I've seen D&D with splatbook explosion, it was not a good look. The reality is, classes are by design restrictive, and the reason this can be acceptable is because you get simplification as a part of it. The effect of massive numbers of classes is that you lose the simplicity advantage while still being pretty restrictive, so there's simply no point; if you're going to go beyond a dozen classes or so you should just go directly to classless.
Now, adding more points of flexibility to existing classes is a possible middle ground; e.g. for a paladin you might offer choices on
Lay On Hands becomes a choice (Lay On Hands, some other action)
Spellcasting remains but has variation in spell lists.
Divine Smite becomes 'choose a smite type'
Aura of Protection and Aura of Courage become 'choose an aura from this list'.
While I agree that most classes are too restrictive (basically all of them except Artificer and Warlock, mostly Warlock), I don't think the solution to making more classes is to do what you recommended. I like your suggestions, but even with those changes, there are still niches that need filling, like the psion, gish, and occultist.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
A lot of people want more classes. To those who want less classes or no more classes, how would it harm you to have more options in the game for classes?
I've seen D&D with splatbook explosion, it was not a good look. The reality is, classes are by design restrictive, and the reason this can be acceptable is because you get simplification as a part of it. The effect of massive numbers of classes is that you lose the simplicity advantage while still being pretty restrictive, so there's simply no point; if you're going to go beyond a dozen classes or so you should just go directly to classless.
Now, adding more points of flexibility to existing classes is a possible middle ground; e.g. for a paladin you might offer choices on
Lay On Hands becomes a choice (Lay On Hands, some other action)
Spellcasting remains but has variation in spell lists.
Divine Smite becomes 'choose a smite type'
Aura of Protection and Aura of Courage become 'choose an aura from this list'.
Something like that would be ideal for me. Currently if I want a swordmage, I either have to pick EK which is a 1/3 caster and utterly fails to weave magic into fighting. Or pick paladin which mechanically is great fun, but thematically so in your face that it's hard to build something which feels like not a paladin thematically.
Being able to kill the lay on hands, deal elemental damage for smites, and use an arcane spell list instead of a divine themed one for a nice pick of elemental type spells would be perfect.
Even with a ton of feature variants, I still think a dedicated psion/mystic is needed though.
Yeah, with a system like Pantagruel666 describes, one “Warrior/Martial Class” could even branch into Ranger, Paladin, Fighter, Warlord, or Magus/Battle Mage. If those branches each had subclasses that then also had a branch/branches.... There could be potentially limitless variety with a system like that.
Unfortunately Sposta, the problem is that sort of variation is kinda exactly how PF2e, D&D4e, and other 'feat tree' systems tend to work, and people keep categorically rejecting those as 'TOO FREAKING COMPLICATED'. As much as many of the folks in this thread would shamelessly wallow in that degree of freedom, I don't think we'll see it in D&D again without an edition update, and I don't think we're gonna see an edition update any time soon.
Unfortunately Sposta, the problem is that sort of variation is kinda exactly how PF2e, D&D4e, and other 'feat tree' systems tend to work, and people keep categorically rejecting those as 'TOO FREAKING COMPLICATED'. As much as many of the folks in this thread would shamelessly wallow in that degree of freedom, I don't think we'll see it in D&D again without an edition update, and I don't think we're gonna see an edition update any time soon.
The pathfinder core rules are too complicated (apart from the three action system).
The pathfinder 2e character/class system is perfection.
I just want dnd 5e rules, with pathfinder 3 action system and character/class design in a single game.
While I agree that most classes are too restrictive (basically all of them except Artificer and Warlock, mostly Warlock), I don't think the solution to making more classes is to do what you recommended. I like your suggestions, but even with those changes, there are still niches that need filling, like the psion, gish, and occultist.
Psion and Occultist aren't niches, they're reskins. Gish I agree is something the rules don't do well, but a class does not seem like a good fix because you should really be able to make a functional hybrid of any spellcaster and warrior (or rogue), which suggests the real need is a change to how multiclassing works, plus maybe a feat.
I'm not in favor of a la carte character creation. Character classes should mean something.
The other way this can be taken is "if your character concept doesn't fit neatly into an existing option, your character concept is bad and should be thrown out".
You can't see why some folks maybe don't care for that, and feel like maybe character class shouldn't get in the way of character?
I'm not in favor of a la carte character creation. Character classes should mean something.
If each class means a lot, then there needs to be a lot of classes to let people make the characters they want.
If classes are more flexible with lots of choice, there can be a lot less classes while still offering the same variety.
I wouldn't mind more classes, but as I said before, unless they can come up with completely different mechanics and abilities, it's just going to result in more overlap than currently exists.
I mean, most fighter type classes can cast spells to some degree in 5E, something that much earlier editions either didn't allow, or were very restrictive. To me, that was a big step in flexibility.
If you want a bard that can backstab, cleric that can cast meteor swarm, or a monk that can rage, etc, what is the point of having classes?
Besides, you can do that currently in 5E, just multiclass.
