What I hate about new editions.

62 posts / 0 new
Last post
The endless reinvention of the classes, and the waiting for important classes to be published.

In 4E, they delayed core classes like Druid and Bard so they could include things like Warlord and Warlock -- classes which, to me, are not really central to the game.  This was extremely irksome.

I know, I know, they had to put in Warlord so people would grasp the concept of a non-divine leader class.  Well I say poop on your roles, and poop on your Warlord.  (Actually I think Warlords are awesome, just not core.)  And yeah, Druids use a different power source from all the PH1 classes.  A different what?  Has this "power source" ever had any effect on the game whatsoever, beyond being a jargony, fluffy label?

So yeah, they dropped the ball for two very silly reasons, and I didn't get to play a druid for a full year.  A year of my life, wasted!!  Cry

And it was a full three years before Heroes of the Feywild came out and gave us the version of the druid that should have come first -- now that I've already played a druid for an entire campaign and am ready to move on to something else.  SO FRUSTRATING.

And please, before anyone starts criticizing, I realize some of my language here has been a bit hyperbolic.  It's called humor.  But the basic points remain:


  • Please include ALL the core classes in the initial release of the game.  And don't try to get fancy with them -- stick with iconic.



  • Instead of creating crazy new subclasses, why not just make a whole new class?  That way, people who have already played a class can try the new one without feeling like they are replaying the same game.

If your position is that the official rules don't matter, or that house rules can fix everything, please don't bother posting in forums about the official rules. To do so is a waste of everyone's time.
How awesome does something have to be before it becomes core?

Not a rhetorical question.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
How awesome does something have to be before it becomes core?

Not a rhetorical question.


I don't think something should become core because its awesome. I think something should become core because its an iconic fantasy archetype. The non-iconic awesome stuff should be published early on in supplements.
My Twitter
part of the complaints about 4e are class bloat so i dont think you will see a lot of classes at release. i do however think you will see the iconic 1e classes, save perhaps the monk and bard. in other words, i would expect a druid at release
The classes can be divided into discrete groups based on iconicness...

GROUP I
Cleric
Fighter
Rogue (or Thief)
Wizard (or Magic-User)

GROUP II
Bard
Druid
Monk
Paladin
Ranger

GROUP III
Artificer
Assassin
Barbarian
Psion
Sorcerer
Warlock
Warlord

GROUP IV
All the ones that sound made up, like Duskblade, Seeker, and Lurk
I think 4e made warlord so iconic and core that it should be in 5e PHB1. Frankly, it is in many ways the best new class in 4e.
The classes can be divided into discrete groups based on iconicness...

GROUP I
Cleric
Fighter
Rogue (or Thief)
Wizard (or Magic-User)

GROUP II
Bard
Druid
Monk
Paladin
Ranger



I personnaly don't agree. I think Group I and II are in fact the same group. With inclusion of barbarian and assassin.
I think 4e made warlord so iconic and core that it should be in 5e PHB1. Frankly, it is in many ways the best new class in 4e.


I concur.  I'd call the Warlord the clear standout newcomer class in 4e.  While I may have initially objected to having some iconic classes like the Druid pushed into the second PHB, that tune changed when I realized what a great piece of work the Warlord class is.

Any decision that would have delayed the release of the Warlord would have weakened 4e.  At one point, I may have agreed with Josha that the first classes released should be the most iconic ones.  Now, I think that the first classes released should be the best-designed ones.
I kind of want to go a completely different direction to avoid class bloat. 

You pick your power source, then your role, then your build.  You pick Divine power source, then you pick Leader you get a cleric.  Then you pick what type of build it will be with maybe 2 choices at creation.  Sort of like what they did with cleric and warpriest this time, but have a wisdom melee and wisdom implement build from the start or something.

Or you do something like druid being broken down into something like warden, predator, shaman, and blaster builds, but all the same class.

Warden, avenger, and shaman are some of my favorite 4E classes, but they are were all technically new to 4E and most likely won't be in any starter book.  Warlord was sort of new too and it was one of the best designed 4E classes and I could see it remaining.
warlord will probably be in an expansion if its in at all, reason being we have allowed people to go on and on for months about the evils of off turn attacks. it wont be part of the basic set; im expecting 'move and hit' and very little else. if they want to appeal to old school gamers thats pretty much a given imo
warlord will probably be in an expansion if its in at all, reason being we have allowed people to go on and on for months about the evils of off turn attacks.


