Which classes are not iconic?

96 posts / 0 new
Last post
When I look at the classes the 4e PHB, I can usually get the gist of the characters because they evolved form archetypes from fantasy literature. But looking at some of the later classes, I can't really see where in literature these classes came from. Some of the classes seem to exist to merely fill a power source/role combination. In particular:
-the Warden doesn't really remind me of anything I've seen before
-the Battlemind is supposed to be the psionic warrior archetype, but doesn't really fill it
-the Runepriest is sort of the 'keeper of secrets' archetype, but I don't know too many 'priests' that stand on the front lines of battle
-the Cleric also seems to tread a lot of the territory of the Paladin, and the Invoker covers a lot of the Cleric's territory in terms of archetype
-the Ardent pretty much comes out of nowhere, they existed in 3.5, so now they're back because they wanted a psionc leader class
-the Seeker is actually a pretty good archetype, the spell casting woodland denizen who hunts witha  bow, but too many people seems to think it doesn't meet the archetype because it isn't of the blessed power source (arcane), hence all the calls for an arcane archer class

I think part of the problem is the existence of power sources, and the need to fill grid. This is why we keep having people ask for a martial controller, despite there not being an iconic character or archetype to base it on.

All very true and accurate.

However I think it breaks down into if a person likes lots of options or few. I personally like a lot to choose from at every step of character creation and therefore think there aren't enough classes. 3.5 had even more (I think) by this time of it's release.

Personally for 5 though I think they'll go for less at the start. I'm personally hoping for/envision three PHB's. The first being basically a mechanical update of 2nd, the second adding feats and more races and classes. The third adding even more classes and races and a more delineated power system.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

There is a nice little self created divide here. Shame there can't be more acceptance instead. I feel that is where the future of the game should be.

All this vitriol, pushing away, retroactive retaliation, and preemptive striking needs to stop.

I keep trying but some won't let things go. Will you?

 

Because you like something, it does not mean it is good. Because you dislike something, it does not mean it is bad. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it everyone's opinion. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it truth. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it the general consensus. Whatever side you want to take, at least remember these things.

Does it matter what is and isn't iconic?
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Most of those share similar tropes of other classes, but nothing is inherently wrong with it. Viable characters both thematically and mechanically are born from them.  
Non-iconic things are generally those things which haven't been around long enough to become iconic.
Fire Blog Control, Change, and Chaos: The Elemental Power Source Elemental Heroes Example Classes Xaosmith Exulter Chaos Bringer Director Elemental Heroes: Looking Back - Class and Story Elemental Heroes: Complete Class Beta - The Xaosmith (January 16, 2012) Elemental Heroes: Complete Class Beta - The Harbinger (May 16, 2012) Check out my Elemental Heroes blog series and help me develop four unique elemental classes.
Does it matter what is and isn't iconic?



It matters to a lot of people, I'd wager.


I think part of the problem is the existence of power sources, and the need to fill grid. This is why we keep having people ask for a martial controller, despite there not being an iconic character or archetype to base it on.




False.

Zorro is perfect for reference for a martial controller. The monk could just as easily have been a martial controller. The quarter staff fighter is perfect inspiration for a martial controller. The knife thrower can be a martial controller.

Other people have mentioned others, but those are my favorites.

The idea that there is no conceptual space, or non dnd inspiration for, a martial controller is simply false.

Does it matter what is and isn't iconic?



It matters to a lot of people, I'd wager.



Enough so that they don't want anything that isn't Iconic to be included in the game?

If so, they are wrong. Full stop.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
Whats the psychic warrior do that the battlemind doesn't?


Also the ardent is also the empath, though their power selection can be a bit strange at times, and they're strangely shackeled to melee.  
'Iconic'
never liked that. You can't get rid/add something or another! Its/ its not ICONIC!

All iconic means, in this context, is whats been around the longest. I dare say.

Fighters? Iconic
Barbarians? Less so.

Wizards? Iconic
Warlocks? Less so.

"Does it belong?" is probably a better question IMO, makes the game evolve over time. You don't need a precedent for something to belong. You kinda do for it to be iconic though.

