A pondering about the "Classic 4 Classes" compared to the "other" classes.

To be clear, the classic 4 are: Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, and Wizard.  The others are every other class in the game.

Based on information doled out over time, it is pretty clear the "basic" version of D&DN will only have the classic 4 classes as options.  Other classes seem like they are/will be associated with, at least, the "standard" version of D&DN.  This means iconic classes like the Paladin, Druid, Bard, Monk, etc will not be included in the "basic" rules.

I want to be clear that I am totally okay with this.  This is not a complaint.  I'm just setting the table before I serve my point, as it were.

A thought occured to me as I pondered this.  Having these iconic-but-not-classic classes be limited to, at the bare minimum, the standard rules leaves them open to have more complex mechanics than the classic 4.  This seems pretty self-evident.  A class like the paladin, a martial-divine hybrid, is almost by definition more complex than the fighter and cleric (at least as presented in D&DN so far).

The classic classes are not terribly complex.  Fairly straightforward.  They epitomize the core archetypes of the game.  The other classes are defined in part by how they compare to the classic 4.  No one describes a fighter as being a less divine paladin, right?  As such, they are perfectly suited for being the ones available in the basic version of the game.

Still with me?  Good.  I think I'm just stating things that are self-evident.  Rambling a bit.  The point?  Yes, yes, I'm getting to it.

If the classic 4 are being designed to work for the basic game, and are simple, straightforwar, and direct; and the other classes are being designed around the standard game, with more complex mechanics to suit both a) the increased complexity of the concept and b) the demands of players more interested in complexity...

...then what about the classic 4 classes in the standard game?  Do you think there should be a "standard version" of the 4 classic classes to stand alongside the other standard classes, one that is (at least somewhat) more complex than the "basic version"?  Do you think a more complex version is necessary, or would compleximifying the classic 4 somehow "harm" of impugn the design, or even just the archetype?

Does making the wizard, fighter, cleric, or rogue more complex negatively impact the archetype, or does a more complex game (standard is certainly more complex than basic) demand more complex components, even when those components have simpler forms in the basic version?
Essentials zigged, when I wanted to continue zagging. Roll dice, not cars.
Fox- fix straitforward in the third from the last Paragraph, you forgot the D. Then I'll delete this post.
Interesting thought. I'm going a bit back and forthe on the matter, but I think that it's possible to make "complex" versions of those core four classes without actually needing to make them effectively whole different classes. If I can use an analogy, look at specialties and feats. Specialties are the basic game, feats are the standard game, but in reality specialties are just pre-selected sets of feats. Similarly, the basic versions of the classes will just have options pre-selected, probably the more simple and straightforward options, while the standard game will have more options including both the basic ones and more complex ones.

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!
Interesting thought. I'm going a bit back and forthe on the matter, but I think that it's possible to make "complex" versions of those core four classes without actually needing to make them effectively whole different classes. If I can use an analogy, look at specialties and feats. Specialties are the basic game, feats are the standard game, but in reality specialties are just pre-selected sets of feats. Similarly, the basic versions of the classes will just have options pre-selected, probably the more simple and straightforward options, while the standard game will have more options including both the basic ones and more complex ones.


I agree, the Standard game will use the same class structure, just with more customization ability. I think the "Basic" classes will be useable right alongside the "Standard" classes (and even any "Advanced" classes, if there are any).
Ya, I'm on with the other opinions here, there is no need to add any actual change to the class structure to make them more varied, that can be done through simply giving them more options content to choose from within the same archetecture. Things like manouvers are easily expandable to create a lot of variety and options, and these sorts of things will keep the simplicity of the core classes mechanics while allowing them a lot of customization and options.
the basic game won't use backgrounds, and it'll pre-pick a specialty for each class. the standard game will assume full customization.

If the classic 4 are being designed to work for the basic game, and are simple, straightforwar, and direct; and the other classes are being designed around the standard game, with more complex mechanics to suit both a) the increased complexity of the concept and b) the demands of players more interested in complexity...