There's a big difference between a Warlord having someone else roll his attack and having an extra attack due to an immediate interrupt.  When you budget "time per round" in 4e it's pretty simple to assume an attack roll and a damage roll.  That it's somebody else rolling it doesn't really change the time taken.

It's when everybody on Team PC is making an attack on everybody's turn that thing get bogged down, and what people want nipped in the bud in 5e.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
oh i have no problem at all with out of turn attacks, its just my thought on why it wont be in the core box. i could be wrong. but when i run a warlord i am granting attacks every time i attack so i just dont see the warlord as we know it in the basic 5e game.

i dont even think a lot of the basic pcs will have powers at all, just mbas and spells
Honestly the fact we even have classes is still fairly dissapointing. Many other systems are now trending after Elder Scrolls where you can be what you want. I wouldn't mind seeing a players option section like in 2nd where you built your characters class. Want a fighter with a school of magic, no problem. No need for expansion after expansion with character progression classes, basically make everything feats that you can buy with points you get as you level. There doesn't even need to be levels, just directly spend experience kinda like D10 systems like Vampire. 

They scored a home run when they introduced feats in 3E, thats how building your character should be, pick what you want. And for new people or introducing people then make generic templates that they can use, I.E. Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Mage.
The endless reinvention of the classes, and the waiting for important classes to be published.

In 4E, they delayed core classes like Druid and Bard so they could include things like Warlord and Warlock -- classes which, to me, are not really central to the game.  This was extremely irksome.



Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the druid was left out because they were trying to figure out how to make a version of the druid whose turns didn't involve everybody watching him playing with himself for ten minutes as he cast a spell, moved, moved his animal companion, cast a swift spell to let his animal companion full attack, etc.
Zammm = Batman. Bronies unite. "I'd call you a genius, but I'm in the room."
It's my sig in a box
58280208 wrote:
Everything is better when you read it in Bane's voice.
192334281 wrote:
Your human antics and desire to continue living have moved me. Just kidding. You cannot move me physically or emotionally. Wall humor.
57092228 wrote:
Copy effects work like a photocopy machine: you get a copy of the 'naked' card, NOT of what's on it.
56995928 wrote:
Funny story: InQuest Magazine (I think it was InQuest) had an oversized Chaos Orb which I totally rooked someone into allowing into a (non-sanctioned) game. I had a proxy card that was a Mountain with "Chaos Orb" written on it. When I played it, my opponent cried foul: Him: "WTF? a Proxy? no-one said anything about Proxies. Do you even own an actual Chaos Orb?" Me: "Yes, but I thought it would be better to use a Proxy." Him: "No way. If you're going to put a Chaos Orb in your deck you have to use your actual Chaos Orb." Me: "*Sigh*. Okay." I pulled out this huge Chaos Orb and placed it on the table. He tried to cry foul again but everyone else said he insisted I use my actual Chaos Orb and that was my actual Chaos Orb. I used it, flipped it and wiped most of his board. Unsurprisingly, that only worked once and only because everyone present thought it was hilarious.
My DM on Battleminds:
no, see i can kill defenders, but 8 consecutive crits on a battlemind, eh walk it off.
144543765 wrote:
195392035 wrote:
Hi guys! So, I'm a sort of returning player to Magic. I say sort of because as a child I had two main TCG's I liked. Yu-Gi-Oh, and Pokemon. Some of my friends branched off in to Magic, and I bought two pre-made decks just to kind of fit in. Like I said, Yu-Gi-Oh and Pokemon were what I really knew how to play. I have a extensive knowledge of deck building in those two TCG's. However, as far as Magic is concerned, I only ever used those two pre made decks. I know how the game is played, and I know general things, but now I want to get in the game for real. I want to begin playing it as a regular. My question is, are all cards ever released from the time of the inception of this game until present day fair game in a deck? Or are there special rules? Are some cards forbidden or restricted? Thanks guys, and I will gladly accept ANY help lol.
I have the same problem with women.
117639611 wrote:
198869283 wrote:
Oh I have a standing rule. If someone plays a Planeswalker I concede the game. I refuse to play with or against people who play Planeswalkers. They really did ruin the game.
A turn two Tibalt win?! Wicked... Betcha don't see that everyday.
Is this my new ego sig? Yes it is, other Barry
57461258 wrote:
And that's why you should never, ever call RP Jesus on being a troll, because then everyone else playing along gets outed, too, and the thread goes back to being boring.
57461258 wrote:
See, this is why RPJesus should be in charge of the storyline. The novel line would never have been cancelled if he had been running the show. Specifically the Slobad and Geth's Head talkshow he just described.
57461258 wrote:
Not only was that an obligatory joke, it was an on-topic post that still managed to be off-topic due to thread derailment. RP Jesus does it again folks.
92481331 wrote:
I think I'm gonna' start praying to Jesus... That's right, RPJesus, I'm gonna' be praying to you, right now. O' Jesus Please continue to make my time here on the forums fun and cause me to chuckle. Amen.
92481331 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
It was wonderful. Us Johnnies had a field day. That Timmy with the Grizzly bears would actually have to think about swinging into your Mogg Fanatic, giving you time to set up your silly combo. Nowadays it's all DERPSWING! with thier blue jeans and their MP3 players and their EM EM OH AR PEE JEES and their "Dewmocracy" and their children's card games and their Jersey Shores and their Tattooed Tenaged Vampire Hunters from Beverly Hills
Seriously, that was amazing. I laughed my *ss off. Made my day, and I just woke up.
[quote=ArtVenn You're still one of my favorite people... just sayin'.[/quote]
56756068 wrote:
56786788 wrote:
.....would it be a bit blasphemous if I said, "PRAYSE RPJAYSUS!" like an Evangelical preacher?
Perhaps, but who doesn't like to blaspheme every now and again? Especially when Mr. RPJesus is completely right.
56756068 wrote:
I don't say this often, but ... LOL
57526128 wrote:
You... You... Evil something... I actualy made the damn char once I saw the poster... Now you made me see it again and I gained resolve to put it into my campaign. Shell be high standing oficial of Cyrix order. Uterly mad and only slightly evil. And it'll be bad. Evil even. And ill blame you and Lizard for it :P.
57042968 wrote:
111809331 wrote:
I'm trying to work out if you're being sarcastic here. ...
Am going to stop you right there... it's RPJesus... he's always sarcastic
58335208 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
112114441 wrote:
we can only hope it gets the jace treatment...it could have at least been legendary
So that even the decks that don't run it run it to deal with it? Isn't that like the definition of format warping?
I lol'd.
56287226 wrote:
98088088 wrote:
Uktabi Orangutan What the heck's going on with those monkeys?
The most common answer is that they are what RPJesus would call "[Debutantes avert your eyes]ing."
56965458 wrote:
Show
57461258 wrote:
116498949 wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because off-topic discussions are a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_... Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively. If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
...Am I the only one that thinks this is reaching the point of downright Kafkaesque insanity?
I condone the use of the word Kafkaesque. However, I'm presentely ambivalent. I mean, that can't be serious, right? We're April 1st, right? They didn't mod RPJesus for off-topic discussion when the WHOLE THREAD IS OFF-TOPIC, right? Right.
57545908 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
Save or die. If you disagree with this, you're wrong (Not because of any points or arguements that have been made, but I just rolled a d20 for you and got a 1, so you lose).
58397368 wrote:
58222628 wrote:
This just won the argument, AFAIC.
That's just awesome.
57471038 wrote:
57718868 wrote:
HOW DID I NOT KNOW ABOUT THE BEAR PRODUCING WORDS OF WILDING?! WHAT IS WRONG WITH ME?!
That's what RPJesus tends to do. That's why I don't think he's a real person, but some Magic Card Archive Server sort of machine, that is programmed to react to other posters' comments with obscure cards that do in fact exist, but somehow missed by even the most experienced Magic players. And then come up with strange combos with said cards. All of that is impossible for a normal human to do given the amount of time he does it and how often he does it. He/It got me with Light of Sanction, which prompted me to go to RQ&A to try and find if it was even possible to do combat damage to a creature I control (in light that Mark of Asylum exists).
71235715 wrote:
+10
100176878 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
57078538 wrote:
heaven or hell.
Round 1. Lets rock.
GG quotes! RPJesus just made this thread win!
56906968 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
143359585 wrote:
Blue players get all the overpowerered cards like JTMS. I think it's time that wizards gave something to people who remember what magic is really about: creatures.
Initially yes, Wizards was married to blue. However, about a decade ago they had a nasty divorce, and a few years after that they began courting the attention of Green. Then in Worldwake they had a nasty affair with their ex, but as of Innistrad, things seem to have gotten back on track, and Wizards has even proposed.
You are my favorite. Yes you. And moments like this make it so. Thank you RPJesus for just being you.
On what flavor text fits me:
57307308 wrote:
Surely RPJesus gets Niv-Mizzet, Dracogenius?
56874518 wrote:
First: I STILL can't take you seriously with that avatar. And I can take RPJesus seriously, so that's saying something.
121689989 wrote:
I'd offer you a cookie for making me laugh but it has an Upkeep Cost that has been known to cause people to quit eating.
56267956 wrote:
I <3 you loads
57400888 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
"AINT NO LAWS IN THE SKY MOTHER****." - Agrus Kos, Wojek Veteran
10/10. Amazing.
The endless reinvention of the classes, and the waiting for important classes to be published.