 I think the classes/ classes i'd like to see that represent iconic ideas, real quick are

Dudes and chicks who use weapons skill luck and legend to the exclusion of "magic"
-Fighters, Barbarians, Rogues

-Dudes and chicks with magic
Conjurers, Enchanters, Abjurers (who's flavor/ sub mechanics is either innate ability, hard work and years of training or a deal with a higher power preferably involving the magic user's soul) Gishes

-Dudes and chicks down with god(s)
Paladins, Wise healers (take cleric ditch armor) Charismatic Zealots (take Invokers/Avengers base them in Cha)

-Dudes and chicks who lead like no other.
Warlords (yeah, precedent here is pretty much all on 4e as far as I see, and it is good)

-Dudes and chicks who use nature
People who can turn into beasts (wildshapers) people who communicate and align with spirits of nature, barely see that nature is a little more then what it looks seems (sort of like rangers who don't understand the true power of nature, but realize that their more then what meets the eye)

Now, you may have noticed I broke apart and didn't replace a few classes (druids and wizards) that's ok, IMO those classes have like, 3 or 4 subtypes that are lodged in there, probably made sense at some point, but now can be broken up a bit. You may also note that I divided them based (loosely) on power source which I like (obviously the Gish, Ranger thing, Paladin are messed up a bit) but I think help describe the world a bit, and should stay.
The essential theme song- Get a little bit a fluff da' fluff, get a little bit a fluff da' fluff! (ooh yeah) Repeat Unless noted otherwise every thing I post is my opinion, and probably should be taken as tongue in cheek any way.


The idea that there is no conceptual space, or non dnd inspiration for, a martial controller is simply false.




I agree with you, but I do think that as long as people see Martial as Mundane (some) people will not allow any (mechanically viable) martial controller.

I feel that the move in 5e should be making martial characters more akin to characters from American Tall Tales (albeit with your standard DND over tones) They aren't magical but they are Larger then Life, basically the rules of physics need not apply.

Probably other legends/myths that fit there better, but when I think martial, I think tall tale character.
The essential theme song- Get a little bit a fluff da' fluff, get a little bit a fluff da' fluff! (ooh yeah) Repeat Unless noted otherwise every thing I post is my opinion, and probably should be taken as tongue in cheek any way.
I feel that the move in 5e should be making martial characters more akin to characters from American Tall Tales (albeit with your standard DND over tones) They aren't magical but they are Larger then Life, basically the rules of physics need not apply.

Probably other legends/myths that fit there better, but when I think martial, I think tall tale character.


I thought that was what hey tried in 4E, and grognards complained it was just disqguised magic/spells...
I thought that was what hey tried in 4E, and grognards complained it was just disqguised magic/spells...


Yep.

I don't know if either the Ardent or Battlemind are 'iconic,' but the concepts are both solid as hell, and I'm sure I've witnessed something similar to one or both at some point in anime/video games.
4e D&D is not a "Tabletop MMO." It is not Massively Multiplayer, and is usually not played Online. Come up with better descriptions of your complaints, cuz this one means jack ****.
Ardents are basically the leader of every group-oriented anime ever.
Fire Blog Control, Change, and Chaos: The Elemental Power Source Elemental Heroes Example Classes Xaosmith Exulter Chaos Bringer Director Elemental Heroes: Looking Back - Class and Story Elemental Heroes: Complete Class Beta - The Xaosmith (January 16, 2012) Elemental Heroes: Complete Class Beta - The Harbinger (May 16, 2012) Check out my Elemental Heroes blog series and help me develop four unique elemental classes.
Does it matter what is and isn't iconic?



If Nintendo can build an empire around a plumber who runs through pipes eating mushrooms and saving princesses, then it's probably not essential. But iconic characters are the inspration for many role-playing characters, so a class that that can be used to build an iconic character is going to be more popular.
Innovations out of nowhere are how icons are made.


False.

Zorro is perfect for reference for a martial controller. The monk could just as easily have been a martial controller. The quarter staff fighter is perfect inspiration for a martial controller. The knife thrower can be a martial controller.

Other people have mentioned others, but those are my favorites.

The idea that there is no conceptual space, or non dnd inspiration for, a martial controller is simply false.




The whole issue of whether there can be a martial controller is dependant on your definition of 'controller' (and sometimes 'martial' as well). A lot of people would say these would be good striker or defender classes. It's a matter opinion, so it can never be resolved.

But no one suggested any martial controller classes back in 3.5e. There was no argument. The act of codifying power source/role has created the desire in people to fill every combination, squeezing any idea they have to fit in, is creating classes that are less popular.


Innovations out of nowhere are how icons are made.



