Community

Oct 6, 2012 -- 6:33AM, Lokiron wrote:

What I mean specifically with the title question is, what concepts do you people feel are needed as separate classes, which are suficiently covered by specialties or domains/traditions/pacts/bloodlines/fighting styles whatever they're all called, and which concepts will be covered (sufficiently) by multiclassing, should that make it to the final release?

For instance: Is the paladin really needed, or is it enough to give a cleric specialty to a fighter (this is NOT my opinion regarding the paladin, btw)?

Is the bard needed (YES!! :P) or is it enough to swap out sneak attack with songs and pick Magic User for a rogue?

I myself am not certain what I think, but I would like to hear what you think in a thread covering all classes and needs for concept coverage.

8 classes: fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard, monk, psion, sorcerer, warlock.

Specialities: barbarian (fighter); warlord (fighter); paladin (fighter); bard (sorcerer); assassin (rogue); druid (cleric); battlemind (psion); ardent (psion)...

Actually that's just a thought not my personal taste, I could easily see warlock and sorcerer as specialities of wizard, but they have already made them as classes...

So there seems to be a pretty solid division between people saying, "We need this number of core classes and everything else can be achieved through backgrounds specialties and multi-classing"
And people saying, "Hey, these other classes have been around for a long time, we like it, why should it have to go?"

Why not have both? Distinctly divide the classes chapter into two sections. Open with
Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Bard, Wizard, Psion(?), and Druid(?).
Personally I think psion and druid should be in there. Make it clear that you have many options in multi-classing and specializing to get other ideas. Go on in the second section of the classes chapter which would be all about flavor and hybridization classes. In this section you get
-barbarian (fighter+ragemonster)
-swashbuckler (agile and quick fighter)
-monk (unarmed/unarmored fighter)
-warlord (kind of its own thing, but springboards best off of fighter concept)
-paladin (Fighter/Cleric)
-skald (fighter/bard, though I think bard can accomplish this on its own, more options can't really hurt and that's the whole point of this suggestion)
-some kind of battlemage (we've had swordmage, duskblade, bladesinger, whatever, it's Fighter+Wizard)
-battlemind (or psychic warrior, whatever, Battlemind is a better name, fighter+psion)
-warden (fighter+druid)
-assassin (rogue that kills people more)
-beguiler/spellthief (rogue/wizard)
-lurk (rogue/psion)
-ranger (rogue+druid)
-favored soul (spontaneous casting cleric)
-shaman (a more healing-oriented druid that would give up wildshape and animal companion for a more casting-based class)
-sorcerer (spontaneous wizard)
-warlock (wizard+pact magic)
-Ardent/Divine Mind? (healing psion)

(Bolded are the ones I think should DEFINITELY make the PHB)
 
Obviously that's a lot of classes and not nearly all of them would have to be in the Player's Handbook, but I think that's a pretty comprehensive class list that caters to both the people who want more and who want less. Honestly I put some in there that I find completely unnecessary because I'm sort of a middle ground. I don't want to see a return of ridiculously unnecessary copy-cat classes fighter/knight/samurai, but I do want to see a large list of options that function in very different ways.

How do you guys differentiate swordmage, duskblade, and warmage?

So far in DnD next I've created:
Race: Human
Class: Fighter
Style: Duelist
Specialty: Magic User
Background: Thief

Race: High Elf
Class: Fighter
Style: Sharpshooter
Specialty: Acolyte
Background: Spy

I see no reason to keep creating new classes like in previous editions.  Perhaps 10 total classes.
Add a subcategory to classes, new specialties, new backgrounds, and perhaps future added paths for all characters and you can customize your characters to much greater degree.