|
1 year ago ::
Jun 08, 2012 - 4:42PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Sep 25, 2008
|
It seems that no matter what topic you go to, if the subject of classes are brought up, there seems to be all sorts of opinions. You get the people who think the game should have only 4 classes (Fighter, Wizard, Rogue, Cleric) and everything else is a combination of background and theme. You get the people who want as many classes as possible. And you get all sorts of opinions in between.
So it makes me wonder....what would everyone prefer, and why?
From what I understand, there was a statement somewhere that the goal was to put every class that has ever shown up in an initial PHB in the 5E initial PHB.
So let me ask you this as well: What exactly are all the classes that have ever been in an initial PHB?
From my knowledge of 3.5 and 4E, we'd have the following classes:
Fighter
Wizard
Cleric
Rogue
Barbarian
Bard
Druid
Monk
Paladin
Ranger
Sorcerer
Warlock
Warlord
Are there any classes that were in any other initial PHB that isn't on this list?
Personally, if the list I just created was all of the initial classes, I'd be happy, as it would hit a nice spread of character archetypes.
( And in case you couldn't tell, I'm in the "more classes" camp, but I do believe they shouldn't just make classes for the sake of making new classes. )
D&D Experience Level: Relatively new
First Edition: 4th
Known Editions: 4th, 3.5
---
Magic Experience Level: Fairly skilled
First Expansion: 7th Edition
Play Style: Very Casual
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 08, 2012 - 4:52PM
#2
|
|
|
I'd be perfectly happy if that list was fixed, and only increased by the addition of classes desgined to use entirely novel rules from optional modules (such as psionics). Other things like being a samurai, a ninja, a jaguar warrior, a shi'ar, or a templar should be handled through themes and backgrounds. Most things don't need to be classes, but more than four core classes would be preferable.
Z.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 08, 2012 - 4:57PM
#3
|
|
|
I'd say there ought to be the core four classes and then hybrids of the various core classes, just as was traditional. As an example, Paladins were unequivocably hybrid Fighter/Clerics initially. Rangers were Fighter/Rogues (well, ok, they also got Magic User spells). Bard was a literal combination of classes.
I'd be happy to have a similar system.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 08, 2012 - 4:59PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Sep 25, 2008
|
Off the top of my head, the only other things I'd rather see as full classes rather than being backgrounds and themes are:
Psion
Artificer
Shaman
Assassin ( This cass is for mystical assassins. Mundane assassins would work as themes. )
But that's just off the top of my head, and I don't think any of those need to be core.
D&D Experience Level: Relatively new
First Edition: 4th
Known Editions: 4th, 3.5
---
Magic Experience Level: Fairly skilled
First Expansion: 7th Edition
Play Style: Very Casual
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 08, 2012 - 6:15PM
#5
|
- VCL Emeritus
- The Inquisitor
|
For reference, here's the complete list of PHB1 classes from every numbered edition.
Assassin (1E)
Barbarian (3E)
Bard (1E as a a proto-prestige class, 2E, 3E)
Cleric (1E, 2E, 3E, 4E)
Druid (1E, 2E as example of Priest of Specific Mythos, 3E)
Fighter (1E, 2E, 3E, 4E)
Illusionist (1E, 2E as example of Specialists)
Monk (1E, 3E)
Paladin (1E, 2E, 3E, 4E)
Ranger (1E, 2E, 3E, 4E)
Rogue (1E as Thief, 2E as Thief, 3E, 4E)
Sorcerer (3E)
Warlock (4E)
Warlord (4E)
Wizard (1E as Magic-User, 2E as Mage, 3E, 4E)
Psionics (1E as a set of powers available to all characters)
Quentin Small
WotC Online Community Coordinator
All around helpful simian
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 08, 2012 - 6:39PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Sep 25, 2008
|
Hmm....so the Assassin was a core class then? Well then, if they can do something to differentiate it from being a rogue build, I'd be happy. My suggestion: the rogue could have some kind of scheme to represent a mundane non-magical assassin, as well as there being a similar theme that any class can have. Then the assassin class can instead be focused on some kind of dark magic using assassin.
Other than that, it seems Illusionist is the only "class" I missed. I think this is one class that a lot of people wouldn't mind being folded into a theme.
D&D Experience Level: Relatively new
First Edition: 4th
Known Editions: 4th, 3.5
---
Magic Experience Level: Fairly skilled
First Expansion: 7th Edition
Play Style: Very Casual
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 08, 2012 - 6:42PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
Hmm....so the Assassin was a core class then? Well then, if they can do something to differentiate it from being a rogue build, I'd be happy. My suggestion: the rogue could have some kind of scheme to represent a mundane non-magical assassin, as well as there being a similar theme that any class can have. Then the assassin class can instead be focused on some kind of dark magic using assassin.
Other than that, it seems Illusionist is the only "class" I missed. I think this is one class that a lot of people wouldn't mind being folded into a theme.
I actually see the Assassin as being more of a Ranger build. Then again, I could see all 3 classes being a subclass/theme/whatever of each other if you just flip flop.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 08, 2012 - 6:55PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Sep 25, 2008
|
Hmm....so the Assassin was a core class then? Well then, if they can do something to differentiate it from being a rogue build, I'd be happy. My suggestion: the rogue could have some kind of scheme to represent a mundane non-magical assassin, as well as there being a similar theme that any class can have. Then the assassin class can instead be focused on some kind of dark magic using assassin.
Other than that, it seems Illusionist is the only "class" I missed. I think this is one class that a lot of people wouldn't mind being folded into a theme.
I actually see the Assassin as being more of a Ranger build. Then again, I could see all 3 classes being a subclass/theme/whatever of each other if you just flip flop.
Well, the way I see it is this:
There would be an "assassin" theme that any class can take. It would probably give you bonuses to stealth, damage bonuses...maybe access to poison use....stuff like that. Mundane, non-magical assassination skills.
On top of that, the rogue in particular could also have an "assassin" scheme, since schemes seem to be a class feature of a rogue. That way, if you want to make a rogue particularly good at killing people, you'd take both the "assassin" scheme and the universal "assassin" theme.
That way if you wanted to make an "assassin" ranger, you could with the theme.
And then focus the Assassin class on being a dark magic using class, something like the 4E D&DI Assassin.
D&D Experience Level: Relatively new
First Edition: 4th
Known Editions: 4th, 3.5
---
Magic Experience Level: Fairly skilled
First Expansion: 7th Edition
Play Style: Very Casual
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 08, 2012 - 6:56PM
#9
|
|
|
So long as the core, essential, must-have books have a decent range of actual classes, themes and backgrounds, I especially care what happens after. Now, I realize that's a bit shallow, and disregards the health of the game long term, but it sums it up.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 08, 2012 - 7:05PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Jul 17, 2008
|
4e has probably gone down the road of "many different classes" more so than any other addition; but the problem with that road is that it tends to have a lot of dead-ends. Look at classes like the Sentinel and the Rune Priest and compare them to the Fighter and Wizard. The Sentinel and Rune Priest just don't get the "love" that the 'core' classes seem to.
It's not necessarily a bad thing, but a class gets relegated to the dust bin without the love, because over time it just doesn't have the multitides of feats, power, alternate class abilities, and so on that the other classes get.
From that perspective, I like the idea of having 'core' classes and then expanding on them with 'builds' or 'themes' or what-have-you. Mind you, when you look at the more avant garde classes like Vampire, it makes you wonder which of the fighter-cleric-wizard-rogue core classes that would fit into. I can see it being any of them. Is a bard a type of rogue, or is he a type of wizard?
|
|
|
