Super classes are bad.

What do i mean by a super-class?  Well, if the barbarian, monk, ranger, warlord all got folded into the fighter, then the fighter would be a superclass.  Or if the wizard, warlock, druid, sorcerer, psion got folded into magic user.

Why are they bad?  Because they restrict and complicate design.  The barbarian for instance, needs to change the base fighters armor proficency, hit points, remove manuvers, and add a daily rage.  This got silly in 2e with all the kits.  Like the blade that substituded so much, it turned a bard into a fighter.


Of course, we also don't want every slightly different concept to be it's own class like 3.5 had.  Somewhere in between would be good. 

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

Not only they restrict design, there are other things going on:
1. The final "super classes" may be so brand and generic that it doesn't have an identity.
2. Making classic classes only available through character building options means that you spent your character build options and cannot use to other things, limiting character's concepts of those classes.

Also I vastly prefer more options.
I think the talk of traditions and fighting styles doing more is basically because it layers the class design in a way that's intriguing. I don't actually think that all classes will be rolled into super classes or whatever, but the basic exploration will establish what makes sense for them to do and what doesn't.

I still wish the development team hadn't abandoned the idea of (4th Ed style)Themes as a way to adjust core classes into some of their more complex variants. 

@mikemearls The office is basically empty this week, which opens up all sorts of possibilities for low shenanigans

@mikemearls In essence, all those arguments I lost are being unlost. Won, if you will. We're doing it MY way, baby.

@biotech66 aren't you the boss anyway? isn't "DO IT OR I FIRE YOU!" still an option?

@mikemearls I think Perkins would throat punch me if I ever tried that. And I'd give him a glowing quarterly review for it.

It could be suggested that the podcast that's sparked all this talk of traditions was placed specifically to get us thinking about how that might work.
It could be suggested that the podcast that's sparked all this talk of traditions was placed specifically to get us thinking about how that might work.

Yeah, but orignailly we were talking about stuff like how adding the Shadow Theme to a fighter might make him a Death Knight, but if you added the same Theme to a Wizard, a Necromancer would pop out.  That way you could just keep releasing themes with the variant powers that they grant the core classes and if you get to pick an additional Theme every five levels or so, you could make millions of classes with all of those options.

@mikemearls The office is basically empty this week, which opens up all sorts of possibilities for low shenanigans

@mikemearls In essence, all those arguments I lost are being unlost. Won, if you will. We're doing it MY way, baby.

@biotech66 aren't you the boss anyway? isn't "DO IT OR I FIRE YOU!" still an option?

@mikemearls I think Perkins would throat punch me if I ever tried that. And I'd give him a glowing quarterly review for it.

3.5 pretty unashamedly divided things up not purely by concept. It was an edition (generally) well aware that characters don't have their class name tattooed onto their forehead, and it wasn't shy about releasing classes for things that with a little work could probably have been alternate class features or kits or archetypes or whatever you want to call them. It's probably a bit of presentation (Class X with Archetype Y applied requires a little more putting-together than just Class Y), a bit of marketing sexiness (Do you want THREE NEW CLASSES! or TWO NEW ROGUE ARCHETYPES AND SOMETHING CALLED "SPELLTHIEF"?) and a bit of it sometimes just genuinely being the right thing to do (Warblades and Fighters encompass much of the same concept, but you can't realistically call Warblade a "type" of fighter in any way that makes sense mechanically. You can either not publish the Warblade, publish it and just sort of accept that it's part of the same concept, or publish it try to project some really bizarre flavor onto it. I think it's clearly correct to take option B in that case - and they did, with like 2% of option C where they tried to project a more specific Typical Personality onto Warblades.)

I'm 100% okay with the idea that the world works such that, say, there are multiple different ways to do magic or access magic and those things affect your resource management without coming out and saying that Superman can fly for five hours a day divided up as he likes because he's an alien and Storm can fly for ten-minute bursts at-will because she's a mutant and Thor can fly as much as he likes, but only if he decided that at the beginning of the day because he's a god. I understand that to a lot of people "This is Magic Type X. Magic Type X works this way. Some people are born with a talent for Magic Type X. Some people study until they're able to perform Magic Type X. Some people make a deal with the devil for the ability to perform Magic Type X" doesn't make as much sense as "This is Magic Type X. It works this way. People who studied until they can do magic do magic as Magic Type X. This is Magic Type Y. It works a different way. If you are born with magic, you do Magic type Y, etc.", but it's all the same in my eyes.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
Point 1) The OP is correct, to a point. Too many classes folded into a single class is bad.

Point 2) The OP has nothing to worry about. They aren't going to do away with all of the individual classes and only have Fighter or Magic User. The closest they might come is to divide the classes by groups (ala 2E). The Warrior group has the fighter, ranger, and paladin. The Rogue group would have thieves, bards, assassins, and so on.

