What Other Classes Do you think Are A Weak Concept?


 Excluding the warlord. Please go to one of the other million threads for warlord related arguements both pro/con.

 While one could argue for pruning a few classes out some are fnd of safe because they are a fantasy archtype and are used in other non D&D related games. Paladins and Rangers for example could probably be merged into fighter but then again you could probably reduce D&D to 3-4 classes if one tried that hard. Paladins, Rangers and Druids in the D&D sense predate D&D though and turn up in fantasy literature, video games etc. The following classes I think are weak concepts.

Assassin
 More of a job description. Anyone can be an assassin and currently right now it is a Rogue scheme. The class went bye bye in 1989, came back as a kit and then a prestige class in 2000 and as a class in 4th ed in 2010? Not sure on the last date feel free to help me out. 

Barbarian.
 Name implies a lifestyle this class has been different in 4 versions of D&D. The rager/striker angle is a 3rd ed and 4th ed angle on the class. The raging one can easily be a fighter via a feat. 

Illusionist/Sorcerer.
 The illusionist was folded into the Wizard class back in 1989 and kind of became extinct in 2008. The Sorcerer in 3.5 was a varient wizard and was a striker in 4th ed but still really a wizard. In fantasy literature the words sorcerer, wizard, mage etc are almost interchangable. Pathfinder made the class a bit more interesting but it is still really a wizard varient.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, and Rogue...
Not so much in concept, but in implementation, the ranger has always occured to me as a bit weak. I'm very excited to see what they do with the class in order to make it stand out in the playtest. If any class stands to change the most, I'd bet on the ranger. (Which I'm sure is terrifying for ranger fans!)

Danny

Definitely the sorcerer.  It was born as an alternate casting mechanic called a class.  It has no business being a class.  Anything that it can do could be done as a Wizard Tradition.
CORE MORE, NOT CORE BORE!
Honestly I'd say the sorcerer is a hugely important archetype (the person gifted or born with magic instead of reading books to learn it). I guess pre-3e you could reflavor the wizard, but a Vancian wizard makes horrible mechanics for that concept.
Honestly, I have a hard time justifying most classes, if we're to presume that the same reasoning applied to the Warlord could be applied elsewhere.

Artificer?  Wizard option + Specialty
Assassin?  Rogue option + Specialty
Barbarian?  Fighter option + Specialty
Bard?  Rogue (or Wizard) option + Specialty
Paladin?  Cleric option + Specialty
Ranger?  Fighter (or Rogue) option + Specialty
Sorcerer?  Wizard option + Specialty
Warlock?  Wizard option + Specialty

Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
As I said you could get the game down to 3-5 classes but to me that would be a reboot of the franchise. If they stated that at the start and said 4 classes (3/5) it wouldn't really bother me.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Honestly I'd say the sorcerer is a hugely important archetype (the person gifted or born with magic instead of reading books to learn it). I guess pre-3e you could reflavor the wizard, but a Vancian wizard makes horrible mechanics for that concept.



To me, that's a psion.  It's the essence of the internal-external conflict.

I haven't found any class that couldn't be adequately represented as a sub-class/kit/archetype/etc under fighter, rogue, wizard, cleric, monk, and psion (physical, stealth, magical-external, divine, mystical, magical-internal).

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

Honestly, I have a hard time justifying most classes, if we're to presume that the same reasoning applied to the Warlord could be applied elsewhere.

Yes, it seems fairly inconsistent to have both specific classes as well as general classes which can encompass them. Either go with four classes, and everything else is a scheme, or go with forty classes, none of which is fighter/wizard/rogue/cleric.

The metagame is not the game.

Honestly I'd say the sorcerer is a hugely important archetype (the person gifted or born with magic instead of reading books to learn it). I guess pre-3e you could reflavor the wizard, but a Vancian wizard makes horrible mechanics for that concept.

