Fewer classes, broader archetypes

[HidesHisEyes]

So I've just been reading this thread: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...-out-of-combat

It's about the age-old question of the fighter class and its identity crisis. Several people are in favour of abolishing the fighter altogether, since it is such a broad archetype. Conceptually it boils down to exactly what you would expect: "one who fights". Well this seems to encompass barbarians, paladins, rangers, even rogues and monks to some extent, but those concepts all have classes of their own. So what's the point of fighters?

I've been thinking lately about the opposite idea. I've been thinking about a 3.x game that came out about ten years ago (I think) called True 20. It was a generic, fairly cinematic game that had three classes: warrior, expert and adept. You picked one of these classes, and you picked four feats (and/or supernatural powers in the adept's case) and then another one each time you levelled up. In other words, your choice of class was your choice of archetype at the very broadest level, then you chose individual feats to further define that archetype as you went.

This seems to me a great way of giving players the freedom to make the character they envision instead of having to choose something fairly specific. Who agrees?

Something more specific to D&D's assumptions would perhaps have the classes "warrior", "rogue", "priest" and "mage". Would it be possible even to create, essentially, four homebrew classes designed to completely replace all other classes but containing enough choices and options to make all of those concepts (and many more) available to players? And would it be any good?

[Eldan]

I've seen it before and I honestly don't like it. I like what 3.5 does. The ridiculous mechanical diversity. I mean, could your one caster class really support the mechanics of a binder, psion, warlock, sorcerer, wizard, shadowcaster, totemist? They are mechanically incredibly different and I think mechanical difference supports fluff difference.

[HidesHisEyes]

I've seen it before and I honestly don't like it. I like what 3.5 does. The ridiculous mechanical diversity. I mean, could your one caster class really support the mechanics of a binder, psion, warlock, sorcerer, wizard, shadowcaster, totemist? They are mechanically incredibly different and I think mechanical difference supports fluff difference.

That's a fair point and I think you're right. The more I think about it, the more I think these four classes dropped straight into 5E would end up feeling lacking compared to the wealth of different classes with their different mechanics in the game as we know it. I also think there would be balancing issues, since if every character of the "warrior" class gets the same number of features at the same levels then all features have to be about the same level of power.

My new idea is that these four classes belong in their own game, and it's a much smaller and simpler game. It's built on the same BASIC mechanics as D&D but would feel entirely different. It would probably have only ten experience levels and five levels of spells, and would be intended for smaller, faster, simpler campaigns. The intended playstyle might be a return to the classic dungeon-crawling of the early editions, though the level of complexity and crunch would be somewhere between the two. It would require less commitment and investment from the players, less prep time from the GM.

Whether that's a game anyone other than me would have any interest in playing, I'm not sure!

[Eldan]

Maybe? A simpler D&D could have some appeal.

Third edition did try to go into that direction with Unearthed Arcana, which looks a lot like what True20 did: expert, warrior, spellcaster. Of course, it somehow managed to make the balance problems of third edition even worse.

[HidesHisEyes]

Maybe? A simpler D&D could have some appeal.

Third edition did try to go into that direction with Unearthed Arcana, which looks a lot like what True20 did: expert, warrior, spellcaster. Of course, it somehow managed to make the balance problems of third edition even worse.

Edit: found it. I can imagine it had balance issues in 3E.

This would have to be a real break from what we're used to. Abilities would be quite abstract - you would find multiple players going for different concepts choosing the same abilities. Less mechanical diversity, but I think if done right it could still provide the opportunity to create SOMETHING that feels like a ranger or a warlock or a monk, etc.

I'm now officially just thinking aloud. Thanks for indulging me, GitP.

[FreddyNoNose]

So I've just been reading this thread: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...-out-of-combat

It's about the age-old question of the fighter class and its identity crisis. Several people are in favour of abolishing the fighter altogether, since it is such a broad archetype. Conceptually it boils down to exactly what you would expect: "one who fights". Well this seems to encompass barbarians, paladins, rangers, even rogues and monks to some extent, but those concepts all have classes of their own. So what's the point of fighters?

