Which classes do you think should be "CORE"

Could be interesting to see what people think...especially as it splits along edition lines.

Which classes, to you, do you feel should be the ones included in the primary "CORE" rulebooks (IE the initial PHB, DMG, MM)?

From the editions I remember, your CORE classes were as followed:

2e:
Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Thief, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Wizard

3e:
Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian, Rogue, Bard, Monk, Cleric, Druid, Wizard, Sorcerer

4e:
Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Warlord, Cleric, Wizard, Warlock
Wizard, cleric, fighter, rogue, bard, paladin, & ranger
Actually, only the Fighter, Thief, Cleric, and Wizard were 'core' in 2E.  The Paladin, Ranger, Bard, Druid, and Illusionist (a sub-class not on your list) were considered optional.

For some of our 4e games, we used an Essentials book exclusively, Heroes of the Fallen Lands.  So there were only Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, and Wizard sub-classes (no Paladins, Rangers, Warlords, or Warlocks in those games).  

So, my answer to what classes I think should be core in Next?  Fighter, Thief, Cleric, and Wizard ;).  The rest are just specific types (at least in my mind)-- even the Paladin, one of my favorite classes during 3e and before.

Guess my choices do fall on a line ;).
/\ Art
Psion, sorcerer, pact binder and druid. What?
Everything that has ever been in a phb1.
Barbarian, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Psion, Rogue, Sorcerer, Wizard

Based on, to be honest, absolutely nothing other than my personal preferences, though it's assuming that I can only pick classes that have actually existed.

It has already been stated, though, that the DDN PHB will include every base class that's ever been in a core PHB.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
Could be interesting to see what people think...especially as it splits along edition lines.

Which classes, to you, do you feel should be the ones included in the primary "CORE" rulebooks (IE the initial PHB, DMG, MM)?

From the editions I remember, your CORE classes were as followed:

2e:
Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Thief, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Wizard

3e:
Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian, Rogue, Bard, Monk, Cleric, Druid, Wizard, Sorcerer

4e:
Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Warlord, Cleric, Wizard, Warlock



Whatever amount it takes to attach a class to an arguably different system mechanic.

Wizards=Vancian+at-wills (covert AEDU)
Clerics=Vancian+at-wills+Divine Channelling (auras and riders)
Rogue=Burst Damage+Skill Checks
Figther=Expertise Dice
Warlock=more openly AEDU
Sorcerer=Spell Point depletion transmutation

I think the better question is how many different systems can they come up with.




"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

Actually, only the Fighter, Thief, Cleric, and Wizard were 'core' in 2E.  The Paladin, Ranger, Bard, Druid, and Illusionist (a sub-class not on your list) were considered optional.



My apologies...I'll update the oriignal post. I was thinking of "2nd Edition AD&D" not simply "AD&D 1st edition" which I guess some could view as 2e.

2nd Edition AD&D absolutely did have the Paladin, Ranger, Druid, and Bard as classes available in the Core rule book.

I would suggest that things that are in the Core rulebook, even if they're "optional" to include, are still part of the "core" rules that are initially presented and are reasonable expected to be balanced against themselves. Ultimately, everything in the "core" book is still optional because the DM has final say....but if it's in the core book, I think Players have a reasonable expectation and feeling of entitlement to be able to ask and argue for those options from the DM.
There are no core classes.

If you think there are, or want there to be, then you do not understand what "core" means in Next.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
There are no core classes.

"Core" does not mean something drastically different in Next than it has before. It just means what's going to be in the core rulebook. Unless there's no core rulebook, there will be a core, and unless there are no classes in the core rulebook, there will be core classes. That many of Next's mechanics are supposed to be presented as "more optional" than they have been before makes no difference.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
Should it be "available on release" then?

I would say Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard, because to a large extent, the other classes are just a blend of those. I say this with pain, as my first character made by my hand (a Ranger/Deepwood Sniper) would be relegated to splatbooks.

Gold is for the mistress, silver for the maid

Copper for the craftsman, cunning at his trade.

"Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall,

"But Iron -- Cold Iron -- is master of them all." -Kipling

 

Miss d20 Modern? Take a look at Dias Ex Machina Game's UltraModern 4e!

 

57019168 wrote:
I am a hero, not a chump.
There are no core classes.

"Core" does not mean something drastically different in Next than it has before. It just means what's going to be in the core rulebook..


Nope.  Most of what's in the PHB/DMG/MM is not going to be core.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Warrior,
Rogue,
Mage,

All others should be feat packs, theme packs and skill packs, 
Most of what's in the PHB/DMG/MM is not going to be core.

Everything that's in the PHB/DMG/MM is going to be core. Those are the core rulebooks. That's what core means. Degree of optional-ness of a mechanic does not all of a sudden make it not core. Regardless, the fact that you're using some funky definition of "Core" that you clearly know is not the definition that other people in this this thread are using was worth interrupting this thread because...?

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
Fighter, Paladin, Warlock, Cleric, Warlord, Bard, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Druid.


Wizard should be dismantled and have it's stuff stolen by the Sorcerer and Warlock. As is it covers too much to ever be balanced by the other classes.  
Khyber is a dark and dangerous place, full of flame and smoke, where ever stranger things lie dormant.
Most of what's in the PHB/DMG/MM is not going to be core.

