all 4th classes are welcome to Next

as the title says bring all the 4th classes (I count 25)
as the title says bring all the 4th classes (I count 25)



I am really digging the PF Gunslinger class. It is especially fun in a Dark Tower type of game or a Pirate type of game. I'd like to see this concept explored in DDN.
"If it's not a conjuration, how did the wizard con·jure/ˈkänjər/Verb 1. Make (something) appear unexpectedly or seemingly from nowhere as if by magic. it?" -anon "Why don't you read fire·ball / fī(-ə)r-ˌbȯl/ and see if you can find the key word con.jure /'kən-ˈju̇r/ anywhere in it." -Maxperson
Well, if we're making a wishlist, I actually found Pathfinder's alchemist to be quite enjoyable, at the very least as a character throwing bombs and making healing potions for the party via a feat. Perhaps not optimal, but it was there.  It does fit pretty handily under artificer though, so there's that to condider.
I wouldn't doubt a large number of classes will eventually show up in splat books later.
Depending on how important they're making sub-classes, we may not need too many base classes which means we can get a lot of sub-classes pretty easily while keeping things relatively balanced and stable.
Well, if we're making a wishlist, I actually found Pathfinder's alchemist to be quite enjoyable, at the very least as a character throwing bombs and making healing potions for the party via a feat. Perhaps not optimal, but it was there.  It does fit pretty handily under artificer though, so there's that to condider.



I agree! Alchemist is the class I am missing the most in D&D. And PF hit the sweet spot almost perfectly. (I would like also if alchemist evoked demons or created constructs like golems). I would love if D&D artificier was more like PF alchemist.
I don't see a need for making all the 4e classes thier own class, not with the new, broader definition of sub-class.

Avenger can fit under paladin.
runepriest can fit under cleric.
slayer, knight and weaponmaster can all fit under fighter.
warden can fit under barbarian.
battlemind and ardent can fit under psion.

assassin needs it's own class, but there's other shadow stuff that can join it such as shadow dancer. Executioner can go under rogue.

Warlord... well there's already many dedicated threads over that.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

Actually..

Battlemind and ardent probably want their own gish class. Like ranger and paladin, they'd be Martial with psion spells.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

Executioner can go under rogue. Warlord... well there's already many dedicated threads over that.



I don't get this class at all. How is an executioner a class? You cut off heads for capital punishment. Sounds like the class "guard" or "soldier"

No one has ever explained this class to me in a coherent manner.
"If it's not a conjuration, how did the wizard con·jure/ˈkänjər/Verb 1. Make (something) appear unexpectedly or seemingly from nowhere as if by magic. it?" -anon "Why don't you read fire·ball / fī(-ə)r-ˌbȯl/ and see if you can find the key word con.jure /'kən-ˈju̇r/ anywhere in it." -Maxperson
4e executioner is basicly a martial assassin. It had a feature that let it finish off low HP creatures, and used poisons.
Not the best name, no.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

as the title says bring all the 4th classes (I count 25)



ok then i want every kit for ad&d as a class of its own i think its over 120 or so. where does this end. then the over 100 3rd classes and all the versions of classes in basic dnd, 1st ect. so we would have a game with almost 800 classes. you just want 4th to be dominant in this edition, every other edition had to give up on some things that made it special to come to the 5th table. stop the maddness.
as the title says bring all the 4th classes (I count 25)

ok then i want every kit for ad&d as a class of its own i think its over 120 or so. where does this end. then the over 100 3rd classes and all the versions of classes in basic dnd, 1st ect. so we would have a game with almost 800 classes.

Sounds good to me, although I wouldn't mind more classes than that.
Where does it end? Why does it have to end? This is a game. Why should there be an end?
as the title says bring all the 4th classes (I count 25)

ok then i want every kit for ad&d as a class of its own i think its over 120 or so. where does this end. then the over 100 3rd classes and all the versions of classes in basic dnd, 1st ect. so we would have a game with almost 800 classes.