Point 3) Broader classes are good. Classes that are too broad are not. If the only difference between two classes is fluff, or perhaps weapon choices, or some other minor point, then perhaps they shouldn't be seperate classes. A "Thief" class that can encapsulate assassins, acrobats, footpads, cutpurses, and so on is fine. A "Fighter" class that can properly encapsulate the knight, gladiator, and so on is also fine. Trying to force the Warlord, Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian, and every other melee class into the Fighter, though, will not work. At all.
"The world is indeed comic, but the joke is on mankind." - H.P. Lovecraft
What do i mean by a super-class?  Well, if the barbarian, monk, ranger, warlord all got folded into the fighter, then the fighter would be a superclass.  Or if the wizard, warlock, druid, sorcerer, psion got folded into magic user.

You mean Martial, Magical, and Mixed? Sorry, I feel completely the opposite. The only way, IMO, to build flexible and balanced "classes" is to have a stripped down core. That doesn't mean that these meta-classes (I prefer that term over super-classes) need be playable as-is. It means they are the foundational framework in which all other classes are constructed.

For those familiar with object-oriented design, I consider the meta-classes of Martial, Magical, and Mixed to be purely abstract. But they serve a critial function: what is the core theme of the features to the class being constructed. While there are mechanical differences between a fighter and rogue, neither will ever have non-martial features. Wizards are comprised of only magic-related features. Clerics, paladins, rangers, and even monks and possibly barbarians draw on non-mundane sources for some of their features.

Assuming class balance is a primary goal (this is a moot discussion otherwise), then every feature available to any "class" should have some assessed "value". This could be a simple comparative value, or complex depending on the synergy it has with other features. For example, martial characters might all get MDD/WDD, but much like THAC0/BAB, it is a dial that can be set to high/medium/low or even more granulated to emphasize combat vs non-combat. I feel lumping exploration with interaction is appropriate for this discussion, because both are mechanically similar (both primarily use ability/skill checks for mechanical resolutions). Similarly, magical characters need select between partial or full magical. The latter have no martial features, and most contributions will be in the form of magic.

With this design approach, multi-classing becomes unnecessary, since the character gains additional features as you level up according to either a pre-constructed class, or following specific guidelines to maintain balance. The pre-constructed classes are there specifically to provide a reference point, and for those not desiring to "build their own".

The only way to end up with a "boring" character with this approach is if you begin with a "boring" concept.

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.
Point 1) The OP is correct, to a point. Too many classes folded into a single class is bad.

Point 2) The OP has nothing to worry about. They aren't going to do away with all of the individual classes and only have Fighter or Magic User. The closest they might come is to divide the classes by groups (ala 2E). The Warrior group has the fighter, ranger, and paladin. The Rogue group would have thieves, bards, assassins, and so on.

Point 3) Broader classes are good. Classes that are too broad are not. If the only difference between two classes is fluff, or perhaps weapon choices, or some other minor point, then perhaps they shouldn't be seperate classes. A "Thief" class that can encapsulate assassins, acrobats, footpads, cutpurses, and so on is fine. A "Fighter" class that can properly encapsulate the knight, gladiator, and so on is also fine. Trying to force the Warlord, Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian, and every other melee class into the Fighter, though, will not work. At all.

I'd like to have these classes as templates so that we can have as many classes as we want.

fighter
  barbarian
  warlord

rogue
 assassin
 ranger

cleric
  witch
  warlock
  paladin
  monk

wizard
  bard
  psion

But if you don't like this organization, you can pick from an assortment of skills that will allow you to create the classes you want.

kira3696.tripod.com

I personally like broad classes if they are designed in such a way that they can specialize, subspecialize, change themes, change fluff, etc.

If you can limit the big choices to less than ten it really simplifies, organizes, and directs the rest of the character creation process.  

The other big choice is race.  Race is more fluff than substance though and since race is used as a buff to class, race choices are therefore often limited if players want a good fit.

If class is mostly fluff and very little mechanical substance, there is no reason to unnecessarily complicate the character design process.  Example, if a paladin can be successfully recreated through a multiclass cleric/fighter with  certain maneuvers and traditions than it doesn't need its own class.  Just show the complete paladin in the PHB as an example of multiclassing.  The warlord could be similar with options from cleric that are more leadership, buffing, and healing directed.  The abilities could then be refluffed to make them martial powers rather than divine powers.  This could then by placed in the PHB as another multiclass option that is shown to completion.