True, but I think that D&D should generally be trying to use existing icons rather than inventing their own. In fact, it has. But those icons evolved from an artistic desire, not from a need to have power source X role Y class.


I thought that was what hey tried in 4E, and grognards complained it was just disqguised magic/spells...


Yep.

I don't know if either the Ardent or Battlemind are 'iconic,' but the concepts are both solid as hell, and I'm sure I've witnessed something similar to one or both at some point in anime/video games.



They both work (sort of) as classes, but are they necessary as separate classes? Could the ardent icon be replaced with an instrument-less bard, for example?
I thought that was what hey tried in 4E, and grognards complained it was just disqguised magic/spells...


Yep.

I don't know if either the Ardent or Battlemind are 'iconic,' but the concepts are both solid as hell, and I'm sure I've witnessed something similar to one or both at some point in anime/video games.



I had a dream about a character back in college who was a divine come to earth and whos emotions bled in to the people around him - even when he didnt want them to but in a fight I can see how insanely pumped his allies could get. He had memories of a thousand lifetimes... ummm can you say deva, ardent?
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

The martial controller exists, he is called Rogue. At lvl 11, on a crit (with Daggermaster it's much easier) you can slap on -13 to attack rolls on an enemy.
Classes, races, or any other features that are difficult to immerse yourself is concerning, but being "iconic" matters little.

These are the classes that I have difficulty building in an RP standpoint:

Ardent: Using psionic powers to subtly (or directly) influence your allies' morale sounds cool and all, but what's with the melee archetype? I hate having to shoehorn my psychic guy into some soldiery backround just to make sense of the heavy weapons + armor.

Monk: What's with the implements? It always feels like I'm just tapping people with my quarterstaff, yet that cause my enemies to take heavy damage and get flung around? Also, I don't understand the support geared torwards attacking multiple enemies. All these mechanics garbled up into one weird pile stops me from playing the kinds of monks I want, which is the one that just punches and kicks. And I know I can just fluff it and reword all the little details (which I'm all for doing) but it feels like too much of a stretch with the monk.

Runepriest: OK, so I'm supposed to be a studious religious guy that finds out about cryptic glyphs of the gods that give extraordinary powers. So why am I a melee guy? Or better yet, where's the Intelligence support to show the studious part?

Swordmage: It is just so laughably tough to RP these guys. So, I learned to fight with swords, and only swords? And I have access to a list of magical abilities, but I can only access them when I'm using swords? Is there some sort of limit to arcane knowledge that stops me from enchanting any other weapons aside from blades in this way? If so, why? It's magic we're talking about! Oh, I know, the first masters of sword magic were autistic, and they only taught other autistic, sword-obsessed magic warriors, right?


I had a dream about a character back in college who was a divine come to earth and whos emotions bled in to the people around him - even when he didnt want them to but in a fight I can see how insanely pumped his allies could get. He had memories of a thousand lifetimes... ummm can you say deva, ardent?



Why an Ardent and not a Bard? You describe the character as divine, which fits neither class, and their powers are automatic, which isn't exactly true of either class either. Bards often use instruments, but don't have to.

Neat idea, BTW. Would make a good theme.
Classes, races, or any other features that are difficult to immerse yourself is concerning, but being "iconic" matters little.



True, except being iconic tends to make easier to immerse yourself.


Ardent: Using psionic powers to subtly (or directly) influence your allies' morale sounds cool and all, but what's with the melee archetype? I hate having to shoehorn my psychic guy into some soldiery backround just to make sense of the heavy weapons + armor.



The problem here is that it's basically a bard or warlord, but with the psionic power source. That's it. Up until a few days ago, I loved power sources, but then I started thinking abotu this, and I saw how this keeps happening: the ardent could have been a more interesting class, but it had to fill this niche for game reasons, and ended up being a second rate class.


Monk: What's with the implements? It always feels like I'm just tapping people with my quarterstaff, yet that cause my enemies to take heavy damage and get flung around? Also, I don't understand the support geared torwards attacking multiple enemies. All these mechanics garbled up into one weird pile stops me from playing the kinds of monks I want, which is the one that just punches and kicks. And I know I can just fluff it and reword all the little details (which I'm all for doing) but it feels like too much of a stretch with the monk.



I liked the fact that a monk's weapon doesn't determine their damage, but that could have been accomplished just as easily by giving their powers damage dice instead of [W]. And +1 for the unarmed monk.


