbyou just came up with the idea of a skill based game. They've been around for a long time though and some people prefer the class based games.

Quote from: Slambo on September 05, 2022, 10:59:56 AM

Quote from: 3catcircus on September 05, 2022, 10:31:12 AM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on September 05, 2022, 09:45:05 AM

Quote from: jeff37923 on September 05, 2022, 01:32:12 AM

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?

Fuck, yes.

Beyond the initial four, I can understand having Bard as a Jack-of-all-Trades but Master of none. Otherwise they are just masturbatory mods of the initial four.

And the cleric can even be thought of in terms of a combination of the fighter and mage, providing a support role where they're not particularly good at all of those but good enough to provide support (particularly magical healing unique to them). https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FighterMageThief

The cleric is such a "doesn't really fit into a box" concept.  If we are looking at it from the traditional European medieval origin, then it's really 3 different things - you've got your village vicar types trying to keep the people on the straight and narrow while giving them something to look forward to; you've got your noble-born bishops who are likely pious in name only while juggling a hidden family and wheeling & dealing at court or jockeying for position to become a cardinal; and then you have the wandering holy man who can work miracles and become canonized as a saint types. None of them really fit into the standard cleric. The "monk toiling away copying down manuscripts for 3 hots and a cot" doesn't even enter the picture.

And that is the case for pretty much *every* class. Sub classes and kits and prestige classes and archetypes exist in the various iterations of D&D because it is a class-based system.

Break it apart and make *everything* skill-based. Give "packages" if skills at 1st level to represent the cost of entry into the "class." Then give that class a bucket of skill points to pick from a very narrow list at every level after that, with restrictions (no more than x points in any one of these skills). At that point, you really only need worry about how the packages are bought and you don't have to worry about the quantity of classes. I'd eliminate the difference in the number of skills you can be proficient in based upon class.

I'd also eliminate the different hit die by class and make it a function of your STR and CON modified by Athletics.  Why can't there be a Wizard triathlete who is in better shape than a beer-swilling barbarian? Or for that matter, recognizing that "barbarian" can be anything from a viking to a pygmy headhunter - and their "abilities" are vastly different.

Congratsbyou just came up with the idea of a skill based game. They've been around for a long time though and some people prefer the class based games.

I'm not really referring to Rolemaster style skill-based games. I'm referring to making D&D's classes less rigid and more customizable as a means of eliminating the need for more classes.

Quote from: 3catcircus on September 05, 2022, 12:20:23 PM

Quote from: Slambo on September 05, 2022, 10:59:56 AM

Quote from: 3catcircus on September 05, 2022, 10:31:12 AM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on September 05, 2022, 09:45:05 AM

Quote from: jeff37923 on September 05, 2022, 01:32:12 AM

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?

Fuck, yes.

Beyond the initial four, I can understand having Bard as a Jack-of-all-Trades but Master of none. Otherwise they are just masturbatory mods of the initial four.

And the cleric can even be thought of in terms of a combination of the fighter and mage, providing a support role where they're not particularly good at all of those but good enough to provide support (particularly magical healing unique to them). https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FighterMageThief

The cleric is such a "doesn't really fit into a box" concept.  If we are looking at it from the traditional European medieval origin, then it's really 3 different things - you've got your village vicar types trying to keep the people on the straight and narrow while giving them something to look forward to; you've got your noble-born bishops who are likely pious in name only while juggling a hidden family and wheeling & dealing at court or jockeying for position to become a cardinal; and then you have the wandering holy man who can work miracles and become canonized as a saint types. None of them really fit into the standard cleric. The "monk toiling away copying down manuscripts for 3 hots and a cot" doesn't even enter the picture.

And that is the case for pretty much *every* class. Sub classes and kits and prestige classes and archetypes exist in the various iterations of D&D because it is a class-based system.

Break it apart and make *everything* skill-based. Give "packages" if skills at 1st level to represent the cost of entry into the "class." Then give that class a bucket of skill points to pick from a very narrow list at every level after that, with restrictions (no more than x points in any one of these skills). At that point, you really only need worry about how the packages are bought and you don't have to worry about the quantity of classes. I'd eliminate the difference in the number of skills you can be proficient in based upon class.

I'd also eliminate the different hit die by class and make it a function of your STR and CON modified by Athletics.  Why can't there be a Wizard triathlete who is in better shape than a beer-swilling barbarian? Or for that matter, recognizing that "barbarian" can be anything from a viking to a pygmy headhunter - and their "abilities" are vastly different.