Sounds good to me, although I wouldn't mind more classes than that. Where does it end? Why does it have to end? This is a game. Why should there be an end?



because the money you have to spend on useless filler books does have an end. and every single option is just as bad as not enough. if thats the case then i want a thaco module, weapon speed module, weapon damage vs armor type module, it just creates a total rules mess and you could accomplish that by just copy and pasting every edition rule book into one. the thought makes me cry.
as the title says bring all the 4th classes (I count 25)

ok then i want every kit for ad&d as a class of its own i think its over 120 or so. where does this end. then the over 100 3rd classes and all the versions of classes in basic dnd, 1st ect. so we would have a game with almost 800 classes.

Sounds good to me, although I wouldn't mind more classes than that. Where does it end? Why does it have to end? This is a game. Why should there be an end?



because the money you have to spend on useless filler books does have an end.

Useless is a completely subjective opinion though. What is useless to you is desired by others.
and every single option is just as bad as not enough.

How?
If thats the case then i want a thaco module, weapon speed module, weapon damage vs armor type module,

Sounds good to me.
it just creates a total rules mess and you could accomplish that by just copy and pasting every edition rule book into one. the thought makes me cry.

If D&D Next is going to be truly modular, it's going to have to do a lot of what makes you cry just to achieve that design goal.
as the title says bring all the 4th classes (I count 25)

ok then i want every kit for ad&d as a class of its own i think its over 120 or so. where does this end. then the over 100 3rd classes and all the versions of classes in basic dnd, 1st ect. so we would have a game with almost 800 classes.

Sounds good to me, although I wouldn't mind more classes than that. Where does it end? Why does it have to end? This is a game. Why should there be an end?



because the money you have to spend on useless filler books does have an end.

Useless is a completely subjective opinion though. What is useless to you is desired by others.
and every single option is just as bad as not enough.

How?
If thats the case then i want a thaco module, weapon speed module, weapon damage vs armor type module,

Sounds good to me.
it just creates a total rules mess and you could accomplish that by just copy and pasting every edition rule book into one. the thought makes me cry.

If D&D Next is going to be truly modular, it's going to have to do a lot of what makes you cry just to achieve that design goal.



its flawed logic to think that a starting goal is an ending one. things happen thru the process that change the end goal and that is not a bad thing. its the nature of designing anything.

A design goal is neither a starting nor ending goal. It is an ongoing, enduring one.
as the title says bring all the 4th classes (I count 25)




Fighter, Rogue, Ranger, Warlord, Wizard, Bard, Warlock, Sorcerer, Druid, Warden, Barbarian, Shaman, Cleric, Invoker, Paladin, Avenger, Swordmage, Artificier, Knight, Slayer, Mage, Warpriest, Thief, Cavalier, Hunter, Scout, Sentinel, Hexblade, Black Knight, Vampire, Binder, Assasin, Executioner, Witch, Skald, Berserker, Protector, Elementalist, Sha'ir.  Ardent, Battlemind, Monk, Psion, Seeker and Rune Priest.

That's 45 classes for 4th edition.
Calling some of those independent classes is ... questionable, though.  The Slayer and Knight are fighter builds, for example.

But at any rate ... doesn't matter.  WotC should print every class they can think of (within reasonable boundaries of balance) and let the individual tables decide what they will and will not use.
I presume they'll eke these (and forgotten classes of 1st through 3rd ed as well, from the Jester to the Swashbucklet) out in splat books and Dungeon magazine after the core publications.
Black Knight




Oh this one should definitely be a class!

This idea that options and supplemented material is bad needs to stop. I'd love to see dozens of classes over time. There doesn't need to be 100 at the onset though over 6 or 7 years, yes that'd be nice.
Calling some of those independent classes is ... questionable, though.  The Slayer and Knight are fighter builds, for example.

But at any rate ... doesn't matter.  WotC should print every class they can think of (within reasonable boundaries of balance) and let the individual tables decide what they will and will not use.



I decided to place the Essential classes, like the Knight, Thief, as their own since they have powers unique to them.  To me builds we like those in the Power books- they are fighters still. A knight can't use Fighter powers unless they use feats found in a Dragon article.