In 4E, they delayed core classes like Druid and Bard so they could include things like Warlord and Warlock -- classes which, to me, are not really central to the game.  This was extremely irksome.



Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the druid was left out because they were trying to figure out how to make a version of the druid whose turns didn't involve everybody watching him playing with himself for ten minutes as he cast a spell, moved, moved his animal companion, cast a swift spell to let his animal companion full attack, etc.



Yeah, kinda hard to nail down an iconic druid when the druid did everything, and had minions.
The classes can be divided into discrete groups based on iconicness...

GROUP I
Cleric
Fighter
Rogue (or Thief)
Wizard (or Magic-User)

GROUP II
Bard
Druid
Monk
Paladin
Ranger



I personnaly don't agree. I think Group I and II are in fact the same group. With inclusion of barbarian and assassin.


I think 12 classes is why too many classes to go into the core books.  I think all of Group I and maybe two or three of Group II will make it.  While I personally love Warlord, it's only iconic in 4e, which is why I bumped it to Group III.  I'd love for Wizards' research to prove me wrong and stick Warlord in Group I or II, though
The classes can be divided into discrete groups based on iconicness...

GROUP I
Cleric
Fighter
Rogue (or Thief)
Wizard (or Magic-User)

GROUP II
Bard
Druid
Monk
Paladin
Ranger

GROUP III
Artificer
Assassin
Barbarian
Psion
Sorcerer
Warlock
Warlord

GROUP IV
All the ones that sound made up, like Duskblade, Seeker, and Lurk


I mostly agree with this, although I actually think a barbarian or assassin would be more iconic than a monk. Also, while this would be a generally good guide on what to focus on first, I would want to see the warlord moved up into the first group of classes published just to have a class besides the cleric that was capable of being the group medic.
Owner and Proprietor of the House of Trolls. God of ownership and possession.
The classes can be divided into discrete groups based on iconicness...

GROUP I
Cleric
Fighter
Rogue (or Thief)
Wizard (or Magic-User)

GROUP II
Bard
Druid
Monk
Paladin
Ranger

GROUP III
Artificer
Assassin
Barbarian
Psion
Sorcerer
Warlock
Warlord

GROUP IV
All the ones that sound made up, like Duskblade, Seeker, and Lurk


I mostly agree with this, although I actually think a barbarian or assassin would be more iconic than a monk. Also, while this would be a generally good guide on what to focus on first, I would want to see the warlord moved up into the first group of classes published just to have a class besides the cleric that was capable of being the group medic.

And that point another problem - there is also a call for fantasy to go beyond pseudo-european,f aux medieval stuff and tlkienisms. 

Things like Nyambe, the critically acclaimed setting inspired by african myths and tales. Eberron. Exaled. 


Monks and such are as iconic now. 
The classes can be divided into discrete groups based on iconicness...

GROUP I
Cleric
Fighter
Rogue (or Thief)
Wizard (or Magic-User)

GROUP II
Bard
Druid
Monk
Paladin
Ranger

GROUP III
Artificer
Assassin
Barbarian
Psion
Sorcerer
Warlock
Warlord

GROUP IV
All the ones that sound made up, like Duskblade, Seeker, and Lurk



pardon me while I disagree


I think the most iconic ones should be first, namely those that have been around atleast since second edition.
namely
fighter
rogue
cleric
ranger
wizard
cleric
paladin
druid          
bard.


only becasue I didnt like how it was done in 4e as well.


which means to me
barbarian
sorcerer
avenger
warlock
warlord
invoker
assassin

etc
can come afterwords.       
a mask everyone has at least two of, one they wear in public and another they wear in private.....
pardon me while I disagree


I think the most iconic ones should be first, namely those that have been around atleast since second edition.
namely
fighter
rogue
cleric
ranger
wizard
cleric
paladin
druid          
bard.