Everything that's in the PHB/DMG/MM is going to be core. Those are the core rulebooks. That's what core means.


Not anymore.  Next has changed what core means.

Read the dev articles where they talk about what core means, and what it doesn't mean.  It no longer means what it used to mean.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I apologize for bringing the topic of core into the thread.  Despite what the thread title might indicate, I don't feel the focus of the thread is intended to be about what is (or is not) core.  Certainly, the OP indicated as much in the response to my first post.  

More accurately, I reckon the OP intends to ask: Which class do you think should be in the first PH?

Again, sorry for the derail; I played a part in it ;).
/\ Art
Next has changed what core means. Read the dev articles where they talk about what core means, and what it doesn't mean.  It no longer means what it used to mean.

Link me to the article, and I'll read it, but I'll say right now that the dev don't get to arbitrarily decide what it does or does not mean. That is not under their power. Unless they're actually going to do something different with the core books other than have them be the core books (and as far as I know, we have no indication that they will), the core will stay the core regardless of whatever marketing or PR mumbo-jumbo they've come up with.

Now, PM me and stop deliberately misinterpreting what is clearly the purpose of this topic in order to push whatever pedantry this qualifies as.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
As long as Bard is in the first PHB I will be happy.
It has already been stated, though, that the DDN PHB will include every base class that's ever been in a core PHB.



I saw this too and I like the idea.  BUT how big is that book going to be?!  Also from a business standpoint wouldn't it make sense to release multiple books?  As a consumer I hate that but they are trying to make a buck.  Another point I was thinking about was how long will it take them to get each class right?  If they're starting with 16 classes instead of 8 that's means they ALL need to be fully developed prior to release.  It just doesn't seem to me like a smart idea to do every class that's ever been in a core PHB. 

Personally, this would be my line up:

Fighter, Paladin, Wizard, Cleric, Warlord, Bard, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Druid.

I'm also curious and don't have access my books at work...but how many classes would that be if they did all classes from every editions PHB?
It has already been stated, though, that the DDN PHB will include every base class that's ever been in a core PHB.



I saw this too and I like the idea.  BUT how big is that book going to be?!  Also from a business standpoint wouldn't it make sense to release multiple books?  As a consumer I hate that but they are trying to make a buck.  Another point I was thinking about was how long will it take them to get each class right?  If they're starting with 16 classes instead of 8 that's means they ALL need to be fully developed prior to release.  It just doesn't seem to me like a smart idea to do every class that's ever been in a core PHB. 

Personally, this would be my line up:

Fighter, Paladin, Wizard, Cleric, Warlord, Bard, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Druid.

I'm also curious and don't have access my books at work...but how many classes would that be if they did all classes from every editions PHB?



I think the reasoning for putting all the PHB classes in the first PHB is to try to get as many people playing their favourite class immediately. 4e was plagued for quite sometime with people being annoyed on the forums how the barbarian/bard/druid/monk wasn't playable yet.


An all PHB list would probably be like:

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


Im assuming they arent counting past the PHB1's.   
     
I'd be perfectly happy with the core four; Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, and Wizard.



D&D Next - Basic and Expert Editions

I firmly believe that there should be two editions of the game; the core rules released as a "Basic" set and a more complicated expanded rules edition released as an "Expert" set. These two editions would provide separate entry points to the game; one for new players or players that want a more classic D&D game and another entry point for experienced gamers that want more options and all the other things they have come to expect from previous editions.

Also, they must release several rules modules covering the main elements of the game (i.e., classes, races, combat, magic, monsters, etc.) upon launch to further expand the game for those that still need more complexity in a particular element of the game.


Here's a mockup of the Basic Set I created.



(CLICK HERE TO VIEW LARGER IMAGE)
  

Basic Set

This boxed set contains a simple, "bare bones" edition of the game; the core rules. It's for those that want a rules-light edition of the game that is extremely modifiable or for new players that get intimidated easily by too many rules and/or options. The Basic Set contains everything needed to play with all the "classic" D&D races (i.e., Human, Dwarf, Elf, and Halfling) and classes (i.e., Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard) all the way up to maximum level (i.e., 20th Level).

The Basic boxed set contains:

Quick Start Rules
A "choose your own way" adventure intended as an intro to RPGs and basic D&D terms.

Player's Handbook
(Softcover, 125 pages)
Features rules for playing the classic D&D races and classes all the way up to 20th level.

Dungeon Master's Guide

(Softcover, 125 pages)
Includes the basic rules for dungeon masters.

Monster Manual
(Softcover, 100 pages)
Includes all the classic iconic monsters from D&D. 

Introductory Adventure
(Keep on the Borderlands)
An introductory adventure for beginning players and DMs.

Also includes: 

Character Sheets
Reference Sheets
Set of Dice


Expert Set

A set of hardbound rules that contains the core rules plus expanded races and classes, more spells and a large selection of optional rules modules — that is, pretty much everything that experienced players have come to expect. Each expert edition manual may be purchased separately, or in a boxed set. The Expert set includes:

Expert PHB (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes core rules plus 10 playable races, 10 character classes, expanded selection of spells and rules modules for players.)
Expert DMG (Hardcover, 250 pages. $35 Includes core rules plus expanded rules modules for DMs.)
Expert MM (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes an expanded list of monsters and creatures to challenge characters)


Expansions

These expansion rules modules can be used with both the Basic and Expert sets. Each expansion covers one specific aspect of the game, such as character creation, combat, spells, monsters, etc.) 