I've been thinking lately about the opposite idea. I've been thinking about a 3.x game that came out about ten years ago (I think) called True 20. It was a generic, fairly cinematic game that had three classes: warrior, expert and adept. You picked one of these classes, and you picked four feats (and/or supernatural powers in the adept's case) and then another one each time you levelled up. In other words, your choice of class was your choice of archetype at the very broadest level, then you chose individual feats to further define that archetype as you went.

This seems to me a great way of giving players the freedom to make the character they envision instead of having to choose something fairly specific. Who agrees?

Something more specific to D&D's assumptions would perhaps have the classes "warrior", "rogue", "priest" and "mage". Would it be possible even to create, essentially, four homebrew classes designed to completely replace all other classes but containing enough choices and options to make all of those concepts (and many more) available to players? And would it be any good?

There is a beauty in restrictions. Many people can't seem to see it.

[HidesHisEyes]

There is a beauty in restrictions. Many people can't seem to see it.

I do see it, in fact. I'm on board with the idea that the classes are and always were restrictive by design, and that players are meant to pick a concept from the list and play that, not treat the character creation system as a toolkit to realise the concept they have in mind. The thing is, a lot of players in my experience do seem to want to treat classes as a toolkit, and at a certain point a gigantic list of very specific classes and subclasses becomes sort of cumbersome from that point of view. I think a simpler game that aims to create such a toolkit in broad strokes could be a good alternative for a certain type of game. I'm talking about an alternative, not "D&D is broken and here's how to fix it".

[nonsi]

I've seen it before and I honestly don't like it. I like what 3.5 does. The ridiculous mechanical diversity. I mean, could your one caster class really support the mechanics of a binder, psion, warlock, sorcerer, wizard, shadowcaster, totemist? They are mechanically incredibly different and I think mechanical difference supports fluff difference.

Here's a spellcaster that can function as most of them (not including Warlock and Totemist)..... and many more.

[JBPuffin]

This is me talking 5e, but their playtest setup of class+specialty+background got me thinking about something like this. Classes would mostly be about a subsystem (superiority dice, spells, miracles, etc) with each subclass adding more broadly applicable features, specialties replacing feat trees (and no, I wouldn't be opposed to just making "feats" open, but I like the other idea much more), and backgrounds replacing normal "class skill" stuff for the most part (3 background skills + 1 from class, maybe). I like 5e the way it is, but a blood relative set up as above could be pretty neat...

[Nifft]

This is me talking 5e, but their playtest setup of class+specialty+background got me thinking about something like this. Classes would mostly be about a subsystem (superiority dice, spells, miracles, etc) with each subclass adding more broadly applicable features, specialties replacing feat trees (and no, I wouldn't be opposed to just making "feats" open, but I like the other idea much more), and backgrounds replacing normal "class skill" stuff for the most part (3 background skills + 1 from class, maybe). I like 5e the way it is, but a blood relative set up as above could be pretty neat...

This sounds cool.

I totally agree that Background could do so much more.

One thing I'd suggest right off the bat: do NOT try to fit all Backgrounds into the same format. Some will give more skills; some will give better armor (or weapons); some will give access to advanced spells; some will give other perks.

[JBPuffin]

This sounds cool.

I totally agree that Background could do so much more.

One thing I'd suggest right off the bat: do NOT try to fit all Backgrounds into the same format. Some will give more skills; some will give better armor (or weapons); some will give access to advanced spells; some will give other perks.

No no no no NO. Not what I meant at all - Backgrounds should ONLY take over Skills/Tools/Languages in my book. Even the background features were just...shoe-horning extra seldom-useful benefits. Honestly, I'm not even sure "Background" is the best word for it now that I've heard my response. Come to think of it, something like "Skill Set", "Expertise" (would find another word for the other thing), or "Training" might be better. Having an Arcanist trained in Naturalism (Animal Handling, Nature, Survival) who gets Arcana as his class skill in the same party as a Shaman trained in Scholarship (Arcana, History, Religion) who gets Nature as her class skill feels...better, somehow, even with the faint overlap. I'd change the skill list some and, for maximum teeth? It'd be something like 3 Skills and Tools/Languages each.

[Eldan]

Here's a spellcaster that can function as most of them (not including Warlock and Totemist)..... and many more.

I know your classes, yeah... I don't see, for one, how it functions as a binder.