...then what about the classic 4 classes in the standard game?  Do you think there should be a "standard version" of the 4 classic classes to stand alongside the other standard classes, one that is (at least somewhat) more complex than the "basic version"?  Do you think a more complex version is necessary, or would compleximifying the classic 4 somehow "harm" of impugn the design, or even just the archetype?



The class being played in the basic version will be simpler than the one in the standard version.  It's not exactly clear what the differences will be from the L&L article, but I imagine that the basic version will not have players choose manuevers/skill tricks/deity, and maybe not even choose which spells they learn.

The basic 4 classes as they stand right now aren't any less complicated than the only non-basic class we have at the moment (the monk).  In fact, the spellcasters are arguably quite a bit more complex than that.  The core four don't need to be scaled up in complexity for standard; they need to (and will) be scaled down in complexity for basic. 
It seems like the only real difference between basic and standard will be the number of choices pre-determined. I think that is a solid solution for streamlining the creation/leveling process, and easily expandable to allow a player to customizing their character as soon as they want to.

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
Based on information doled out over time, it is pretty clear the "basic" version of D&DN will only have the classic 4 classes as options.  Other classes seem like they are/will be associated with, at least, the "standard" version of D&DN.  This means iconic classes like the Paladin, Druid, Bard, Monk, etc will not be included in the "basic" rules.

I doubt it will be just the 4 traditional classes, though it wouldn't surprise me if there are classes that are not in the basic game. Remember, they are putting a Vancian caster in the basic game, so basic doesn't exactly mean simple. Rather, they are cutting down the number of options so that character design will be easier and faster. Plus, with the way they are designing classes, most classes could easily get a basic version, just be specifying defaults for class options.

The only classes that couldn't be easily put in the basic game are ones that have inherently complex mechanics, require careful DM campaign balancing or depend on some optional module not in the basic game. For the first your looking at something like a pure summoner class, which can clog up the battle field with lots of creatures and multiple summons active at one time. For the second think something like a spell-thief or blue mage, where the DM has to carefully balance the distribution of monsters for the class to be balanced. For the third, something like a gun slinger class makes no sense if you don't have the gunpowder weapons options in the game.

...then what about the classic 4 classes in the standard game?  Do you think there should be a "standard version" of the 4 classic classes to stand alongside the other standard classes, one that is (at least somewhat) more complex than the "basic version"?  Do you think a more complex version is necessary, or would compleximifying the classic 4 somehow "harm" of impugn the design, or even just the archetype?

No, because doing that would get in the way of one of the basic ideas of the game, that you can simply take the basic fighter and use it in a standard game. Besides, I don't see there really being a need for increasing the complexity beyond what they are doing already. Right now when you move a basic class to the standard game you will essentially unlock the feats/maneuvers/skills that are pinned down in the basic game. That should allow you to add enough complexity if you want it.

On the class side, I think the only difference between basic and standard is that the basic classes will be prebuilt with the most traditional and simplest choices.

Every fighter is a slayer, every rogue a thief, every cleric a mace wielding healer, every wizard a scholar. Other classes might be included as well in their simplest forms. Monks could all be merciful ascetic brawlers. Barbarians are just nongreen Hulks. Etc etc.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

Do you think there should be a "standard version" of the 4 classic classes to stand alongside the other standard classes, one that is (at least somewhat) more complex than the "basic version"?

The short answer is no. The basic version should be a collection of options available during standard character generation presented without any of the other options available. If I'm interpreting what I've read on this topic right, that's more or less exactly what Mearls is driving at and I think it will totally work.
Do you think a more complex version is necessary, or would compleximifying the classic 4 somehow "harm" of impugn the design, or even just the archetype?

I can't see how a more complex version would be necessary. I actually think it would be counterproductive because it would create a barrier in moving from the basic game into the standard game. I can't see how it would harm the design in any way as long as the design starts with the standard version and the basic version is derived as I described before: by making choices for the player and not telling them that there are other options. As for the archetypes, well I guess the standard version would diminish the importance of the archetype because you're then allowing a player to express a variety of archetypes with a single class, but I don't see how that actually harms anything. It does create a broader focus and make the class less, well, archetypal.
Does making the wizard, fighter, cleric, or rogue more complex negatively impact the archetype, or does a more complex game (standard is certainly more complex than basic) demand more complex components, even when those components have simpler forms in the basic version?