Hall of Heroes (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes a vast selection of playable character races and classes, new and old all in one book)
Combat and Tactics (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes dozens of new and old optional rules for combat all in one book)
Creature Compendium (Hardcover, 350 pages.$35 Includes hundreds of monsters, new and old all in one book)
The Grimoire (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes hundreds of new and old spells all in one book)





A Million Hit Points of Light: Shedding Light on Damage

A Million Hit Points of Light: Shedding Light on Damage and Hit Points

In my personal campaigns, I use the following system for damage and dying. It's a slight modification of the long-standing principles etsablished by the D&D game, only with a new definition of what 0 or less hit points means. I've been using it for years because it works really well. However, I've made some adjustments to take advantage of the D&D Next rules. I've decided to present the first part in a Q&A format for better clarity. So let's begin...

What are hit points?
The premise is very simple, but often misunderstood; hit points are an abstraction that represent the character's ability to avoid serious damage, not necessarily their ability to take serious damage. This is a very important distinction. They represent a combination of skillful maneuvering, toughness, stamina and luck. Some targets have more hit points because they are physically tougher and are harder to injure...others have more because they are experienced combatants and have learned how to turn near fatal blows into mere scratches by skillful maneuvering...and then others are just plain lucky. Once a character runs out of hit points they become vulnerable to serious life-threatening injuries.

So what exactly does it mean to "hit" with a successful attack roll, then?
It means that through your own skill and ability you may have wounded your target if the target lacks the hit points to avoid the full brunt of the attack. That's an important thing to keep in mind; a successful "hit" does not necessarily mean you physically damaged your target. It just means that your attack was well placed and forced the target to exert themselves in such a way as to leave them vulnerable to further attacks. For example, instead of severing the target's arm, the attack merely grazes them leaving a minor cut.

But the attack did 25 points of damage! Why did it only "graze" the target?
Because the target has more than 25 hit points. Your attack forced them to exert a lot of energy to avoid the attack, but because of their combat skill, toughness, stamina and luck, they managed to avoid being seriously injured. However, because of this attack, they may not have the reserves to avoid your next attack. Perhaps you knocked them off balance or the attack left them so fatigued they lack the stamina to evade another attack. It's the DM's call on how they want to narrate the exact reason the blow didn't kill or wound the target.

Yeah, but what about "touch" attacks that rely on physical contact?
Making physical contact with a target is a lot different than striking them, so these types of attacks are the exception. If a touch attack succeeds, the attacker manages to make contact with their target.

If hit points and weapon damage don't always represent actual damage to the target, then what does it represent?
Think of the damage from an attack as more like a "threat level" rather than actual physical damage that transfers directly to the target's body. That is, the more damage an attack does, the harder it is to avoid serious injury. For example, an attack that causes 14 points of damage is more likely to wound the target than 3 points of damage (depending on how many hit points the target has left). The higher the damage, the greater the chance is that the target will become seriously injured. So, an attack that does 34 points of damage could be thought of as a "threat level of 34." If the target doesn't have the hit points to negate that threat, they become seriously injured.

Ok, but shouldn't armor reduce the amount of damage delivered from an attack?
It does reduce damage; by making it harder for an attack to cause serious injury. A successful hit against an armored target suggests that the attack may have circumvented the target's armor by striking in a vulnerable area.

What about poison and other types of non-combat damage?
Hit point loss from non-physical forms of damage represents the character spitting the poison out just in time before it takes full strength or perhaps the poison just wasn't strong enough to affect them drastically, but still weakens them. Again, it's the DMs call on how to narrate the reasons why the character avoids serious harm from the damage.

If hit points don't don't represent actual damage then how does that make sense with spells like Cure Serious Wounds and other forms of healing like healer kits with bandages?
Hit points do represent some physical damage, just not serious physical damage. Healing magic and other forms of healing still affect these minor wounds just as well as more serious wounds. For example, bandaging up minor cuts and abrasions helps the character rejuvenate and relieve the pain and/or fatigue of hit point loss. The key thing to remember is that it's an abstraction that allows the DM freedom to interpret and narrate it as they see fit.

What if my attack reduces the target to 0 or less hit points?
If a player is reduced to 0 or less hit points they are wounded. If a monster or NPC is reduce to 0 or less hit points they are killed.

Why are monsters killed immediately and not players?
Because unless the monsters are crucial to the story, it makes combat resolution much faster. It is assumed that players immediately execute a coup de grace on wounded monsters as a finishing move.

What if a character is wounded by poison or other types of non-physical damage?
If a character becomes wounded from non-combat damage they still receive the effects of being wounded, regardless if they show any physical signs of injury (i.e., internal injuries are still considered injuries).

Ok. I get it...but what happens once a character is wounded?
See below.
 

Damage and Dying

Once a character is reduced to 0 or less hit points, they start taking real damage. In other words, their reserves have run out and they can no longer avoid taking serious damage.