The trick is to give each class enough options.  The rogue should be able to build a bard.  The fighter should be able to build a barbarian (unless the rage mechanic is unique enough that it cannot be created using martial weapon damage or a fighter maneuver tree).  Druid should fit into cleric as well in my mind.  That would allow ranger to perhaps fit into a fighter/cleric multiclass if the fighter allowed enough specialization using maneuvers and feats to account for things like dual wield, preferred enemies, tracking, and other martial benefits.  The nature cleric portion could then also provide benefits such as pass without trace, light spellcasting, animal affinities, and perhaps the animal companion. 
Super classes are excactaly what we should have, high customizable of course. It would make for a simple core that can be expanded upon.
Using the Fighter as your base example, one of the things you would have to do is not automatically give them all armor proficiencies. you create options so you can build your barbarian or warlord off of the base core. Give a selection of two or three class abilities available only at first level, such as Heavy Armor or CON bonus as AC. Or even simplier, go back to a feat system that is class specific and allow the class to select what options in wants. the manuever system in the Next play-test was already doing this so that each class had a different mechanical feel but lets be honest, a d20 base is not going to give to much varience in mechanics.
I think True20 by Green Ronin did this best with 3 classes, Warrior, Expert, Adept. The classes were not heavily front loaded but each got one unique power at 1st level. If you started out as a Warrior you could shrug off some damage, if you started out as an Expert you could gain a skill bonus, if you started out as an Adept you could access spells you haven't memorized. No matter how you multiclassed you could never gain the level 1 power from another class. They also had an appendix on how to make your own class so you did not have to multiclass to get what you wanted but the core class always was best at what it was intended to do.

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of any failed saving throw, including but not limited to petrification, poison, death magic, dragon breath, spells, or vorpal sword-related decapitations.

I wouldn't have a problem with them doing 2 super classes and then a metric ton of modular options to build what you want out of that class. This is how Dragon Age does it, and it's kinda cool. It's better than arbitrary exclusion.
Point 1) The OP is correct, to a point. Too many classes folded into a single class is bad.

Point 2) The OP has nothing to worry about. They aren't going to do away with all of the individual classes and only have Fighter or Magic User. The closest they might come is to divide the classes by groups (ala 2E). The Warrior group has the fighter, ranger, and paladin. The Rogue group would have thieves, bards, assassins, and so on.

Point 3) Broader classes are good. Classes that are too broad are not. If the only difference between two classes is fluff, or perhaps weapon choices, or some other minor point, then perhaps they shouldn't be seperate classes. A "Thief" class that can encapsulate assassins, acrobats, footpads, cutpurses, and so on is fine. A "Fighter" class that can properly encapsulate the knight, gladiator, and so on is also fine. Trying to force the Warlord, Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian, and every other melee class into the Fighter, though, will not work. At all.



If class is mostly fluff and very little mechanical substance, there is no reason to unnecessarily complicate the character design process.

I disagree with you two. If a class should be it's own class or not is not very dependent of of the concept. I have very much to do with the actual implementation.

I personally like broad classes if they are designed in such a way that they can specialize, subspecialize, change themes, change fluff, etc.

If you can limit the big choices to less than ten it really simplifies, organizes, and directs the rest of the character creation process.

If class is mostly fluff and very little mechanical substance, there is no reason to unnecessarily complicate the character design process.

No, for me it's just like limiting class choice based on arbitrary reasons. I happen to like lots of classes.

Also, the character class is the biggest concept. When someone says that this class should be its own class, is basically that they want it to be the big part of the character. One of the reasons that I don't like the idea of only 3-5 super broad classes, is that they can lose its identity. If a class is too bland and broad its lose its identity. Really, if we want to go into classes so bland and broad that they don't have an identity, we can go classless. And at that points, it reaches the "possibly not D&D" area.

Really, what a class needs is just cool flavor and some mechanics that somewhat make it different. When two or more classes look similar, you can do three things: Leave as it is, Fold them into one class, Or differentiate them. I vastly prefer the later.

D&D is a class based game. Why limit the classes? Why make the classes so bland and broad that being one means nothing?
The problem with superclasses is that the ones likely to be chosen for D&D are bad choices for superclasses.  Which ones do I mean?  Fighter, cleric, rogue, wizard.  They're not bad classes, but they are bad superclasses.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
D&D is a class based game. Why limit the classes? Why make the classes so bland and broad that being one means nothing?

Because before the class is the concept. If the concept does not fit into one of the pre-defined classes, or doesn't match the pre-concieved "vision" of an existing class, then the only recourse with such a system is to invent a new class. That inevitably will continue until you end up with infinite classes...and how is that any different than classless?

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.
What do i mean by a super-class?  Well, if the barbarian, monk, ranger, warlord all got folded into the fighter, then the fighter would be a superclass.  Or if the wizard, warlock, druid, sorcerer, psion got folded into magic user.

Why are they bad?  Because they restrict and complicate design.  The barbarian for instance, needs to change the base fighters armor proficency, hit points, remove manuvers, and add a daily rage.  This got silly in 2e with all the kits.  Like the blade that substituded so much, it turned a bard into a fighter.


Of course, we also don't want every slightly different concept to be it's own class like 3.5 had.  Somewhere in between would be good. 



I think it's really about being able to recreate as many archetypes as possible. For example, you could imagine wanting to ditch the healer aspect of the warlord in exchange for defender options or AOE attacks such as cleave or whirlwind.