I'm not in favor of a la carte character creation. Character classes should mean something.
If each class means a lot, then there needs to be a lot of classes to let people make the characters they want.
If classes are more flexible with lots of choice, there can be a lot less classes while still offering the same variety.
I wouldn't mind more classes, but as I said before, unless they can come up with completely different mechanics and abilities, it's just going to result in more overlap than currently exists.
I mean, most fighter type classes can cast spells to some degree in 5E, something that much earlier editions either didn't allow, or were very restrictive. To me, that was a big step in flexibility.
If you want a bard that can backstab, cleric that can cast meteor swarm, or a monk that can rage, etc, what is the point of having classes?
Besides, you can do that currently in 5E, just multiclass.
Precisely. The concept of picking class features from a pool is the same concept as picking ability bonuses from a pool, which is to say, awful. Now all chars are just re-skinned blobs created from the same material, and the term "class". loses all meaning. We already see this with the truly idiotic ideas put forward in the UA created some months ago.
I'm not in favor of a la carte character creation. Character classes should mean something.
If each class means a lot, then there needs to be a lot of classes to let people make the characters they want.
If classes are more flexible with lots of choice, there can be a lot less classes while still offering the same variety.
I wouldn't mind more classes, but as I said before, unless they can come up with completely different mechanics and abilities, it's just going to result in more overlap than currently exists.
I mean, most fighter type classes can cast spells to some degree in 5E, something that much earlier editions either didn't allow, or were very restrictive. To me, that was a big step in flexibility.
If you want a bard that can backstab, cleric that can cast meteor swarm, or a monk that can rage, etc, what is the point of having classes?
Besides, you can do that currently in 5E, just multiclass.
Precisely. The concept of picking class features from a pool is the same concept as picking ability bonuses from a pool, which is to say, awful. Now all chars are just re-skinned blobs created from the same material, and the term "class". loses all meaning. We already see this with the truly idiotic ideas put forward in the UA created some months ago.
Ouch. I liked those feats! And... Guess what? Multiclassing does limit a characters potential power!
I'm not in favor of a la carte character creation. Character classes should mean something.
If each class means a lot, then there needs to be a lot of classes to let people make the characters they want.
If classes are more flexible with lots of choice, there can be a lot less classes while still offering the same variety.
I wouldn't mind more classes, but as I said before, unless they can come up with completely different mechanics and abilities, it's just going to result in more overlap than currently exists.
I mean, most fighter type classes can cast spells to some degree in 5E, something that much earlier editions either didn't allow, or were very restrictive. To me, that was a big step in flexibility.
If you want a bard that can backstab, cleric that can cast meteor swarm, or a monk that can rage, etc, what is the point of having classes?
Besides, you can do that currently in 5E, just multiclass.
Except there are a lot of characters you can't make from the limited classes we have.
For example, my ideal character of an arcane elemental based half caster, who weaves magic into their striking. e.g. a character type which is common in many fantasy settings. It's not some super niche exotic idea.
- If I pick paladin, I have to deal with lay on hands, radiant damage, a divine spell list, and an oath, all to get the smite spells.
- If I pick eldritch knight, I'm limited to a 1/3 caster who completely fails to weave casting and hitting together. But also isn't tied to a divine theme.
- If I multiclass wizard and fighter, once again I can cast or hit, but not weave them together.
The character idea isn't outrageous, and the most frustrating thing is it could be done in prior editions, and can be done in pathfinder. Yet dnd 5e is probably the worst dnd edition since 1st edition for being able to make an actual variety of characters.
I'm not in favor of a la carte character creation. Character classes should mean something.
If each class means a lot, then there needs to be a lot of classes to let people make the characters they want.
If classes are more flexible with lots of choice, there can be a lot less classes while still offering the same variety.
I wouldn't mind more classes, but as I said before, unless they can come up with completely different mechanics and abilities, it's just going to result in more overlap than currently exists.
I mean, most fighter type classes can cast spells to some degree in 5E, something that much earlier editions either didn't allow, or were very restrictive. To me, that was a big step in flexibility.
If you want a bard that can backstab, cleric that can cast meteor swarm, or a monk that can rage, etc, what is the point of having classes?
Besides, you can do that currently in 5E, just multiclass.
Precisely. The concept of picking class features from a pool is the same concept as picking ability bonuses from a pool, which is to say, awful. Now all chars are just re-skinned blobs created from the same material, and the term "class". loses all meaning. We already see this with the truly idiotic ideas put forward in the UA created some months ago.
What UA do you mean?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
I would assume it was the UA Feats that went through, which are thought to be in Tasha's. It included things like 2 Sorcery Points and 1 Metamagic, 1 Eldritch Invocation with no prereq's, a Fighting Style, etc.
I love the new feats and feature variants. It's one tiny tiny step closer to people being able to make their ideal character.
Having just a few pre set classes doesn't feel like making a character. It feels like picking someone else's pre made character. Like super smash bros where you pick which character you want to battle with.