If the archetype is a springboard for a more specific choice, more complex anything doesn't necessarily matter because the archetype is a starting point and nothing more. I don't believe that your line of reasoning is especially sound. I don't think that basic is intended to be simpler in terms of its mechanics. I think the mechanics are meant to be simple all the time regardless of what version you decide to play. Complexity in this case is derived by the amount of choices available, not how the mechanics work or what mechanics are being used. So basic is not a different version of the mechanics, classes or races. Basic is the same version with fewer choices presented to the player. Standard does not use more complex mechanics than basic, but there are more choices to make. Advanced we haven't seen much about but the assumption is that tactical combat will be introduced there and along with it we get evey more choices that directly interface with the battle mat.

To be honest I see no need for other classes.. If the backgrounds and specialties are used and maybe a few added one can create a ranger, paladin, druid or bard. In fact you have more range of options. A Paladin can be more divine (cleric with warrior tendencies) or less (Fighter with a few religious traits ) the rest is flavor. Alot of the secondary classes are flavor and skill choice and perhaps a feat or trait of significance.

keeping it to the basic four would keep with idea of streamlining game.

Back 20+ years ago when playing basic DND I played a Cleric who was pretty much a mounted soldier (sans lance as the old stipulation). Also played a religiously minded warrior who was a holy Templar, did he have spells or lay hands or anything, no, but so what he was a devoted follower and actually through game play became an anointed priest.
To be honest I see no need for other classes.. If the backgrounds and specialties are used and maybe a few added one can create a ranger, paladin, druid or bard. In fact you have more range of options. A Paladin can be more divine (cleric with warrior tendencies) or less (Fighter with a few religious traits ) the rest is flavor. Alot of the secondary classes are flavor and skill choice and perhaps a feat or trait of significance. 

keeping it to the basic four would keep with idea of streamlining game. 

Back 20+ years ago when playing basic DND I played a Cleric who was pretty much a mounted soldier (sans lance as the old stipulation). Also played a religiously minded warrior who was a holy Templar, did he have spells or lay hands or anything, no, but so what he was a devoted follower and actually through game play became an anointed priest.



I disagree. I see the need for other classes. Basically D&D is a class based game, and people want to have lots of classes in it.


Do you think there should be a "standard version" of the 4 classic classes to stand alongside the other standard classes, one that is (at least somewhat) more complex than the "basic version"?

The short answer is no. The basic version should be a collection of options available during standard character generation presented without any of the other options available. If I'm interpreting what I've read on this topic right, that's more or less exactly what Mearls is driving at and I think it will totally work.
Do you think a more complex version is necessary, or would compleximifying the classic 4 somehow "harm" of impugn the design, or even just the archetype?

I can't see how a more complex version would be necessary. I actually think it would be counterproductive because it would create a barrier in moving from the basic game into the standard game. I can't see how it would harm the design in any way as long as the design starts with the standard version and the basic version is derived as I described before: by making choices for the player and not telling them that there are other options. As for the archetypes, well I guess the standard version would diminish the importance of the archetype because you're then allowing a player to express a variety of archetypes with a single class, but I don't see how that actually harms anything. It does create a broader focus and make the class less, well, archetypal.
Does making the wizard, fighter, cleric, or rogue more complex negatively impact the archetype, or does a more complex game (standard is certainly more complex than basic) demand more complex components, even when those components have simpler forms in the basic version?

If the archetype is a springboard for a more specific choice, more complex anything doesn't necessarily matter because the archetype is a starting point and nothing more. I don't believe that your line of reasoning is especially sound. I don't think that basic is intended to be simpler in terms of its mechanics. I think the mechanics are meant to be simple all the time regardless of what version you decide to play. Complexity in this case is derived by the amount of choices available, not how the mechanics work or what mechanics are being used. So basic is not a different version of the mechanics, classes or races. Basic is the same version with fewer choices presented to the player. Standard does not use more complex mechanics than basic, but there are more choices to make. Advanced we haven't seen much about but the assumption is that tactical combat will be introduced there and along with it we get evey more choices that directly interface with the battle mat.