Congratsbyou just came up with the idea of a skill based game. They've been around for a long time though and some people prefer the class based games.

I'm not really referring to Rolemaster style skill-based games. I'm referring to making D&D's classes less rigid and more customizable as a means of eliminating the need for more classes.

I never played rolemaster, but what you described is actually pretty close to the fantasy flight 40k games, which is, as far as im concerned a skill based game

For a class/level based game, there are really only two options. Anything in-between is sub-optimal from a design perspective or dissatisfying from a philosophical perspective.
1. All of the classes - no multiclassing, each class satisfies an archetype
2. 3 classes (strong, smart, skill) plus the ability to multi class between them with some sort of feat system to provide differential play experiences

SWN/WWN provides the second, which is why it has become my preferred OSR rpg. D&D 5E really leans in on the first. PF2E tried to thread the middle ground and has not done that all that well. Same problem 4E had

My ideal is Savage Worlds because it dispenses with classes completely and only has a soft level system

Yes, there are.

Well, one could say that no classes are needed. But in a D&Dish game, I think AT THE VERY LEAST you need combat, spells and skills (assuming you have to be able to create appendix-N charachters). 5e illustrates this by having, basically, warrior, spellcaster and expert - which are very similar, often redundant.

And you need no more than that. There is nothing in a knight, monk or paladin that wouldn't fit in a fighter plus some minor skills and spells.

Is the cleric needed? I dont think so (it has some combat and some spells, and one "skill"- turn undead), but I add it to my games anyway for nostalgia reasons. If I were to invent a fourth class I'd definetely replace the cleric for a leader-type.

I'm very pleased in how my Old School Feats turned out. I'm using 4 classes, with two to five feats each, and I can create a good ranger, paladin, knight, warlord etc. using (pre-built) packages.

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/407233/Old-School-Feats-OSR?src=fp_u5

Does using feats add complexity to the game? I dont think so. The supplement has only 20 pages and adds all the character options from AD&D and the RC that I would want in a B/X game (but much simpler than the RC or AD&D). Also, no feats until level 2, so character creation is unchanged.

I'm a couple of steps away from creating my favorite version of B/X. My goal is to keep the same page count, add tons of new options, maybe fix a thing or two, and decrease complexity even further (getting rid of XP tables, race-as-class, and vancian casting, and unifying thief skills with everything else). Four classes, four races, and anything you want to add on top of that.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on September 05, 2022, 06:41:08 PM
Yes, there are.

Well, one could say that no classes are needed. But in a D&Dish game, I think AT THE VERY LEAST you need combat, spells and skills (assuming you have to be able to create appendix-N charachters). 5e illustrates this by having, basically, warrior, spellcaster and expert - which are very similar, often redundant.

And you need no more than that. There is nothing in a knight, monk or paladin that wouldn't fit in a fighter plus some minor skills and spells.

Is the cleric needed? I dont think so (it has some combat and some spells, and one "skill"- turn undead), but I add it to my games anyway for nostalgia reasons. If I were to invent a fourth class I'd definetely replace the cleric for a leader-type.

I'm very pleased in how my Old School Feats turned out. I'm using 4 classes, with two to five feats each, and I can create a good ranger, paladin, knight, warlord etc. using (pre-built) packages.

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/407233/Old-School-Feats-OSR?src=fp_u5

Does using feats add complexity to the game? I dont think so. The supplement has only 20 pages and adds all the character options from AD&D and the RC that I would want in a B/X game (but much simpler than the RC or AD&D). Also, no feats until level 2, so character creation is unchanged.

I'm a couple of steps away from creating my favorite version of B/X. My goal is to keep the same page count, add tons of new options, maybe fix a thing or two, and decrease complexity even further (getting rid of XP tables, race-as-class, and vancian casting, and unifying thief skills with everything else). Four classes, four races, and anything you want to add on top of that.

Our favourite B/X version (jaeger and mine) is a bit different but we do coincide on a lot, especially in unifying thief skills with everything else. But we're not getting rid of XP tables.

OSR 3.0 if you will.

Is a class just a predetermined but fixed advancement scheme? If so, then I favor having many of them. Essentially, the more fixed the advancement is by class--and the fewer options that can be taken within a class--the more I appreciate having many classes. If the classes are more open with several options within them, then fewer classes are fine. To take D&D 5e as the example, I do feel that fewer classes would be fine if there were more subclass options for each class.

Quote from: 3catcircus on September 04, 2022, 10:07:23 PM
Except you can double up. There are plenty of examples of cherry-picking levels to get specific abilities, in specific sequences, to give stackable effects that very likely were never imagined during pre-pub play tests.  This seems ridiculous as well as diluting the flavor of each class.