  1. Characters are fully operational as long as they have 1 hit point or more. They may have minor cuts, bruises, and superficial wounds, but they are are not impaired significantly. 
  2. Once they reach 0 or less hit points, they become Wounded (see below).That is, they have sustained a wound that impairs their ability to perform actions.
  3. If they reach a negative amount of hit points equal or greater than their Constitution score, they are Incapacitated. This means they are in critical condition and could possibly die.
  4. Characters will die if their hit points reach a negative amount greater than their Constitution score, plus their current level.

Unharmed: 1 hp or more
Wounded: 0 hp or less
Incapacitated: -(Constitution) to -(Constitution+Level)
Dead: Less than -(Constitution +Level)

Wounded
When the character reaches 0 or less hit points they become wounded. Wounded characters receive disadvantage on all attacks and saving throws until they heal back up to 1 hit point or more. This allows for a transitory stage between healthy and dying, without having to mess around with impairment rules while the character still has hit points left.

Incapacitated
Characters begin dying when they reach a negative amount of hit points equal to their Constitution score. At which point, they must make a DC 10 Constitution saving throw on each of their following turns (the disadvantage from being wounded does not apply for these saving throws).

If successful, the character remains dying, but their condition does not worsen.

If the saving throw fails, another DC 10 Constitution saving throw must be made. If that one fails, the character succumbs to their wounds and dies. If successful, the character stabilizes and is no longer dying.

Finally, if a dying character receives first aid or healing at any point, they immediately stabilize.

Dead
Characters will die if they reach a negative amount of hit points equal to their Constitution, plus their current level. Thus, if an 8th level character with a Constitution score of 12 is down to 4 hit points then takes 24 points of damage (reducing their hit points to -20) the attack kills them outright.

Warrior
Cleric
Wizard
Thief

All others should just be specialized branches of each.

I think from this standpoint it is much easier to "balance" classes.
classic things + mandatory non-god-slaves source of healing or damage prevention + subtle psychic powers (for people who don't like gibbering, gesticulations, and having stinking things in their pockets) + naked supernatural fighters.

Maybe ninjas and vampires ! A lot of people like nocturnal profile characters who are not evil as the others and turn to dust when they are killed.
I'm sure Drizzt will turn to dust when he will be killed. Poof !

If you think my english is bad, just wait until you see my spanish and my italian. Defiling languages is an art.

All of them. So long as they don't suck. Case in point, most of the classes in 3E outside of the PHB were designed pretty horridly. I think every splat book had a 1-3 ratio of Decent and Bad. The Scout, Swashbuckler, Duskblade, Favored Soul, and Warlock are five classes from the Complete books (and PH2) that were Average to decent (out of 16) and anything else was just terrible or too focused. Though the designers got better and so too did the classes. The Archivist, Dread Necromancer, Factotum (with a very specific feat), and Tome of Battle classes were all designed with stronger mechanics than most of the Complete Books were.

So, if D&D:Next is going to be good, they'll need to include a good portion (my number rests somewhere around 15) of CORE classes that are farily balanced with eachother among the 3 pillars of play, while having their own little niché benefit.

So, for a list:

1.) Cleric (variatons based on Domain)
2.) Fighter (variatons based on fighting style: swashbuckling, Brute, Shieldsworn, Brawler)
3.) Rogue (variations based on Theme/Specialty for Thief, Scout, Con Man, secret agent)
4.) Wizard (variations based on being generalist or focused on a School of magic)
5.) Barbarian (variations possibly based on tribal elements, totems, and focus on either being a leader or protector)
6.) Bard
7.) Druid (variatons on style such as shamanistic, wild shaping, summoning)
8.) Monk (variations based on monastic order)
9.) Paladin (variations based on servitude and outlook: Blackguard, Cavalier/mounted)
10.) Sorcerer (variations based on Bloodline: Dragon-blood, Genie-blood, Celestial-blood, Demonic-blood, etc)
11.) Ranger (variations based on combat prowess: Sniper/Archer, Tempest, Animal Companion handler)
12.) Warlock (varations based on Pact: Dark, Fey, Demonic/Infernal, Celestial)
13.) Warlord (variations based on combat style: Inspirational, Tactician, Bravura)
14.) Assassin (variations based on guild/faith/art: Poisoner, Avenger) 
15.) Psion

I had not heard that they were hoping to put in every class that's made an initial PHB before. That kind of makes the question a bit moot ;)


I had not heard that they were hoping to put in every class that's made an initial PHB before. That kind of makes the question a bit moot ;)




I hadn't heard that either.

It makes me think they'll have the fighter, then do "builds."  Briefly describe the barbarian or swashbuckler or whatever, and then explain what you should take as a background and skills and whatever else.  I would be fine with that.

I had not heard that they were hoping to put in every class that's made an initial PHB before. That kind of makes the question a bit moot ;)




I hadn't heard that either.

It makes me think they'll have the fighter, then do "builds."  Briefly describe the barbarian or swashbuckler or whatever, and then explain what you should take as a background and skills and whatever else.  I would be fine with that.


It was in the D&D Experience talk in January, I believe.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Could be interesting to see what people think...especially as it splits along edition lines.

Which classes, to you, do you feel should be the ones included in the primary "CORE" rulebooks (IE the initial PHB, DMG, MM)?