From what I understand the basic version will be like this.

To be honest I see no need for other classes.

Except the "core four" aren't a good set of "core" classes. There is distinct lack of a martial-arcane hybrid class, for example. Basic could use a "core 3" (martial/magical/mixed), where fighters and rogues are built from a martial core class, wizards use the magical core class, and clerics (and the arcane equivalent!) would use the mixed core class.

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
To be honest I see no need for other classes.. If the backgrounds and specialties are used and maybe a few added one can create a ranger, paladin, druid or bard. In fact you have more range of options. A Paladin can be more divine (cleric with warrior tendencies) or less (Fighter with a few religious traits ) the rest is flavor. Alot of the secondary classes are flavor and skill choice and perhaps a feat or trait of significance.

keeping it to the basic four would keep with idea of streamlining game.

Back 20+ years ago when playing basic DND I played a Cleric who was pretty much a mounted soldier (sans lance as the old stipulation). Also played a religiously minded warrior who was a holy Templar, did he have spells or lay hands or anything, no, but so what he was a devoted follower and actually through game play became an anointed priest.


I actually think that while backgrounds and specialties can create ranger-like and paladin-like characters, it would be better to break the fighter class down further into smaller components to achieve the greatest ability to rebuild as a subclass or a multiclass.  Add an ability to multiclass on a per level basis rather than using alternating levels.
A paladin could then be a fighter/cleric composite.  Strip away the fighter maneuvers and add in some cleric abilitities plus some unique paladin abilities perhaps fueled by martial damage dice.

@FinasJack

There are no backgrounds and specialties in the basic game. So a lot of archetypes will not be handled by the basic system with only the core 4.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

I would love for the Core 4 to be as simple as possible with other classes being more complex.

Warrior - No maneuvers , no MDD, A few basic stances only

Mage - No spell slots, just at-will spells and rituals

Rogue - No skill mastery, just 2 bonus skills and some rogue tricks

Priest - No spell slots, just at-will spells and rituals
Yes, the Standard versions of the core 4 will have plenty of options. But the basic versions will just have preselected options and simplified mechanics.

Do the current versions of the classes look uncomplicated?

Is the current Monk any more complicated than the Fighter?
My two copper.
I appreciate what your opinions about ths are, but really do not agree. I think the importance of flavor (etc...) is undermined when people begin to look for mechanical crunch to support the creation of a warrior who can hunt, track, sneak.. What does a ranger need to be differentiated from a fighter? Skills or background descriptions, flavor, equipment choices etc.. Bonuses to track? A favored enemy (act like you have one or use a knowledge skill to gain specificity and maybe the DM grants you a bonus if you successfully pass a dc, add the reason into your back story), Animal Companion (resolve as in game actions). The two weapon fighting or super archer? is available now. I have used the Next play test pack (1217) to develop numerous ranger type fighters and rouges, that were perfectly able to assume the ranger role within a setting (were they the same mechanically as say a ranger in other editions, no, but they could support the same back story and character development goals).

Sorry for confusion but I was not referring to some basic version of the dndnext, but instead to the game as presented with backgrounds specialties etc..  When i referred to basic I was talking about the old red box version.
I appreciate what your opinions about ths are, but really do not agree. I think the importance of flavor (etc...) is undermined when people begin to look for mechanical crunch to support the creation of a warrior who can hunt, track, sneak.. What does a ranger need to be differentiated from a fighter? Skills or background descriptions, flavor, equipment choices etc.. Bonuses to track? A favored enemy (act like you have one or use a knowledge skill to gain specificity and maybe the DM grants you a bonus if you successfully pass a dc, add the reason into your back story), Animal Companion (resolve as in game actions). The two weapon fighting or super archer? is available now. I have used the Next play test pack (1217) to develop numerous ranger type fighters and rouges, that were perfectly able to assume the ranger role within a setting (were they the same mechanically as say a ranger in other editions, no, but they could support the same back story and character development goals).

Sorry for confusion but I was not referring to some basic version of the dndnext, but instead to the game as presented with backgrounds specialties etc..  When i referred to basic I was talking about the old red box version.


How solid is the flavor when some other guy without your hunt/track/sneak flavor does it just as well as you? 

Flavor is good, but flavor backed up by mechanics is better.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I am not sure I understand why it matters if someone else is better then you. If you want to be the best at it then sink in the neccesary effort and choices. by stats distribution and choosing the skill focus feat.

To be honest I see no need for other classes.. If the backgrounds and specialties are used and maybe a few added one can create a ranger, paladin, druid or bard. In fact you have more range of options. A Paladin can be more divine (cleric with warrior tendencies) or less (Fighter with a few religious traits ) the rest is flavor. Alot of the secondary classes are flavor and skill choice and perhaps a feat or trait of significance.

keeping it to the basic four would keep with idea of streamlining game.

Back 20+ years ago when playing basic DND I played a Cleric who was pretty much a mounted soldier (sans lance as the old stipulation). Also played a religiously minded warrior who was a holy Templar, did he have spells or lay hands or anything, no, but so what he was a devoted follower and actually through game play became an anointed priest.


I would be unhappy if they didn't give us other classes to the point of probably exclusively using Pathfinder. I'm sure lots of others would go to alternate RPGs for more options. Backgrounds and specialties just do not give you all the features that other classes do. A druid cannot be created from specialties and backgrounds because then you would lack key features such as wild shaping. 
IMAGE(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/RockNrollBabe20/Charmed-supernatural-and-charmed_zps8bd4125f.jpg)
wild shaping could be a channel divinity power.
I am not sure I understand why it matters if someone else is better then you. If you want to be the best at it then sink in the neccesary effort and choices. by stats distribution and choosing the skill focus feat.


?

It matters because you said the flavor is that you're good at something.  That's why it matters.  If it didn't, you wouldn't have that flavor.

Oh, and if there isn't a way to to at-will wildshaping, I'm going to be very sad.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
being good at something does not mean the same as you are better than someone else. 

So if you want to say I am Joe the master tracker, well at first level you are probably not joe the master tracker, you are joe the i am pretty good tracker.

Basic-only classes is a terrible idea.
is a terrible idea in your opinion, and maybe in other peoples opinions. But just as I think that you all are allowed to voice an opinion I am allowed to as well.

i mean really people no need to atatck an idea that conflicts with your opinion without saying in my opinion or i disagree with this opinion. Basic courtesy
I still think its a terrible idea. When I look at a class I want it to have different features than the other classes. I wouldn't want a basics-only class. I love having lots of class options to choose from. 
IMAGE(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/RockNrollBabe20/Charmed-supernatural-and-charmed_zps8bd4125f.jpg)
but why?
but why?

Because then it means Basic is a completely different game.  This is a concept the brand abandoned twenty years ago (and also why you need to sell me your copy of Rules Cyclopedia for cheap).


A thought occured to me as I pondered this.  Having these iconic-but-not-classic classes be limited to, at the bare minimum, the standard rules leaves them open to have more complex mechanics than the classic 4.  This seems pretty self-evident.  A class like the paladin, a martial-divine hybrid, is almost by definition more complex than the fighter and cleric (at least as presented in D&DN so far).



Just want to point out that this isn't necessarily the case. Look at the 4e paladin, for example - no more complex than a fighter or cleric, I'd argue. I think the trick to making that happen in 5e is giving the paladin its own mechanics, rather than trying to mash together fighter dice/maneuvers and cleric spells in one class. (A fighter/cleric should be different than a paladin.) Same goes for rangers, swordmages, etc.
(A fighter/cleric should be different than from a paladin.)


This sums up my beliefs about D&D class design, with a for grammar.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
but why?


Because more classes equal more options and fun. The game becomes less fun when you take out all the options of various classes. You do not achieve the same thing with specialties and backgrounds because they lack all the class features. I'm I'm multi-classing a cleric/druid I wouldn't want to give up my channel in order to have wild shape. I would want both hence multi-classing. Just the word Basic would turn me off, honestly. Basic always means a stipped down version.
IMAGE(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/RockNrollBabe20/Charmed-supernatural-and-charmed_zps8bd4125f.jpg)
but why?


Because more classes equal more options and fun. The game becomes less fun when you take out all the options of various classes. You do not achieve the same thing with specialties and backgrounds because they lack all the class features. I'm I'm multi-classing a cleric/druid I wouldn't want to give up my channel in order to have wild shape. I would want both hence multi-classing. Just the word Basic would turn me off, honestly. Basic always means a stipped down version.



But not everyone thinks the game becomes less fun, in fact some people think the game becomes less fun if there are more options and classes and specialties and backgrounds and such.

And that's why we need, and are getting, all of the above:  Basic, and more than Basic.  You get what you want, those who want Basic get what they want.  Win-win-win.

This is not a mutually exclusive thing.  They're the same product, the same D&D.  Now, sure, every tiny little option won't necessarily be in PHB, but the vast, vast bulk of what we've been discussing will be.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
but why?


Because more classes equal more options and fun. The game becomes less fun when you take out all the options of various classes. You do not achieve the same thing with specialties and backgrounds because they lack all the class features. I'm I'm multi-classing a cleric/druid I wouldn't want to give up my channel in order to have wild shape. I would want both hence multi-classing. Just the word Basic would turn me off, honestly. Basic always means a stipped down version.



But not everyone thinks the game becomes less fun, in fact some people think the game becomes less fun if there are more options and classes and specialties and backgrounds and such.

And that's why we need, and are getting, all of the above:  Basic, and more than Basic.  You get what you want, those who want Basic get what they want.  Win-win-win.

This is not a mutually exclusive thing.  They're the same product, the same D&D.  Now, sure, every tiny little option won't necessarily be in PHB, but the vast, vast bulk of what we've been discussing will be.


That's the game shouldn't just be all Basic. If a Basic must exist then it should be a book of its own and shouldn't interfere with players who do want options. I'm aware that every little option won't be in the PHP but I do hope that they will include more than just the 4 classes. 
IMAGE(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/RockNrollBabe20/Charmed-supernatural-and-charmed_zps8bd4125f.jpg)
The game isn't just all Basic.  Declare victory and move on?

Since when do you get to say that it should be a book of its own?  It probably won't take up much space (I think he said eight pages, or was it eighteen?  Can't remember, go look up last week's L&L).

Sorry, no, you don't get to shove off everyone else's preferences into another book.  Whatever your preferences are, it doesn't matter.  We're all in this together, or you're just being selfish.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
If you don't want more than the basic 4 classes, then don't use any more than the basic 4 classes. The way to satisfy all players here, those who want only a few classes and those who want a bunch of classes is... to make a bunch of classes so that those who want a bunch of classes get what they want and those who want only a few classes only have to use the few classes that they want to use. This is one of those times where catering more to one side actually ends up satisfying both sides, a win-win situation. Wanting your own side to be satisfied and wanting the other side not to be satisfied is just selfish.

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!
This is one of those times where catering more to one side actually ends up satisfying both sides, a win-win situation.


And, even better, it actually corresponds to what they said they're doing.

Which means we're now left with two sides continuing to fight a battle they've both already won. 
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
It probably won't take up much space (I think he said eight pages, or was it eighteen?  Can't remember, go look up last week's L&L


16.  (Next to last bullet point.)
Dammit. 
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I think the trick to making that happen in 5e is giving the paladin its own mechanics, rather than trying to mash together fighter dice/maneuvers and cleric spells in one class. (A fighter/cleric should be different than a paladin.) Same goes for rangers, swordmages, etc.



They could have MDD, spells, and unique class features.



They COULD, but that would result in a more complex class, and my whole point was that you don't need to make those classes more mechanically complex to make them effective and well-defined.
Sign In to post comments