|
7 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 12:15PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2001
|
As the title says. I'm not talking about the core rules as I am going with the assumption that the D&DN PHB will have 14 classes- the 11 3.5 ones, Warlords, Warlock and Assassin.
Anyhow how many classes do you feel D&D really needs and what type of classes do you think are stupid?
Classes we do not need IMHO.
Job/title descriptions.
An assassin would be one example although complaining about that one is pointless. I would include the Samurai as well (its a fighter) and Ninja (its a Rogue or fighter/Rogue) and Gladiator. 2nd ed got these ones right with kits IMHO. From 3.5 I would add the scout (Fighter/Ranger or Ranger/Rogue works) and Knight as well. Some of these classes are great as class varients that can be offered in splat books (PHB2, Complete Fighter Handbook, Complete Arcane, Martial Power, Advanced Players Guide type books).
Silly Classes.
A bit harder to define. The Mystic from 2nd ed, the 3.5 Dragon Shaman, Seeker from 4th ed. Not a massive fan of the Gunslinger in PF either (fighter with guns works, nope design a class for it). Often the name alone is silly odds are PCs almost never choose these classes or even know they exist (or care). I offer a virtual cookie to anyone who knows what 2nd ed book the mystic came from. Apologies to anyone else who likes these classes, just not my thing. Don't care to much if they turn up somewhere though. Doesn't float my boat, may float yours.
Classes that Are Obsoleted By Other Classes.
3.5 Samurai, Swashbuckler and Healer come to mind here. 4th ed offered the Runepriest which probably should have been a cleric varient.
Classes I Do like.
Gish type classes seem popular (Duskblade, Swordmage, Magus) although some can be covered by multiclassing they do offer stuff that Fighter/Wizards do not. I liked the Beguiler in 3.5 as well. I also liked classe that have been designed specifically for a setting such as the Gladiator in 2nd eds Darksun, Artificer in 3.5 Eberron, and Swordmage in 4th ed FR. As long as that class makes sense for the setting anyway. I also like Specialty Priests in 2nd ed espicially the ones in Faiths and Avatars, Powers and Pantheons and Demi Human Deities. New classes should be interesting and do something that is not easily covered by a varient of another class. New classes are kewl but we don't need 8 of them per year. IIRC 3.5 ended up with around 60 classes, IDK how many 4th ed has.
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
*pg 30, AD&D 2nd Ed DMG, 1989.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 12:17PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
N/A
The only time it becomes 'too many' is if the pagecount for the PHB grows to a point where manufacturing costs force an unacceptably high price point.
We could add all of the classes that the "Every Class Under The Sun" types are wanting, and still not hit it. If, of course, we pay attention to condensing the classes appropriately. 4e did a terrible job of this, Next is on a far better path.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 12:21PM
#3
|
|
|
While they are still playtesting I say get in as many classes as the devs can. If that means 50 classes sussed out during the playtest but they release them by 10 in 5 books, fine. Just as long as we can all really work out all the kinks whilst we are playtesting. Or at least work out as many of the kinks as possible. For me personally the way character creation works now I would be fine with four to six classes, but why not use us while they have us so to speak.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 12:27PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Dec 25, 2009
|
N/A
The only time it becomes 'too many' is if the pagecount for the PHB grows to a point where manufacturing costs force an unacceptably high price point.
We could add all of the classes that the "Every Class Under The Sun" types are wanting, and still not hit it. If, of course, we pay attention to condensing the classes appropriately. 4e did a terrible job of this, Next is on a far better path.
This.
There is no amount of classes that I feel is too many, unless the laws of physics intervene.
(for example, I don't have enough free time to read two million different classes.)
The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 12:31PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
42. By then you are seeking the question instead of the answer.
Magic Dual Color Test
Show
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 12:32PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
fewer classes, but much broader class customization.
we don't want 30 base classes in 3.5E that are cast in stone and to fix that they published 5 alternate class features for every class through 4234132 later source books.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 12:33PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Jun 29, 2010
|
Overall it doesn't matter. They can have eleventy-billion if people want that many. The only thing that I think bears direct relevance is core. Core needs to stay under 20ish or it just gets to be too much.
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.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 12:52PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2007
|
Anyhow how many classes do you feel D&D really needs and what type of classes do you think are stupid?
It depends on how Next is designing classes. Are they big and general, with a lot of options? Then 15 or even fewer classes might be all that is ever needed. If they are narrow and don't have a lot of class options, then more classes are needed. Either way is fine as long as the game mechanics are well written and work with that.
An assassin would be one example although complaining about that one is pointless.
For the most part I agree on taking out the job title classes. However, I might make an exception for assassin because there are a specific set of assassin abilities that don't fit well in rogue unless the class is pretty flexible. The assassin needs a much more hard hitting death strike ability then the skirmishing sneak attack that the rogue normally gets and a rather different set of associated skills and abilities to support it.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 12:54PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2012
|
I'm going with six. You have the core four, a bunch of sub-classes, and one more base class that I'm probably forgetting about. Six is too many.
The metagame is not the game.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 1:03PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
A question to the "core four" proponents:
Are you certain that these four are the best option for "core four" or could there be a better configuration?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