From the editions I remember, your CORE classes were as followed:

2e:
Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Thief, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Wizard

3e:
Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian, Rogue, Bard, Monk, Cleric, Druid, Wizard, Sorcerer

4e:
Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Warlord, Cleric, Wizard, Warlock


All of the above.
Plus the swordmage. And possibly something akin to the avenger. And excluding the warlord who is a fighter with the leader speciality and powers designed to assist and aid. 

I can wait on the psion and other psionic classes and some of the other later or world-based classes (assassin, artificer, etc). But they need all the big classes tested and ready to go. Even if they can't fit them all into the PHB, we should have solid playtest versions released so we can play them at launch.

5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

The compilation of my Worldbuilding blog series is now available: 

Jester David's How-To Guide to Fantasy Worldbuilding.

Could be interesting to see what people think...especially as it splits along edition lines.

Which classes, to you, do you feel should be the ones included in the primary "CORE" rulebooks (IE the initial PHB, DMG, MM)?

From the editions I remember, your CORE classes were as followed:

2e:
Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Thief, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Wizard

3e:
Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian, Rogue, Bard, Monk, Cleric, Druid, Wizard, Sorcerer

4e:
Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Warlord, Cleric, Wizard, Warlock



Trying to catch the OP up to speed.  Here are some earlier discussions:

community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/...

community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/...

community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/...

community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/...

community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/...

community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/...

community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/...

community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/...



"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

That said, I figure I'm actually going to post a different thread on the subject because what i'm thinking is more in depth but...

Going off how 4e and D&DN seem to be flavored with the "Pick a class, then pick a build"...I'd go for a blend of that and the way AD&D 2e had the various over arching classes which had a universal table and then under classes for each (IE Warrior....Fighter/Paladin/Ranger).

I'd go with something like this.

Four base classes.

Warriors:
Those whose focus is attacking and defending in a martial sense. Expertise Dice type system with the ability to use the dice to add damage or reduce damage

Talents (needs better name):
Those whose focus is on enhancement of their skills and utilize burst damage. A skill mastery type system and sneak attack

Mages:
Those who utilize arcane magic which primarily mimic damaging, control, and party buffing/utility roles. Pick from modular casting style using the Mage spell list.

Cleric:
Those who utilize divine magic which primarily mimic control and party buffing/utility/healing roles. Pick from modular casting style using the mage spell list.

- - - -

Each class would have baseline progression for their defenses, bonus to hit, HD, etc. It would also have a basic line class mechanic/mechanics that somewhat define the class and it's expected initial role.

Each class would then have Builds which either add to, modifiy, or enhance the base class mechanic. This would add roles (to the non-casters) or provide a focus of a role (in the case of casters).

- - - - -
Warrior Builds:
Figher - various fighting styles that have enemy control elements that function off the base mechanic

Warlord - various abilities that provide party buffs/control/healing that function off the base mechanic

Ranger - favored enemy type ability that enhances the base mecahnic, and the ability to use the base mechanic for skill enhancement

Barbarian - ability to use the base mechanic for burst damage at the expense of defense


Talent Builds:
Assassin - Applies enemy control effects through unique powers or modifiers to the sneak attack

Bard - Reduction to sneak attack damage, enhancement to the skill mastery system in some way, and a system to grant the party support of buffs/healing.

Monk - Sneak Attack relegated to scaling unarmed/monk weapon damage, system of self buffs/healing/utility abilities.

Rogue - Mobility abilities that assist in setting up the chance for sneak attack or help in protecting themselves.

Mage Builds:

Wizard - Spells through study, providing improvement/focus upon the party support (utility and buffing) part of arcane magic [in part due to more spells known to choose from making it less troublesome to get such spells]

Sorcerer - Spells innately, providing improvement/focus upon the damaging aspects of arcane magic

Warlock - Spells through otherworldly power. Providing improvement/focus upon the controlling aspects of arcane magic

Divine Builds

Priest - Spells through a god or ideal. Providing improvement/focus upon the party support (Buff, healing, and utility) aspect of divine magic

Paladin - Reduction in amount of spells they can use (less per day in vancian, less points in SP system, tightly limited ADEU), bump in armor/weapon/HP, powers that help with damage dealing and defending

Druid - Spells through a nature god or Nature/Primarl energies. Various powers that grant self supporting buff/utilities through wildshaping, etc.

- - - - - - - - - -

I think that covers every class that's made a PHB1 while, by baking them in as builds rather than stand alone classes, being done in a way that wouldn't massively bloat the book trying to fit in tons of full on unique classes.

Adding those various Builds to different Backgrounds and Specialities, I believe you could create a pretty workable flavor for all of them and they still be somewhat open ended enough to refluff slightly that is important to some players while still giving the arch-type rigidity that makes D&D for other players.

From that point, with additional splat books you could create optional rules for turning some of the various Builds into stand alone classes with their own individual builds. OR introduce additional individual builds for the classes that are in the Core Book.
The problem with making classes into builds using Backgrounds and Specialties is that those classes are now less versatile because they can't pick other Backgrounds or Specialties. They aren't as capable of a fraction of the build variety as a result.

Every class from every PHB needs to be its own class, with its own unique mechanic. While not a class in any PHB, I'd add Psions to that group. For me, your idea makes Rangers, Druids, etc. into second class classes.

Agreed Chakravant. If we're going to have a class-based system at all we might as well go for broke. I don't want to have to pick a Cleric infused with the War domain and plate mail to play something resembling a "Paladin". I want to play a paladin that has it's own, diverse features.