This idea that options and supplemented material is bad needs to stop. I'd love to see dozens of classes over time. There doesn't need to be 100 at the onset though over 6 or 7 years, yes that'd be nice.



Have no fear.  We're going to get the boring core books just like the old days of yore. So boring. I hate classic D&D.

Races- Human, Half-Orc, Half-Elf, Elf, Gnome, Dwarf and Halfling.
Classes- Barbarian, Monk, Cleric, Fighter, Ranger, Wizard, Paladin, Rogue, Driud and maybe the Sorcerer.

The monk needs to stop being a core, sacred cow. Might as well throw in the stupid 1st edition Assassin.

This idea that options and supplemented material is bad needs to stop. I'd love to see dozens of classes over time. There doesn't need to be 100 at the onset though over 6 or 7 years, yes that'd be nice.



Have no fear.  We're going to get the boring core books just like the old days of yore. So boring. I hate classic D&D.

Races- Human, Half-Orc, Half-Elf, Elf, Gnome, Dwarf and Halfling.
Classes- Barbarian, Monk, Cleric, Fighter, Ranger, Wizard, Paladin, Rogue, Driud and maybe the Sorcerer.

The monk needs to stop being a core, sacred cow. Might as well throw in the stupid 1st edition Assassin.





Yes, because... you know... why would you even make the Core books as something that is the essential material which is common to practically all D&D games, right?

How absurd!

Much better to have Giant-Space-Mutant-Thri-Kreens instead of Dwarves and Mentally-Empowered-Vampire-Alchemists instead of Fighters since they probably won't be used in more than 0.000001% of D&D games.

Now who even said that the Core books should be the basic set of rules and ideas to build other D&D campaigns upon? I'm indignant! Someone bring that person to justice!
The truth hurts, but time heals all wounds.
The truth hurts, but time heals all wounds.



What "truth" are you referring to?
I cannot reveal that which you refuse to see. Only after removing all bias and opening your mind to endless possibilities can you find the "truth".
I cannot reveal that which you refuse to see. Only after removing all bias and opening your mind to endless possibilities can you find the "truth".



Save your philosophical "truths", I prefer facts.
And yet provide none, interesting.
And yet provide none, interesting.



What facts do you want, an what truth are you talking about?
 I want all the 2nd ed priest varients including the ones from Dragon magazine. The Faiths and Avatar trilogy had over 100 by itself. Priest of Wee Jas could cast up to level 4 wizard spells they prayed for so I want that as well. 

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 Fear is the Mind Killer  

I would like Racial classes, I converted the Basic Elf to 5th Ed (I will have to tweak it again in 5 minutes when the new packet come out!).
as the title says bring all the 4th classes (I count 25)



ERK!

I'm gonna be the kill-joy here - NO they most definately ARE NOT welcome in Next as classes!

before y'all jump on me, let me explain myself. A lot of the so-called classes from 4th weren't really neccessary. It felt to me like devs were trying to include one role for each power type and throw the odd bone to certain classic sub- or prestige- class builds from earlier games. These extra classes did not feel like D&D classes at all to me or my group and we would have happily gone without or accepted new power support into existing classes to allow for 4e sub-classing. (That isn't to say we didn't find some of them to be quite cool. We've had Wardens, Seekers, Swordmages, Warlords (no, it isn't a core class you heathens! ), Warlocks, Sorcerers, Battleminds and even a Runepriest in our games). 

In 2E some of these 4e classes would have simply been kits in the PHBR series books. But in Next we have the possibility of using the Speciality system to produce largely the same effects allowing us to keep the 'core' classes and mod them to provide whatever variations you see fit. I see this as a good thing indeed.

So, in Next I see many of these extra classes as a distraction and completely unneccessary. But I would love to se them return as Specialities along the way. For me, keep the classes for 'core' D&D classes and ensure each has unique mechanics governing it then add te variety and thematics using Backgrounds and Specialities. This way we can all have what we want wihout over-bloating the class system. 