For example, explain to me how it makes any in-game sense to build a character with the following progression: Fighter (tower shield specialist) -> alchemist (vivisectionist) -> monk -> fighter (4 levels) -> rogue (thug) -> stalwart defender -> rogue (2 levels) -> fighter (4 levels) -> alchemist (2 levels) -> fighter (2 levels).   This build was designed for a single goal: turning you into a wall of steel.

That's like saying "I'm an engineer doctor lawyer truck driver barista pro athlete." Even Buckaroo Banzai only had 4 professions - and he had to be a polymath to do it - and it wasn't for a singular goal.

I feel you didn't read what you quoted. 

Quote from: deadDMwalking
The game I play has 6 classes: Berserker, Knight, Mystic, Rogue, Warrior, Wizard

There's no alchemist, stalwart defender, or monk.  Those concepts exist, and they can be made with the six classes we have.  For example, a Warrior with unarmed attacks and/or some minor magic can cover the Mystic Unarmed Warrior (monk) concept well. 

It's possible to try to make a nigh-unhittable tank (in fact, that's one of my current characters), but it turns out that being flat-footed (which for us negates shield bonuses to Defense) means that rogues are pretty good against him, but he's pretty good against everything else.  For us, a small number of classes that can handle a large number of CONCEPTS is exactly what we're striving for. 

Quote from: VisionStorm on September 05, 2022, 09:23:18 AM

Quote from: deadDMwalking on September 04, 2022, 09:01:50 PM
If we could make fewer classes and maintain their uniqueness, we would have.  The best way to make sure that people can't select abilities like Sneak Attack and Rage is to make them mutually exclusive.  By making it part of the class, you can't double up.

Rage and Sneak Attack are already mutually exclusive by virtue of you not being able to sneak around while foaming at the mouth with Rage. You could go as far as to declare that you can't take any actions that require finesse or concentration while raging, then that pretty much prevents you from sneak attacking flanked enemies while raging.

You also already can't have both abilities if the game doesn't allow you to multiclass, which would be the only way that locking those abilities behind different classes would prevent people from having both, as your post implies. Not that I care personally. As long as you "pay" for them somehow I don't care what abilities your character has. Splitting your levels across different classes would be a way to "pay" for them. Turning those abilities into Feats would be another.

You could also treat different class variants as Subclasses of a core class, which is what a Berserker essentially is to a Warrior, conceptually speaking.

You can be a rogue and a berserker.  If you're a rogue, you're going to get Sneak Attack at 1st, 3rd, 5th, etc.  If you're a Berserker, you're going to get rage damage at 1st, 3rd, 5th.  What we don't want is someone to get Rage + Sneak damage at 1st level; that's too much damage and it breaks the game.  We're fine with someone taking Berserker and Rogue, and we're fine with someone getting Sneak Attack while raging - as long as they can't get too much of either.  Now, each class has OTHER abilities that are nice, too.  So if you take 1st level in multiple classes you COULD be effective, but you wouldn't be any more effective than someone that took all their levels in the same class.  Importantly, if you did take all different classes (ie, Berserker 1/Knight 1/Mystic 1/Rogue 1/Warrior 1/Wizard 1) you wouldn't be totally screwed, either.  A Level 6 Wizard would have access to 4th level spells; the example character would still be able to get 3rd level spells. 

Any prestige class ability or any class ability that you might think of (like 2-weapon fighting for Ranger) is a selectable feat.  We don't have pre-requisites for feats, so you don't have to plan your character advancement.  We have feats that you can select at 1st-4th; feats that you can select at 5th-8th, and feats you can select at 9th+ - this represents distinct tiers in feat power so a high level class ability (that wasn't just tied to spell-casting or something) might be a 9th level Talent.  But if you're 9th level, you can just choose it - you don't have to worry about whether you took Spring Attack at 1st level or anything like that. 

Anyways, that's the way we chose to approach the issue.  We didn't go with 4 classes because we feel that we couldn't represent the concepts we wanted with 4 classes.  But we didn't go with 20 classes because we thought we could represent 20+ classes with six. 

Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on September 03, 2022, 09:48:24 PM

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.

   Might want to read more REH then, anytime Conan had access to armor he wore it, including Plate.  He was usually without armor due to climate and situation (like fleeing a route), selling it to the pawn shop for money to drink, or an adventure took him by happenstance and he just didnt have it on.  Howard often has scenes or incidents where Conan's armor is what saves him from death.