What classes would you like to see in the first players handbook

I'm not hyper concerned with which classes we get first, I just want them to actually work.

That said Barbarian and Psion, preferably with a decent method of multi-classing the two.

 
Nice combo! And you're right make em work but I gotta try out the next warlock lol
Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard. At a minimum. 
Barbarian, Paladin, Monk. Would be nice in addition. 
Im sorry but ADEU is a French word for goodbye, not a combat system. You say, "Encounter Power" and I stop listening to you. [spoiler Have Played/Run] D&D 1st ed D&D 3.5 ed D&D 4th ed Shadowrun Star Wars SAGA Cyberpunk Interlock Unlimited Run.Net [/spoiler] I know my games, don't try to argue about them. [spoiler Alignment Explained] This is a very simple problem and I will outline it below. Their are two types of people Type 1: a lot of people (not all, but a lot) who play see alignment as "I am lawful good thus I must play lawful good" Type 2: a lot of people (not all, but a lot) who play see alignment as "My previous actions have made people and the gods view me as lawful good. The difference is subtle but it is the source of the misunderstanding. Alignment does not dictate how you play your character. All it does is tell you, the player, how the rest of the world views you, and your previous actions. Any future actions will be judged by their own merits. Say you're a baby eating pyromaniac. You are most likely chaotic evil. But one day you decide, "Hey all I really need is love." So you get a wife, have a kid, and get a kitten named Mr. Snook'ems. You become a member of the PTA and help build houses for the homeless. You are no longer chaotic evil. And just because you were once chaotic evil it does not mean that you have to stay chaotic evil. Alignment never dictates what you can do, it only says what you have done. Now that is cleared up here is a simple test. What is the alignment of... A Police officer: The average Citizen: A Vigilante: The answer is simple. The Police officer is lawful good. He uses the laws of the country and city to arrest people and make them pay their debt to society. The Citizen is Neutral good. He wants to live is a place that is Good and follows moral and ethical principle, but he sometimes finds the laws impedes him, and he wonders why we spend so much on poor people. The Vigilante is Chaotic Good. He wants to uphold the morals and ethics of society but finds that the bad guys often slip through the cracks in the law. He takes it upon himself to protect the people from these criminals. That is the basic breakdown of the good alignment axis. What needs to be remembered is that any one of these people can change alignments, easily. The Police officer could be bought off by a local gang, and suddenly he drops to lawful neutral. The average citizen might find that his neighbors dog is annoying, barking at night and keeping him up. So he poisons its food, now he is no longer good, he is stepping towards true neutral. Maybe the citizen really goes crazy also kills the neighbor, hello neutral evil. It is possible that the Vigilante realizes that the cops are actually doing a pretty good job and decides to become an officer himself, leaving his masked crime fighting days behind him. Now he is Lawful good. Your alignment is not carved in stone, it is malleable and will change to reflect your actions.[/spoiler]
I cast a powerful suggestion spell - "Oh Wizards who are of the Coast, you surely shall provide each class that occurs in any players handbook for any edition"

Just wait and see the power of my magic!

They don't call me Emerikol for nothing. 

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

Very well said. hahahah Wizards who are of the coast
Warlord, Wizo Ruge Figher Cleric barbarian druid paladin
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.
Fighter, Wizard, Rogue and Cleric. And properly implemented this time. Sure 4th edition had these classes, but they started being decent after two years of splat books and Insider only material.

The rest, I really don't care. Bards, Paladin, Rangers, Barbarian, Warlocks, Warlords, Druids would come next.

I couldn't care less if the classes that only appeared in one edition never make it to D&D Next.
I cast a powerful suggestion spell - "Oh Wizards who are of the Coast, you surely shall provide each class that occurs in any players handbook for any edition"

Just wait and see the power of my magic!

They don't call me Emerikol for nothing. 



Yeh, being mere loki gives you powers of hind sight ;p
  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."

 

My list is perhaps a bit longer than most.

Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric, Paladin, Bard, Barbarian, Ranger, Druid, Warlock, Warlord

These classes are all either iconic or of a common enough flavor that they would be found within a traditional fantasy setting and cover the character basis for most of your character types.

Things like Monk, Psionic class of all sorts, Sorcerer, etc. are long standing classes but I think they also typically have backgrounds that are less commonplace in a fantasy setting and would be more appropriate for later books.
I cast a powerful suggestion spell - "Oh Wizards who are of the Coast, you surely shall provide each class that occurs in any players handbook for any edition"

Just wait and see the power of my magic!

