How many classes does it take...?

[UglyPanda]

Well, you can have any combination of classes if you want to roleplay. There have been campaigns where everyone has been the same class or everyone has been an NPC class. You don't even need more than one class, since solo campaigns work perfectly well.

Are you asking how many classes you need to have a balanced party?

[Starbuck_II]

I came across a discussion between some long-term players online who were discussing the idea that the Thief class was unneeded in 1e (and OD&D) and that only Fighters, Clerics and Magic Users were actually useful (and clerics were getting a hard time too). To be a thief, someone said, one simply steals things; it's not a class at all.

Given that a "Fighter" can be a knight, a samurai, a barbarian, Sinbad, a bandit or almost anything given the right costume, how many classes are actually needed to "put on" a decent fantasy setting? IS anything apart from Fighter and Magic-User needed if the correct role-play is applied over the top?

3 really:
a. Strong Warriors, b. Skilled warriors , and c. Magic using warrior.
Really, that fits every class combo.

Fighter is just a.
Bard is combination of b and c, mostly b.
Druid is a, b, and c.
Wizard is just c.
Cleric is a and c.

[The Two]

The rogue in 3.5 was next to useless next classes like druid and wizard, but fills roll b. perfectly. Also a rogue helps you out in tricky non-combat situations.

[Innis Cabal]

I would argue that no single class is needed, only a character and a set of skills.

[The Rose Dragon]

I would argue that no single class is needed, only a character and a set of skills.

I was gonna say "Classes? We don't need no stinkin' classes!". Which is an example of misquoting, apparently.

[Erom]

If you're going down this line of thinking, you might try playing DnD without classes - replace class features with appropriate feats chains and skills, and give more feat and skill point per level, and away you go. Sounds like fun, actually.

If you want to maintain DnD classes, and are asking how many are really necessary to be able to play any fantasy archetype - I would argue just two, magic user and martial character, are all that are really required. Party Face and Skillmonkey have classes that fit those roles better mechanically, but if you only have Swordguy and Spellguy as classes available, people who want to play a monkey or face or whatever can probably pick either and deck them out with the appropriate skills, feats, and roleplay.

[Ascension]

If you're going down this line of thinking, you might try playing DnD without classes - replace class features with appropriate feats chains and skills, and give more feat and skill point per level, and away you go. Sounds like fun, actually.

Congratulations! You just reinvented True20!

[bosssmiley]

If you're going down this line of thinking, you might try playing DnD without classes - replace class features with appropriate feats chains and skills, and give more feat and skill point per level, and away you go. Sounds like fun, actually.

If you want to maintain DnD classes, and are asking how many are really necessary to be able to play any fantasy archetype - I would argue just two, magic user and martial character, are all that are really required. Party Face and Skillmonkey have classes that fit those roles better mechanically, but if you only have Swordguy and Spellguy as classes available, people who want to play a monkey or face or whatever can probably pick either and deck them out with the appropriate skills, feats, and roleplay.

+1 for this.

And classless D&D is just about possible with 4E. Just sub in alternate class features (or 'powers' as the *ahem* young hep cats call 'em) from other classes at the appropriate levels.

[Tempest Fennac]

Erom, this isn't quite the same thing, but the Generic Classes may interrest you: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/cl...ricClasses.htm . A friend was working on a 3.5 variant with only one class a while back.

[Lady Tialait]

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=83672

If you want you can look into this, it's just one...I've not finished it. But, ya'know it's a good start.


Edit: Temp mentioned it before I could!...

[Matthew]

I came across a discussion between some long-term players online who were discussing the idea that the Thief class was unneeded in 1e (and OD&D) and that only Fighters, Clerics and Magic Users were actually useful (and clerics were getting a hard time too). To be a thief, someone said, one simply steals things; it's not a class at all.

Given that a "Fighter" can be a knight, a samurai, a barbarian, Sinbad, a bandit or almost anything given the right costume, how many classes are actually needed to "put on" a decent fantasy setting? IS anything apart from Fighter and Magic-User needed if the correct role-play is applied over the top?

