We need 3 casters in the corebook. One Vancian, one AEDU, and something else for people like me who dislike both (I'm a big fan of risk based mechanics for magic users, which could fit nicely both sorc and lock). Illusionist could work too if he uses different spell list than wizard, otherwise - it's specialty.
So:
Lock Sorc Wizard (Illusionist spec?)
Fighter (+Berserker spec) Rogue (+Assassin spec) Ranger Paladin (should be cleric/fighter MC or fighter specialty, but it would be unrealistic to ask for that. I just hope it won't end up as a cleric/fighter feature-wise) Bard - could be it's own thing or rogue spec, I think I would prefer rogue spec, or even better class neutral theme(s). So you can have a Druid Bard, Fighter Bard etc. Cleric - a must Druid (either make it a *lot* more different from cleric or make it a cleric spec) Monk - Oriental Advantures called, and want you back. I'd prefer they made it possible to make competent unarmed *Fighter*. But I won't cry if they keep Monk. Adds wierdness to the class list.
Warlord - canibalized into a bunch of themes, some of them fighter specific, some avaible to every class Barbarian - split into Barbarian background and Berserker specialty (Fighter)
Enough is one more than "too few" and one less than "too many". We need someone who can fight, and preferably someone who... doesn't fight as well (just so we can contrast them). Fighter and Magician? Maybe add in an intermediary, for people who don't like being at one extreme or the other (without getting into multi-classing).
Fighter, Adept, Magician.
Three feels like a pretty solid minimum.
Then, maybe add some thematic elements. Maybe one fighter likes to charge things headlong, and another likes to stab people in the back, and yet a third prefers to shoot from a distance. Maybe one magician likes to cast the spells to make the people fall down, and one magician likes to cast the spells to make the people feel good, and maybe a third one will cast nature-y spells. That's just for starters, though. You could also mix and match. And if you feel that class should be an all-encompassing thing, where maybe themes aren't as important, then each one of those could potentially be its own class.
I hesitate to say it, but it looks like there isn't really a maximum, aside from limits on space to write them all and the ability to distinguish between them. Maybe forty-two? One-Hundred Eight?
It all depends on how much power you place on themes.
I would be really suprized if Themes died an ignominious death in 5E because they watered them down to make room for class bloat.
In my opinion, there is no number of classes that is too many.
Classes are each a self-contained module. Any given class is entirely optional and has no effect on the rest of the classes if it is removed. Therefore, printing infinite classes would allow everyone to pick the exact number of classes that they want to have available in their campaign; while printing any finite number only allows people to pick the exact number if the number they want is less than or equal to the number that exist.
The optimal solution, if it were possible, is obviously to print infinite classes. Since that's not possible, 'as many as we can get out there without sacrificing quality' is clearly the best choice.
(Edit: For what it's worth, my opinion is identical on themes, backgrounds, and any other character option.)
The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.
I firmly believe that there should be two editions of the game; the core rules released as a "Basic" set and a more complicated expanded rules edition released as an "Expert" set. These two editions would provide separate entry points to the game; one for new players or players that want a more classic D&D game and another entry point for experienced gamers that want more options and all the other things they have come to expect from previous editions.
Also, they must release several rules modules covering the main elements of the game (i.e., classes, races, combat, magic, monsters, etc.) upon launch to further expand the game for those that still need more complexity in a particular element of the game.
This boxed set contains a simple, "bare bones" edition of the game; the core rules. It's for those that want a rules-light edition of the game that is extremely modifiable or for new players that get intimidated easily by too many rules and/or options. The Basic Set contains everything needed to play with all the "classic" D&D races (i.e., Human, Dwarf, Elf, and Halfling) and classes (i.e., Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard) all the way up to maximum level (i.e., 20th Level).
The Basic boxed set contains:
Quick Start Rules A "choose your own way" adventure intended as an intro to RPGs and basic D&D terms. Player's Handbook (Softcover, 125 pages) Features rules for playing the classic D&D races and classes all the way up to 20th level. Dungeon Master's Guide (Softcover, 125 pages) Includes the basic rules for dungeon masters.
Monster Manual (Softcover, 100 pages) Includes all the classic iconic monsters from D&D.