EDIT: Yeah, I know this is coming so I'll head it off now. For me the core classes are: Fighter, Ranger, Paladin (which, TBF, could be a Fighter or Cleric specialty under my proposal), Rogue, Bard, Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Monk, Psionicist. On the Warlock, Sorcerer and Barbarian I'll admit I'm on the fence about. Acrobat, Assassin, and the 4E additional roster definately not). Remember, I'm was a 2e DM for a long time and it coloured my view on what's D&D to me. You will undoubtedly have your own view and that will be no less valid than my own
"They call me Wraith for I hate the living..." "Play the game, not the ruleset" In April this year, a real force for good was lost to this community - Wrecan, whichever plane your soul now wanders I hope the journey you are now on is as interesting as the writings you shared with this community. Rest in peace. I am Blue/Green
I am Blue/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
This idea that options and supplemented material is bad needs to stop. I'd love to see dozens of classes over time. There doesn't need to be 100 at the onset though over 6 or 7 years, yes that'd be nice.



I'll certainly agree that there needs to be a constantly building array of options as the game develops over time. The 'core' game needs to start with only those classes that are common to (almost) everyone's experience of D&D though. From there we need to be brutal about what is a class and what is a Speciality build to keep things tidy.

As I've said before, I really don't like the idea of ending up with tens of classes all coverig the same basic roles just to cater for tropes in literature or media nor do I want the nihtmare mess of 2e style kit sprawl where balance is never considered and theme is everything. Both just lead to character creation becoming unweildy and broken as time progresses.

Options are good, don't get me wrong but I'd rather have (for example) 5 core classes that can be built to cope with mulitple themes or roles than have 50 classes, one for each role or theme I want to see.

Does that make sense?
"They call me Wraith for I hate the living..." "Play the game, not the ruleset" In April this year, a real force for good was lost to this community - Wrecan, whichever plane your soul now wanders I hope the journey you are now on is as interesting as the writings you shared with this community. Rest in peace. I am Blue/Green
I am Blue/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
This idea that options and supplemented material is bad needs to stop. I'd love to see dozens of classes over time. There doesn't need to be 100 at the onset though over 6 or 7 years, yes that'd be nice.



I'll certainly agree that there needs to be a constantly building array of options as the game develops over time. The 'core' game needs to start with only those classes that are common to (almost) everyone's experience of D&D though. From there we need to be brutal about what is a class and what is a Speciality build to keep things tidy.

As I've said before, I really don't like the idea of ending up with tens of classes all coverig the same basic roles just to cater for tropes in literature or media nor do I want the nihtmare mess of 2e style kit sprawl where balance is never considered and theme is everything. Both just lead to character creation becoming unweildy and broken as time progresses.

Options are good, don't get me wrong but I'd rather have (for example) 5 core classes that can be built to cope with mulitple themes or roles than have 50 classes, one for each role or theme I want to see.

Does that make sense?




I understand but I don't necessarily agree. The idea that ALL of these concepts can be fit under the roof of a few archtypes defeats the purpose of a Class-based RPG. For one, we'd need FAR more options at each level to cover the differences in features and abiliites. How does one create a shadow-based Assassin that uses Ghost Walk, Shrouds, and shaodow-y powers under the Rogue umbrella? What is the player giving up for these features? And if the Rogue is giving up SO MUCH of their base class to facilitate a specific feel, isn't it better just to create a full class that hits the design goals without the run-around?

Or lets go with Swordmage. This guy teleports a lot and fights extreamly well with his blade and spells. What class does he fall under or does he fall into the "Specialties" tree? And in doing that, what levels do you determine he gets things like his Aegis or Swordbond? Are there going to be separate spells that work in favor of such a style or is he relegated to the old Gish where you either fought with a sword like a Fighter or cast spells like a wizard? Becuase that does NOT represent what a Swordmage did well, at all.