I can only think of two ways to do this: either have very broad classes with swapable class features, either have a good multiclassing system.
I can only think of two ways to do this: either have very broad classes with swapable class features, either have a good multiclassing system.

I think you repeated yourself. I'm not sure if there is a difference between the two except semantics.

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.

Mar 13, 2013 -- 9:55AM, cassi_brazuca wrote:

D&D is a class based game. Why limit the classes? Why make the classes so bland and broad that being one means nothing?


Because before the class is the concept. If the concept does not fit into one of the pre-defined classes, or doesn't match the pre-concieved "vision" of an existing class, then the only recourse with such a system is to invent a new class. That inevitably will continue until you end up with infinite classes...and how is that any different than classless?



Actually, what makes one class a own class and not a build it's the implementation, the class itself. I could go on about this.
And yes, a game with lots of important classes is still class-based.
It's true- D&D has always been a class-based game.  But we don't need to repeat the class bloat of previous editions either.  If I want to play, say, a Ninja, the question quickly becomes "well, can't you just play a Rogue, or possibly a Rogue/Monk or Rogue/Wizard?".

If the multiclassing rules allow me to mix classes to create a concept without shooting me in the foot, I'm happy with that.  Or if there is a Prestige Class that expands my options, making my character feel more like a "Ninja".  3.X was designed (in theory) to allow just that.*

Of course, what a "Ninja" feels like is rather subjective.  Do you want a 'realistic' assassin in black pajamas- well the Rogue can do that.  Do you want a guy who can become invisible and walk through walls?  Then you need more.  

So the only reason there is for a separate Ninja class to exist is if the multiclassing rules punish you for wanting to do something cool.  While the 3.5 Ninja was a neat idea, with it's 'ki pool', that's something the Monk does now, so all you'd really need to turn a Monk into a Ninja is some stealth-themed ki powers...

*There is one important caveat to this.  Some people who played 3rd edition became unecessarily twitchy when someone presented their Fighter 2/Rogue 4/Monk 2/etc..  They felt that this was somehow "abusing" the multiclass system, despite the fact that being able to mix and match classes to create a unique concept was actually the point.  If freestyle multiclassing is rejected, then you might need more classes to build concepts.

I think I'm going to start another thread to talk about this point.                 
"You can always judge a man by the quality of his enemies." -The Doctor, Remembrance of the Daleks

Is D&D really "class-based" though? It's a game that uses classes, sure, but I don't think every character ever made in D&D is intended to be based on a class. One could just as easily say that D&D is a concept based game that uses classes. One could defend fewer or more classes on the basis of whether it's a class-based game, because the term "class" is very broad in its meaning.


I don't think D&D has ever been a game where character class expressed the sum total of the character concept. I think that if anything, mechanics are a more sound basis for class because that is actually something D&D has done from the beginning and continues to do. The thing that gets fuzzy in my mind is when we have classes that are essentially combinations of existing mechanics rather than classes that use existing mechanics plus something that is theirs.


The concept is important too, and the mechanic needs to inform the concept. That's always true, but if you strip it all back it's got to be the mechanics that define a class, which tells me that from a conceptual point of view, D&D can be considerably less class based than folks tend to make out. From a mechanical point of view however, the game probably should be class based.



But none of this stops classes from being reasonably broad with some other subset of abilities under class delineating the difference between a wizard or a sorcerer. In order to know that, we need to consider how many subsets are too many, how many unique mechanics are too many, and whether the game is served best by more unique mechanics or more subsets within a few mechanics. Then we need to write it up and playtest it.


And that, friends, is why we're here. It's also why we need a new packet with some of these ideas. Soon.

I don't like super classes for 3 reasons:

1) like Mand12 said, D&D core 4 are bad super classes. The fighter, rogue, wizard, and cleric are only worth playing if you make them rather specific otherwise..

2) Superclasses are bland. The only way to make a generic warrior superclass that can fit rangers, paladins, and barbarians, is to make them very bland and featureless. That is what 2e did. Before the rule with weapon specialization, you (powerwise) either rolled high enough for a paladin/ranger/barbarian or settled for fighters. Before the weapon bonuses, every other warrior was better. The issue was that you removed choice from the equation.

3) Kit hell. In order to use super classes, you have to make them so featureless that the adjustment can be easy or balance. Otherwise you get a complicated and not exactly balanced mess if the designers or DM don't spend hours learning the system mastery. If they don't spend the time, Kit Hell becomes Ban Hell.

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!

The problem with superclasses is that the ones likely to be chosen for D&D are bad choices for superclasses.  Which ones do I mean?  Fighter, cleric, rogue, wizard.  They're not bad classes, but they are bad superclasses.



How come?
It's true- D&D has always been a class-based game. But we don't need to repeat the class bloat of previous editions either. If I want to play, say, a Ninja, the question quickly becomes "well, can't you just play a Rogue, or possibly a Rogue/Monk or Rogue/Wizard?".