[GalacticAxekick]

I firmly believe each class should be defined by its power source: that it should encompass every application of that power source, and that it should exclude archetypes and features that reflect another power source.

Classes I consider necessary:

• The Fighter, who relies on the tools and tactics of war
• The Rogue, who relies on irregular tools and tactics
• The Ranger, who relies on their knowledge of the terrain and enemy
• The Barbarian, who relies only on their fitness and willpower
• The Wizard, who studies magic and casts carefully
• The Sorcerer, who is innately magical and casts intuitively
• The Cleric, who channels magic from a higher power

Classes I consider redundant, in terms of power source, and whose features should be redistributed to the above classes:

• The Paladin, who combines the power sources of the Fighter and Cleric.
• The Druid and Warlock, who aren't fundamentally different from Clerics.
• The Bard, whose power source (music itself!) is nonsensical, and whose features should be lent to the other casters.
• The Monk, who juggles just about every power source as an odd sort of martial-mystic. Martial arts should be for Fighters, unbelievable fitness for Barbarians, improbable weapons for Rogues, and extraordinary abilities for spellcasters.

Classes I consider missing:

• A legitimate Bard, who relies on their social skills to inspire, instruct, demoralize and deceive.

I appreciate that having more classes means unique mechanics can be represented. 5e's Warlocks, for example, offer a fun new spellcasting system that sets them apart from the Clerics and Druids I compare them to. But then, Clerics and Druids don't have a unique spellcasting system. By rolling them together with the Warlock and keeping the Warlock system, no mechanics are lost.

Similarly, I doubt 5e's Paladin offers any mechanics the Fighter and Cleric couldn't take up. I doubt the Eldritch Knight or Arcane Trickster have features the Wizard couldn't take on. I think, more than anything, these classes and archetypes limit the number of options available in the game.

[Eldan]

One thing to keep in mind with that, Mister Axekick, is that people love gishes, theurges and similar. Classes who mix two power sources and get access to some of both. I think that should be a thing that's available either as prestige classes (Arcane Trickster, Templar) or base classes (Beguiler, Paladin). I don't think cross classing can solve that entirely, either: a good mixed class will offer new mechanics that integrate both power sources.

[GalacticAxekick]

I understand that others love gishes, and that's fine. They can play and homebrew gishes. I only mean that I'm not interested, and that I'd love to see homebrew that redistributes gish features between their parents (on top of expanding their parents in general).

For instance, I'd love for Clerics to access the Paladin's Divine Sense, Lay on Hands, Divine Health, various Aura features and Smite: all of which are purely divine and not at all martial.

I'd love for Wizards to have an Item Bond in the vein of the EK's Weapon Bond, and a Mage Hand naturally as invisible and deft as the AT's Mage Hand Legerdemain makes it.

I'd love to play a Ranger as a hunter, tracker, investigator or survivalist, and not as a half-Druid mystic.

I'd love to play a martial artist without the mysticism and supernatural powers of the Monk.

And I'd like to play a charismatic performer who contributes using charismatic performances—spoken instructions and rallying speeches, for instance—and not inexplicable, unrelated magic.

[HidesHisEyes]

I understand that others love gishes, and that's fine. They can play and homebrew gishes. I only mean that I'm not interested, and that I'd love to see homebrew that redistributes gish features between their parents (on top of expanding their parents in general).

For instance, I'd love for Clerics to access the Paladin's Divine Sense, Lay on Hands, Divine Health, various Aura features and Smite: all of which are purely divine and not at all martial.

I'd love for Wizards to have an Item Bond in the vein of the EK's Weapon Bond, and a Mage Hand naturally as invisible and deft as the AT's Mage Hand Legerdemain makes it.

I'd love to play a Ranger as a hunter, tracker, investigator or survivalist, and not as a half-Druid mystic.

I'd love to play a martial artist without the mysticism and supernatural powers of the Monk.

And I'd like to play a charismatic performer who contributes using charismatic performances—spoken instructions and rallying speeches, for instance—and not inexplicable, unrelated magic.

I see where you're coming from. I know for a fact that at least the ranger you mention is doable in 5E if you reskin the spells as "ranger lore" or "herbalism" and say they're all potions, since that is my character in a campaign I'm playing now and I never feel like my ranger is too druidy. But your point stands.