I don't want to pick Rogue just so I can have access to some poisons and rely on their focused mechanics for stealth when an Assassin might be far better suited for their own style that directly personifies the elements I want to play far better.


The 4 classes are great for a mini-game or perhaps a computer game (Dragon Age comes to mind) but if we're talking about D&D, I want the flexability that comes with class-based systems.

The problem with making classes into builds using Backgrounds and Specialties is that those classes are now less versatile because they can't pick other Backgrounds or Specialties.



Sorry, maybe I misexplained.

The seperate builds wouldn't be based on backgrounds/specialities, but would be a class mechanic.

See for example the current way Rogues are split between Thief and Thug. Or how Sorcerers seem like they'll be split by "sorcerer origin".

I was meaning more that the traditional additional "flavors"
of various classes could perhaps be provided through backgrounds and specialities as well. For example if you wanted your traditional "tribesman barbarian" maybe you take a "tribal" background where as if you're going for the classic "Dwarven Battlerager" then another background may be suitable...but both would use the "Barbarian" build of the "Warrior" because it gives you the "rage" type mechanic of burst damage at the expense of defense.

I think 4 base "mechanical" groups is a good compromise between the earlier editions (Where there were a plethora of mechanical groups) or 4e (Where there was largely one overriding mechanical group).

It has the simplicity where a new player doesn't have to learn a hugely different mechanical system for character creation/character usage no matter what new thing they play....while having the diversity where base mechanically various classes do play different.

I think that's a good compromise position for the initial core rule book...with additional optional books coming out later that can allow players to expand a particular style they like.

I understand the idea behind the flexability behind a fully class based system. If you're asking me for my own opinion though...it's routinely going to be routed in a bit of pragmatism (The book can't be the size of a George R. R. Martin novel in terms of total pages), attempting to compromise between the desires and IMPRESSIONS of players from various editions, and what I think is workable within that framework in a core book.

To me, what I posted would be the way to hit the goals in my head of:

1. Book size at a reasonable point
2. All classes from the main PHB's represented
3. Diverse base class mechanic system
4. A level of uniformity in mechanics to facilitate new players
5. Somewhat rigid arch-types
6. The ability to somewhat easily refluff into desired concept
7. Vancian casting
8. Non-Vancian casting
9. Each class having interesting abilities and serving a vital role in the party
10. Healing not being "Cleric of Bust"

Not saying it's the best for everyone...but it would be my suggestion of the best system I could come up with off hand for the "Core" book that sets up an easy ability for WOTC to put out companion books that either build off the core (offer more "builds" for the core classes) or modify the core (by introducing new base classes, or implimenting alternative mechanics for the current base class [like an ADEU style for the two non-caster base classes])

The problem with making classes into builds using Backgrounds and Specialties is that those classes are now less versatile because they can't pick other Backgrounds or Specialties.



Sorry, maybe I misexplained.

The seperate builds wouldn't be based on backgrounds/specialities, but would be a class mechanic.

See for example the current way Rogues are split between Thief and Thug. Or how Sorcerers seem like they'll be split by "sorcerer origin".

I was meaning more that the traditional additional "flavors"
of various classes could perhaps be provided through backgrounds and specialities as well. For example if you wanted your traditional "tribesman barbarian" maybe you take a "tribal" background where as if you're going for the classic "Dwarven Battlerager" then another background may be suitable...but both would use the "Barbarian" build of the "Warrior" because it gives you the "rage" type mechanic of burst damage at the expense of defense.

I think 4 base "mechanical" groups is a good compromise between the earlier editions (Where there were a plethora of mechanical groups) or 4e (Where there was largely one overriding mechanical group).

It has the simplicity where a new player doesn't have to learn a hugely different mechanical system for character creation/character usage no matter what new thing they play....while having the diversity where base mechanically various classes do play different.

I think that's a good compromise position for the initial core rule book...with additional optional books coming out later that can allow players to expand a particular style they like.



Okay I see where you were going now.

For a lot of groups, I'd be fine with this. It lowers the number of base mechanics WotC has to generate, and makes balancing easier. Small additions to the sub-classes (a few Nature spells for the Ranger as an example) could make for some easy distinguishing. Personally, I'd like to see a more Primal/Nature based group, but that's just me.

It will never work with Arcane classes. With the desire to give them optional spellcasting to appease everybody, and with the current mechanics and flavor braided together as they are in Playtest Packet 2, you're never going to be able to make them one unified group. As it stands, the flavor of Sorcerers makes them not an Arcane class by the definition of the word arcane. There is no hidden knowledge they have uncovered. They are powered by their own inherent bloodline, and honestly shouldn't even be casting the same spells as a Wizard. They shouldn't need spellcasting components, be they verbal, somatic, or material. They have no need to hop on one foot, hold a dried newt in one hand, and chant "Yiu Mo Gwai Gwaai Fai Di Zao". They are simply forces of will.
The theory behind using backgrounds and specialties to make a character concept shines when you don't have to deal with the baggage that comes with the published class.  For instance, your concept of a ranger may not have nature protector or animal friend.  If that comes along with the pre made class then you are stuck with the fluff when designing what you believe a ranger is or how a ranger should act in your setting.  This is also true if you are trying to avoid alignment restrictions and prerequisites for prestige classes or whatever they are going to be called.