If the multiclassing rules allow me to mix classes to create a concept without shooting me in the foot, I'm happy with that. Or if there is a Prestige Class that expands my options, making my character feel more like a "Ninja". 3.X was designed (in theory) to allow just that.*

Of course, what a "Ninja" feels like is rather subjective. Do you want a 'realistic' assassin in black pajamas- well the Rogue can do that. Do you want a guy who can become invisible and walk through walls? Then you need more.

So the only reason there is for a separate Ninja class to exist is if the multiclassing rules punish you for wanting to do something cool. While the 3.5 Ninja was a neat idea, with it's 'ki pool', that's something the Monk does now, so all you'd really need to turn a Monk into a Ninja is some stealth-themed ki powers...

*There is one important caveat to this. Some people who played 3rd edition became unecessarily twitchy when someone presented their Fighter 2/Rogue 4/Monk 2/etc.. They felt that this was somehow "abusing" the multiclass system, despite the fact that being able to mix and match classes to create a unique concept was actually the point. If freestyle multiclassing is rejected, then you might need more classes to build concepts.

I think I'm going to start another thread to talk about this point.

First: Class Bloath? I like having many options for classes.
Second: As I said, if one class should be its won class or not have to do with the actual implementation.


Is D&D really "class-based" though? It's a game that uses classes, sure, but I don't think every character ever made in D&D is intended to be based on a class. One could just as easily say that D&D is a concept based game that uses classes. One could defend fewer or more classes on the basis of whether it's a class-based game, because the term "class" is very broad in its meaning.

I don't think D&D has ever been a game where character class expressed the sum total of the character concept. I think that if anything, mechanics are a more sound basis for class because that is actually something D&D has done from the beginning and continues to do. The thing that gets fuzzy in my mind is when we have classes that are essentially combinations of existing mechanics rather than classes that use existing mechanics plus something that is theirs.

The concept is important too, and the mechanic needs to inform the concept. That's always true, but if you strip it all back it's got to be the mechanics that define a class, which tells me that from a conceptual point of view, D&D can be considerably less class based than folks tend to make out. From a mechanical point of view however, the game probably should be class based.



But none of this stops classes from being reasonably broad with some other subset of abilities under class delineating the difference between a wizard or a sorcerer. In order to know that, we need to consider how many subsets are too many, how many unique mechanics are too many, and whether the game is served best by more unique mechanics or more subsets within a few mechanics. Then we need to write it up and playtest it.

And that, friends, is why we're here. It's also why we need a new packet with some of these ideas. Soon.

That doesn't mean that we have to have only X classes, nor does it say anything about how broad they should be.
Thing is, class is a big part of the concept. When someone says "I want this class as its own class" they are saying that the concept is so important that it should be the main part, and the main part of the mechanics is class. Basically they are saying that this concept is so big that it has to be its own class.
All that it needs to be a own class is a coll flavor and some mechanic that somewhat make them different. If we and up in a game with 3-5 very bland and broad classes that means nothing, we can go classless. And that point, it enters in "almost not D&D".
Point 1) The OP is correct, to a point. Too many classes folded into a single class is bad.

Point 2) The OP has nothing to worry about. They aren't going to do away with all of the individual classes and only have Fighter or Magic User. The closest they might come is to divide the classes by groups (ala 2E). The Warrior group has the fighter, ranger, and paladin. The Rogue group would have thieves, bards, assassins, and so on.

Point 3) Broader classes are good. Classes that are too broad are not. If the only difference between two classes is fluff, or perhaps weapon choices, or some other minor point, then perhaps they shouldn't be seperate classes. A "Thief" class that can encapsulate assassins, acrobats, footpads, cutpurses, and so on is fine. A "Fighter" class that can properly encapsulate the knight, gladiator, and so on is also fine. Trying to force the Warlord, Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian, and every other melee class into the Fighter, though, will not work. At all.

I'd like to have these classes as templates so that we can have as many classes as we want.

fighter
  barbarian
  warlord

rogue
 assassin
 ranger

cleric
  witch
  warlock
  paladin
  monk

wizard
  bard
  psion

But if you don't like this organization, you can pick from an assortment of skills that will allow you to create the classes you want.

kira3696.tripod.com




How about??


fighter
  barbarian
  paladin
  warlord
  ranger
  monk

rogue
 assassin
 bard
warlord

cleric
  priest
  monk
  warlord

wizard
  warlock
  witch
  warlord

Two types of Monks and four warlords.
The problem with superclasses is that the ones likely to be chosen for D&D are bad choices for superclasses.  Which ones do I mean?  Fighter, cleric, rogue, wizard.  They're not bad classes, but they are bad superclasses.



How come?


They don't cover the full space of possible character concepts, and they overlap in significant fashion.