For what I have in mind (see my second post in this thread), I am thinking in terms of "role" rather than power source. If the four combat roles are defender, striker, leader and controller then the four corresponding classes are respectively warrior, rogue, priest and mage. I think a stripped down version (or blood relative, which is a good term) of D&D could easily provide for a vast range of concepts within those four classes - as long as players were willing to use their imaginations. Mechanically it would be pretty abstract. Two different characters might choose the same feature, mechanically identical, but conceptually it would mean slightly different things in different contexts. If you find yourself pining for the mechanical diversity of D&D then you can go play D&D. But this game would be simpler, would lend itself to shorter campaigns and lower-magic settings, and would demand less commitment and investment.

A gish would be a warrior or rogue who chooses features that give them limited magical abilities (or a mage or priest who takes features that give them limited combat abilities).

[HidesHisEyes]

No no no no NO. Not what I meant at all - Backgrounds should ONLY take over Skills/Tools/Languages in my book. Even the background features were just...shoe-horning extra seldom-useful benefits. Honestly, I'm not even sure "Background" is the best word for it now that I've heard my response. Come to think of it, something like "Skill Set", "Expertise" (would find another word for the other thing), or "Training" might be better. Having an Arcanist trained in Naturalism (Animal Handling, Nature, Survival) who gets Arcana as his class skill in the same party as a Shaman trained in Scholarship (Arcana, History, Religion) who gets Nature as her class skill feels...better, somehow, even with the faint overlap. I'd change the skill list some and, for maximum teeth? It'd be something like 3 Skills and Tools/Languages each.

Sorry for the double post. My version of backgrounds would be:

You write your own background, one word or a series of novels, up to you. The mechanical effect is that it sometimes grants advantage or disadvantage on knowledge or interaction checks, when you and the GM agree it's appropriate.

Everyone would get any two skill/tool proficiencies of their choice on top of their class's options.

[nonsi]

I know your classes, yeah... I don't see, for one, how it functions as a binder.

You're absolutely right. No 3e class comes anywhere near resembling the official Binder.
I guess it was a Freudian slip on my part. Reinventing the Binder took forever for me, to the point of becoming an obsession. Now every time I see 'Binder' I envision this instinctively

[GalacticAxekick]

I see where you're coming from. I know for a fact that at least the ranger you mention is doable in 5E if you reskin the spells as "ranger lore" or "herbalism" and say they're all potions, since that is my character in a campaign I'm playing now and I never feel like my ranger is too druidy. But your point stands.

The Ranger's spell list was carefully selected to reskin as "ranger lore" and "herbalism," which I appreciate. But unlike truely martial options, they consume slots, overcome resistance to nonmagical damage, and are vulnerable to counterspell/antimagic effects.

Ideally, I'd like the Ranger to acquire at-will and passive features. I never finished, but a few months ago I was working on a homebrew Ranger in this direction. The Stalker archetype uses lore to emulate wild tactics while the Hunter uses lore to counter them. Each would gain access to a different pool of passive and at-will features.

For what I have in mind (see my second post in this thread), I am thinking in terms of "role" rather than power source. If the four combat roles are defender, striker, leader and controller then the four corresponding classes are respectively warrior, rogue, priest and mage. I think a stripped down version (or blood relative, which is a good term) of D&D could easily provide for a vast range of concepts within those four classes - as long as players were willing to use their imaginations. Mechanically it would be pretty abstract. Two different characters might choose the same feature, mechanically identical, but conceptually it would mean slightly different things in different contexts. If you find yourself pining for the mechanical diversity of D&D then you can go play D&D. But this game would be simpler, would lend itself to shorter campaigns and lower-magic settings, and would demand less commitment and investment.

A gish would be a warrior or rogue who chooses features that give them limited magical abilities (or a mage or priest who takes features that give them limited combat abilities).

This might work! But it probably isn't for me. Making the character I want means finding the mechanics to do so, and not reskining the same mechanics other characters are using.

[ShuckedAeons]

I firmly believe each class should be defined by its power source: that it should encompass every application of that power source, and that it should exclude archetypes and features that reflect another power source.