They don't call me Emerikol for nothing. 



Oh man, I may start worshiping you as a god! You do can manipulate people mind!
While I would be content with just Cleric, Fighter, Rogue and Wizard (maybe with kits/subclasses etc), I do like the idea they have of putting in every class that's been in a PHB 1, that stops people from "Hey, where the hell is the goddamn druid?!".

I might even get a little cantankerous if there is no Monk. 
I believe it was at D&DXP back in January that they said that at that time the goal was to have at least every class that's been in a PHB1.  It'd be a pretty big list.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I believe it was at D&DXP back in January that they said that at that time the goal was to have at least every class that's been in a PHB1.  It'd be a pretty big list.



Assassin
Barbarian
Bard
Cleric
Druid 
Fighter
Illusionist
Monk
Paladin
Ranger 
Rogue
Sorcerer 
Warlock
Warlord 
Wizard 

Am I missing any? 
If they included every class from all the PHB that would be the following. 

Assassin
Barbarian
Fighter
Paladin
Thief/Rogue
Bard
Cleric
Druid
Monk
Ranger
Mage
Specialist Mage (necromancer, transmuter, abjurer, conjurer, evoker, illusionist, diviner, enchanter)
Specialty Priests (unknown?)
Sorceror
Warlock
Warlord
 

Yeah I'd be happy with that.  


I agree, its a good, and pretty comprehensive, list.
I believe it was at D&DXP back in January that they said that at that time the goal was to have at least every class that's been in a PHB1.  It'd be a pretty big list.


I just hope we don't see something like:

Fighter,Wizard,Rogue,Cleric fully stated classes so over-bloated you can't have a ideea for a new class after the PHB is out without someone  going "Well X should be a build of Y from the PHB"

Wizard:
3)Theme Selection:
 3) a) If you choose the feats: Hellfire Adept,Conjuration Focus(Demon),,, congratulations you've chosen the Warlock theme feel free to refer to yourself as a Wizard(Warlock)

Multi-classing:
5) Fighter multiclasses:
  5)a) Fighter/Cleric is commonly known in the fluff as a Paladin.

Rogue:
7)Roleplaying tips:
7)d) A rogue of a Evil aligment often worked as a Assassin before starting adventuring.
If 5e has a list of spells a the back of the book, like pre-4e editions had then it will be far more likely that we will see the specialist wizards and priests return to D&D in the PHB.     If however, the powers/spells are part of the classes like they are in 4e don't expect there to be enough room in the PHB for them all.  

I only want to buy 3 books The PHB, DMG, and the MM.    Nothing else thank you!    D&D should not be a collectable card/book trading game. 



I only want to buy 3 books The PHB, DMG, and the MM.    Nothing else thank you!



But the 1st Ed Deities & Demigods (love that Jeff Dee art, the Melnibonean chapter was sweet) is what really sucked me into this mad game!

But I get what you're saying, no more Complete Gnome Cobbler's Handbooks, thank you. 

I only want to buy 3 books The PHB, DMG, and the MM.    Nothing else thank you!



But the 1st Ed Deities & Demigods (love that Jeff Dee art, the Melnibonean chapter was sweet) is what really sucked me into this mad game!

But I get what you're saying, no more Complete Gnome Cobbler's Handbooks, thank you. 


 But the Complete Gnome Cobbler's Handbook is what suched me into this game!
But the Complete Gnome Cobbler's Handbook is what suched me into this game!



It was that Half-Rubber Sole feat, wasn't it?
But the Complete Gnome Cobbler's Handbook is what suched me into this game!



It was that Half-Rubber Sole feat, wasn't it?



It was the Too Left feat.
What no love for the Sverneblin Bootmaster Prc?
Never used it. I was too busy using the Mad Jack Cheng PrC.
What no love for the Sverneblin Bootmaster Prc?



I would like to see a return (in some form) of those bad-boys.
Absolutley: Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Rogue, Bard
These five classes are, IMO, the core of the D&D experience.  I know adding bard to the classic Core Four is a little odd, but it really is a fifth unique path... and it's probably the most legitimatley played class around these parts.

Maybe: Barbarian, Warlock, Paladin, Ranger
These four are sort of bizarro versions of F/W/C/R, but they have a good chance to show off special or novel mechanics rather than simply acting as a build or multiclass.

No thanks: Monk, Psion, Warlord.
Even if these three get in, you won't be seeing them at my tables (bar a miracle in Warlord's execution), except perhaps specific campaigns (OA would allow monks, Psions could take the place of wizards...)