Monk and Assassin were around since before 2nd Edition.
At least I have my proper avatar now, I guess. But man is this cloud dark.
Indeed, every single edition had a different starting lineup of classes. The ones Wrecan listed in group 1 are the only ones that were consistently available from the start.
Owner and Proprietor of the House of Trolls. God of ownership and possession.
Warlord not iconic? Look, it's a latecomer to D&D, but it's pretty clearly a longstanding archetype, and something that I used to try (miserably) to use a bard to emulate.
and if we get one phb per year again...I'll be waiting two years to see the paladin.

I thought the assassin was a thief class deal like the bard was ...

but then I didnt play anything related to 1e so I only listed 2e.   


the monk is that old..... man..... honestly did not know that.


I knew the cavalier, fighter, rogue, priest/cleric and mage was..


        
a mask everyone has at least two of, one they wear in public and another they wear in private.....
Warlord not iconic? Look, it's a latecomer to D&D, but it's pretty clearly a longstanding archetype, and something that I used to try (miserably) to use a bard to emulate.



it's an archtype , not a class.

my barbarian could go and be a warlord without the class


same as the archmage better off as titles or themes instead of classes of anytype.


just an opinion which guess what means nothing      
a mask everyone has at least two of, one they wear in public and another they wear in private.....
and if we get one phb per year again...I'll be waiting two years to see the paladin.

I thought the assassin was a thief class deal like the bard was ...

but then I didnt play anything related to 1e so I only listed 2e.   


the monk is that old..... man..... honestly did not know that.


I knew the cavalier, fighter, rogue, priest/cleric and mage was..


        



the monk is older than the cav!! but wow, what a brutal class to play at low levels. i dont think i really saw much of them bc the stat rolls were ridiculous as well; if someone had one they were probably cheating lol. but the 1e assassin did have a backstab and some thief abilities
which might be why TSR phased it out with the ruleset change.

nothing much to add that the thief/rogue cant do.



also why I hated the sorcerer when it came out for 3rd.

did nothing that the wizard couldnt save for its sponteneous casting.

carbon copy of a wizard.         
a mask everyone has at least two of, one they wear in public and another they wear in private.....
The problem with the class bloat wasn't including the druid and bard.  It was all the weird stuff. 

Fighter - Ranger - Warlord - Rogue

Barbarian - Druid

Cleric - Paladin    

Wizard - Bard

Monk

Is plenty for me really.  I can live without the rest.  I agree with the OP about the first druid in 4e deviating from how I see the class.  I don't want to run around wild shape all the time.  I liked the druid best as a healer with some damage and utility.  But then wait the Warlord and Bard are healers.  Odd, but I haven't liked any version of the Bard since AD&D.  Fighter/Theif/Druid- ah that was lovely...   
the wierd stuff in 4e like
avenger, invoker,   warlock, runepriest, seeker, warden???

I won't loose sleep over it if those don't come back for 5e.


as for me, I loved the druid in animal form. didn't go about in animal form all the time either... but I liked the ability just the same.        
a mask everyone has at least two of, one they wear in public and another they wear in private.....
in 1e AD&D we had Fighter, with subclasses Ranger and Paladin, Cleric, with subclass Druid, Thief, with subclass Assassin, Magic User, and I can't recall where Monk fit in, but I do know it was there. Bard was something you accomplished by starting as fighter, taking levels in thief, and magic user, and finally druid at which point you were a "bard under druidic tutilage".  Personally, I think the "core four" of the classes not inculding their subclasses are the only ones that can really truely be considered the iconic classes. What makes them the iconic classes is what lead to the 4 roles in 4e.