Runepriest: OK, so I'm supposed to be a studious religious guy that finds out about cryptic glyphs of the gods that give extraordinary powers. So why am I a melee guy? Or better yet, where's the Intelligence support to show the studious part?



The Runepriest always struck me as Lovecraftian: "I know the ancient secrets of the universe". This could have been the Truenamer of 4e (only better) but it got turned into a cleric knock off (which is a Paladin knock off). As a controller class it would have been pretty iconic and awesome.


Swordmage: It is just so laughably tough to RP these guys. So, I learned to fight with swords, and only swords? And I have access to a list of magical abilities, but I can only access them when I'm using swords? Is there some sort of limit to arcane knowledge that stops me from enchanting any other weapons aside from blades in this way? If so, why? It's magic we're talking about! Oh, I know, the first masters of sword magic were autistic, and they only taught other autistic, sword-obsessed magic warriors, right?



The swordmage is another class that could have been iconic, but just ended up being stupid. It could have been a true gish class in the way the sorcerer wasn't: it would use weapons. But the character uses a weapon they have learned to use to augment their magic. Just about any fantasy novel with a wizard main character (instead of standing behind the hero) who uses a weapon and less flashy magic could have been a swordmage, but the developers decided to introduce all this teleporting crap as an essential part of the class so it no longer fits with the archetype.


Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard = iconic

Everything else to me is not.

Most things in my mind were flavor changes which nearly all could have been generated by feat, skills or multi-classing the core.

"The turning of the tide always begins with one soldier's decision to head back into the fray"

By the way, people do realize that there IS an official Martial Controller in the Hunter, right?
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
By the way, people do realize that there IS an official Martial Controller in the Hunter, right?


Though a lot of people get hung up on the fact that it's part primal despite the fact that the actual controller-ey bits are purely martial (as far as I know).
"Censorship is telling a man he can’t have a steak just because a baby can’t chew it.” ~Mark Twain
The martial controller exists, he is called Rogue. At lvl 11, on a crit (with Daggermaster it's much easier) you can slap on -13 to attack rolls on an enemy.



Can he put down a feild of cantrips, and another of burning oil and a smoke bomb whilest manipulating his enemies in to doing what he wants them to do with fear and uncertainty can be truly be the ninja.

  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

By the way, people do realize that there IS an official Martial Controller in the Hunter, right?


Though a lot of people get hung up on the fact that it's part primal despite the fact that the actual controller-ey bits are purely martial (as far as I know).



Except for some utilities but that is only a small part of the whole equation.


Personally I think many classes in 4e will not be "iconic" even if they are popular and well made (though they will certainly use stuff from them).  Just look at 3e (or 2e etc) and how many classes did not make it even if they were well made for their time.  Battleminds will likely not be iconic sincethey lack an iconic name or iconic ability (at least as far as I see) however I would think they would use aspects of the battlemind in the future.

Another would be the warlord.  It is certinaly an excellent class.  It may become iconic since martial healing had never been done much before and the name does have a decent ring to it.  However they may decide to fold it into the fighter class (make it into the fighter leader build) in which case its ability will become iconic but the class won't.  Not sure which way they will go but it will be interesting. 
Do note that a lot of the newer classes, while not iconic to people who are stuck in traditional fantasy, can be quite iconic to folks with broader experiences. The East, oddly enough, is a bit more experimental with Western Fantasy than the West is. Psionics in particular are very easy to find examples of in manga (there's a reason the monk is psionic), since inner force is part of local traditions, and they don't mind a bit of cultural exchange in their media.
Fire Blog Control, Change, and Chaos: The Elemental Power Source Elemental Heroes Example Classes Xaosmith Exulter Chaos Bringer Director Elemental Heroes: Looking Back - Class and Story Elemental Heroes: Complete Class Beta - The Xaosmith (January 16, 2012) Elemental Heroes: Complete Class Beta - The Harbinger (May 16, 2012) Check out my Elemental Heroes blog series and help me develop four unique elemental classes.
As far as I could tell, the ardent was basically a jedi. The warlord seemed like the classic hardass C.O. in war movies that fought alongside his troops or the coach in most sports movies who gives a motivational speech that always manages to turn the game around.

Another would be the warlord.  It is certinaly an excellent class.  It may become iconic since martial healing had never been done much before and the name does have a decent ring to it.  However they may decide to fold it into the fighter class (make it into the fighter leader build) in which case its ability will become iconic but the class won't.  Not sure which way they will go but it will be interesting. 