All others: Specalist mages (if not the default), priests of specific Mythoi (including druids), assassins... I don't really have anything against anyone whose name I did not call, but I don't really have anythign to say for them either.

"Enjoy your screams, Sarpadia - they will soon be muffled beneath snow and ice."

 

Follow me to No Goblins Allowed

A M:tG/D&D message board with a good community and usable software

 


THE COALITION WAR GAME -Phyrexian Chief Praetor
Round 1: (4-1-2, 1 kill)
Round 2: (16-8-2, 4 kills)
Round 3: (18-9-2, 1 kill)
Round 4: (22-10-0, 2 kills)
Round 5: (56-16-3, 9 kills)
Round 6: (8-7-1)

Last Edited by Ralph on blank, 1920

Tevish, why the "no thanks" though?  Why not publish them, even if you or even if a majority of people won't play them?  I mean Warlord is one of the most popular and celebrated classes in all of 4e, on what grounds do you suggest it would be right to deny that to others by not printing it in PHB?

You're free to ban whatever you like from your games, as you are in any edition.  But to ban it from other peoples' games?  Why?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
The prompt was askign what each of us, personally, wants to see in the PHBI.  Since space is presumably at a premium, I feel a "no thanks" category in response to the prompt is appropiate.

If the answer of "What goes in" can legitimatley be "Everything", I won't complain.

"Enjoy your screams, Sarpadia - they will soon be muffled beneath snow and ice."

 

Follow me to No Goblins Allowed

A M:tG/D&D message board with a good community and usable software

 


THE COALITION WAR GAME -Phyrexian Chief Praetor
Round 1: (4-1-2, 1 kill)
Round 2: (16-8-2, 4 kills)
Round 3: (18-9-2, 1 kill)
Round 4: (22-10-0, 2 kills)
Round 5: (56-16-3, 9 kills)
Round 6: (8-7-1)

Last Edited by Ralph on blank, 1920

I'm just making clear that the comments were based on that presumption, nothing more.  Personally, I'm hoping for increased class density, something unlike how 4e classes are designed.  That way out of the near 300 pages that were in 4e PHB, we could have a lot more room for things.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Assassin - Probably as a theme for the rogue, although it would be a cool class
Avenger - They've stated they're looking at this as a paladin theme, but I think it would also be a cool rogue or ranger (thinking more rogue) theme.
Barbarian - Rage is a unique enough mechanical concept to separate this as a class, distinct from the fighter. Also, the barbarian aesthetic is much more unarmored bruiser than the more formally trained fighter.
Bard - Sealed awesome in a lute. I've heard the argument made that this should be a wizard build, but I think hands down this concept is unique enough from a flavor perspective to warrant its own class.
Cleric - Some of what I've seen them hinting at with this class worries me. Heavy armor, plus melee proficiency, and presumably a full-caster? I hope (and trust) that they will work out a trade-off system somewhere so the Cleric doesn't get all of that at once. Also, I would prefer a domain-based spell mechanic; a cleric of the god of slaughter and a cleric of the god of light and cleric of the god of tyranny should all be different (at least as an option in high-complexity versions of the class).
Druid - So many concepts here. Many of the same issues as the cleric, though.
Fighter - While I would prefer the fighter remain melee-focused, I seem to be in the minority. If there must be a ranged build, I beseech WotC to at least give it worse armor than its melee counterpart to compensate.
Illusionist - I see this entering Next's core as a wizard build or theme, personally.
Monk - You could lift the 4E monk and drop it into Next and I'd be ridiculously happy.
Paladin - This guy has enough history to warrant his own class, especially if they can finally implement it correctly. I just think to avoid the CoDzilla he should hold the cleric at sword-point and take what they say is going to be some of the cleric's stuff.
Psion - And the psion should not just a wizard with spellpoints.
Ranger - My prefered home of the archer, I honestly could do without all the nature trappings it has had in some iterations, but I'm not going to say cut them out on my account.
Rogue - One of the big four. A given. Having played only 3.x on I can't imagine this without sneak attack, but I'm sure it can be done.
Warlord - I'm certain someone will come and try to burn me in effigy, but I honestly think this could do well as a theme or group of themes available to the fighter, and perhaps any melee class. I feel like the concepts behind the warlord, concepts of worldview and background, seem tailor made for a theme.


The Mages: I listed these three apart from everyone else because there three classes are linked to the arcane "identity crisis." I believe that each of these classes has its own unique flavor and fluff, and the identity crisis is one of mechanics, and really only involves the sorcerer and warlock.
Sorcerer
- My personal favorite class. There are so many different directions to take this class, although I favor the "I am magic," approach, with the sorcerer being sort of the anti-mage mage. Magical auras surrounding their bodies, the ability to sense magic, and magical abilities and attributes based on their emotional state (think a barbarian's rage, but with more emotions and affecting "spells") would be where I would take this. Bloodlines as themes (Arcane Power Source themes, shared with Warlock to describe their pacts, perhaps even Bards to represent patrons and Wizards to represent different areas of study).
Warlock - Hexes and curses and pact boons, oh my! I see the warlock as functioning much like a middle-ground between the cleric (pact-based casting options, much like domain-based casting options) but squishier, closer to the rogue in armor proficiency and overall tactical focus.
Wizard - The archetypal mage. I personally would implement a mana system but everyone seems to be going Vancian. I would make this the only Vancian arcane caster, though. Neither sorcerers nor warlocks make sense as Vancian casters.
The four classic + paladin, ranger, druid.

If it isn´t possible for Player Handbook 2: Bard, barbarian, warlock, monk, socerer, swordmage (isn´t there a cooler name? I would rather duskblade or hexblade).

.. and shaman,assasin, knight, gladiator, favoured soul/oracle/mysthyc...and warlord/"caudillo"/marshall..it may be.


And I would like a lot of classes more for PH3 or "semicore" handbooks..

"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)

 

Book 13 Anaclet 23 Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"

 

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius 

Warlord, Fighter, warlord, Rogue, Warlord, Mage, Warlord, Cleric, Warlord, Bard and Warlord.
Ahh, so THIS is where I can add a sig. Remember: Killing an ancient God inside of a pyramid IS a Special Occasion, and thus, ladies should be dipping into their Special Occasions underwear drawer.
Warlord, Fighter, warlord, Rogue, Warlord, Mage, Warlord, Cleric, Warlord, Bard and Warlord.




So, you like the Marshal class?
Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Rogue, Bard - The quintessential party, first and foremost.

Paladin, Ranger, Druid, Barbarian, Psion and Monk are welcome inclusions.

Warlord and Assassin are meh, but I will not discount them if they bring something truly unique to the table during the design process.

I'd also like to see a new class get some serious love and be added as a flagship for the edition a la Warlord & Warlock in 4E. What that class is or could be, I'm unsure, but I enjoy additions like that. -- I'm still holding out for a Witch class that really nails fantasy flavor; a weilder of natural lore, manipulator of forbidden magic, and petitioner of the divine.

Danny

Warden, Avenger, and Shaman!  Three of the best new classes 4E gave us.

Ok I know none of those are going to be in the PHB, but I want them somewhere in the edition.  I really like the idea that they are going to try to include all the previous editions PHB classes in one book.  Its a realistic goal if the actual class descriptions only take up about 2 pages each.

And I want a functioning version of the 3.5 soulknife at some point.  The closest 4E has is the hexblade, which I don't really like since its less interesting than the warlock even though the class seems to work.  A functional Seeker would be nice as well.
I want the Big Four:  Fighter, Thief, Cleric, and Magic-user.

On top of those, I'd like to see the Paladin (though I'd be happy enough to see much of what I like about the Paladin divided up between the Cleric and the "knight" theme), the Bard, the Warlord, and the Barbarian (heck, I think the Barbarian could be represented by a theme, too).  Most of the rest of the classes aren't different enough from these classics to merit their own class, and I'm comfortable with consigning them to the fate of simply being a theme tacked onto and modifying one of the real classes.

Except the monk.  The monk is right out; I'd rather not see it return.

If you have to resort to making offensive comments instead of making logical arguments, you deserve to be ignored.

Its a realistic goal if the actual class descriptions only take up about 2 pages each.




Yes, not every class deserves 1st level Features, then 100+ powers, rinse, repeat (let's not repeat every class having its spellbook section).
Druid, Monk, Warlord, Barbarian... and Warden, Shaman and Battlemind!

Okay, those last three aren't happening. So... Psion. And more Druid.
Battlemind, monk, psion and some sort of gish
A single martial class and a single magic class.  That's it.  Let the players be able mold them into what they want, be it thief, cleric mage, bard, soldier, mercenary, barbarian, etc.
"Adventurer"
  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."

 

Sign In to post comments