Personally, what I'd love to see is a way to build your own class off of a basic build that is non-class-specific. This has even been done before by other systems. Make a 'chasis' for different roles. In more 3.5 style, have it be based on High Low or Middling BaB/hit points. Give each a progression of features, how many feats you get how often.  Then take a feat to get prepared casting or spontaneous casting. Take a feat for wild empathy. Take a feat for sneak attack. Take a feat for channel energy. Build your own class, call it whatever you want. Give a few "example builds" for new people, based around iconic things like cleric, warrior, thief, and wizard. Throw in paladin and ranger and monk for intermediate players. Advanced? Go wild with your imagination. It's a great way to let people eat their cake and have it to, when it comes to which classes do or don't make the cut. Then each supplement book everyone gets new options, instead of "oh, I only play rogues and this is the arcane book, worthless to me, when's my book?"
Let's face it, no matter what they put in the PHB, people will whine that their favorite class is left out, while superfluous class X is included. Player A loves Druids, player B fell in love with the warlord, and player C won't like anything unless it's called Bladesinger, no matter how many other options there are for "wizard with a sword".
And once everyone has their dream class, a new group floods the forums with complaints about class bloat.
isnt that the truth
a mask everyone has at least two of, one they wear in public and another they wear in private.....
I would not mind if we do not see the following for several years after release. Because they never struck me as iconic at all: Binder, witch, invoker, seeker, swordmage, battlemind, runepriest, ardent, warlock, sorcerer, hexblade, avenger and vampire. The following I do not think of iconic but I do believe they are strong enough to garner earlier releases: Warlord, Warden, Artificer and Shaman.
I am aware that the sorcerer has been around for a long while, but the original was just a wizard who had different limitations on the spells he cast. 
By all the gods, let the Warlord forever replace the Bard in teir 1.

I don't give a damn what's iconic to D&D: lots of stupid crap is iconic to D&D.  I'm interested in what's iconic to Fantasy Adventure as a genre, and every damn story has a guy that fits the Warlord class better than anything else.  Magic as more-art-than-science is very niche by comparison.
I do want a binder eventually, but not as warlock.

My three favourite classes in 3.5 were the Beguiler, the Binder, and the Archivist.

The flavour of the Binder was creepy and unique, it may not have been iconic, but by the gods it oozed flavour and kewl.

4e ruined the kewl flavour of the Binder with the boring vestige pact. It had none of the original desturbing edge. It was just a warlock that could change his pact boon. Heck Star Pact was creepier.

Not saying Binder should be in core, but if it is vestige should be its power source, because a Binder's powers do not come from reality, but from vestiges the defy the oblivion that defines them. They're not even shadows.

This comparsion has reminded me of something. 4e rocked in many ways, flavour in general was not one of them, at least not till the player options books like heroes of shadow (binder sucked for both mechanical and flavour) and Heroes of the Feywild. Ebberon and Darksun were exceptions, FR campaign guide was pouched. Oops tangent.
Honestly the fact we even have classes is still fairly dissapointing. Many other systems are now trending after Elder Scrolls where you can be what you want.

The Elder Scrolls system isn't "trending."  They (and numerous other games) have been doing it that way for over a decade.

More important, the Elder Scrolls system is actually a thinly veiled class system.  Yes, you can "be what you want," but the way the skills are set up makes it pretty obvious that there are 3 classes in the game, and every character is either a mostly pure version of one of those, or it's a multiclass character with some percentage of each of the three.  It's a bit like 3rd edition where you take levels of different classes to create your own "unique" character.

I put unique in quotes because when you only have 3 classes to choose from, this sort of setup generally devolves into masses of people going for a small number of "best" builds, so uniqueness is a tragic illusion.  In other words, most players' characters turn out pretty similar, but it's okay because you are playing by yourself and the whole "strength in diversity" paradigm of tabletop RPGs is not a factor.

Don't get me wrong; I love me some Skyrim.  I just don't think the character system is a good model for pen-and-paper RPGs.
If your position is that the official rules don't matter, or that house rules can fix everything, please don't bother posting in forums about the official rules. To do so is a waste of everyone's time.
I find hardcore D&D players are very precious about their favourite classes. One of the big 4e criticisms that caused uproar in 2008 was no druid, sorcerer or monk in PHB1 (I don't think people realised there was going to be PHB2 and 3 at the time)
Honestly the fact we even have classes is still fairly dissapointing. Many other systems are now trending after Elder Scrolls where you can be what you want. I wouldn't mind seeing a players option section like in 2nd where you built your characters class. Want a fighter with a school of magic, no problem. No need for expansion after expansion with character progression classes, basically make everything feats that you can buy with points you get as you level. There doesn't even need to be levels, just directly spend experience kinda like D10 systems like Vampire. 