OMG a fighter that heals and isnt dumb as a post.. grognardic screams abound cats sleeping with dogs and who will look after the fish.

I like the Warlord for its versatility and ability to mix and mingle with most any class...
And the fact that I really see it damn near everywhere in more modern and international fiction.

Hell even looking at Lord of the Rings.
Galadriel as a LazyLord build giving gifts
Frodo as a Hybrid Rogue / Warlord heheh.
Aragorn as a Brash one playing toss the dwarf (and using Warlord magics alah Oath bonding rituals to bring on an undead legion ok plot class magic)
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

As far as I could tell, the ardent was basically a jedi. The warlord seemed like the classic hardass C.O. in war movies that fought alongside his troops or the coach in most sports movies who gives a motivational speech that always manages to turn the game around.



The warlord is pretty obviously iconic, but not always so. As for Jedi, I think monks fit the description better: no armour, focus on self and using powers to enhance their own physical abilities, and more about fighting then healing.
Which Classes do I think are Iconic?

Core Four:


  • Rogue

  • Fighter

  • Cleric

  • Wizard


Others Pre-4e:


  • Druid

  • Bard

  • Ranger

  • Sorcerer

  • Paladin

  • Monk

  • Psion

  • Barbarian


4e Iconic Classes:


  • Warlord


Personal choice:


  • Battlemind
    This was my first intro into D&D and I found having a defender that could throw enemies around was a good idea. 



Ant Farm


The idea that there is no conceptual space, or non dnd inspiration for, a martial controller is simply false.




I agree with you, but I do think that as long as people see Martial as Mundane (some) people will not allow any (mechanically viable) martial controller.

I feel that the move in 5e should be making martial characters more akin to characters from American Tall Tales (albeit with your standard DND over tones) They aren't magical but they are Larger then Life, basically the rules of physics need not apply.

Probably other legends/myths that fit there better, but when I think martial, I think tall tale character.




I agree for the most part. Of course, an interrupt-based action denial/dazing/proning/immobilizing/restraining swordsman/knife thrower/pikeman doesn't need to be anything more than mundane.

Add in things like a bow, repeating crossbow, poisons, (possibly) alchemy, explosives, and maybe traps, and you have a potentially very powerful, entirely "mundane" controller.

There is no reason a martial character can't stun, daze, prone, immobilize, slow or deny actions via interrupts and opportunity actions without abandoning "realism".

The only thing I can't think of is a name that isn't already taken.

Just seems like such an easy class to make, that would be extremely fun. I'd also be fine with controller builds for the rogue and fighter, or subclasses. Whatever. I've wanted to play that kind of character for years, and to watch 4e, which is a system where it would be trivially easy to model, just go by without ever adressing it...it just sucks.



The whole issue of whether there can be a martial controller is dependant on your definition of 'controller' (and sometimes 'martial' as well). A lot of people would say these would be good striker or defender classes. It's a matter opinion, so it can never be resolved.

But no one suggested any martial controller classes back in 3.5e. There was no argument. The act of codifying power source/role has created the desire in people to fill every combination, squeezing any idea they have to fit in, is creating classes that are less popular.





Wrong again.

People made martial controllers in 3.5. There were many fighter builds made to do the kinds of things that you could do in 3.5 that would translate to control effects in 4e.

Further, 4e opened things up in terms of what sort of effects you could create.

Most importantly, there were builds based on interrupting people/stopping what they tried to do, but 4e made that sort of tactic more viable, and broadened who had access to that sort of thing, as well as who could be interrupted.

People call for a martial controller in 4e because the tools to make one or three are all there, to a greater extent than ever before, and because they like the idea of playing a polearm/swordsman/knife throwing guy whose focus is less to do tons of damage, and more to make the enemies' lives hell/deny their attempts to effect team goodguy.

The desire to play that kind of character is not new. A lot of us put in a lot of work in previous eds in an attempt to accomplish what we wanted, but always had to compromise and add in magic, because of purely system based limitations. And that was annoying, because logic limitations weren't what was stopping us, nor were balance limitations. It was purely a matter of DnD not covering the things we wanted to do.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
The martial controller exists, he is called Rogue. At lvl 11, on a crit (with Daggermaster it's much easier) you can slap on -13 to attack rolls on an enemy.