On the full space of possible character concepts:  Sure, you can make all Barbarians into Fighters, and all Sorcerers into Wizards.  But if you do that, you whitewash over the differences that make Sorcerers and Wizards into the concepts that their fans enjoy.  Sure, if you don't really care about or recognize the differences, then it's fine to smash them together and be happy.  But if you do care about those differences, then you'll take issue with a "Sorcerer" that uses Int as a spellcasting stat and has a spellbook.  The people advocating the Core Four Superclasses tend to not care or accept these differences, and in doing so they poorly represent the people who would be most affected by turning the non-Core-Four classes into parts of a superclass:  the people who would actually play the non-Core-Four classes.  Ah but wait, you say, what if we let the Sorcerer variant of Wizard use Cha as a spellcasting stat and not use a spellbook?  Response:  what purpose, then, does having the superclass serve, if you then recreate the class in its entirety?  None.

Language influences how people think.  For the people who played with nothing but the Core Four, it's easy for them to see a new thing and say "Yeah, I see how that could be a Cleric" rather than saying "Ooh, an Avenger!  That's pretty cool, it'll be fun to have one in my party with my friend's Cleric.  It'll be interesting to see how their different relationships with the same god and religion interact with each other."  It's a round-hole problem - sure, you can cram the oddly shaped pegs into it, but you lose something in the process.  And as I said before, if you don't care about the bits that don't fit, then you see this as fine.  But what's not fine is actually implementing something some people aren't fine with just because you're not bothered by it.

They also overlap in significant fashion.  Rogue and cleric are the culprits here.  Rogue is basically "stealthy small weapon fighter who's good at skills" conceptually - and only the "good at skills" part is not something a Fighter can do.  A Fighter can absolutely have a high Dex, use small weapons and light armor, and be sneaky and underhanded in combat.  So what's the point of having the Rogue superclass, again?

There really are only two superclasses:  magic-guy and not-magic-guy.  But that's not enough to have an interesting class-based game, so the better choice is to scrap the idea of superclasses and go to classes instead.

The superclass approach accomplishes very little other than give official sanction that certain subset of gaming preferences are acceptable, at the expense of recognizing and embracing the full depth of how people play D&D.  It is not positive in any way, and only negative.  It should not be done.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
It's true- D&D has always been a class-based game.  But we don't need to repeat the class bloat of previous editions either.  If I want to play, say, a Ninja, the question quickly becomes "well, can't you just play a Rogue, or possibly a Rogue/Monk or Rogue/Wizard?".

If the multiclassing rules allow me to mix classes to create a concept without shooting me in the foot, I'm happy with that.  Or if there is a Prestige Class that expands my options, making my character feel more like a "Ninja".  3.X was designed (in theory) to allow just that.*

IMO, PrC is a class, except it has prerequisits.  So it doesn't really "solve" class bloat.


For 5e, i would do PrC's as RP rewards.  Like if you joined the red wizards of thay, you get to summon a small demon 1/day.  And as you raise in ranks, you get to summon more/bigger deamons.  But it in no way takes away (or adds to) your wizard level.  It falls more along the lines of finding a magical, upgradeable artifiact of demon summoning, then actually being a "class".

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

@Cassi


I'm merely exploring the idea. I don't believe that broad classes that serve as an umbrella for many concepts is automatically a bad idea. I don't believe it's automatically a good one either.


What you're saying in repsonse says to me that enough folks are sentimental about classes to make this a big deal to some people, but I think since it's not technically our project that a certain amount of detachment is called for.


I love the sorcerer. I'd love to see it as its own class. If it's not and instead given to another broadly defined class, I'm not going to winge on the forum about it because while I'm here to test things it's not my project, it's theirs. When I go write my own game I can be as sentimental about sorcs as I want and nobody will be able to stop me.


Of course, I'll give feedback and I'll be plain about what I think, but this crusading around helps nobody.

I can only think of two ways to do this: either have very broad classes with swapable class features, either have a good multiclassing system.

I think you repeated yourself. I'm not sure if there is a difference between the two except semantics.




I wasn't thinking about swapable class features/powers as in 4th edition.

You could say for example that the fighter can be good at survival, damage, AOE attacks, party support, party defense and forced movement. He wouldn't be good at everything, he would have to pick 2 or 3 options from the list. Then you could say that the rogue can be good at damage, dirty tricks, ambushes, debuffs and skills and would also have to pick 2 or 3 options. And if you want to combine survival, AOE attacks and dirty tricks, then you would need to multiclass 2/3 fighter, 1/3 rogue.

The alternative is to have a super fighter with a very broad list of options but you still only get to pick 2 or 3 options from the list.

The main difference comes down to how many of these options are packaged into the class. For example, fighters get more hit points and rogues get more skills. Even if you're only interested in dirty tricks, if you multiclass into a rogue, you also get reduced hit points and more skills.
What do i mean by a super-class?  Well, if the barbarian, monk, ranger, warlord all got folded into the fighter, then the fighter would be a superclass.  Or if the wizard, warlock, druid, sorcerer, psion got folded into magic user.