As Erom points out, there are really only two fantasy archetypes necessary for D&D, the warrior and the wizard. Indeed, originally there were only these two classes, the cleric was introduced as the game developed (but before it was released). The idea of "a class based system" was not strictly speaking intended from the outset, and the hybrid that is AD&D is the result.

The thief and the cleric are now iconic, though, so you really need the four class model to be playing "D&D" (not OD&D, though).

[Heliomance]

If you mean paladins, it takes two - one to climb the ladder and the other to uphold the light.

Oh, wrong thread.

[Satyr]

You need either no class or as many classes as characters, when the palyers are able to create an own 'class' as a special fit for their idealised character. The more defined a class is, the tighter this straightjacket becomes. The best games are those where the players are not shoehorned into certain roles and have the freedom to form their characters with at little limitations and hindrances as possible.

[Vva70]

Really, there is no point to having a lot of classes if you don't find differentiated mechanics appealing. The point of having a large variety is because many people do like to have a variety of mechanic sets to select from. It's the "game" part of "roleplaying game."

If your group sees mechanics as only a necessary tack-on to the roleplay for the purposes of action resolution, and doesn't care one whit about mechanical variety, then you're absolutely right that such a large class selection is not necessary. In such a situation, you may well be better suited by relying on a smaller list of classes, or even switching to a more mechanics-light system.

[Nerd-o-rama]

NO CLASSES WHATSOEVER! MWAHAHAHA!

Cruise control for cool!

[Knaight]

That would be here actually.

Anyways, there is no real need for more than one or two classes, or just go skill based.

[LibraryOgre]

I came across a discussion between some long-term players online who were discussing the idea that the Thief class was unneeded in 1e (and OD&D) and that only Fighters, Clerics and Magic Users were actually useful (and clerics were getting a hard time too). To be a thief, someone said, one simply steals things; it's not a class at all.

That's a slightly different argument. There's one type of argument that goes "You don't really need a thief if you've got strong fighters and clerics... just let the fighter take the hit (or chop down the door or chest), and have the cleric heal them." That's the version of the "You don't need a thief" argument that I most often hear.

Generally, I think that the classes in D&D break down best into the core three of Warrior, Rogue, and Magic-User. A traditional cleric is handled just as well by multi-classing between Magic-User and Warrior.

[Tengu_temp]

Because the "you don't need any classes" answer was already taken several times...

The number of classes a system needs is inversely proportional to the amount of customization you can do within one class - which is why skill-based systems or ones where you can make your own powers tend not to have any classes at all, and why systems where the only mechanical difference between two characters with the same class are slightly different stats and the weapon they use require a crapload of classes to give players interesting options.

[Roderick_BR]

If you're going down this line of thinking, you might try playing DnD without classes - replace class features with appropriate feats chains and skills, and give more feat and skill point per level, and away you go. Sounds like fun, actually.

Someone in homebrew is doing something like this: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=86469

[EndlessWrath]

I played a game using only 3.5 NPC classes...

2 commoners, 1 expert, and 1 adept.

I'm thinking you could pull a game with just commoners and adepts.

[EvilElitest]

how ever many it takes to give you enough credit to pass. More if you want the good diplomas, but if your not interested in college you only need the basics
from
EE

[Nerd-o-rama]

how ever many it takes to give you enough credit to pass. More if you want the good diplomas, but if your not interested in college you only need the basics
from
EE

/high five

This advice applies to college itself, as well, by the way.

[EvilElitest]

/high five

This advice applies to college itself, as well, by the way.