Introductory Adventure (Keep on the Borderlands) An introductory adventure for beginning players and DMs.
Also includes:
Character Sheets Reference Sheets Set of Dice
ExpertSet
A set of hardbound rules that contains the core rules plus expanded races and classes, more spells and a large selection of optional rules modules — that is, pretty much everything that experienced players have come to expect. Each expert edition manual may be purchased separately, or in a boxed set. The Expert set includes:
Expert PHB (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes core rules plus 10 playable races, 10 character classes, expanded selection of spells and rules modules for players.) Expert DMG (Hardcover, 250 pages. $35 Includes core rules plus expanded rules modules for DMs.) Expert MM (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes an expanded list of monsters and creatures to challenge characters)
Expansions
These expansion rules modules can be used with both the Basic and Expert sets. Each expansion covers one specific aspect of the game, such as character creation, combat, spells, monsters, etc.)
Hall of Heroes (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes a vast selection of playable character races and classes, new and old all in one book) Combat and Tactics (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes dozens of new and old optional rules for combat all in one book) Creature Compendium (Hardcover, 350 pages.$35 Includes hundreds of monsters, new and old all in one book) The Grimoire (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes hundreds of new and old spells all in one book)
A Million Hit Points of Light: Shedding Light on DamageShow
A Million Hit Points of Light: Shedding Light on Damage and Hit Points
In my personal campaigns, I use the following system for damage and dying. It's a slight modification of the long-standing principles etsablished by the D&D game, only with a new definition of what 0 or less hit points means. I've been using it for years because it works really well. However, I've made some adjustments to take advantage of the D&D Next rules. I've decided to present the first part in a Q&A format for better clarity. So let's begin...
What are hit points? The premise is very simple, but often misunderstood; hit points are an abstraction that represent the character's ability to avoid serious damage, not necessarily their ability to take serious damage. This is a very important distinction. They represent a combination of skillful maneuvering, toughness, stamina and luck. Some targets have more hit points because they are physically tougher and are harder to injure...others have more because they are experienced combatants and have learned how to turn near fatal blows into mere scratches by skillful maneuvering...and then others are just plain lucky. Once a character runs out of hit points they become vulnerable to serious life-threatening injuries.
So what exactly does it mean to "hit" with a successful attack roll, then? It means that through your own skill and ability you may have wounded your target if the target lacks the hit points to avoid the full brunt of the attack. That's an important thing to keep in mind; a successful "hit" does not necessarily mean you physically damaged your target. It just means that your attack was well placed and forced the target to exert themselves in such a way as to leave them vulnerable to further attacks. For example, instead of severing the target's arm, the attack merely grazes them leaving a minor cut.
But the attack did 25 points of damage! Why did it only "graze" the target? Because the target has more than 25 hit points. Your attack forced them to exert a lot of energy to avoid the attack, but because of their combat skill, toughness, stamina and luck, they managed to avoid being seriously injured. However, because of this attack, they may not have the reserves to avoid your next attack. Perhaps you knocked them off balance or the attack left them so fatigued they lack the stamina to evade another attack. It's the DM's call on how they want to narrate the exact reason the blow didn't kill or wound the target.
Yeah, but what about "touch" attacks that rely on physical contact? Making physical contact with a target is a lot different than striking them, so these types of attacks are the exception. If a touch attack succeeds, the attacker manages to make contact with their target.
If hit points and weapon damage don't always represent actual damage to the target, then what does it represent? Think of the damage from an attack as more like a "threat level" rather than actual physical damage that transfers directly to the target's body. That is, the more damage an attack does, the harder it is to avoid serious injury. For example, an attack that causes 14 points of damage is more likely to wound the target than 3 points of damage (depending on how many hit points the target has left). The higher the damage, the greater the chance is that the target will become seriously injured. So, an attack that does 34 points of damage could be thought of as a "threat level of 34." If the target doesn't have the hit points to negate that threat, they become seriously injured.
Ok, but shouldn't armor reduce the amount of damage delivered from an attack? It does reduce damage; by making it harder for an attack to cause serious injury. A successful hit against an armored target suggests that the attack may have circumvented the target's armor by striking in a vulnerable area.