Classes I consider necessary:

• The Fighter, who relies on the tools and tactics of war
• The Rogue, who relies on irregular tools and tactics
• The Ranger, who relies on their knowledge of the terrain and enemy
• The Barbarian, who relies only on their fitness and willpower
• The Wizard, who studies magic and casts carefully
• The Sorcerer, who is innately magical and casts intuitively
• The Cleric, who channels magic from a higher power

Classes I consider redundant, in terms of power source, and whose features should be redistributed to the above classes:

• The Paladin, who combines the power sources of the Fighter and Cleric.
• The Druid and Warlock, who aren't fundamentally different from Clerics.
• The Bard, whose power source (music itself!) is nonsensical, and whose features should be lent to the other casters.
• The Monk, who juggles just about every power source as an odd sort of martial-mystic. Martial arts should be for Fighters, unbelievable fitness for Barbarians, improbable weapons for Rogues, and extraordinary abilities for spellcasters.

Classes I consider missing:

• A legitimate Bard, who relies on their social skills to inspire, instruct, demoralize and deceive.

I appreciate that having more classes means unique mechanics can be represented. 5e's Warlocks, for example, offer a fun new spellcasting system that sets them apart from the Clerics and Druids I compare them to. But then, Clerics and Druids don't have a unique spellcasting system. By rolling them together with the Warlock and keeping the Warlock system, no mechanics are lost.

Similarly, I doubt 5e's Paladin offers any mechanics the Fighter and Cleric couldn't take up. I doubt the Eldritch Knight or Arcane Trickster have features the Wizard couldn't take on. I think, more than anything, these classes and archetypes limit the number of options available in the game.

I think you might be on something with the mechanics of the paladin being covered by something akin to a war priest, the Druid a shaman like cleric, but I feel the sorcerer is easily just a mage/wizard archetype.

I feel this is important though, the paladin's source of power is defined as something very different than the cleric's, the paladin gains his power through their own purity and devotion to their own oath and the tenets thereof. The Druid is different than a cleric in that they channel the power of nature/cosmos/the planes itself, and even if a Druid or Paladin worship or revere a god, they don't gain power from them.

[JBPuffin]

I'd do something like (martial talent[rogue, fighter, etc]), (personal ethos[barbarian, monk, etc]), (personal magic[sorcerer, wizard, psion, etc]), (granted magic [cleric, warlock, etc]) if I was serious about simplifying and differentiating power sources. Each source gets a couple different archetypes to cover diverging aspects/styles, but ultimately rage powers, ki powers, and knightly "purity" powers work using the same system, but not the same as fighter talents, wizard spells, or cleric or prayers.

[GalacticAxekick]

I think you might be on something with the mechanics of the paladin being covered by something akin to a war priest, the Druid a shaman like cleric, but I feel the sorcerer is easily just a mage/wizard archetype.

I agree that mechanically, the Sorcerer was designed like a Wizard archetype, and I consider this a failure of the system. Because they have different power sources they must be distinct classes, and because they are distinct classes they must be mechanically distinct (as the Warlock, for instance, is).

I feel this is important though, the paladin's source of power is defined as something very different than the cleric's, the paladin gains his power through their own purity and devotion to their own oath and the tenets thereof.

There are a few ways I could read this.

• The Paladin is innately magical—effectively a Sorcerer—with the senseless condition that they must remain morally or idealogically pure or become a muggle.
• The Paladin maintains moral or ideological standards in order to qualify for divine power, in which case they're no different from Clerics and Warlocks.
• Goodness and ideological purity are themselves a source of magical power; anyone sufficiently nice, vengeful or honest would gain the ability to Lay Hands, a radiant aura and a vicious smite. Unique, but silly, and also troublesome as it forces characters who commit to an alignment or personality to take or lose Paladin levels.

In short, the Paladin either an offshoot of an existing power source or a new and ridiculous power source.

The Druid is different than a cleric in that they channel the power of nature/cosmos/the planes itself, and even if a Druid or Paladin worship or revere a god, they don't gain power from them.

Fair enough! I can accept the Druid being its own thing, appart from the more personal commitment of Clerics and Warlocks.

