|
10 months ago ::
Aug 20, 2012 - 7:23PM
#51
|
Date Joined:
May 14, 2012
|
I like ALL classes...i think all of them should be core.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 20, 2012 - 7:30PM
#52
|
Date Joined:
Oct 16, 2009
|
I like ALL classes...i think all of them should be core.
+1. Everything is core or nothing is. 
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 20, 2012 - 8:27PM
#53
|
Date Joined:
Feb 15, 2008
|
Yeah, every class is core when its released. As for the first rulebook, whatever they can fit in. I don't mind waiting for a second book to get all the good classes, I probably won't switch immediately anyway. And I hope I will be maintaining my DDI subscription, so as long as I'm paying per month I don't have to buy the new books, they'll show up when they're released.
"So shall it be! Dear-bought those songs shall be be accounted, and yet shall be well-bought. For the price could be no other. Thus even as Eru spoke to us shall beauty not before conceived be brought into Eä, and evil yet be good to have been."
- Manwë, High King of the Valar
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 20, 2012 - 8:54PM
#54
|
Date Joined:
May 29, 2012
|
Can't believe there isn't more love for the monk on here. Been around since the '78 AD&D PHB, made a big come back in the 3e PHB, and while not an original it has become one of the most widely used (if only for multiclassing) classes in the DDO system.
By far my favorite class and I really want to see it back.
My list for what I definitely want core
Fighter
Cleric
Rogue
Wizard
Monk*
Ranger*
Sorcerer*
The extras I might add as being semi-core, that is to say they have merit as a core class but something else can do what they do at least well enough to get by, perhaps with just a feat or 2 to add a specific required ability like
bard - any rogue could double as a bard, they just need a background or scheme to provide bardsongs. possibly in place of sneak attacks, but not neccessarily
barbarian - basically a modified fighter. add rage as a specialty or background feature (i vote background actually as you have to live the life of a barbarian to truly be one)
druid - a druid is basically a special kind of cleric that has a closer bond to nature than to the liturgical worship of a deity. Add a background which provides a shapechange in place of channel divinity and give them an oath to the druidic ways.
now that i've said all that, the 3 starred classes above could also fall under this rule i suppose, i just find them so special that they deserve their own class, but if neccessary:
monk - a fighter with a background in monasticism. provides unarmed strike rules, imposes penalties on using armor and weapons. code of conduct
ranger - in my campaign, this is pretty much what the rogue is playing atm anyway. archery specialty rogue or fighter work well for ranger for the most part. biggest change would be to add a specialty or background that provides an animal companion.
sorcerer - basically a wizard that has a different system of casting. easy change made with a background. i'm mostly talking about the older style sorcerers here though, the new one that was just released is pretty out there in comparison to say a 3rd edition sorc
i know a lot of this doesn't quite cover everything that makes the classes what they are but in all honesty, most ever class has over the years has been a variation on the 4 original cores of fighter, wizard, cleric, and rogue.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 20, 2012 - 11:57PM
#55
|
Date Joined:
Oct 11, 2009
|
"Core" does not mean something drastically different in Next than it has before. It just means what's going to be in the core rulebook. Unless there's no core rulebook, there will be a core, and unless there are no classes in the core rulebook, there will be core classes. That many of Next's mechanics are supposed to be presented as "more optional" than they have been before makes no difference.
This is incorrect.
There is a definitive difference between the "core rules" and what will be included in the "core rulebooks". The "core rulebooks" will include (probably many) optional modules that will be allowed/disallowed by each DM, at his/her table. There will be default modules that are not considered "core rules", but that will be presented along with the "core rules" to provide examples of how modules are to be integrated.
The "core rules" will be the rules that can't be house-ruled out; the game can't be played without them, and still feel like D&D.
The "core rulebooks" will be the initial releases of the PHB, DMG & MM.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 21, 2012 - 2:49AM
#56
|
Date Joined:
Aug 28, 2005
|
This is incorrect.
No, it is not. Now, like I told Mand, if you want me to explain to you why you're wrong, then sent me a PM, because this thread does not need this off-topic discussion.
Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TMSpeaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 21, 2012 - 2:51AM
#57
|
|
|
Me, personally?
Fighter: I solve my problems with violence, real or implied
Rogue: I solve my problems with subtlety
Wizard: I solve my problems with magic
Priest: I ask my god to solve my problems
Psionicist: I draw upon esoteric powers that you would all have if you weren't so lazy, to solve my problems.
I push for psionics in the beginning so it isn't slap dash tacked on later. Because, like it or not, it will be here eventually, better to get it out of the way now, rather than dropping an entirely new concept into the mix later.
How much and how soon we need the rest of the classes depends on how flexible the first ones are, how easy it is to multiclass, and how good the art is.
I have an answer for you, it may even be the truth.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 21, 2012 - 4:10AM
#58
|
Date Joined:
Oct 11, 2009
|
This is incorrect.
No, it is not. Now, like I told Mand, if you want me to explain to you why you're wrong, then sent me a PM, because this thread does not need this off-topic discussion.
I explained why it is. Your opinion is not the law here, the designers' is; they design (and define) the game.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 21, 2012 - 5:00AM
#59
|
Date Joined:
Aug 28, 2005
|
I explained why it is.
And your explanation was not a good one.
Your opinion is not the law here, the designers' is; they design (and define) the game.
Contrary to popular belief, the designers do not get to redifine whatever terms they want willy-nilly and expect the fanbase to simply fall in line. Their marketing PR mumbo-jumbo is not law. That's like saying that George Lucas can just come out and say "I changed my mind; I don't like the name 'Han' anymore, so I want everybody to call him 'Marco Solo' now." and then expect that people will actually do that. No, it's not going to happen.
BUT AGAIN, this discussion is off topic. If you want to have it, PM me or start a different thread.
Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TMSpeaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 21, 2012 - 5:45AM
#60
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
This is incorrect.
No, it is not. Now, like I told Mand, if you want me to explain to you why you're wrong, then sent me a PM, because this thread does not need this off-topic discussion.
You keep repeating this, and apparently you haven't bothered to read any of the L&L articles that came out last winter, that I told you described their new philosophy of what core means.
Do I really need to link them for you?
And it's not off-topic. The entire point of this is to determine which classes we'd like to see get Official Stamp of Coreness Approval, and my answer is "none of them, because that's not what core means." That you don't like that answer is irrelevant.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