What about poison and other types of non-combat damage? Hit point loss from non-physical forms of damage represents the character spitting the poison out just in time before it takes full strength or perhaps the poison just wasn't strong enough to affect them drastically, but still weakens them. Again, it's the DMs call on how to narrate the reasons why the character avoids serious harm from the damage.
If hit points don't don't represent actual damage then how does that make sense with spells like Cure Serious Wounds and other forms of healing like healer kits with bandages? Hit points do represent some physical damage, just not serious physical damage. Healing magic and other forms of healing still affect these minor wounds just as well as more serious wounds. For example, bandaging up minor cuts and abrasions helps the character rejuvenate and relieve the pain and/or fatigue of hit point loss. The key thing to remember is that it's an abstraction that allows the DM freedom to interpret and narrate it as they see fit.
What if my attack reduces the target to 0 or less hit points? If a player is reduced to 0 or less hit points they are wounded. If a monster or NPC is reduce to 0 or less hit points they are killed.
Why are monsters killed immediately and not players? Because unless the monsters are crucial to the story, it makes combat resolution much faster. It is assumed that players immediately execute a coup de grace on wounded monsters as a finishing move.
What if a character is wounded by poison or other types of non-physical damage? If a character becomes wounded from non-combat damage they still receive the effects of being wounded, regardless if they show any physical signs of injury (i.e., internal injuries are still considered injuries).
Ok. I get it...but what happens once a character is wounded? See below.
Damage and Dying
Once a character is reduced to 0 or less hit points, they start taking real damage. In other words, their reserves have run out and they can no longer avoid taking serious damage.
Characters are fully operational as long as they have 1 hit point or more. They may have minor cuts, bruises, and superficial wounds, but they are are not impaired significantly.
Once they reach 0 or less hit points, they become Wounded (see below).That is, they have sustained a wound that impairs their ability to perform actions.
If they reach a negative amount of hit points equal or greater than their Constitution score, they are Incapacitated. This means they are in critical condition and could possibly die.
Characters will die if their hit points reach a negative amount greater than their Constitution score, plus their current level.
Unharmed: 1 hp or more Wounded: 0 hp or less Incapacitated: -(Constitution) to -(Constitution+Level) Dead: Less than -(Constitution +Level)
Wounded When the character reaches 0 or less hit points they become wounded. Wounded characters receive disadvantage on all attacks and saving throws until they heal back up to 1 hit point or more. This allows for a transitory stage between healthy and dying, without having to mess around with impairment rules while the character still has hit points left.
Incapacitated Characters begin dying when they reach a negative amount of hit points equal to their Constitution score. At which point, they must make a DC 10 Constitution saving throw on each of their following turns (the disadvantage from being wounded does not apply for these saving throws).
If successful, the character remains dying, but their condition does not worsen.
If the saving throw fails, another DC 10 Constitution saving throw must be made. If that one fails, the character succumbs to their wounds and dies. If successful, the character stabilizes and is no longer dying.
Finally, if a dying character receives first aid or healing at any point, they immediately stabilize.
Dead Characters will die if they reach a negative amount of hit points equal to their Constitution, plus their current level. Thus, if an 8th level character with a Constitution score of 12 is down to 4 hit points then takes 24 points of damage (reducing their hit points to -20) the attack kills them outright.
Fighter, Thief, Magic-User, Cleric. Every other class is a variation of those basic four.
Agreed. Unfortunately, not a lot people agree with that sentiment.
I'd be perfectly happy with the four main classes as long as there were themes/specialties to make them unique and flavorful.
I don't agree with it. Not unless they disconnect from a class based system completely. Otherwise, there are concepts that just can't be met within a level based mechanic and only 4 classes. It becomes too much of a stretch, and forces pigeon holing.
For example. Turning a fighter into a monk would take complete devotion to that path. Not much room for dabbling elsewhere. Unless the 4 base classes are so generic that they aren't really classes at all. Just a base for tacking on something similar to 4e's builds.
Really, just get rid of Fighter IMO if you have to get rid of someting.
Wait what?