The rogue can come close, depending on your power choice. The only issue is that you're not going to quite get there, and meanwhile you're doing it on a chassis that's purpose built for doing something very different.

The rogue and fighter are pretty good at getting you close to a controller, ranger can take strides in that direction as well, and some kind of mc/hybrid between those can really get some controller mileage. Add in an appropriate theme, and you're doing pretty good.

OTOH, an article could create the knife thrower and swordsman I've talked about using less page space than the exectioner, by making a rogue subclass. Same thing with the polearm and fighter.


Like I said, trivially easy. The design effort required to do this would be less than the build work needed to get close to the same effect with what's already there.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
Filling the grid is really unnecessary and just pandering to some kind of inclusive OCD.

You need to accomodate playstyle and concept and that's it, and not even simultaneously.  Making people make a choice between the two things they want to do (e.g. I'd like something simple, but I want to shoot spells and stuff is now a choice between Wizard for concept and Fighter for playstyle or whatever) is way better game design than having them choose between five things that all sound like what they want for different reasons.

It lets you balance better and the language, and therefore culture of the game are better preserved.  New players have an easier time figuring out where to start and are introduced to the concept of "Sometimes you can't have everything and just have to pick something" that's at the core of a million aspects of the game.
Filling the grid is really unnecessary and just pandering to some kind of inclusive OCD.



EXACTLY!

Not only do we have crappy classes, but we also have good classes getting pigeon-holed into one ceoncept. I see power source as being the major issue.

...

Everyone wants an woodland archer class that uses spells through their bow, when the Seeker is basically that, but it doesn't have the magic 'arcane' word in it's description, so people keep clamouring for an arcane archer.

(Also, because the Seeker kinda sucks...)

Several other classes would make more sense if they used multiple sources as well. The sorcerer is finally getting some elemental powers, some of the defenders could have martial powers, rangers could have a few primal powers, and so forth. Overall, power sources cause all sorts of problems, and offer very little to the game. Roles cause pigeon-holing as well, but at least they help players structure their party.


They only time that DnD should force a choice between playstyle and concept is in the beggining of an edition when only a small portion of the material that will be available, is available.


There is no reason not to have a simple spell caster. The simple spellcaster is far from iconic.

Nor is the highly tactical, complex weapon user.


Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
Filling the grid is really unnecessary and just pandering to some kind of inclusive OCD.



EXACTLY!

Not only do we have crappy classes, but we also have good classes getting pigeon-holed into one ceoncept. I see power source as being the major issue.

...

Everyone wants an woodland archer class that uses spells through their bow, when the Seeker is basically that, but it doesn't have the magic 'arcane' word in it's description, so people keep clamouring for an arcane archer.

(Also, because the Seeker kinda sucks...)

Several other classes would make more sense if they used multiple sources as well. The sorcerer is finally getting some elemental powers, some of the defenders could have martial powers, rangers could have a few primal powers, and so forth. Overall, power sources cause all sorts of problems, and offer very little to the game. Roles cause pigeon-holing as well, but at least they help players structure their party.




The only problem i see in that list is the seeker.

The sorceror not having the elemental keyword in powers is fine, I'm actually surprised elemental survived to be a keyword since alot of powers are elementally based.

I don't get whats so important about defenders having martial powers.

Rangers do have a number of primal utilities thanks to the Hunter and Scout subclasses.        
Classes, races, or any other features that are difficult to immerse yourself is concerning, but being "iconic" matters little.



True, except being iconic tends to make easier to immerse yourself.

Of course! Something can't be iconic if it isn't easily relatable :P

Roles are stupid, just let everyone fight and if they decide they want to put a status effect on their attacks they'll figure out how eventually.

Arcane Archer is an "Iconic" prestige class, at least as far as my experience has dictated.  Maybe that's why there's such a clamour for it?  Sounds more like a paragon path by 4E standards.  Hopefully prestige classes will come back though.

Keywords aren't causing an actual problem, they're just encouraging the grid fillers to make more noise.  They give you a basic idea of concept pretty well.  Magic, Martial, Primal and Divine can and should create a feel for the features they grant; I've always thought about classes in these kinds of terms anyways. (Eg paladins were martial/divine, bards were martial/arcane, rangers were martial/forest, fighters are pure martial, wizards pure magic, etc.)

If they better establish the feel of a given power source, maybe people won't get so upset that it can't do a certain thing.  People don't get mad about Red not getting life gain in Magic the Gathering.