So what races and classes do we consider core?

[IanB]

Something like tieflings wouldn't bother me but I think would be better handled as an overlay or template of some kind than as a race apart.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Races:
Eladrin
Drow
Dragonborn
Created
Tiefling

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

According to some article I read on enworld in the last week or so, market research has identified that the vast bulk of gamers choose from just these four core races: Human, Dwarf, Elf, Halfling. If you want to stick to the Races that people want to play, then apparently these are the ones.

 

[Anselyn]

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.

You're quite right. If default sub-class means "in there from the start" then that's not the bottom setting for the complexity. I want the really pruned top list.

I also agree that successive levels of class classification while trying to give meaningful difference is just bloat to keep designers busy and sales ticking over. The alternative way to play silly games here is to have a design space you feel you need to fill whether the old cosmology giving modrons or a new play space of roles and power sources.

While I see your point about self-defined roles, presumably emergent from some skills and feats (?). I think some good points have previously been made (by RSD?) that the game needs to allow the occasional player to quickly and easily drop into a game w/o a large overhead of preparation time. So, I think some pre-designed character kits/archetypes using the toolset are usefull. Now, they might end up being the barbarian fighter, the woodsman/ranger, etc.

 

[Stormonu]

Core Races
Dwarf
Elf
Human
Halfling

(Expanded - I'd be disappointed if these weren't in the base 5E book)
Dragonborn
Gnome
Half-Orc/Orc
Tiefling

Core Classes
Cleric
Fighter
Thief
Wizard

(Expanded - Would really like to see them included)
Barbarian
Bard
Crusader/Avenger (a paladin that doesn't have to be LG)
Druid
Ranger
Sorcerer
Specialist Wizard
Warlock
Warlord

(Wouldn't mind seeing later on)
Cavalier
Monk
Ninja
Samurai

What I'd really like to see is the four "base" classes, with most of the other classes being built by tacking on options to the core class.

Want a "Fighter's" Fighter? Give him the Combat Specialist Talent tree and Armored Warrior Talent tree.

Want a Barbarian? Give him the "savage" background, the Rage Talent tree and Durability Talent tree.

Want a Warlock? Give him the Pact Magic Source/Tree and Enhanced Focus Talent (smaller spell selection traded for more often use of spells).

 

[Anselyn]

According to some article I read on enworld in the last week or so, market research has identified that the vast bulk of gamers choose from just these four core races: Human, Dwarf, Elf, Halfling. If you want to stick to the Races that people want to play, then apparently these are the ones.

Yeah. I saw that too and was going to quote it but can't remember where I saw it. I think 75% of players play those races?

So what %age of player standard choices do you need to hit with inner-core rules to have a sensible ruleset 90%, 95%, 99%? There's clearly an optimum point that keeps the rule book a sensible, readable, accessible, affordable size while pleasing a sufficiently large fraction of players.

 

[Ahnehnois]

PC Races:

Human
Elf
Dwarf
Halfling

Base Classes:

Fighter
Rogue
Mage
Cleric
Druid
Ranger
Bard

 

[TwinBahamut]

No matter what you call it, there's going to be some stuff that goes in the Player's Handbook, and some stuff that doesn't. What goes in, will be effectively "core" on account of everybody gets it when they buy the book.

Even if nothing is core, some things will be more not-core than others.

I honestly do question this. I've often wondered if the PHB system was the best model for D&D. Certainly, the entire concept of "dials" they're advertising for 5E is a very different paradigm than what has come before, and it might require an equally different method of presentation.

Imagine a system where there are multiple PHBs that contain entirely different content, but could each independently serve as a "core rulebook" that contains all the rules you would need for a game of D&D. For example, a classic D&D book with a number of the usual races and classes, an alternate rulebook with a much more exotic set of races and classes, and a "modern D&D" book that contained rules for modern play that was 100% compatible with medieval fantasy D&D, with each book containing all the rules it needs to serve as a player's first D&D book. Such a system would be really interesting for a lot of reasons, and it would dodge most of the problems of establishing a "core".

Anyway, I think you're wildly wrong on the reason for the 4E/Pathfinder split. I'm of the "core only" or "core mostly" school, but I switched to 4E. Conversely, many of the folks who stuck with 3E did so because they didn't want to invalidate their giant libraries of 3E material--implying they had a use for that material.

I'll accept that as a possibility. Still, it does strike me that 4E really evolved out of many of the later 3.5 supplements like Tome of Battle that many "core only" players openly despised, while Pathfinder actually embraces a lot of the rhetoric of those disagreements (such as making a formal distinction between core classes and base classes in its terminology).

Certainly, I myself was a "abandon the core" player in the late 3E era, and moved on to greatly prefer 4E's ideals over Pathfinder's. It might be a mistake to think that others were like that, though.

 

[Desdichado]

I'm not a fan of the Tolkienian races myself, and while I admit that my feelings in this regard are not probably the most common, I also think that they're not that radical either--I very frequently run across folks who despise elves, halflings, dwarves, gnomes, etc.

My homebrew setting has humans, tieflings, fire genasi, shifters, shadar-kai and Neanderthals as starting races, basically. Although I've renamed and reskinned (slightly) some of them.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Base Classes:

Fighter
Rogue
Mage
Cleric
Druid
Ranger
Bard

There is actually a strong argument about having an all inclusive Mage Class (akin to the old 'Magic-User'). First of all it is actually a broad Classification in the same way that 'Fighter' or 'Rogue' is, rather than an Archetype (the equivalent of Wizard to a Fighter would be a Warrior, really). Secondly, by having a broad classification it actually accounts for a wide variety of archetypes - including Wizards, Sorcerers, and Witches (which I wish could be incorporated back into a core class).

 

[Ahnehnois]

There is actually a strong argument about having an all inclusive Mage Class (akin to the old 'Magic-User'). First of all it is actually a broad Classification in the same way that 'Fighter' or 'Rogue' is, rather than an Archetype (the equivalent of Wizard to a Fighter would be a Warrior, really). Secondly, by having a broad classification it actually accounts for a wide variety of archetypes - including Wizards, Sorcerers, and Witches (which I wish could be incorporated back into a core class).

I would be quite happy to see the wizard, sorcerer, witch, warlock, and various other arcane classes all in the game with separate flavor.

I would also happy to see many other expansions to the core.

But I think the really important thing is that there is at least one dedicated arcane class.