If it were up to me, I'd lose the assassin (its a sub of rogue; killing for money isn't a class, it's an attitude), the barbarian (being uncivilized isn't a class, it's a culture; shaman -might- be an acceptable replacement, or shamanic (primal?) warrior...but not just 'i get angry', which is more a berserker than a barbarian anyways), the sorceror (IF and only if it's casting style is 3.x; that's just a wizard variant). IF the Illusionist and M-U have different spell lists, then keep them. If not, then Illusionist is just a sub-class variant of Wizard. Depending on final mechanics, Warlord may just be a sub of fighter or cleric and could likely be shunted to one of those two categories. The rest are sufficiently different (paladin and ranger should go under main class fighter though). Bard should go under rogue. Leaving as 'main' classes:
Some might suggest that Warlock is a subset of Magic-User. What's your take? I mean, I could see Warlock as a Specialty.
I could too, much like Illusionist. However, we -know- the Warlock will have entirely different mechanics than the Wizard. You'll note I also mentioned that Sorc could be its own if it had entirely different mechanics (not the 3.x version, which was -essentially- Vancian but with a light twist). My breakdown tries to aim for classes that are wholly different from each other and tries to come down on the side of spell lists (if it shares a list its a subclass; if it is its own list, it's a class). So if druid were to get its own complete list a la 1E, then it should be its own class. Assuming it does not, I listed it under cleric. And so on.
In my opinion, there is no number of classes that is too many.
Classes are each a self-contained module. Any given class is entirely optional and has no effect on the rest of the classes if it is removed. Therefore, printing infinite classes would allow everyone to pick the exact number of classes that they want to have available in their campaign; while printing any finite number only allows people to pick the exact number if the number they want is less than or equal to the number that exist.
The optimal solution, if it were possible, is obviously to print infinite classes. Since that's not possible, 'as many as we can get out there without sacrificing quality' is clearly the best choice.
(Edit: For what it's worth, my opinion is identical on themes, backgrounds, and any other character option.)
Agreed. The more blocks I get to play with, the happier I am building characters. I want to be able to build a paladin, from a paladin chassis AND be able to produce something paladin-like by starting with a fighter-or-cleric chassis and utilizing themes, backgrounds, etc (sort of a correspondence course Paladin)
Here's the key part - as long as all of these options are mechanically differentiated. I'm all for as many options as possible, provided they are not merely the same components re-flavored again and again.
The more choices you make, the more you drive away people from sheer overload. It's the eternal conundrum. Take a polyhedron and start adding infinite increasing numbers of sides. At Iteration X, you have a sphere where no side is distinguishable from any other; however, long before then the sides have lost their distinct identity among the others.
Really, just get rid of Fighter IMO if you have to get rid of someting.
Wait what?
If it were up to me, I'd lose the assassin (its a sub of rogue; killing for money isn't a class, it's an attitude), the barbarian (being uncivilized isn't a class, it's a culture; shaman -might- be an acceptable replacement, or shamanic (primal?) warrior...but not just 'i get angry', which is more a berserker than a barbarian anyways), the sorceror (IF and only if it's casting style is 3.x; that's just a wizard variant). IF the Illusionist and M-U have different spell lists, then keep them. If not, then Illusionist is just a sub-class variant of Wizard. Depending on final mechanics, Warlord may just be a sub of fighter or cleric and could likely be shunted to one of those two categories. The rest are sufficiently different (paladin and ranger should go under main class fighter though). Bard should go under rogue. Leaving as 'main' classes:
Some might suggest that Warlock is a subset of Magic-User. What's your take? I mean, I could see Warlock as a Specialty.
I could too, much like Illusionist. However, we -know- the Warlock will have entirely different mechanics than the Wizard. You'll note I also mentioned that Sorc could be its own if it had entirely different mechanics (not the 3.x version, which was -essentially- Vancian but with a light twist). My breakdown tries to aim for classes that are wholly different from each other and tries to come down on the side of spell lists (if it shares a list its a subclass; if it is its own list, it's a class). So if druid were to get its own complete list a la 1E, then it should be its own class. Assuming it does not, I listed it under cleric. And so on.
That's my reasoning, at any rate.
I think that is the right idea to create a class that is distinct from the other classes because they have a unique mechanic.
YMMV, I would like to see Warlock providing an AEDU template that could be put on a Fighter. Fighter with surge, stunt dice, and eldritch blast could get real exciting.