Why are they bad?  Because they restrict and complicate design.  The barbarian for instance, needs to change the base fighters armor proficency, hit points, remove manuvers, and add a daily rage.  This got silly in 2e with all the kits.  Like the blade that substituded so much, it turned a bard into a fighter.


Of course, we also don't want every slightly different concept to be it's own class like 3.5 had.  Somewhere in between would be good. 



I think it's really about being able to recreate as many archetypes as possible. For example, you could imagine wanting to ditch the healer aspect of the warlord in exchange for defender options or AOE attacks such as cleave or whirlwind.

I can only think of two ways to do this: either have very broad classes with swapable class features, either have a good multiclassing system.



from what i see so far they are going for each class having it's own thing including mecanics.

Barbarian: rage 
Cleric: chanel divinity + divine spellcasting ( note tat they have less spell slots the wizards and more focus on channel divinity not to be to simular to the arcane spellcaster.)
Fighter : manuvers
Monk : Ki
Rogue : skill tricks
wizard : arcane spellcasting

and we could speculate on others though the mecanics are not known at this point.
Bard : inspire ( maybe main mecanic like 4th edition skald auras includes healing)
Druid: wildshape castring druid spells (spell casting might be kept on a low level )
Paladin : protection aura smite
Ranger : using terain, favored enemy and animal companion. 
Scorcerer : heritige powers (may incluse some powers that replicate spells depending on heratige)
Warlock : at will magical attack that can be enhanced.
Psion : power pint based psionic powers.

And many concepts can be build by combining base classes
Want a barbarian that can take animal shape as he rages make a barbarian/druid
want somthing closer to the 4th edition warlord make a fighter/bard
want a psycic warior make a fighter/psion
want a fighter ho has a dragon as one of his distant ancestors make a fighter/scorcerer.
want a military trained scout make a fighter/ranger 
The problem with superclasses is that the ones likely to be chosen for D&D are bad choices for superclasses.  Which ones do I mean?  Fighter, cleric, rogue, wizard.  They're not bad classes, but they are bad superclasses.



How come?


They don't cover the full space of possible character concepts, and they overlap in significant fashion.

More to the point, three of them are Infantry, Artillery, and Support units from table-top wargaming awkwardly ported into a dungeon-raid game, with the last guy hastily added in because wargaming units can't open doors particularly well.

Oh, and reason #3.  Many classes are hybrids, and won't fit comfortably under any 1 heading.


Like is a paladin a fighter, or cleric?
Is a soul knife a fighter, or psion?
ect... 

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

It's true- D&D has always been a class-based game.  But we don't need to repeat the class bloat of previous editions either.  If I want to play, say, a Ninja, the question quickly becomes "well, can't you just play a Rogue, or possibly a Rogue/Monk or Rogue/Wizard?".

If the multiclassing rules allow me to mix classes to create a concept without shooting me in the foot, I'm happy with that.  Or if there is a Prestige Class that expands my options, making my character feel more like a "Ninja".  3.X was designed (in theory) to allow just that.*

Of course, what a "Ninja" feels like is rather subjective.  Do you want a 'realistic' assassin in black pajamas- well the Rogue can do that.  Do you want a guy who can become invisible and walk through walls?  Then you need more.  

So the only reason there is for a separate Ninja class to exist is if the multiclassing rules punish you for wanting to do something cool.  While the 3.5 Ninja was a neat idea, with it's 'ki pool', that's something the Monk does now, so all you'd really need to turn a Monk into a Ninja is some stealth-themed ki powers...

*There is one important caveat to this.  Some people who played 3rd edition became unecessarily twitchy when someone presented their Fighter 2/Rogue 4/Monk 2/etc..  They felt that this was somehow "abusing" the multiclass system, despite the fact that being able to mix and match classes to create a unique concept was actually the point.  If freestyle multiclassing is rejected, then you might need more classes to build concepts.

I think I'm going to start another thread to talk about this point.                 



The problem I have with this situation is that your slogging through X levels of game-play to get to the concept of the character you enjoy. This is why multiclassing (and Prestige classing) hasn't really been one of my favorite aspect of v3.5, because if I want to play a Ninja that uses shadow magic or some other magic-y gimmick I now have to get to 4th, 5th, or 6th level of Rogue/Sorcerer to accompish a concept that a 1st level character might be able to do under that specific class (albiet limitedly).   
Cleric: chanel divinity + divine spellcasting ( note tat they have less spell slots the wizards and more focus on channel divinity not to be to simular to the arcane spellcaster.)

I don't see how channel divinity is any different from spell casting.


In fact, i can't see any difference between clerics and wizards, except one wears better armor.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

In fact, i can't see any difference between clerics and wizards, except one wears better armor.

