• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

So what races and classes do we consider core?

drothgery

First Post
I realize my belief that each class should do one thing, and do it well -- and that a moderate to high number of more specific classes is better than a lot of flexible ones -- isn't a common viewpoint here, but still...

Races - all the 3.x races

Classes -
martial: fighter, rogue, ranger [as per the HoFK hunter], warlord
divine: paladin, monk, druid [as per core PH3 druid], cleric
arcane: swordmage, sorcerer, wizard, bard

notes here:
1 - I realize this is blatant grid-filling. If anything like 4e combat roles and power sources persist, WotC will almost certainly do it anyway in the long run, so let's take care of it from the start.
2 - I believe monks in D&D have always had a very divine-ish flavor, even if they've always had martial movie-ish abilities. Hence a better candidate for the divine striker than the avenger (kind of cool, but no traction), blackguard (evil-tolerant classes shouldn't be in core), or inventing something new.
3 - Druids go back to their divine roots. Yes, that makes the 'no divine in Dark Sun' thing harder. And I like invokers, too. But druids are still the best traditional D&D class for a divine controller.
4 - Rangers get the archer schtick.
5 - I think warlords really have caught on, even if some people don't like them.
6 - And swordmages cover a fantasy archetype that D&D was missing a good class for pre-4e.

No Epic in the initial rulebook. I realize that some people really like Epic stuff, but starting from first level, playing almost every week, and leveling up every four sessions... and you take almost two years to reach Epic.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

The Core Races, as of a beginner Box level ought to be:

Humans
Dwarves
Elves
Halflings

Fighter
Rogue
Cleric
Wizard

If it were to expand to Core rulebook status, I would like, the same four core races*, and the following classes:

Barbarian
Bard
Cleric
Druid
Fighter
Monk
Paladin
Ranger
Rogue
Sorcerer**
Wizard
Witch**

* With a development that allowed you to expand your options with any humanoid taken from the Monster Manuals, without all the complications. If a player and DM agree to be able to play Centaurs, Orcs or Goblins using the data found in a Monster Manual, then there should be the mechanism to allow players to do so.

** An under-represented classic fantasy archetype in D&D. Lots of fantasy tales could revolve around Witches as a class - and yet they've never been a core class! You could give them a Hex-based magical style and familiars and the like. Sorcerers could be made an alternative spell-casting style to Wizards again, but I would like to see them expanded into the equivalent of an Elric style Sorcerer, which is probably closer to a Sword-Mage or Warlock in effect.

I don't want to see a bunch of non-archetypal classes that are just made up to suit a particular playstyle, and I want to see a move away from classifying the Classes into subclasses or uberclasses, as I feel they've already been Classified enough!Ditch the Power-Source and Combat Roles!!
 
Last edited:



Anselyn

Explorer
Core Races:
Human
Elf
Dwarf
Halfling

Core Classes:
4 Super-classes: Fighter, Cleric, Magic-User, Rogue
Pull in sub-classes, 1 classic role by default, 2 alternate role sub-classes

Super-Class: Fighter
- default sub-class: Slayer (striker)

Super-Class: Cleric
- default sub-class: Warpriest (leader)

Super-Class: Magic-User
- default sub-class: Wizard (controller)

Super-Class: Rogue
- default sub-class: Thief (striker)

Those defaults are true to the classics. Other classic classes like Ranger, Bard, Rogue, and Paladin fall under alternate sub-classes of those super-classes. It also leaves room for good modern evolution like the Warlord (Fighter-Leader), Sorcerer/Warmage (Magic-User Striker), or Invoker (Cleric Controller of Fire-and-Brimstone).

- Marty Lund

This looks right to me. The core classes and races have to be things that are clear differentiable things when viewed with the complexity dial set to a minimum.

If the list has white elves, green elves and black elves then you're assuming I'm going to be using the optional elf-flavour button - and I'm not.

Also, all these suggestions about orcs, goliaths (don't even know what they are - do they hunt young shepherd boys for a living?), tieflings. Guys, these are monsters. If you want to get back to the soul of D&D; these are things you go out and kill/stymie. It's some sort of fancy advanced play to want to be a monster.

