Gelatinous Icosahedron

 Last post, I came to the conclusion that the vast majority (if not all) D&D classes are, functionally, built around three primary approaches to adventuring: combat and physical prowess (fighter,) magic (magic-user,) and mundane non-combat skills (thief.) By hybridizing these three, you can adequately model almost any sort of character without creating a new class for every single variation on a theme.  There are a few different ways we can go about hybridizing classes. One way is to make the new class fully functional in both of the basic classes, or nearly so, and making XP requirements much higher to compensate and/or applying a level limit. It's essentially a "best of both worlds" concept, applying the most advantageous aspects of each class, e.g. the higher hit die, the less restrictive weapon and armor strictures, the better combat, spell, and/or skill progression of the two base classes. Basic D&D does this with the Elf class. Except for the d6 hit die inst

 How many classes does D&D need? Some editions, especially OD&D and the "basic" D&D games (B/X and BECMI) stick to a few essentials, at least in the core game. AD&D and its supplements add quite a few more that are considered iconic to one degree or another, and have been adapted innumerable times for basic D&D and its retroclones, but I don't believe any of them really breaks any new ground.  I suppose how many classes you need depends on what exactly a character class represents to you. Is it a broad archetype, a representation of a specific legendary or literary character, or does it encapsulate a particular approach to the business of adventuring? For me, it's this last definition. Building upon that, three character classes seem most essential to the game (and it's not the original three, oddly enough.) The first approach to adventuring is to face it with physical prowess and skill at arms; the way of the fighter . This simple class model