Vince never actually said for himself which UA it was. That said, I can only imagine it's the UA feats or the UA Class Feature Variants. Possibly both. ...probably both.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please do not contact or message me.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
While I agree that most classes are too restrictive (basically all of them except Artificer and Warlock, mostly Warlock), I don't think the solution to making more classes is to do what you recommended. I like your suggestions, but even with those changes, there are still niches that need filling, like the psion, gish, and occultist.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Something like that would be ideal for me. Currently if I want a swordmage, I either have to pick EK which is a 1/3 caster and utterly fails to weave magic into fighting. Or pick paladin which mechanically is great fun, but thematically so in your face that it's hard to build something which feels like not a paladin thematically.
Being able to kill the lay on hands, deal elemental damage for smites, and use an arcane spell list instead of a divine themed one for a nice pick of elemental type spells would be perfect.
Even with a ton of feature variants, I still think a dedicated psion/mystic is needed though.
Yeah, with a system like Pantagruel666 describes, one “Warrior/Martial Class” could even branch into Ranger, Paladin, Fighter, Warlord, or Magus/Battle Mage. If those branches each had subclasses that then also had a branch/branches.... There could be potentially limitless variety with a system like that.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Unfortunately Sposta, the problem is that sort of variation is kinda exactly how PF2e, D&D4e, and other 'feat tree' systems tend to work, and people keep categorically rejecting those as 'TOO FREAKING COMPLICATED'. As much as many of the folks in this thread would shamelessly wallow in that degree of freedom, I don't think we'll see it in D&D again without an edition update, and I don't think we're gonna see an edition update any time soon.
Please do not contact or message me.
The pathfinder core rules are too complicated (apart from the three action system).
The pathfinder 2e character/class system is perfection.
I just want dnd 5e rules, with pathfinder 3 action system and character/class design in a single game.
Psion and Occultist aren't niches, they're reskins. Gish I agree is something the rules don't do well, but a class does not seem like a good fix because you should really be able to make a functional hybrid of any spellcaster and warrior (or rogue), which suggests the real need is a change to how multiclassing works, plus maybe a feat.
If someone could make a core class with trees of different choices, like Sposta said, and make it as unique as new classes I'd be fine.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
I'm not in favor of a la carte character creation. Character classes should mean something.
If each class means a lot, then there needs to be a lot of classes to let people make the characters they want.
If classes are more flexible with lots of choice, there can be a lot less classes while still offering the same variety.
The more restrictive class definitions are, the more of them you need.
The other way this can be taken is "if your character concept doesn't fit neatly into an existing option, your character concept is bad and should be thrown out".
You can't see why some folks maybe don't care for that, and feel like maybe character class shouldn't get in the way of character?
Please do not contact or message me.
I wouldn't mind more classes, but as I said before, unless they can come up with completely different mechanics and abilities, it's just going to result in more overlap than currently exists.
I mean, most fighter type classes can cast spells to some degree in 5E, something that much earlier editions either didn't allow, or were very restrictive. To me, that was a big step in flexibility.
If you want a bard that can backstab, cleric that can cast meteor swarm, or a monk that can rage, etc, what is the point of having classes?
Besides, you can do that currently in 5E, just multiclass.
Precisely. The concept of picking class features from a pool is the same concept as picking ability bonuses from a pool, which is to say, awful. Now all chars are just re-skinned blobs created from the same material, and the term "class". loses all meaning. We already see this with the truly idiotic ideas put forward in the UA created some months ago.
Ouch. I liked those feats! And... Guess what? Multiclassing does limit a characters potential power!
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!
Except there are a lot of characters you can't make from the limited classes we have.
For example, my ideal character of an arcane elemental based half caster, who weaves magic into their striking. e.g. a character type which is common in many fantasy settings. It's not some super niche exotic idea.
- If I pick paladin, I have to deal with lay on hands, radiant damage, a divine spell list, and an oath, all to get the smite spells.
- If I pick eldritch knight, I'm limited to a 1/3 caster who completely fails to weave casting and hitting together. But also isn't tied to a divine theme.
- If I multiclass wizard and fighter, once again I can cast or hit, but not weave them together.
The character idea isn't outrageous, and the most frustrating thing is it could be done in prior editions, and can be done in pathfinder. Yet dnd 5e is probably the worst dnd edition since 1st edition for being able to make an actual variety of characters.
What UA do you mean?
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
I would assume it was the UA Feats that went through, which are thought to be in Tasha's. It included things like 2 Sorcery Points and 1 Metamagic, 1 Eldritch Invocation with no prereq's, a Fighting Style, etc.
I love the new feats and feature variants. It's one tiny tiny step closer to people being able to make their ideal character.
Having just a few pre set classes doesn't feel like making a character. It feels like picking someone else's pre made character. Like super smash bros where you pick which character you want to battle with.
They are mad about that UA? I thought it was really good.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Vince never actually said for himself which UA it was. That said, I can only imagine it's the UA feats or the UA Class Feature Variants. Possibly both. ...probably both.
Please do not contact or message me.