And the other is never ever ever ever allowed to cause something's HP total to go up.

Well maybe never, but if it can, expect it to have some serious limitations like Timeheal or the Simbul's Synostodweomer.  Or maybe old school Polymorph.  Do temporary hit points count (thinking False Life here)?

But hey, at least Wizards can heal constructs, right?  

 
"You can always judge a man by the quality of his enemies." -The Doctor, Remembrance of the Daleks
In fact, i can't see any difference between clerics and wizards, except one wears better armor.

Traditionally, clerics can have their powers taken away if they don't do what their deity wants. Wizards are their own masters.

The metagame is not the game.


They don't cover the full space of possible character concepts, and they overlap in significant fashion.
On the full space of possible character concepts: Sure, you can make all Barbarians into Fighters, and all Sorcerers into Wizards. But if you do that, you whitewash over the differences that make Sorcerers and Wizards into the concepts that their fans enjoy. Sure, if you don't really care about or recognize the differences, then it's fine to smash them together and be happy. But if you do care about those differences, then you'll take issue with a "Sorcerer" that uses Int as a spellcasting stat and has a spellbook. The people advocating the Core Four Superclasses tend to not care or accept these differences, and in doing so they poorly represent the people who would be most affected by turning the non-Core-Four classes into parts of a superclass: the people who would actually play the non-Core-Four classes. Ah but wait, you say, what if we let the Sorcerer variant of Wizard use Cha as a spellcasting stat and not use a spellbook? Response: what purpose, then, does having the superclass serve, if you then recreate the class in its entirety? None.
Language influences how people think. For the people who played with nothing but the Core Four, it's easy for them to see a new thing and say "Yeah, I see how that could be a Cleric" rather than saying "Ooh, an Avenger! That's pretty cool, it'll be fun to have one in my party with my friend's Cleric. It'll be interesting to see how their different relationships with the same god and religion interact with each other." It's a round-hole problem - sure, you can cram the oddly shaped pegs into it, but you lose something in the process. And as I said before, if you don't care about the bits that don't fit, then you see this as fine. But what's not fine is actually implementing something some people aren't fine with just because you're not bothered by it.
They also overlap in significant fashion. Rogue and cleric are the culprits here. Rogue is basically "stealthy small weapon fighter who's good at skills" conceptually - and only the "good at skills" part is not something a Fighter can do. A Fighter can absolutely have a high Dex, use small weapons and light armor, and be sneaky and underhanded in combat. So what's the point of having the Rogue superclass, again?
There really are only two superclasses: magic-guy and not-magic-guy. But that's not enough to have an interesting class-based game, so the better choice is to scrap the idea of superclasses and go to classes instead.
The superclass approach accomplishes very little other than give official sanction that certain subset of gaming preferences are acceptable, at the expense of recognizing and embracing the full depth of how people play D&D. It is not positive in any way, and only negative. It should not be done.

+1

@Cassi
I'm merely exploring the idea. I don't believe that broad classes that serve as an umbrella for many concepts is automatically a bad idea. I don't believe it's automatically a good one either.
What you're saying in repsonse says to me that enough folks are sentimental about classes to make this a big deal to some people, but I think since it's not technically our project that a certain amount of detachment is called for.
I love the sorcerer. I'd love to see it as its own class. If it's not and instead given to another broadly defined class, I'm not going to winge on the forum about it because while I'm here to test things it's not my project, it's theirs. When I go write my own game I can be as sentimental about sorcs as I want and nobody will be able to stop me.
Of course, I'll give feedback and I'll be plain about what I think, but this crusading around helps nobody.

Everyone here is just exploring ideas, hehe.
Maybe I will try to explain my thoughts more detailed but Mand12 said very well.

I think it's safe to say that classes in 5e will be more broadly defined than in 4e and perhaps 3e. AD&D classes are quite broadly defined, and I like that, but I doubt they'll be as broad as that.


The most likely scenario is they'll be somewhere in the middle. I think the chances of us seeing big overreaching classes are slim to none.



Like is a paladin a fighter, or cleric?



Neither the paladin should work of his own mecanics using smites,protecive auras,lay on hands and special mount.

the paladin should not be casting cleric spells or using fighter manuvers. 

fighter
  barbarian
  paladin
  warlord
  ranger
  monk

rogue
 assassin
 bard
warlord

cleric
  priest
  monk
  warlord

wizard
  warlock
  witch
  warlord

Two types of Monks and four warlords.


Wouldn't it be easier to build a good multiclass system instead?  Someone could argue that assassin could have 4 different types as well.  Bard might be either rogue or wizard or even cleric.


I still think 4 very customizable superclasses with a very well-developed multiclass system could create every concept that people are worried about.  If people want to name there own characters concept as barbarian or warlord or witch or whatever, let them.

Are you more worried about the name of the class or the mechanics of the class.  Seems trivial to want your name attached to a minor class and bloat the entire system for no useful reason.