In 3.5 Ed, that archetype was mechanically represented in the Warlock, not the Sorcerer.  For all of the Sorcerer's fluff claiming their power was innate and used as an act of will, they cast the exact same spells as a trained Wizard.  It was the Warlock, who also had innate power used as an act of will, that actually cast different magics in different ways.  3.5's fluff does not mechanically follow in this respect.

I'm personally against declaring any class a weak concept.  I find it invalidates fans of said class.  I am also personally against classes co-opting the mechanical roles of other classes for the same reason.  The Sorcerer needs more to give it a unique and distinct role, but not at the price of the Warlock or the Binder (the 3.5 class that introduced Pacts, which have now been co-opted by the 4E and perhaps D&D Next Warlock).

One of the classes that could be considered weak that I haven't seen mentioned yet is Paladins.  With a few minor revisions, they could easily be a specialized Cleric Domain.

Edit:  Thwarted by slow typing.  I'll get you, Frito!!!! ;P
The seeker, it is a archer with magic powers. For me it is only a ranger subclass.

The psionic wilder could had been a more interesting concept, but only "betting" psionic power points wasn´t enough.

Lurker was only a hibryd rogue with psionic powers.

Warmage was only a wizard with armour.

Wu jen could be more interesting, like the oriental exorcite + demon hunter from manga and animes, like the Japanese miko superheroines.

The assasin has got a great potential to be a exclusive class. It isn´t a only a rogue with some magic tricks... 
 

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

 

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

 

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

I find it funny that for a class-based RPG people want to limit those options to just a few. I'd rather have 40+ classes that all overlap but have their own unique niche within the system. For example, one could play a Necromancer in v3.5 by using the Wizard class and choosing Necromancy school spells plus a few feats. But that pales in comparison to the Dread Necromancer class. One can play a Divine Assassin by Multiclassing Rogue and Cleric and choosing spells that apply to stealth, combat, and utility OR one could just play an Avenger. One could make a Berserker by using the Fighter class can choosing feats like Power Attack, Leap Attack, Skill Focus (Intimidate) and role-play the whole "Rage" thing OR one could just pick up the Barbarian class. 

To me there's the contrived, convoluted, and system-mastery style of swapping all sorts of stuff into an almost Point-Buy style system (by using alternative varients, feats, skills, and spells) to make the sort of character you want OR they could just build a class fits the concept well and makes it easy on the player. 

But if we're going to treat the Warlord (and Avenger, Warden, Rune-Priest, etc) as just options then they might as well go Whole Hog and just keep the system to the basic 4 classes and use Specialties/Backgrounds/Maneuvers to fullfill the rest. 


 
I find it funny that for a class-based RPG people want to limit those options to just a few. I'd rather have 40+ classes that all overlap but have their own unique niche within the system. For example, one could play a Necromancer in v3.5 by using the Wizard class and choosing Necromancy school spells plus a few feats. But that pales in comparison to the Dread Necromancer class. One can play a Divine Assassin by Multiclassing Rogue and Cleric and choosing spells that apply to stealth, combat, and utility OR one could just play an Avenger. One could make a Berserker by using the Fighter class can choosing feats like Power Attack, Leap Attack, Skill Focus (Intimidate) and role-play the whole "Rage" thing OR one could just pick up the Barbarian class. 

To me there's the contrived, convoluted, and system-mastery style of swapping all sorts of stuff into an almost Point-Buy style system (by using alternative varients, feats, skills, and spells) to make the sort of character you want OR they could just build a class fits the concept well and makes it easy on the player. 

But if we're going to treat the Warlord (and Avenger, Warden, Rune-Priest, etc) as just options then they might as well go Whole Hog and just keep the system to the basic 4 classes and use Specialties/Backgrounds/Maneuvers to fullfill the rest.

I am for the most part in total agreement.  I'd like to see more classes than 3.5 had and a point buy option.  Otherwise, we might as well just have 4 (IMO 5, I like a jack of all trades option to represent classes like the Factotum) classes and make everything else just flavors of that base handful.  Even Psionics would just be an addition to/revision of a "core" class.
Well honestly I have to go with the wizard.