I think this is the sort of thing your running into. Take a look at the current Warden path for Paladins. They gave him some druid spells, a specific nature-oriented channel divinity and that was it. He does practically nothing similiar to a 4E Warden and really, there is little that distinguishes him from a Paladin who just venerates a nature god. No transformation. No abilities features to stop enemies from running away. No elemental-based attacks that show the influence of nature there is. It's weak and hollow and this is why I think sub-classes aren't the way to go. They'll be weak, former versions of their once interesting selves.  
the problem is that when a new edition come out the fans of the past one lose things if they want to play the next edition in line. it seems 4vengers cant let go of anything and want 5th to be word for word. then they slam classic editons as all bad and terrible. welcome to the world of being a fan of an older edition. mearls has stated that to release books in the future with core changing rules was a mistake of 4th and it wont be repeated. so you may see some new builds of core classes as subclasses. but you wont see new mechanics with those as thats what caused rule bloat and ruined 3rd and 4th.
I cannot reveal that which you refuse to see. Only after removing all bias and opening your mind to endless possibilities can you find the "truth".



Come on, Diffan, you're just being antaginistic there. How about you also open your mind to the truth that Dan and Rasta are talking about here.

The truth in question is that most D&D games follow what we now call a 'traditiona;' fantasy trope. I suppose it's fair to say that it's a Tolkienesque fantasy where Elves, Dwarves, Humans and Hobbi....sorr, Halflings are the common races and that Orcs, Goblins and the like are the 'evil' races lurking in the darkness. Where the setting is largely medieval. Where magic exists but practitioners are rarer than soldiers and the like with the potential to earth shattering destructive capabilities and where fantastical monsters exist.

You already know this so I won't go on with the example. Now, there are other games that folow other fantasy themes or tropes where lizardmen, aliens, planar creatures, time travel, and other things are normal or more common than in a Tolkienesque vision of the fantasy world, or where the setting itself is more modern, or more savage or less magical or more magical or so on but these are generally less common than our Tolkienesque medieval fantasy.

Why am I blathering on? To get to this point:

D&D should in it's core form cater for the most common form of fantasy. In my opinion that is a vaguely Tolkienesque vision of a medieval setting. I'm not alone in thinking this. D&D should also cate for the other forms of fantasy and the more fringe options and themes as it has always done, and this, too, is perfectly sound and OK to do.

Would I like one big book to buy with all the options in? Sure, why not? But such a tome would be unwieldy and would leave WotC nothing to bolt-on to sell to us later. Not a good business strategy. Do I want interesting themes, differing styles of play and new options along the way,? Absolutely? Do I want players with non-standard tastes pushed out of the game? Absolutely not.

Wanting to see the game cater first to the 'default' fantasy vision is not closing one's mind to the fact that the Tolkienesquefantasy is not the only way to play. On the contrary, we have to start somewhere and build out from there and to achieve the greatest inclusivity that usually means we have to cater to the largest proportian of players first.


Please don't take me wrong - this isn't an attack, I just wanted to ensure you understood that looking for a 'core' book with 'core' materials that you may find disinteresting is not people being closed-minded. I for one will support your want for extra options, different settings and choices but as I hope I've explained adequately we have to start with material that will fit the large majority of gamers first. Some of that will likey work for you, too.
"They call me Wraith for I hate the living..." "Play the game, not the ruleset" In April this year, a real force for good was lost to this community - Wrecan, whichever plane your soul now wanders I hope the journey you are now on is as interesting as the writings you shared with this community. Rest in peace. I am Blue/Green
I am Blue/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
Let go, give up, it is all the same discussion on what establishes the core of the game, so a 1E avenger only wants certain classes, and the rest can be specialities or feats, which can be ignored by removing those options, where the 4E avenger sees no problem with builds, and numerous classes if they can do something unique. I am sure there are certain things 2E avengers and 3E avengers want as well.

The problem is we all want different games. But I agree specialities, or sub-classes are not the answer if there is a unique class concept. Subclasses will just make more of the same thing. Where sublclass may provide hope is present different styles of the same class, from 1E to 4E. But 5E overall is going to find it hard to be all things to all editions, and they appear to be dead set against making basic, standard and advanced take on different editions, where basic may cover 1E/2E and standard 3E/4E, and advanced will let you choose whatever you like. 
Let go, give up, it is all the same discussion on what establishes the core of the game, so a 1E avenger only wants certain classes, and the rest can be specialities or feats, which can be ignored by removing those options, where the 4E avenger sees no problem with builds, and numerous classes if they can do something unique. I am sure there are certain things 2E avengers and 3E avengers want as well.