It helps complete the trinity of mental stats, with studied Wizards using Intelligence, attuned Druids using Wisdom, and loyal Clerics/Warlocks using Charisma (departing from the Cleric norm, I'm aware, but falling into the Paladin norm).

---

And as a passing throught, Sorcerers and monsters with innate spellcasting traditionally rely on Charisma, but it might make more sense for them to rely on Constitution, because their spells rely not on their relationships (Charisma), their awareness (Wisdom) or their knowledge (Intelligence) but their working biology.

My concern would be that Sorcerers would become oddly robust, since high Constitution would improve their hit points. Multiclassing as a Sorcerer would become a lot more accessible than multiclassing Wizard or Cleric, since no class doesn't pump Con a bit anyway. Barbarian-Sorcerers would be all over, taking and spell-slinging at once.

But then, I think that's totally thematicly appropriate. An innate spellcaster should be more attracted to take up other classes, since spellcasting came naturally to them and didn't demand study or commitment. Barbarian societies should be fielding Barbarian-Sorcerers far more than Barbarian-Wizards, since the latter demands a tradition of study they likely don't have.

It would be a matter of rebalancing the class accordingly.

[Agrippa]

I've been working on something like this for a while, except with five or six broad classes. Warrior, trickster, scout, magician, noble, though noble could use a better name and finally polymath. Each broad class in turn would have up to five sub-classes. So, for example, the warrior class would be divided into battle dancer; focusing on speed, agility and lethal grace. The berserker; flipping out and killing your enemies through the power of madness, totemic spirits or bloody minded fanaticism. The brawler; master of making things stop living with his or her fists. Slayer or hunter; exceptional combat training combined with stealth and assassination/stealthy takedown techniques. Batman or John Wick, the choice is yours. Last but not least the warder; gets more mileage out of wearing armor and can better shield their allies and protectorates with, well, their shields.

Tricksters are rogue types, spies thieves and saboteurs. Magicians are spell casters in general, with each subclass using a different spell casting sub system, like pusedo-Vancian, psionics as sorcery and mysteries. Nobles are the diplomats, negotiators, orators, firebrands and even crime lords. Polymaths are hybrids of magician, warrior and one of the other three classes.

[nonsi]

I've been working on something like this for a while, except with five or six broad classes. Warrior, trickster, scout, magician, noble, though noble could use a better name and finally polymath. Each broad class in turn would have up to five sub-classes. So, for example, the warrior class would be divided into battle dancer; focusing on speed, agility and lethal grace. The berserker; flipping out and killing your enemies through the power of madness, totemic spirits or bloody minded fanaticism. The brawler; master of making things stop living with his or her fists. Slayer or hunter; exceptional combat training combined with stealth and assassination/stealthy takedown techniques. Batman or John Wick, the choice is yours. Last but not least the warder; gets more mileage out of wearing armor and can better shield their allies and protectorates with, well, their shields.

Tricksters are rogue types, spies thieves and saboteurs. Magicians are spell casters in general, with each subclass using a different spell casting sub system, like pusedo-Vancian, psionics as sorcery and mysteries. Nobles are the diplomats, negotiators, orators, firebrands and even crime lords. Polymaths are hybrids of magician, warrior and one of the other three classes.

What about scouts? What did you have in mind for them that precludes them from being Warrior-Trickster hybrids?
Also, "Polymath" seems unnecessary, because it feels like just one of many hybrids.
ATM, the Warrior-Trickster-Magician-Noble distinction seems a solid baseline to start from to me.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I mean, if you follow the "generic classes" line to its logical conclusion, you get something like Mutants and Masterminds-- pure point-buy, with special abilities build purely around mechanics and flavor left up to the player.

If you're going to use classes, or especially a class/archetype system like 5e, I think it's still worth structuring the classes around mechanics, with archetypes providing the flavor. The goal should be for every class to play in a significantly different way. Not just tactically, because it should be possible to vary a class' role with appropriate archetype and feat choices, but if we have a "Technical Fighter" and a "Brute Force Fighter" class, I want them to feel different in play.

[Morty]

I agree with Grod. Broadening the classes to the "fighter, mage, rogue" archetypes dilutes them so much you might as well not use them in the first place. None of those words mean anything, in a fantasy world. Either mechanically or narratively.

