|
1 year ago ::
May 20, 2012 - 10:20AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Sep 12, 2011
|
So I apologize in advance if this has already been asked, but my forum search-fu is rather lacking. I was going through the chat log from some of the old semiars and I one quote really caught my attention. In the Class Design Chat Archieve at 12:47 we have this:
Monte: To start with we kind of shot at the moon, and said everything that's been in a Player's handbook 1, we want to potentially have in our new player's book. That
includes things like the warlock and the warlord from 4th edition, but also includes the classes from other editions like the ranger, the wizard, the cleric.
If I'm reading that correctly, they want to have every class that was in any editions PHB1 to be in the 5e PHB? While I feel like that would be awesome, and less people would feel left out, I just am not sure if that is feasible for one PHB. How many classes do you think would be reasonable for a first PHB? Which classes should be included?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 20, 2012 - 12:49PM
#2
|
|
|
I don't think having all the classes would take up too much room if they presented it in the right way. Group them together by archtype and give us the basic information for each class. Now if we're talking a full page spread with art for each class, that would be too much.
PC races are what I feel needs to be reigned in more than class options. All but the most basic should be taken out and moved to rules supliments. It's not that I dislike exotic races; I just feel that they aren't right for every game so shouldn't be included in the PHB.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 20, 2012 - 12:59PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Sep 12, 2011
|
What kind of archetype groupings do you mean? Something like power source? Or more like warriors vs. magic users?
I think the full page spread with artwork for each class is what I would be looking for in a hardcover book that I'm going to buy.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 20, 2012 - 1:14PM
#4
|
|
|
What kind of archetype groupings do you mean? Something like power source? Or more like warriors vs. magic users?
I think the full page spread with artwork for each class is what I would be looking for in a hardcover book that I'm going to buy.
The archetypes are Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard. Every D&D class fits in to one of those categories with some variation. As an example; Paladins, Warlords, Rangers, Barbarians, ect are all "Fighters" with some class variations. The same is true for Mages, Warlocks, Sorcerors, ect.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 20, 2012 - 2:23PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Jun 29, 2010
|
It's really not that many classes. A LOT of what we sometimes consider core classes were actually in later volumes.
(6) Basic: Dwarf, Elf, Halfling, (those three are now races instead of classes) Fighter, Cleric, Magic User, Thief, Mystic (Cyclopedia optional, became Monk), Druid (Cyclopedia optional, not starting, became Druid)
(11) 1st: Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Magic User, Illusionist, Thief, Assassin, Monk, Bard (optional, not starting, became Bard)
(8) 2nd: Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Mage, Cleric, Druid, Thief, Bard, Specialist/Specific Mythoi (not truly different classes, so not counting)
(11) 3rd: Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Wizard
(8) 4th: Cleric, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Warlock, Warlord, Wizard
Final list (15):
Assassin, Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Illusionist, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue (Thief), Sorcerer, Warlock, Warlord, Wizard (Magic User)
So it's only an increase of 4 over previous versions.
DISCLAIMER - Everything said by anyone is absolute subjective opinion. There are no objective claims being made by me, or anyone else, unless they overtly state 'The following is an objective claim'. At this point if you choose to be offended by anything I (or anyone else) say the problem is ENTIRELY your own.
WotC won't let us give them money because they won't produce a game we want to play.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 21, 2012 - 3:25AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Jan 17, 2010
|
They'll most likely have to include all the classes from the PHB from 3.5 + the Warlock. Personally, I don't think the warlord needs to be in there and could wait for a module. But even if they exclude some of the classes other than the iconic four (fighter, wizard, rogue and cleric), I'd be fine with it. I wouldn't like it, but I would be okay withit.
I'd say it's way more important to include all the races. So that means including Gnomes, Half-orc and maybe also Tiefling and Dragonborn. Even if many old school people don't like those, I think they can't exclude them without alianating part of the 4e crowd.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 21, 2012 - 4:40AM
#7
|
|
|
Final list (15):
Assassin, Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Illusionist, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue (Thief), Sorcerer, Warlock, Warlord, Wizard (Magic User).
IIRC, they confirmed Psion too. So, 16 classes? Possibly Heroes of the Fallen Lands count too. So plus Knight, Slayer, Mage?
Just out of curiosity, wanted to see how these classes might organize:
Martial
• Fighter (Slayer)
• Rogue (Thief)
• Assassin
• Ranger (Hunter, Scout)
• Archer (Ranger)
• Brawler (Martial Monk)
• Warlord
Divine
• Cleric (Warpriest)
• Mystic (Priest)
• Paladin (Knight)
Arcane
• Wizard (Vancian)
• Mage (Powers)
• Warlock (Powers)
• Sorcerer (Spellpoints)
Primal (Elemental)
• Druid
• Barbarian
• ? (Primal Ranger)
Mind (Psionic, Enchantment, Illusion, Telepathy) (Telekinesis, Force, Radiant)
• Psion
• Bard
• Illusionist
• Monk (Mystic Monk)
Heh, Im thinking the classes wont be as straighforward as I thought they would at first glance.
It isnt just the classes themselves, but the many iterations of each of them that might come into play.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 21, 2012 - 4:46AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Jan 17, 2010
|
Well, we have to keep in mind that classes will likely take up less space than they did in 4e. Likely, each class will take up no more than 1-3 pages (that's with fluff and some images). Spell lists and suchs will of course take up more space, but don't have to be class specific (just like sorcerers and wizards share much of the same spells).
I find it hard to believe they would add Psion too (although I would love it, personally).
|
|
|