More seriously, any race that assumes connection with other planes or has angelic connections (etc.) starts to stamp assumptions about the game world on the core game. Now, personally, I wouldn't want those assumptions stamped across my complexity-zero toolkit. However, I can imagine that WoTC might want to inject some of these things to lock them to their IP.
 

This looks right to me. The core classes and races have to be things that are clear differentiable things when viewed with the complexity dial set to a minimum.

If the list has white elves, green elves and black elves then you're assuming I'm going to be using the optional elf-flavour button - and I'm not.

Also, all these suggestions about orcs, goliaths (don't even know what they are - do they hunt young shepherd boys for a living?), tieflings. Guys, these are monsters. If you want to get back to the soul of D&D; these are things you go out and kill/stymie. It's some sort of fancy advanced play to want to be a monster.

More seriously, any race that assumes connection with other planes or has angelic connections (etc.) starts to stamp assumptions about the game world on the core game. Now, personally, I wouldn't want those assumptions stamped across my complexity-zero toolkit. However, I can imagine that WoTC might want to inject some of these things to lock them to their IP.

I find it curious that you say that about the Races (and I agree!), but find the Class list palatable. Like I said before, I am sick of seeing Classes being Classified some more. The simplest way of presenting Classes is to just list the Classes - and let people work out for themselves what sort of "Role" they are going to play with it.
 

I think these responses tell us quite conclusively that if WotC goes any further than like Human, Dwarf, Elf... then a lot of people are gonna be pissed.

Not so sure about that. If you're an old school 1st edition player, late 2nd or 3rd edition player, where's the Half-Orc? I'm 41 and have been playing since '82. The Half-Orc was easily as iconic as the Half-Elf. I know all the politics of removing it in the early 2nd edition but that didn't last long.

It occurs to me that if WotC are going for a 'One Version To Rule Them All', then it wouldn't hurt to start with all the options one would have to choose from in the 1st edition as a base.

Humans
Elves
Halflings
Half-Elves
Half-Orcs
Gnomes
Dwarves

Throw in some of the more popular races since the 2nd edition...

Planetouched (make them customizable so you get your Tieflings, Genasi, and Aasimar/Devas).
Dragonborn
Warforged
Shifter

I would also add that I have a strong preference for an organic approach to psionics. Make it part of the core and expand it in later tomes. With that in mind, either plug in the Kalashtar or create a new core race to focus on psionics.

As far as classes go...

Fighter
Wizard
Cleric
Rogue
Ranger

Those plus whatever basic psionic class you can craft would be a nice place to start. Call it Psion for the nonce and go with it.

Now, where does that leave us? A base, that's all. We can toss the kitchen sink in but I don't think we have to worry about giving folks TOO much. That was one of the most enjoyable aspects of 3/3.5E, I thought. The choices just kept on getting larger and larger. My players loved it and frankly so did I. Heck, I loved it when, in 2E, the leatherbound splats came out. More choices there, too.

Now...if you really want to have fun, make the 'iconic psionic race' the Modron.

I'd pay good money for that.
 

Spatula

Explorer
Races: Human, dwarf, elf, hobbit, goliath

I think that covers the physical archtypes pretty well. I suppose you could swap out goliath for half-orc or orc, but... I feel like there should be something new in there. Maybe dragonborn, although that will needlessly antagonize some folks.

Classes:
Fighter, Ranger, Warlord, Thief
Wizard, Sorcerer, Bard
Cleric, Paladin

Basically I would take the 3e PHB classes and replace barbarian with warlord.
 

the Jester

Legend
I could live with the "four core" classes and races:

Human
Elf
Dwarf
Halfling

Fighter
Cleric
Wizard
Rogue

Please, let's not have generic races in setting-specific books. No gnomes in the FR book- I do not want to buy any FR books. I am totally fine with a Darksun book being where you find thri-kreen and a Nentir Vale book being where you find dragonborn, though.
 

noretoc

First Post
Races:
Eladrin
Drow
Dragonborn
Created
Tiefling

We want the races people are going to want to play.

Classes
Warrior - Classic
Warlock - Magic
Psion - Psionics
Ninja - Cause they are awesome.
 

Remove ads

Top