They scored a home run when they introduced feats in 3E, thats how building your character should be, pick what you want. And for new people or introducing people then make generic templates that they can use, I.E. Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Mage.



This was my solution to a different problem.

Problem: The best baker in the land.  He's got several levels of something to have a high baking skill, with skill focus (baking) and everything.  But he's actually a skinny 75 year old woman with arthritis.  Why is it that her base attack is higher than the basic attack of a trained recruit fresh from town guard academy?  And how is it that she's got twice as many hp's?  

Obviously a 3rd edition problem, but my solution was a system where you buy base attack just like you buy hp's, just like you buy everything.  If your class (Expert, for example) was an non-combative, non-aggressive one you could create that class by not spending any points to buy attack or HPs.  You could spend those points to max the sheet out of baking.  Power bake.  Whirlwind bake.  Mighty bake.  Improved critical (spatula).  Proficiency (Easy Bake Oven).  EVERYTHING BAKING.

I'd take it further and make the system where everything improved with use.  Swing a sword, get better with sword.  Wear heavy armor, get better at heavy armor.  Bake, get better at baking.

Realistically, however, the system would require a whole bunch of tallying and keeping track of every mile ridden by horse, and every league traversed by boat.   Headache.  But I do think we could come up with something. 

Another situation:
No player has any proficiency in sailing.  They go on an adventure that keeps them at sea for two months.  Nothing happens en route.  When they arrive at their destination, it's as if nothing, statically, has changed from when they started.  Realistically they'd all have ranks in Profession (Sailor).  How do you track something like that?

Another situation:
No player has any proficiency in sailing.  They go on an adventure that keeps them at sea for two months.  Nothing happens en route.  When they arrive at their destination, it's as if nothing, statically, has changed from when they started.  Realistically they'd all have ranks in Profession (Sailor).  How do you track something like that?



My group has been known to give out bonus skill points when something like this happens. Or have NPCs give us training that result in a permanent miscellaneous bonus to a skill. Not the best solution in the world, I'm sure, but hey, it's a band-aid. It would be great if we had something to accomidate this out of box. And yeah, commoners having levels in... being a commoner... has never made sense to me either. Shouldn't everyone start off with levels in NPC classes if that's how we classify NPCs? No one is born a PC... unless babies know how to turn undead or backstab...

The four basic classes are probably the only ones that are guarunteed to be there.  You know, the "I hit stuff" (Fighter), "I steal stuff" (Rogue/Thief), "I heal stuff" (Cleric) and "I magic stuff" (Wizard/Magic User) classes.  Everything else seems to be fiddly adaptions of the others.  "I hit stuff, but I do it differently" or "I magic stuff, but I do it differently" being the main archetypes that they keep making more of, I haven't seen too many variations of "I heal stuff, but I do it differently" or "I steal stuff, but I do it differently".  There are also a bunch of crossbreeds, like "I heal and hit stuff" (Paladins), "I magic and steal stuff" (Beguilers), etc.  

So, what we're going to see in the PHB are probably going to be Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard and some of the "I do it differently" and "I X and Y stuff" classes.  

That being said, I'd like to see Beguilers, as from the 3.5 PHBII, as they reminded me of the old Gnome Illusionists. I'd also liked to see a working, balanced monk for once in my life, maybe that can be done in 5.0, or maybe it's impossible.
Another situation:
No player has any proficiency in sailing.  They go on an adventure that keeps them at sea for two months.  Nothing happens en route.  When they arrive at their destination, it's as if nothing, statically, has changed from when they started.  Realistically they'd all have ranks in Profession (Sailor).  How do you track something like that?

If you want a realistic spending system, it'll look something like the Elder Scrolls games, where your skills increase from use. That'd be neat for a pencil-and-paper RPG if you could set it up such that people didn't easily abuse it. It's not what D&D's been about though, so I wouldn't see that showing up in "D&D Next."
I don't use emoticons, and I'm also pretty pleasant. So if I say something that's rude or insulting, it's probably a joke.
If you want a realistic spending system, it'll look something like the Elder Scrolls games, where your skills increase from use.

And the Didn't Read The Thread Award goes to ...

If your position is that the official rules don't matter, or that house rules can fix everything, please don't bother posting in forums about the official rules. To do so is a waste of everyone's time.