The wizard (as excuted in dnd) has drawn spells from everyone from Merlin to Odin to Elric to Lessas of Valmes, it's drawn from just about every mythology and hundreds if not thousands of fictional works to the point were there's really no ability they don't have. An archetype without limits is just as weak as one with too many.
Well honestly I have to go with the wizard.

The wizard (as excuted in dnd) has drawn spells from everyone from Merlin to Odin to Elric to Lessas of Valmes, it's drawn from just about every mythology and hundreds if not thousands of fictional works to the point were there's really no ability they don't have. An archetype without limits is just as weak as one with too many.



Exactly. This is my problem with most classes in D&D.

I would much rather "Archetypes" be the broad strokes umbrella type things with each class being specific and unique.
I find it funny that for a class-based RPG people want to limit those options to just a few. I'd rather have 40+ classes that all overlap but have their own unique niche within the system. For example, one could play a Necromancer in v3.5 by using the Wizard class and choosing Necromancy school spells plus a few feats. But that pales in comparison to the Dread Necromancer class. One can play a Divine Assassin by Multiclassing Rogue and Cleric and choosing spells that apply to stealth, combat, and utility OR one could just play an Avenger. One could make a Berserker by using the Fighter class can choosing feats like Power Attack, Leap Attack, Skill Focus (Intimidate) and role-play the whole "Rage" thing OR one could just pick up the Barbarian class. 

To me there's the contrived, convoluted, and system-mastery style of swapping all sorts of stuff into an almost Point-Buy style system (by using alternative varients, feats, skills, and spells) to make the sort of character you want OR they could just build a class fits the concept well and makes it easy on the player. 

But if we're going to treat the Warlord (and Avenger, Warden, Rune-Priest, etc) as just options then they might as well go Whole Hog and just keep the system to the basic 4 classes and use Specialties/Backgrounds/Maneuvers to fullfill the rest. 


 




 I think the basic wizard in 2nd ed 3rd ed did a reasonable job with very basic rules for things like Necromancer, Illusionist etc. For an intro class they have been ok and they later got fleshed out in the wizards handbook and spells and magic later in 2nd eds life- granted powers basically.

 A specialised Necromancer class has been around since 2nd ed and maybe 1st ed IDK. Its not the type of thing they well have at release. The best Nercomancer in D&D has usually been an evil cleric (animate dead level 3 vs 5 spell, rebuke undead). The wizard class it not very good at representing fantasy literature wizards but they vary to much and you do need some sort of default class.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Honestly, I have a hard time justifying most classes, if we're to presume that the same reasoning applied to the Warlord could be applied elsewhere.

Artificer?  Wizard option + Specialty
Assassin?  Rogue option + Specialty
Barbarian?  Fighter option + Specialty
Bard?  Rogue (or Wizard) option + Specialty
Paladin?  Cleric option + Specialty
Ranger?  Fighter (or Rogue) option + Specialty
Sorcerer?  Wizard option + Specialty
Warlock?  Wizard option + Specialty

Bard? Rogue (or Fighter, or Cleric/Druid, or Wizard) option + Specialty

Given all of the different interpretations, incarnations, and expectations surrounding our inspiring hero, there's no real way to choose an appropriately encompassing base class. If we're going to sell him so short, we may as well offer the option to choose which aspect of the whole the player most desires.

Danny

If we're going to sell him so short, we may as well offer the option to choose which aspect of the whole the player most desires.


Isn't that how they're handling the Warlord, though?

