D&D General Tell me of "PHB" classes of prior eras!

[EzekielRaiden]

Pathfinder's Occult Adventures was also another one of PF1's 'PHBs', and their attempt to make psionics into another kind of magic. Psychic Magic.

Kineticist
Medium
Mesmerist
Occultist
Psychic

I'll really have to think on this. I don't really see Occult Adventures in the same light as the APG, and there's more than a little argument that several of these would have overlap with the 4e psionic classes, or other PF1e classes, anyway.* Doubly so given it came out in 2015, five years after the APG, which came out only a year after the core rulebook. Pushing things out that far starts to make things like its "Hybrid" classes arguably a "PHB" option as well, since they came out only a month after OA, which would balloon things out enormously.

I'm about 75% no at this point, but I'll keep thinking on it for now.

*Spiritualist is real similar to Summoner, for example. Like, "I can't believe it's not Summoner!" similar.

 

[Weiley31]

Was the Wiccan in Rules Cyclopedia or was it just the Shaman?

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

Was the Wiccan in Rules Cyclopedia or was it just the Shaman?

Yes, but it had been renamed the Wokan (plural Wokani) by then.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yes, but it had been renamed the Wokan (plural Wokani) by then.

In that case I will most likely use that name, and just append it to the existing Shaman option.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Alright. Having thought on things a little more, I will not be including the Pathfinder psionics classes, except possibly as folded into other options. I'll do a review of them to see what fits best where. As noted, Spiritualist maps pretty cleanly to Summoner-with-psychic-flavor. Kineticist would probably be Sorcerer, especially since it's very similar to the 4e Elementalist subclass from what I can tell.

Unless I get any further suggestions about missing options, I'll get the race started in the next few days.

 

[Zardnaar]

Alright. Having thought on things a little more, I will not be including the Pathfinder psionics classes, except possibly as folded into other options. I'll do a review of them to see what fits best where. As noted, Spiritualist maps pretty cleanly to Summoner-with-psychic-flavor. Kineticist would probably be Sorcerer, especially since it's very similar to the 4e Elementalist subclass from what I can tell.

Unless I get any further suggestions about missing options, I'll get the race started in the next few days.

3.5 PHB2 classes done? Beguiled, Duskblade iirc. Not sure what else was in that book.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

3.5 PHB2 classes done? Beguiled, Duskblade iirc. Not sure what else was in that book.

Yep, they're on the list. Beguiler merged with Illusionist because they're the same overall concept. Duskblade actually let me include classes like Magus and Swordmage that would have been excluded otherwise.

Also, since it might get lost in the previous post, basic rules are:

• Every entry starts with 10 points
• Each vote is +2 to one and -1 to another
• Entries cannot fall below 0, please downvote something else instead
• Finish line is 60 total votes, winners are removed from play
• Cutoff of the first 10 winners, remainder will rank based on total vote
• No new entries will be permitted once the race begins (that's why I made this thread)

For ancestries/lineages/races/origins/etc. and possibly backgrounds and maybe faiths/deities, I will do a similar 10 cutoff, with the idea of assembling an "Amazing Race Top Ten" proto-setting.

 

[Blue Orange]

BECMI Elf is basically a fighter/mage, Halfling is basically a fighter/thief, and Dwarf is basically a variant fighter FWIW.

 

[GuardianLurker]

I think you'd be better off running this as an "awesome classes per edition" series, and then running the winners against each other. For one thing, it will give you a much wider (and IMO, accurate) field to compete in. Artificer, for example is probably one of the more awesome classes in the 3.5 time frame. Ditto for the Tome of Battle classes. All are currently excluded from the field right now.

Also, while I understand the desire to reduce the number of entries down, the lumping seems very arbitrary. (Why is the Knight worthy of separation from the Fighter, Paladin, or Cavalier, for instance?) Moreover, if the lumping happens, it'd seem more accurate to lump newer into older, not older into newer, as earlier versions of a concept are more likely to be broader/rougher/less defined than later. Avoiding these issues would seem to be another argument in favor of a series of race heats as well.

Speaking to the arbitrariness, for instance, Beguiler is actually a Bard competitor, not an Illusionist one (at least as far as 3.5 goes). It pretty much shares the same relationship with Bard as the 1e Illusionist does with the 1e Magic-User. Another problem with the lumping is you run into the , "I enjoy playing the concept, but this version of it sucked, but this other version is the most awesome class I've ever seen." problem. As an example, I feel that the 3.5 Warlock -despite its problems - is actually superior to the 5e version, and that's after having seen both in long-term play. Contrariwise, from everything I've heard, the 4e Warlord was vastly superior to its 3.5 version, the Marshall.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think you'd be better off running this as an "awesome classes per edition" series, and then running the winners against each other. For one thing, it will give you a much wider (and IMO, accurate) field to compete in. Artificer, for example is probably one of the more awesome classes in the 3.5 time frame. Ditto for the Tome of Battle classes. All are currently excluded from the field right now.

I intend to do something of the kind eventually, both edition-specific and the follow-on "best in show." I just wanted to start with something that would bring everyone to the yard, as it were.

Also, while I understand the desire to reduce the number of entries down, the lumping seems very arbitrary. (Why is the Knight worthy of separation from the Fighter, Paladin, or Cavalier, for instance?) Moreover, if the lumping happens, it'd seem more accurate to lump newer into older, not older into newer, as earlier versions of a concept are more likely to be broader/rougher/less defined than later. Avoiding these issues would seem to be another argument in favor of a series of race heats as well.

I mean, in a sense it is. I'm actually combining Cavalier and Knight. I'm doing a bit of both older into newer and vice versa. It's not a science. It's not going to be pretty or clean. Should you have issues with my choices, once this thread has run its course, you are most certainly free to start your own that works in a way you would prefer, if you find my choices have biased or damaged the outcome.

Your other option, of course, is to participate and try to mitigate what faults you feel I have introduced.

Speaking to the arbitrariness, for instance, Beguiler is actually a Bard competitor, not an Illusionist one (at least as far as 3.5 goes). It pretty much shares the same relationship with Bard as the 1e Illusionist does with the 1e Magic-User. Another problem with the lumping is you run into the , "I enjoy playing the concept, but this version of it sucked, but this other version is the most awesome class I've ever seen." problem. As an example, I feel that the 3.5 Warlock -despite its problems - is actually superior to the 5e version, and that's after having seen both in long-term play. Contrariwise, from everything I've heard, the 4e Warlord was vastly superior to its 3.5 version, the Marshall.

And no matter what I do, someone will have a similar complaint in a different direction. I don't think it is productive to debate along such lines.

BECMI Elf is basically a fighter/mage, Halfling is basically a fighter/thief, and Dwarf is basically a variant fighter FWIW.

I'm aware. But they were in a PHB, and clearly carry an Identity and nature not present in any later rendition of such things. Hence, I feel I must include them.

I appreciate your feedback, genuinely, but these are all issues I was aware applied and am choosing to proceed as outlined. I cannot, even in principle, make a perfect slate. I can only hope that the one I make is sufficiently good.