You can find out more at your local Guidance office

ironically enough that is rather true

Thanks
/high five return plus jump
from
EE

[Prometheus]

I've argued this before, but the point of classes seems to be strategic choice between different tracks rather than a way of expanding options. The posters are right that if you were concerned with covering all the archetypes you'd define classes as broadly as possible, but if you wanted to add more rules to make strategy less simplistic than you'd create more divisions in classes. The other thing I'd like to add is for better or worse classes have their own fluff associated with them. A Druid is a nature-based spellcaster, a Cleric is a religion-based spellcaster and a Wizard is a science-based spellcaster. The difference between a bard and a paladin is not just the spell list and a couple of features, but the fact that the bardic music goes with the bard spells and that the paladin's mount goes with the paladin spells. If there is one thing D&D is known for in the subject of classes, it is these things.

If that's not what you are looking for, that's great, but you're probably better off doing something other than D&D.

[Inhuman Bot]

Or, you may use a system where your "class" is nothing but fluff, though thats been suggested.

After all, how would a class help you agaisnt the unfathomable?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_of...e-playing_game

OH RIGHT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elminster

For those who didn't know, Elminster has roughly twice the challenge rating of Cthulhu.

[Tsotha-lanti]

If you gotta have a class-based system, you should have an amount of classes that approaches infinity. Failing that, as many as you can get your hands on will do.

[Edge of Dreams]

Dunno if anyone else has really covered this, but, hey.

1) How many classes are needed depends on how you define "needed." Needed to make the game strategically interesting? RP interesting? To give a good way to represent any conceptual character? A good way to make any combat style?

2) How many classes are needed also depends on how versatile each class is. I would say 4e needs to have way more classes because each class is so limited in the scope of it's concept. 3.5 on the other hand, had a few classes sufficient to make anything at all (Generic classes from Unearthed Arcana for example - Warrior, Expert, and Magic User - not the same as the NPC classes ). Just from the PHB, Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, and Wizard would be enough to represent almost any concept or strategy, if you're creative enough. It also, unfortunately, included too many classes that were specific to the point of making them difficult to RP in any non-cliche way (Monk, Paladin, Ninja, etc.)

[Pronounceable]

I was expecting a lightbulb joke...

As for original question, one magic guy and one nonmagic guy plus fluff would be enough to stimulate traditional fantasy. And monsters (which includes elves and whatnot).

[StoryKeeper]

What I'm getting at is that the D&D druid (especially the broken 3e one you've based your comment on) has no basis in fantasy or legend outside of D&D itself.

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding you, but are you saying their are no mentions of druids in mythology? If you are, I suggest reading a few celtic myths. That's where you'll find druids in legend.

Or maybe you meant something else entirely and I am just derailing this thread.

[celestialkin]

I came across a discussion between some long-term players online who were discussing the idea that the Thief class was unneeded in 1e (and OD&D) and that only Fighters, Clerics and Magic Users were actually useful (and clerics were getting a hard time too). To be a thief, someone said, one simply steals things; it's not a class at all.

Given that a "Fighter" can be a knight, a samurai, a barbarian, Sinbad, a bandit or almost anything given the right costume, how many classes are actually needed to "put on" a decent fantasy setting? IS anything apart from Fighter and Magic-User needed if the correct role-play is applied over the top?

This is one of the things I feel is wrong with 4.0.

I personally feel that you don't "need" anything but a fighter/warrior to role-play, and I also believe that the role-playing is far more important than the mechanics, but if everyone has the exact same mechanics then everything besides the role-playing gets boring. And I feel it also limits the potential for role-playing.

For example, I am a psionics fan, and it has lead to tons of role-playing fun. With a few players (one in particular comes to mind for a number of campaigns) who were arcane magic fans I was able to form fun friendly rivalries, which were sort of like the elf and dwarf from Lord of the Rings. I would outdo them at times during battles or other times our powers/spells were needed, and we'd brag and rub it in each others' noses. One time, a player (the same mentioned above) kept talking about the Arcane Order, so one day my PC decided to create a Psionic Order himself. Now a branch of the Psionic Order is in every major city of my games. We did different things, and in very different ways, although we could possibly replace each other in the same "role" if needed.