[ahyangyi]

Some thoughts: with fewer classes, you have to make multiclass really work. 5E might be a good starting point I guess.

[HidesHisEyes]

I mean, if you follow the "generic classes" line to its logical conclusion, you get something like Mutants and Masterminds-- pure point-buy, with special abilities build purely around mechanics and flavor left up to the player.

If you're going to use classes, or especially a class/archetype system like 5e, I think it's still worth structuring the classes around mechanics, with archetypes providing the flavor. The goal should be for every class to play in a significantly different way. Not just tactically, because it should be possible to vary a class' role with appropriate archetype and feat choices, but if we have a "Technical Fighter" and a "Brute Force Fighter" class, I want them to feel different in play.

That's not something I'd considered but I think you're right. What I now have in mind is something still with just four classes which define your character in the broadest way, but where you also choose a "signature feature" which would function essentially like a subclass. Each signature feature would be developed enough to have its own set of mechanics, and would include further choices of its own. You would still have more freedom and make more choices than you do in 5E.

I agree with Grod. Broadening the classes to the "fighter, mage, rogue" archetypes dilutes them so much you might as well not use them in the first place. None of those words mean anything, in a fantasy world. Either mechanically or narratively.

I don't agree with that. I think as gamers we all know what is meant by those three words, and even if you're right I'm not sure the solution is an endless stream of highly specific classes and sub-classes. Especially when the basic mechanics of the game as a whole can't support any more distinct class-specific mechanics without causing power creep and balance issues.

Some thoughts: with fewer classes, you have to make multiclass really work. 5E might be a good starting point I guess.

Part of the point of having fewer - but broader - classes is that you don't need multiclassing. If you can make your concept with a single class and judicious choices of feature then you don't need to mix and match four different classes.

[GalacticAxekick]

Part of the point of having fewer - but broader - classes is that you don't need multiclassing. If you can make your concept with a single class and judicious choices of feature then you don't need to mix and match four different classes.

Let's say there are four classes: Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric. There is no multiclassing, but these classes are broad enough to encompass every character concept.

That means my Fighter, Rogue or Wizard can channel divine power, like a Cleric, to accommodate my Paladin, Inquisitor and Theurge concepts.

That means my Fighter and Rogue can learn to cast spells to accommodate my Warmage and Arcane Trickster concepts.

That means my Fighter can learn to skulk and tinker like a Rogue to accommodate my Assassin concept.

And vice versa.

To accommodate every concept without multiclassing, each class would need to be not just broad but all-inclusive. The whole point of class is to constrain what concepts can be achieved without restarting as a novice.

If you have many, many hyper-specific classes to cover every variation of every concept, or if you have one all-inclusive class, there's no need for multiclassing. But if you have a small number of unique classes, multiclassing is necessary.

[HidesHisEyes]

Let's say there are four classes: Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric. There is no multiclassing, but these classes are broad enough to encompass every character concept.

That means my Fighter, Rogue or Wizard can channel divine power, like a Cleric, to accommodate my Paladin, Inquisitor and Theurge concepts.

That means my Fighter and Rogue can learn to cast spells to accommodate my Warmage and Arcane Trickster concepts.

That means my Fighter can learn to skulk and tinker like a Rogue to accommodate my Assassin concept.

And vice versa.

To accommodate every concept without multiclassing, each class would need to be not just broad but all-inclusive. The whole point of class is to constrain what concepts can be achieved without restarting as a novice.

If you have many, many hyper-specific classes to cover every variation of every concept, or if you have one all-inclusive class, there's no need for multiclassing. But if you have a small number of unique classes, multiclassing is necessary.

Well I've conceded the need for subclasses and I don't see why a subclass couldn't achieve the same as any combination of base classes. Unless you want to combine a specific subclass with a specific other subclass. Or you want to combine three or four classes. But at that point you might as well take out the hassle of multiclassing and use a classless system after all.

As I mentioned early in the thread, I'm also after simplicity and I'm trying to get away from the absurd power levels magic sometimes gets to in D&D. I'm not necessarily after a game that allows any concept you can possibly imagine. I think fewer classes is a good way of providing for A GOOD RANGE OF POPULAR CONCEPTS while keeping things simple.