There are other reasons to replicate a class using another class, background, specialty.  If you prefer skilled tracking and ambushing you might consider:

Rogue(Scout)/Tracker/Lurker

or even tweak that:

Cleric(Nature Domain)/Tracker/Zen Archer

The two are very much in the realm of Rangerhood.  They just don't have the title and class baggage like bunny and tree hugging.  But who will argue that they are not Rangers when the player title their concepts Ranger?

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

Gonna be a multi way of answering, first I know what they said..all classes from all PHBs will be somehow playable in some form..that will make me happy..but to answer the actual question.

If I was forced to pick the least number of classes that I think would need to be included..and still represent the basic..basic of D&D.  I would stick to 4 classes.

1:  The explorer:  Capable of taking/absorbing/dodging all attacks, is good at giving right back, corks hallways doorways, etc.  Has a good amount of possible attacks at standard..does not need to do anything overly special other than go 'I have the equipment out for this move..i do it'.  Otherwise is capable of a good amount of heavy lifting and moving outside of combat, able to hold open a trap long enough for others to escape..just shrugs off the effects of many traps that try to do bodily harm to him..only the most dangerous actually cause him worry.  When wandering the wilderness he's the one everbody turns to to aid in making it across rivers..climbing up mountains, slashing a path through a tough wilderness.  In town no matter how personable he is..everyone recognizes his strength and prowess..they know not to mess with him unless they specifically want trouble..or to test their own skill.

2:  The skilled "treasure hunter":  As opposed to #1, this particular character is less about fighting..he goes for good percision strikes...but prefers to stay out of combat as much as possible.  If he can hang back and watch the groups goods...or better yet "discover" new treasure among the dead and soon to be dead..well all the better off.  He might sneak into combat for a quick skillful hit, or fire something from range at just the right point to hurt the most, but his fortai is actually hunting through the dungeons and wilderness.  He can point out each and every trap that exists, knows just the tricks to get around them..trigger them safely..or just disable them from working period.  His dexterous abiliies hold little peer, capable of working through the most difficult situation by just his agile abilities.  Most look to him as a guide in the dungeon or the wilderness..telling them which way and where to go, what the safe spots to stop at are, what the safe found foods can be.  Where to stay in a port in the storm.  Tells the melee explorer how to hold that rope bridge up so others may follow...while he tightropes across a thin rope to get over there and aid.  In town everyone knows his name..he's just so personable..few have a bad thing to say about him...able to be a sweet talker and charmer.  Merchants know him by name....and he even knows how to find a few other ways to get good deals...

3:  The missionary: Ah a man inspired by his beliefs to be great and do great things. This can vary largely...but very often he can at least stand up front with the explorer, bashing in the heads of those who oppose him, and having a divine protection from harm that can extend to his allies.  He can lend his divine strength to others in the way of healing, or to temporarily give them a greater ability.  On rare occasion he smites those who oppose those he is with from afar.  But he is ment to mostly show how great his faith is..how great his belief in, by using his own hands to do the work, or by granting aid to others so they may do their own things better.  He has a divine protection against those that defy the natural order of the world...able to turn back, harm, or destroy those that just don't belong in the world.  In the dungeon he knows much of the ancients.  While the explorer and the treasure hunter can get around the traps set off by mundane methods, the missionary realizes when they are about to cross the wrath of a god, when those who came before set a curse and how to stop it from activating, his knowledge of ancient texts has required him to learn many a language in order to proper decipher all of them, and perhaps spread their knowledge to others.  And while he isn't always the best at learning new and interesting things..he is amazing at taking what he knows and putting it to good use..as well as seeing the patterns in the world, able to relate what he does know to new situations...allowing him to have an intuitive wisdom of the world about him.  In times of need he can call upon his faith to provide respite from storm.  When in town many see his great wisdom and acknolwedge it..seeing him as a teacher..someone to listen to, someone to aid when need be.  While they must still do their daily duties to live..if they can get by with lowering a price...they are very likely to do it for him.  Other people of faith at least respect him....if not enjoying his pressence holy, those of other faiths are likely to enjoy a good philosophical discussion, as opposed to hating him for what he believed.

4: The Arcanist:  Ok seriously..raise your hand if you didn't see this comming....ok please go back to D&D 101.  With that said his skill in battle is little...instead he relies upon knowledge he has spent his life learning, to create effects that at least seem magical to others..if not truely magical.  His crossbow shots seem guided by some unseen hand that cause them to strike home.  That little bag of powders...should not have causes such an explotion when thrown at the enemy.  What mixture did he use to loose a tidal wave of flame from his hands?  The arcanist uses all this knowledge to hinder his foes in battle.  Sometimes just making the mundane amazingly effective, at other times conjuring up true bits of magic.  But he takes time to do some of it...which is why he hangs back..trying to not be hurt..while his allies shield him and allow him to do his works.  He can also recognize many a creature that are almost natural to the world...creatures infused with magic...or who's very biology just makes little sense to the natural order.  He also has knowledge of other worlds and creatures of them.  He can recognize when a trap or hazard is using a magical source..and may be able to help the treasure hunter in figuring out the safest way to disable such a trap..or set it off harmlessly.  Upon gaining more power he may even be able to set off mundane and normal traps from a great distance..if he happens to see them.  In the wilderness he can use small magics to aid the others in their duties, repairing or creating a rope that may be important to a task, giving a magical push on a boulder to help cause an avalance the explorer is trying to start. Most people recognize him for his knowledge...but will only listen if what he says is currently required.  He is actually best at aiding in researching..knowing of many unusual and etherical information.  He is good at appraising the worth of many an item..knowing so many as he has studied their works in the arcane.  Turn him loose in a library, or other places of collected works...with the missionary helping him on the few languages he does not know..and he is almost assured to give you the information you may want.