The problem is we all want different games. But I agree specialities, or sub-classes are not the answer if there is a unique class concept. Subclasses will just make more of the same thing. Where sublclass may provide hope is present different styles of the same class, from 1E to 4E. But 5E overall is going to find it hard to be all things to all editions, and they appear to be dead set against making basic, standard and advanced take on different editions, where basic may cover 1E/2E and standard 3E/4E, and advanced will let you choose whatever you like. 



the goal was never to have basic cover classic dnd lol. the goal was to have advanced modules cover concepts from varying editions that could be plugged into change the flavor and gameplay.


I understand but I don't necessarily agree. The idea that ALL of these concepts can be fit under the roof of a few archtypes defeats the purpose of a Class-based RPG. For one, we'd need FAR more options at each level to cover the differences in features and abiliites.....And if the Rogue is giving up SO MUCH of their base class to facilitate a specific feel, isn't it better just to create a full class that hits the design goals without the run-around?



Believe it or not, we're probably on the same page here, Diffan.

All of the concepts definately won't fit under a small set of classes. Not even I'm that nieve. Any character type that ends up giving up most of a classes actual abilities would need to be looked at as a potentially new class - totally with you there.

I for one wouldn't ind more choices within the class power set-up to help facilitate the 'archetype' class from serving many different sub-class types. In fact, I did exactly that with my 2E game using a modified version of the Skills and Powers rules. I guess what I'm saying is lets not immediately jump to the 'this needs to be a new class!' approach as quite a lot of fantasy adventurer types actually come from the same core idea with a twist or two applied. Look for the similarities and build appropriately and if an adventurer type demands a unique mechanic and the loss of most of the traditional 'archetypal' abilities to fit then, well, that probably IS a new class niche right there.


Or lets go with Swordmage. This guy teleports a lot and fights extreamly well with his blade and spells. What class does he fall under or does he fall into the "Specialties" tree? And in doing that, what levels do you determine he gets things like his Aegis or Swordbond? Are there going to be separate spells that work in favor of such a style or is he relegated to the old Gish where you either fought with a sword like a Fighter or cast spells like a wizard? Becuase that does NOT represent what a Swordmage did well, at all.



One word - Bladesinger.

Yep, Fighter/Elf kit in a 2E splatbook. Really was a multiclass Fighter/Wizards with some flavouring. What's to stop that sort of thing in Next? Adding the Aegis mechanic? Simple - bolt it into the Swordmage Specialty. Doesn't matter if it's a Wizard or Fighter Speciality really.

We can do this a thousand different ways. My preference is to keep the core classes broad in appeal but limited in number with specialties filling the gaps. That's all I'm really saying here.


Take a look at the current Warden path for Paladins. ... It's weak and hollow and this is why I think sub-classes aren't the way to go. They'll be weak, former versions of their once interesting selves.



I see your point and appreciate what you're saying. I actually agree with you in principle (it would be easy to make sub-classes shadows of their former selves if we're trying to carbon copy from 3E or 4E some of the 'additional' classes) but not in execution. I think the modular nature of Next can make this work and make it work in an intersting way, but as I said above this is all down to my preference in a potential execution.


I can see we're both after the same thing and that's cool. We probably only are disagreing on the fundimental method by which to provide all the options and choices.
"They call me Wraith for I hate the living..." "Play the game, not the ruleset" In April this year, a real force for good was lost to this community - Wrecan, whichever plane your soul now wanders I hope the journey you are now on is as interesting as the writings you shared with this community. Rest in peace. I am Blue/Green
I am Blue/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I don't see a need for making all the 4e classes thier own class, not with the new,  broader definition of sub-class.

Avenger can fit under paladin.
runepriest can fit under cleric.
slayer, knight and weaponmaster can all fit under fighter.
warden can fit under barbarian.
battlemind and ardent can fit under psion.

assassin needs it's own class, but there's other shadow stuff that can join it such as shadow dancer.  Executioner can go under rogue.

Warlord...  well there's already many dedicated threads over that.

thats fine

alchemist sounds like artificer