That's what I meant by "if we're to presume that the same reasoning applied to the Warlord could be applied elsewhere".  Sell the concept short, split up what it might offer, and let the player choose (via class options, or specialties) which part(s) they like.
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
I find it funny that for a class-based RPG people want to limit those options to just a few. I'd rather have 40+ classes that all overlap but have their own unique niche within the system. For example, one could play a Necromancer in v3.5 by using the Wizard class and choosing Necromancy school spells plus a few feats. But that pales in comparison to the Dread Necromancer class. One can play a Divine Assassin by Multiclassing Rogue and Cleric and choosing spells that apply to stealth, combat, and utility OR one could just play an Avenger. One could make a Berserker by using the Fighter class can choosing feats like Power Attack, Leap Attack, Skill Focus (Intimidate) and role-play the whole "Rage" thing OR one could just pick up the Barbarian class. 

To me there's the contrived, convoluted, and system-mastery style of swapping all sorts of stuff into an almost Point-Buy style system (by using alternative varients, feats, skills, and spells) to make the sort of character you want OR they could just build a class fits the concept well and makes it easy on the player. 

But if we're going to treat the Warlord (and Avenger, Warden, Rune-Priest, etc) as just options then they might as well go Whole Hog and just keep the system to the basic 4 classes and use Specialties/Backgrounds/Maneuvers to fullfill the rest. 


 




 I think the basic wizard in 2nd ed 3rd ed did a reasonable job with very basic rules for things like Necromancer, Illusionist etc. For an intro class they have been ok and they later got fleshed out in the wizards handbook and spells and magic later in 2nd eds life- granted powers basically.

 A specialised Necromancer class has been around since 2nd ed and maybe 1st ed IDK. Its not the type of thing they well have at release. The best Nercomancer in D&D has usually been an evil cleric (animate dead level 3 vs 5 spell, rebuke undead). The wizard class it not very good at representing fantasy literature wizards but they vary to much and you do need some sort of default class.



Right, a good Necromancer was a cleric that rebuked/commanded undead and animated them with specific spells but that was the case until the Dread Necromancer, who was the embodiment of Necromancy. And that's what I'm saying, that any combination of the basic 3 (4 if you think Rogue really needs to be there) can get a concept but its making that concept GOOD and viable in comparison to other more straightforward classes is the question. A Cleric that plays at being necromancer uses up ALL his resources to fullfill that concept. A Dread Necromancer instantly become that concept before any resources are used. That is the biggest thing for me, as I'm far more about concepts than specific classes but I find that classes designed for concepts fullfill that role better than hodge-podge options clumped together.  
If we're going to sell him so short, we may as well offer the option to choose which aspect of the whole the player most desires.


Isn't that how they're handling the Warlord, though?

That's what I meant about "if we're to presume that the same reasoning applied to the Warlord could be applied elsewhere".  Sell the concept short, split up what it might offer, and let the player choose (via class options, or specialties) which part(s) they like.

I'm pointing out that the bard has been ably tailored towards being a fighter-type, a rogue-type, a druid-type and a wizard-type throughout its 36 year history. You can't sum up his base with only one of those classes... there's A LOT of fans with disparate expectations trying to recreate characters.

What I'm really saying is that it can't be done. The bard is 'core'.

The best thing that can happen to the warlord (short of making it its own class) is focusing on letting the bard cover the concept, instead of shoe-horning him into the fighter. (Only issue is the 'magic'.)

Danny

But that sounds even less "core" than some of the other "classes" folks are discussing.  It makes it sound exactly like a Theme/Specialty - maybe with some multi-classing thrown in for good measure.
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
But that sounds even less "core" than some of the other "classes" folks are discussing.  It makes it sound exactly like a Theme/Specialty - maybe with some multi-classing thrown in for good measure.

Not if you approach the core concept of the D&D bard with the understanding that the premise of the class is 'able hero' whose summed parts are the parts of heroes all -- none of them extractable, but each requisite for the whole.

Danny

If we're going to sell him so short, we may as well offer the option to choose which aspect of the whole the player most desires.


Isn't that how they're handling the Warlord, though?

That's what I meant about "if we're to presume that the same reasoning applied to the Warlord could be applied elsewhere".  Sell the concept short, split up what it might offer, and let the player choose (via class options, or specialties) which part(s) they like.

I'm pointing out that the bard has been ably tailored towards being a fighter-type, a rogue-type, a druid-type and a wizard-type throughout its 36 year history. You can't sum up his base with only one of those classes... there's A LOT of fans with disparate expectations trying to recreate characters.

What I'm really saying is that it can't be done. The bard is 'core'.

The best thing that can happen to the warlord (short of making it its own class) is focusing on letting the bard cover the concept, instead of shoe-horning him into the fighter. (Only issue is the 'magic'.)





Actually, I think that's the exact opposite of what you want in a class-based RPG. Talk about overlap, Geez! The bard is someone who plays music and performs (historically speaking) for people, often great Kings and nobility. Well, anyone with role-playing capabilities can fullfill that. Ok, so he can cast a specific amount of spells that reflect people's emotions like Charm Person and Calm Emotions and perhaps he's learned from Satyrs, so some Illusion magic too like Invisibility and Ghost Sound. Right, all those spells are Wizard ones. Ok so he can use some martial weapons like a Fighter and he has some skills like a Rogue. Sounds like multiclassing is in order with a good selection of Skills (or perhaps *gasp!* a Bardic Background). Then he can heal, so that's definitly a Specialty. Done.  
I find it funny that for a class-based RPG people want to limit those options to just a few. I'd rather have 40+ classes that all overlap but have their own unique niche within the system. For example, one could play a Necromancer in v3.5 by using the Wizard class and choosing Necromancy school spells plus a few feats. But that pales in comparison to the Dread Necromancer class. One can play a Divine Assassin by Multiclassing Rogue and Cleric and choosing spells that apply to stealth, combat, and utility OR one could just play an Avenger. One could make a Berserker by using the Fighter class can choosing feats like Power Attack, Leap Attack, Skill Focus (Intimidate) and role-play the whole "Rage" thing OR one could just pick up the Barbarian class. 

To me there's the contrived, convoluted, and system-mastery style of swapping all sorts of stuff into an almost Point-Buy style system (by using alternative varients, feats, skills, and spells) to make the sort of character you want OR they could just build a class fits the concept well and makes it easy on the player. 

But if we're going to treat the Warlord (and Avenger, Warden, Rune-Priest, etc) as just options then they might as well go Whole Hog and just keep the system to the basic 4 classes and use Specialties/Backgrounds/Maneuvers to fullfill the rest. 


 




 I think the basic wizard in 2nd ed 3rd ed did a reasonable job with very basic rules for things like Necromancer, Illusionist etc. For an intro class they have been ok and they later got fleshed out in the wizards handbook and spells and magic later in 2nd eds life- granted powers basically.

 A specialised Necromancer class has been around since 2nd ed and maybe 1st ed IDK. Its not the type of thing they well have at release. The best Nercomancer in D&D has usually been an evil cleric (animate dead level 3 vs 5 spell, rebuke undead). The wizard class it not very good at representing fantasy literature wizards but they vary to much and you do need some sort of default class.



Right, a good Necromancer was a cleric that rebuked/commanded undead and animated them with specific spells but that was the case until the Dread Necromancer, who was the embodiment of Necromancy. And that's what I'm saying, that any combination of the basic 3 (4 if you think Rogue really needs to be there) can get a concept but its making that concept GOOD and viable in comparison to other more straightforward classes is the question. A Cleric that plays at being necromancer uses up ALL his resources to fullfill that concept. A Dread Necromancer instantly become that concept before any resources are used. That is the biggest thing for me, as I'm far more about concepts than specific classes but I find that classes designed for concepts fullfill that role better than hodge-podge options clumped together.  



 The Dread Necromancer may not have been the first example of that as 2nd ed actually had The Complete Necromancers handbook and I am not sure if 1st ed had a necromancer class as new 1st ed classes often were in Dragon magazine. I can't remember the Necromancers handbook very well though (it has been almost 20 years when I read it).

 Specialised classes have always existed but they tend to come latr in the editions lifecycle. Beguiler (Rogue/Enchanter) in 3.5, various 4th ed classes I am guessing. Swordmage/Duskblade/Magus all came later even though they are all different takes on the gish concept.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

But that sounds even less "core" than some of the other "classes" folks are discussing.  It makes it sound exactly like a Theme/Specialty - maybe with some multi-classing thrown in for good measure.

Not if you approach the core concept of the D&D bard with the understanding that the premise of the class is 'able hero' whose summed parts are the parts of heroes all -- none of them extractable, but each requisite for the whole.




Then the concept if flawed and/or broken and should not be apart of a class-based RPG. 
Not if you approach the core concept of the [class]...


Honestly, I think that's the larger "point" of all this.

If you "approach the core concept of the class" from a certain way, and with the intent to justify it as a class, I think you can justify any of these things that folks have brought up.

I think that's the real difference between something like the Barbarian/Ranger (or Monk, or Paladin, or [insert non "core 4" class here]) and the Warlord in DDN - the willingness to make it work.

Can you justify the Bard for yourself?  Absolutely.  But even with the description you just gave, it still reads to me as nothing more than "Background.  Theme.  Multiclassing."... and a bit of enthusiasm for the concept on your part.
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
Not if you approach the core concept of the [class]...


Honestly, I think that's the larger "point" of all this.

If you "approach the core concept of the class" from a certain way, and with the intent to justify it as a class, I think you can justify any of these things that folks have brought up.

I think that's the real difference between something like the Barbarian/Ranger (or Monk, or Paladin, or [insert non "core 4" class here]) and the Warlord in DDN - the willingness to make it work.

Can you justify the Bard for yourself?  Absolutely.  But even with the description you just gave, it still reads to me as nothing more than "Background.  Theme.  Multiclassing."... and a bit of enthusiasm for the concept on your part.

Sure.

The devs agree with me, so... I be a happy gamer.

Danny

Did d20 modern use 3 classes and I know SWSE managed to get tit down to 5. That was with the spellcasters stripped out.  A warrior class could be made with Fighter, Ranger, Monk, Paladin  schemes and talents laid over the top. That is getting toward classless design though as wach class would be a template really- expert, warrior, adept could cover most things I suppose.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Did d20 modern use 3 classes and I know SWSE managed to get tit down to 5.


d20 Modern did a weird thing, where it had a "class" for each ability score.  Strong Hero (Str), Fast Hero (Dex), Tough Hero (Con), Smart Hero (Int), uh... [adjective] Hero (Wis), and Charismatic Hero (Cha).

It was... it's odd.  Functional, but odd.

Saga is better about it, certainly (though, personally, I still don't get the Scout - didn't in the first d20 StarWars line, and still don't in Saga), but I think it helps that it had an actual setting to build to (instead of trying to be super-generic).

I believe I've heard that True20 breaks it down to just Adept, Expert, Warrior (the 3e NPC class names), which... honestly makes the most sense to me, if you're going to go the "very few classes" route with "totally not D&D".
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
Scout was kind of the fringer class in the original d20SWRPG. Saga was the only d20 one to get it right, the 1st one was basically D&D in space, the 2nd one was an improvment. Not sure about True 20 as I never saw it over here and d20 Modern I read years ago and never played it. One of the guys I know wanted me to run it but I do not like RPGs set in  modern times- D&D, Star Wars and a little sci fi are the only RPGs I really look at running although I'll try most RPGs once. After d20 Star Wars and Dragonlords of Melinbone I stopped looking at 3rd party d20 books for the most part with a few exceptions for D&D based ones.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

d20 Modern did a weird thing, where it had a "class" for each ability score.  Strong Hero (Str), Fast Hero (Dex), Tough Hero (Con), Smart Hero (Int), uh... [adjective] Hero (Wis), and Charismatic Hero (Cha).

Dedicated Hero (Wis)

It was... it's odd.  Functional, but odd.

loved it, I thought it was great!

Danny

Concepts can be 'weak' because they're too narrow, too broad, or don't fit genre very well.  Given that, and including just in-a-PH1 classes, weak concepts include:

Too broad:
Fighter, Cleric, Magic-user/Wizard (but not 2e school specialists). 

Too Narrow:
Illusionist (1e), Assassin, Barbarian, Ranger, Druid, Bard, Monk, Thief.

Don't fit genre:
Monk, all Psionic classes, all Vancian classes. 


So, OK concepts include the Rogue, Paladin, Warlord, Warlock, and Sorcerer.

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

I'd rather have 40+ classes that all overlap but have their own unique niche within the system. For example, one could play a Necromancer in v3.5 by using the Wizard class and choosing Necromancy school spells plus a few feats. But that pales in comparison to the Dread Necromancer class.

To me, that seems like the bad-style-system-mastery stuff. If I want to play a - well, let's go with the necromancer example - then I see that wizards can specialize in necromancy, so I try to make the character that way, and I end up significantly inferior to a cleric with the Death domain (which is probably where I would have looked next, if wizards couldn't be necromancers). Of course, as you point out, the "correct" option is to play the Dread Necromancer class, which I wouldn't have even noticed until a few hours later when I had gotten around to sorting through the later supplements.

If I want to play a necromancer, then I should be able to figure out how I want to do that within... I dunno, an hour of opening the book? Or I should determine that it is not supported, within that same time frame.

The metagame is not the game.

All divine and primal classes.
Honestly, I have a hard time justifying most classes, if we're to presume that the same reasoning applied to the Warlord could be applied elsewhere.

Artificer?  Wizard option + Specialty
Assassin?  Rogue option + Specialty
Barbarian?  Fighter option + Specialty
Bard?  Rogue (or Wizard) option + Specialty
Paladin?  Cleric option + Specialty
Ranger?  Fighter (or Rogue) option + Specialty
Sorcerer?  Wizard option + Specialty
Warlock?  Wizard option + Specialty



Pretty much this.  A lot of classes are just mixes of 2 or 3 others to varying degrees, with a specific flavor applied to the mix.  That being said, D&D generally lacks the customization required to retain all these classes' feel while also boiling down to only a few classes.  Maybe if they had some kind of point-based customization layered over the classes, then it would work.  But, I don't see it happening.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

I kind of like the devs' idea of having the core four classes be flexible, to fit a range of unique characters, with the non-core-four classes a bit more specific to cover archetypes that would work better on their own mechanical chassis (like the monk and bard).

The only problem, IMHO, is that wizard has all the hallmarks of a "secondary" class - it's overly specific and frankly weird in execution, compared to something like a spell point sorcerer that can fit a broad array of magic-user styles.
I think a class should only exist if it has both a unique mechanic and a clear focus. Otherwise it should simply be a subclass of another larger class.

For example a class like the 3e warlock could make a good alternate innate caster class that is not part of the Mage archetype. A sorcerer who is merely a spellpoint version of the wizard that uses Cha instead of in but shares the wizard spell list should simply be a variant of the Mage archetype.
Why are the forums suddenly backwards? The top post is the most recent now...
Did you accidentally swap the list order, I did that once.
Did you accidentally swap the list order, I did that once.



How do I fix it? Even signing out doesn't help.

Nevermind, got it. 
I can honestly say that once you begin with a class system as your base design then there really are no weak classes.  Sure, there are some that are weaker in a larger number of circumstances, but a weak class, in my opinion no.  If you're going to simplify it to two, then you simply say there are wizards and fighters.  Wizards encompass everything from healing to fireball to singing for magical effect; fighters encompass everything from stealth, archers, sword swingers, and knock out artists.  To combine the two simply incorporate a penalty.  If you don't have the penalty, then just call it classless.