Now of course most of you know these as the 'fighter' 'rogue' 'cleric', and 'wizard'.  But I felt it also important to state what sort of flavor...how their skills should lean..etc, other than just a name.  As I can name, names all day long..but in reality what I care about is how their skill make up is, how they react in different situations...how they actually affect the game.  This is also describing 'good' characters..but I feel it gets the point across decently enough to be able to be changed for other alignments, and yes this is lower level descriptions I know.  But I feel tis is the corest of core parties..to make it feel like D&D..and not just another generic fantasy setting.

Now for what classes I personally would prefer if not going for just the corest core with the smallest amount of classes?

Well those 4.
Sorcerer
Druid
Marshall (3'rd edition miniatures handbook...had this as a class, I honestly feel the warlord in 4e is based off of it)
Ranger
Paladin (preferably as a build of the cleric to be honest)
Psionist


I've tried to think of others..and while I know plenty of others...these seem the ones that either scream D&D..or should be mentioned in core in order to set some groundwork on other rules.

Edit: Changed a spelling error pointed out to me. 
The theory behind using backgrounds and specialties to make a character concept shines when you don't have to deal with the baggage that comes with the published class.  For instance, your concept of a ranger may not have nature protector or animal friend.  If that comes along with the pre made class then you are stuck with the fluff when designing what you believe a ranger is or how a ranger should act in your setting.  This is also true if you are trying to avoid alignment restrictions and prerequisites for prestige classes or whatever they are going to be called.

There are other reasons to replicate a class using another class, background, specialty.  If you prefer skilled tracking and ambushing you might consider:

Rogue(Scout)/Tracker/Lurker

or even tweak that:

Cleric(Nature Domain)/Tracker/Zen Archer

The two are very much in the realm of Rangerhood.  They just don't have the title and class baggage like bunny and tree hugging.  But who will argue that they are not Rangers when the player title their concepts Ranger?




All the more reason to keep fluff and entwined flavor out of the class mechanics. I think it'd be cool to make classes more basic, so that a Ranger class could be either an urban Ranger sans pet or a desert wanderer with a giant Scorpion.

I'm also big on keeping class names out of RP. I have no problem with a Rogue or Cleric claiming to be a Ranger in game. I have no problem with a Ranger calling himself a Bounty Hunter or Barbarian in game.
Martial (3'rd edition miniatures handbook...had this as a class, I honestly feel the warlord in 4e is based off of it)

It was the Marshall. A nice class, I liked the aura system.

If you think my english is bad, just wait until you see my spanish and my italian. Defiling languages is an art.

Okay I see where you were going now. For a lot of groups, I'd be fine with this. It lowers the number of base mechanics WotC has to generate, and makes balancing easier. Small additions to the sub-classes (a few Nature spells for the Ranger as an example) could make for some easy distinguishing.



I could easily see the various abilities that the Ranger build would get being described either as magical in nature based off of primal/nature power OR not really describing it either way with a side-bar suggesting that one could flavor these the abilities coming through magical means or explaining a more non-magical method of explaining some). 
The theory behind using backgrounds and specialties to make a character concept shines when you don't have to deal with the baggage that comes with the published class.  For instance, your concept of a ranger may not have nature protector or animal friend.  If that comes along with the pre made class then you are stuck with the fluff when designing what you believe a ranger is or how a ranger should act in your setting.  This is also true if you are trying to avoid alignment restrictions and prerequisites for prestige classes or whatever they are going to be called.

There are other reasons to replicate a class using another class, background, specialty.  If you prefer skilled tracking and ambushing you might consider:

Rogue(Scout)/Tracker/Lurker

or even tweak that:

Cleric(Nature Domain)/Tracker/Zen Archer

The two are very much in the realm of Rangerhood.  They just don't have the title and class baggage like bunny and tree hugging.  But who will argue that they are not Rangers when the player title their concepts Ranger?




All the more reason to keep fluff and entwined flavor out of the class mechanics. I think it'd be cool to make classes more basic, so that a Ranger class could be either an urban Ranger sans pet or a desert wanderer with a giant Scorpion. I'm also big on keeping class names out of RP. I have no problem with a Rogue or Cleric claiming to be a Ranger in game. I have no problem with a Ranger calling himself a Bounty Hunter or Barbarian in game.



I have no problem with concepts being called whatever the player decides to call them.

The Cleric(Nature Domain)/Tracker/Zen Archer, Ranger would act like a Ranger but tackle obstacles using domain spells, a butt load of summon monsters, and a sweet bow.  Plus Healing, Buff, Creation, Smite spells.  And be Wisdom focused for CharOp, if that is part of your play style.

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey