|
1 year ago ::
Feb 10, 2012 - 8:18AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Jul 20, 2010
|
This is somewhere between mechanics speculation and product speculation, but I'm putting it here because it seems more pertinant.
While 4.0 is my preferred edition and I generally like what they did, I found it a bit of a pet peeve that there were THREE player's handbooks, released one after another. When 5E comes out, I would really like to see the Players Handbook include ALL of the core classes. While I'm a little aprehensive of WOTC actually doing this, since having multiple books drives more sales and income...I can still hope. I personally would rather wait an extra 6 months, and pay more for the book, if it means having everything covered there, and available right at the start of the game.
Of course, this brings me on to..."what classes should be considered 'core'?"
I'd like to hear everyone elses opinions on this, so the designers have an idea of what we're expecting as "basic"
My list is as follows:
Bard
Barbarian
Cleric
Druid
Fighter
Paladin
Psion (4.0)
Monk
Rogue
Ranger
Shaman (4.0)
Sorcerer
Warlock
Warlord (4.0)
Wizard
I list a few classes that I only know in terms of their 4.0 incarnations, if they existed in prior versions I'm not familiar with them.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 10, 2012 - 8:23AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
Better question is what does "core" mean.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 10, 2012 - 8:25AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Mar 24, 2002
|
Monte Cook (or maybe Rob Schwalb) said in the seminars at DDXP that they were currently considering every class that has appeared in any PHB1 in any edition as potentially core for 5E. Someone made a list; I'm sure they'll be by to post it presently. Based on the seminar discussion, it sounded like the only major question was going to be which classes worked better as themes folded into other classes, so like Rogue/Thief or Cleric/Priest or Fighter/Warrior or what have you.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 10, 2012 - 9:12AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Jul 20, 2010
|
Better question is what does "core" mean.
Yeah...that IS my question haha.
Thanks for that Writer. I'll research that and post a list if I can create one.
Really though, I'm more curious about what players WANT to see as 'core'...after all they did say this edition is an attempt to get our input, so I'm of the opinion we should offer them suggestions, rather than just taking what they've said so far as 'acceptable'.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 10, 2012 - 9:19AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Jul 20, 2010
|
Okay, so looking back through the versions, here's what I found.
Classes listed in at least one version's PHB1:
Bard
Barbarian
Cleric
Druid
Fighter
Paladin
Monk
Rogue
Ranger
Sorcerer
Warlock
Warlord (4.0)
Wizard
Classes from my original list that are not included:
Psion (4.0)
Shaman (4.0)
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 10, 2012 - 9:25AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Nov 19, 2008
|
1E class list: Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, Magic-User, Illusionist, Thief, Assassin, Monk (10 classes) and appendix for Bards. Note that Cavaliers and Barbarians came later (in 1985)
2E class list: you add the Bard but lose the monk and assassin. Illusionist gone, but add specialty wizards
3E class list: the monk is back! Add the barbarian and the Sorc for 11 classes.
4E class list: 8 classes, with Warlord and Warlock added. Bards, Druids and Sorcs were added in the PHB2, Monks in the PHB3. Assassins were either DDI only or Essentials, and 'Mage Schools' came along later but the Illusionist as its own class really never reappeared.
Distilling this down:
5E class list: Cleric, Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, Magic-User, and Thief are the only classes that have been in every "PHB1" of AD&D and up. I'm guessing they will have 8 classes total, adding the MONK and the WARLORD to this list (based on DDXP playtest reports and general rampant speculation)
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 10, 2012 - 9:27AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
This is somewhere between mechanics speculation and product speculation, but I'm putting it here because it seems more pertinant.
While 4.0 is my preferred edition and I generally like what they did, I found it a bit of a pet peeve that there were THREE player's handbooks, released one after another. When 5E comes out, I would really like to see the Players Handbook include ALL of the core classes. While I'm a little aprehensive of WOTC actually doing this, since having multiple books drives more sales and income...I can still hope. I personally would rather wait an extra 6 months, and pay more for the book, if it means having everything covered there, and available right at the start of the game.
Of course, this brings me on to..."what classes should be considered 'core'?"
I'd like to hear everyone elses opinions on this, so the designers have an idea of what we're expecting as "basic"
My list is as follows:
Bard
Barbarian
Cleric
Druid
Fighter
Paladin
Psion (4.0)
Monk
Rogue
Ranger
Shaman (4.0)
Sorcerer
Warlock
Warlord (4.0)
Wizard
I list a few classes that I only know in terms of their 4.0 incarnations, if they existed in prior versions I'm not familiar with them.
3 PHB's isn't really a problem, though. It's better than how they handled it in 3.x, where every splat book had randomly thrown together races and classes. At least they took their time in 4e and consolidated them to one release a year.
To answer the question, though, I greatly want to see the Warlord as core. It is a new D&D icon as far as I'm concerned. Then the typical classes. I wouldn't even mind seeing them combine certain classes into larger archetypes.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 10, 2012 - 9:27AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Mar 24, 2002
|
Found a couple posts in various places, and the final list looks something like this [ taken from EN World]: Assassin [1e subclass] Barbarian [ 3e] Bard [1e, 2e, 3e] Cleric [0e, 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e, Basic] Druid [1e subclass, 2e, 3e, Basic] Dwarf [Basic] Elf [Basic] Fighter [1e, 2e, 3e, 4e, Basic] Fighting-Man [0e] Halfling [Basic] Illusionist [1e subclass, 2e subclass, 3e subclass] Mage [2e subclass] Magic-User [0e, 1e, Basic] Monk [1e, 3e] Mystic [Basic] Paladin [1e subclass, 2e, 3e, 4e] Priest [2e class group] Ranger [1e, 2e, 3e, 4e] Rogue [2e class group, 3e, 4e] Sorcerer [ 3e] Specialist wizard other than Illusionist [2e subclass, 3e subclass] Thief [1e, 2e, Basic] Warlock [ 4e] Warlord [ 4e] Warrior [2e class group, kinda 3e as an NPC class...] Wizard [2e class group, 3e, 4e] Assuming they're going to roll some things into one another w/themes (like Illusionists and other specialty wizards), and that races as classes are probably out, since they're races ["I want to play and Elf Dwarf!" um, no], you get ... Barbarian Bard Cleric Druid Fighter/Fighting-Man/Warrior Wizard/Mage/Magic-User Monk Paladin Priest Ranger Rogue/Thief Sorcerer Warlock Warlord ETA: Gah! Beaten to it. I type too slow.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 10, 2012 - 9:30AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Jul 20, 2010
|
Distilling this down:
5E class list: Cleric, Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, Magic-User, and Thief are the only classes that have been in every "PHB1" of AD&D and up. I'm guessing they will have 8 classes total, adding the MONK and the WARLORD to this list (based on DDXP playtest reports and general rampant speculation)
You don't have to distill, they're currently considering something core if it appeared in the PHB1 of ANY edition, not things that only appear in all editions.
Monte Cook (or maybe Rob Schwalb) said in the seminars at DDXP that they were currently considering every class that has appeared in any PHB1 in any edition as potentially core for 5E. Someone made a list; I'm sure they'll be by to post it presently.
Check my post, I put an updated list.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 10, 2012 - 9:33AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Jan 20, 2012
|
Core is what they expect most people to use. Anything outside of core should be strictly optional. Additional products should only ever specifically interact with or require core products and content within itself. Adventures should only assume ownership of the three core books, and splat books should similarly only assume ownership of core books and itself.
I'd really like to see them consolidate the classes as much as possible, and have them all in one PHB. Other than maybe Psion, since historically psionics take up an entire book all on their own. Then, whenever they'd add a new class, I want them to sit back and look at all the other classes, and say "Is it really necessary to add an Archer class when a fighter build would work without adding an entire new, unneeded class to the game?" Maybe it could be a prestige class, paragon path, substitution levels, variant class, etc. No need to reinvent the wheel just to create a new class that's only slightly different than an existing class.
This, of course, assumes a class structure more like 3.x where classes get abilities as they level instead of just powers, which would also be vastly preferred imo. I suppose they could do that with a 4E. The Warden, for example, could have been a new fighter build option and a bunch of powers that interact with that build option, instead of an entire new class in itself. This, of course, creates issues where a core fighter could then take guardian form powers even if they don't interact his choice of class feature, but maybe if the system was originally designed in a way that the classes could be extensible without affecting the original builds of the class, it could work.
|
|
|
