Community

Oct 6, 2012 -- 8:22AM, The_Jester wrote:

Anything that has been in the game for four or more editions simply has to be in 5e. Period. It's part of the game now and conciousness of the game. 
Anything that has been in the game for three editions should be strongly considered or included as a very visible sub-option. 
Anything that has been in the game for two editions should be carefully examined and seen if it overlaps or stands on its own. If it has value it can stay.
Anything that has been in the game for one editon needs to justify its existance. It needs to be unique and different and fill a niche that is hard to fill otherwise. It it doesn't stand alone it can be used as inspiration for bolstering or improving other options. 

Examples
Warlord. It's kinda been around for two editons if you count the marshal. But it overlaps a lot with the fighter in both cases, and really exists because early 4e had firm roles for classes. It can be used as a fighter build nicely, identified as the warlord build. Which gives warlord fans a class they can play while keeping the fighter interesting and unique while also giving it more options. 

Battlemind. Terrible disparity between flavour and mechanics. Exists as a grid-filler class, the defender role using psionic power. Has nothing in common with 3e version (psychic warrior) save the power source. Can go away. 

Warlock. Has been around for two editions. Pretty much just a wizard with variant spellcasting system. But the flavour is strong and the story is unique to that class. It really works and is a solid additon. It stays. 

Assassin. Has been in three editions, being a Prestige Class in 3e. So it should probably show-up somewhere, either as a class or a shadow-focused build of the thief. Or, my personal preference, merging with the ninja so it's a bit of both. Shadow power and the ki/martial arts of the ninja. 

Tieflings. They've been around for three editions. And they're unique and interesting. They stay. 

Eladrin. Pretty much "high elves for a game without subraces", designed and added to the game under the idea that it was confusing to have two different types of elves in the Core rules. But... the idea of this progenitor elven people who continue to live in the Feywild/Faerie is cool. They're not a Core race per se but worthy of inclusion in later books. Keep them.

I agree with most except for the Warlord. It is definitely separate enough from the Fighter to be its own class, as the thread dedicated to it has shown. 

Oct 6, 2012 -- 9:42AM, The_Jester wrote:

Oct 6, 2012 -- 9:05AM, Samrin wrote:

I agree with most except for the Warlord. It is definitely separate enough from the Fighter to be its own class, as the thread dedicated to it has shown. 

The fact that there's an entire thread for just the warlord suggests it's inclusion should not be automatc, that its inclusion is debatable. Unlike the swordmage or artificer, which don't have their own threads.

Personally,  while I love me some support classes, and really like the warlord. But when I try and think of an offensive or defensive warlord all I see is a fighter. When I think of a leader-build of the fighter, the warlord pops up. And the CS mechanic lends itself very, very well to the warlord. Spending dice to grant extra actions or bonuses to hit or extra damage. 

The problem is, if it isn't a class, it will not be a complete warlord. It will be a watered down shell of its former self. The Fighter doesn't need to be stretched that thin. It will also be sort of a middle finger to the 4e fans, as the Warlord is probably one of the most universall beloved classes from that edition. It defines everything we love about the game.

Oct 6, 2012 -- 10:30AM, Salla wrote:

What classes does Next need?  None.
What classes it will have is another matter altogether.

Great addition to the discussion.