Types of Classes

This is a quick discussion on the types of classes I've been able to discern from working on D&D. These are basically the abilities and progressions. I think they use a "Tier" system in 3.5/PF, but I'm not familiar with them. These types of classes can usually be combined in various ways, as with all D&D/derivatives, there is no cut and dry classifications.

The first type is the "Simple" character class. Usually a one trick pony, but that doesn't have to be a bad thing. The best example is the Fighter. In AD&D he gets Exceptional Strength which makes him a general ass-kicker. He does a ton of damage, and can hit really well and really hard. The only thing "Simple" classes usually get as they progress is Hit Dice, and Attack ability; though sometimes they get an improving "ability", like how the Fighter gets extra attacks in AD&D.

I'm going to go with the "Powers" class, for second, because it was the second set of class in original D&D. This type of class is defined by a set of "powers" they can choose from, which they usually gain more of as they progress, but are usually expendable or only last a certain duration. This is the reason 4E is usually decried as homogenous (I'm not agreeing or disagreeing): all classes were defined by powers. This is also why 4E was said to be tons of fun (again, not agreeing or disagreeing). It's usually agreed the "Powers" classes, IE the Wizard, tend to be the most "fun", or at least most "customizable" (via spell selection). Powers don't necessarily have to spells, as shown in 4E or the Tome of Battle (IIRC). The original version of the thief, called the "box man" (IIRC), was a thief that got to use thief "powers" so many times per day.

The next type of class is the "Skill" class, or pejoratively the "Skill Monkey". Obviously the first example of this was the Thief. A class defined by a set of skills who could use in the game, which would improve when he progresses. The thief is also an example of the next type of class.

The "Ability" or "Feature" class, is a class defined by a set of features or abilities he can perform, that aren't expendable like powers; but pretty much constant, or in play when certain criteria are met. The Thief's "back stab" ability is the first example I can think of; wherein the Thief deals extra damage if he is able to sneak up on his opponent. The Monk, however, is the best example of a real "Ability" class. The Monk started with a set of abilities, and would gain new ones almost every level. Abilities such as break fall, detect poison, identify plant and animal type, etc.

Obviously most classes don't fall neatly into one type or another. The Monk for example has some basic abilities like the Fighter does, that would normally make it a one trick pony sort of class. However he also gets Thief skills, and then his defining abilities. The Paladin is a generally "Simple" class with a few abilities, but no where near as many as a Monk.

What's the benefit to this classification? Personally, I intend to make sure that I use all of these types in my games, so that there is real variety. Why shouldn't the Fighter be a simple class? He doesn't have to be weak or "useless" in comparison to the other classes; but that also doesn't mean he needs to have as many options or choices. I know personally, when I want to just play a quick game, I want that simple kind of class to just pick up and run with. I don't always want to have to keep track of a million abilities, or make a million choices before I start playing.

On the other hand, I want to have options and classes available for players who do want more control, or choice in their characters. That's the real way to get "every D&D player" at the same table. Give them options that are meaningful. That's one thing I don't like about D&D NEXT. The Fighter is flavorful, and relatively simply compared to the other classes, but I still have to decide a path and pick specializations and combat tricks, etc.