Community

I think they may be be moving towards less classes, similar to the 2nd Ed Groups, and have subclasses as options within (like Kits); instead of a plethora of independent classes.

So you might have Warrior (Defender Warrior = Fighter, Leader Warrior = Warlord etc); Wizard (Controller Wizard = Mage, Defender Wizard = Swordmage, Striker Wizard = Warlock etc).

Anyone else get that feeling? 

Not really. That was sort of the design direction they've been in for the entirety of 4th ed when you consider the power sources. They have since made sub-builds of certain classes like the knight/slayer for fighter for example. I think they are more just trying to expand the existing options of classes that already exist rather than add new power sources or fully brand new classes. This way a lot of the feat support already in print can cover more classes instead of a bunch of seperate classes with hardly any feat support.

Off the top of my head we've got...
3 fighters
2 assasins
2 druids
2 rogues
2 warlocks
2 wizards (almost no difference)
2 clerics(see above comment)
2 rangers
3 paladins

All those are due to essentials making narrower builds. I do like my broader more option heavy 'core' classes but I'm also really partial to the focused path of essentials if it fits what I had planned for my character. If you wanted to play a certain type of fighter/wizard/cleric before you'd only have maybe 1-2 options to choose from per level anyway if that so it's not like much has changed in that regard. I mean all the alternate builds in the power books like rattling rogues and tempest fighters already feel close to essentials classes as far as build options go the only difference being a reliance on mba's for the most part.

tldr: Tons of choice currently, not much different than before, play what fits your character.

Well, I think I remember reading something about getting the E-Sorcerer and Wu Jin(subclass most likely wizard because they get everything) in I think Heroes of the Plane Above or something, can't remember specifics.

Then again, during a convention or interview or something one of the D&D guys said that after Heroes of the Feywild they wont be doing any new classes or races, which every assumes means any classes will just be subclasses. 

Oct 14, 2011 -- 9:46AM, Steely_Dan wrote:

I think they may be be moving towards less classes, similar to the 2nd Ed Groups, and have subclasses as options within (like Kits); instead of a plethora of independent classes.

So you might have Warrior (Defender Warrior = Fighter, Leader Warrior = Warlord etc); Wizard (Controller Wizard = Mage, Defender Wizard = Swordmage, Striker Wizard = Warlock etc).

Anyone else get that feeling? 

That's certainly how Essentials is organized, only not so much around roles.   For instance, all the Wizard sub-classes are controllers.  It /is/ very much like 2e, you have the Class taking the place of the 2e Group, and the sub-class taking the place of the 2e Class.  The odditty is that Class still has it's own, legacy, write-up, which had to be re-defined as a subclass.  So we now have, for instance, Archanist, Mage, Bladesinger & Witch - but no /actual/ Wizard.  Wizard is no longer a playable class, but an umbrella for those subclasses.

Themes are a lot closer to Kits than sub-classes or builds are.

To further confuse the issue, there are still builds.  An Archanist can still be one of several implement-masteries, a Mage can be specialized in one of several schools.  The complete list of Wizards really looks like this:

Orb of Imposition Archanist
Staff of Defense Archanist
Wand of Accuracy Archanist
Orb of Deception Archanist
Tome of Readiness Archanist
Tome of Binding Archanist
Enchanter
Illusionist
Evoker
Pyromancer
Necromancer
Nethermancer
Bladesinger
Witch

And, like I said, they're /all/ controllers.   Clearly, the game needs 14 arcane controllers.

Then there's the Fighter with:

Gaurdian Weaponmanster
Greatweapon Weaponmaster
Battlerager Weaponmaster
Tempest Weaponmaster
Arena Weaponmaster
Brawling Weaponmaster
Knight
Slayer

All but one Defenders - clearly, the game needs 7 martial defenders.  And, in spite of the number of Ranger and Rogue striker variation, an extra martial slayer, too.

Prior to Essentials, Builds were much like sub-classes or kits, anyway.  Six of those wizards ands 5 of the fighters are all pre-E builds.  So there was always some flexibilty in using a class to represent different concepts, even different secondary roles.

I think what's really behind the shift is a different way of building classes.  In 4e, for a class to justify it's existance, it had to propperly fill a Role, and it had to clearly represent a Source.  That's not to say classes existed just to fill a 'grid' with Source & Role each being an axis - though, every Source but Martial /did/ have it's 'grid' filled.   Rather, if a class concept didn't clearly belong in a Source or didn't clearly fulfill a role, it was deemed an inadequate concept.   In Essentials, concept comes first.  So if there's a class concept that blurs Martial & Primal, that's OK.  If there's a class concept that can't quite fulfill either the Controller or Striker roles, but does quite a bit of each, that's OK.  If as concept is too weak or too powerful, again, doesn't really matter, get it as balanced as possible within concept. 

They may also be consciously or unconsciouly immitating AD&D  - Mr Mearls has frequently waxed rhapsodic about his early gaming experiences.


Now, another question is:  will classes keep heading that way?  Well, as long as the game orbits Essentials, sure.  In a possible future 5e, maybe not.   Industry rumor has it that Mr. Cook is on board to develop 5e, and he developed 3e.  3e did /not/ take the heirarchical aproach to classes that 2e did and Essentials does - rather, classes were modular.  You created a concept by building it with class-levels, like creating a mosaic picture from different-colored bits.  I'd expect him to provide the player with a lot of mix-n-match options.  Maybe not via multiclassing as it existed in 3e or 4e, but through some mechanism.  If there are still powers, for instance, it'll probably be possible to lay your hands on just about any power combination, given sufficent system mastery.


Personally, from the moment I first started paging through 4e, I saw another way the system could have developed:

Instead of having each class have it's own exhaustive (cool-name-consuming) list of powers, have powers grouped by Source, and have Role-support handled by class features.  Players would have more power choices for their charcters, while developers would have to create fewer powers.

The big stumbling block, of course, is the Controller role.  To an extent, I think, the controller doesn't exist as a role, so much as a way to grandfather in the Wizard.  Wizards, and the other controllers who followed, have their role support wrapped up in their powers - big areas and heavy conditions - effectively, they have better powers than other roles.