So what races and classes do we consider core?

[Pilgrim]

For Core, I think 2E hit a nice starting spot.

Core Races: Human, Elf (various), Dwarf (various), Halfling (various, and bring back the damn chubby ones, not the anorexic looking mini-elf ones), Half-elf, Half-Orc, Gnome (though I wouldn't be to bothered if there were a Lizardman/Dragonborn -ish type tossed in also for those wanting a core non-standard)

Core Classes: Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, Cleric, Druid, Wizard, Specialist Wizard, Thief (not rogue), Bard and toss in the Barbarian.

Then add Modular Optional Races and Classs for those that want something else.

 

[Jon_Dahl]

Custom Class.

Maybe not in Core, but IMO we need an official Custom Class. There are already lot of home-brew out there for EVERY edition. It's an undeniable truth that people want their own classes.

It should be like the class customization from AD&D 2nd edition Player's Option, but much better balanced.

These custom classes should not be able challenge any class in their roles but merely offer an option to those who want to customize. For optimization the core classes should be the best option.

 

[frankthedm]

Are you hoping for a classless 5E?

No. Part of the importance of character classes is they guard against making characters that are too lopsided. There are FAR fewer guarantees in what a classless character can do with X number sessions worth of XP than a classed character can do with X number worth of XP.

Lets say every session gives three points of "build potency". In classless you get to put that in Offense or Defense in any amount. In Class based it is more structured, with one point going into offense and defense, with the other point being the players choice.

Gufus in Classless winds up with 30 offense and no defense, while his pal Galant winds up with 30 Defense and no offense. Whatever they fight, Galant will be impervious but probably won't be having much fun since he can't harm anything. Gufus will be having fun making things go SPLAT, but will be crippled or killed frequently depending on the system's lethality level.

Gufus in Class based winds up with 20 offense and 10 defense, while his pal Galant Winds up with 20 Defense and 10 offense. They still are loop sided but at least there is a greater likelihood what can Challenge one, won't instantly kill or be impervious to the other.

 

[HeinorNY]

Humans
Elves
Dwarves
Gnomes
Halfling
Orcs
Trolls
Tauren
Undead
Goblin

 

[Jawsh]

That's a possibility. But I'd definitely rather they do a smaller number of things 'right' than try to do too much and fail to cover most of it adequately - I think it was a mistake to include Epic material in the 4e PHB1, for instance, given how little they could include.

Since I'm also very much in favour of a smaller core game, and indeed a single Core Rulebook, that suggests going for a smaller set of classes. They can, of course, quickly expand the roster via DDI and/or supplements.

I think it's pretty well established in any edition that the publisher can sell a pretty big number of Class books. Sword and Fist, Complete Warrior, Complete Champion, Martial Power... After the Core Rules, these are usually the next best sellers.

Given that each class is likely to have that sort of treatment in a supplement, I think it makes sense to leave the Core Rules version very bare-bones. Playable, of course, but only just. Proceed with the assumption that players who want a deeper experience with a given class will invest in its splatbook anyways. (Meanwhile, as in 4E, find a way to give the players the material online somehow, so no one has to buy an entire splatbook for just one feat or build they really want.)

The alternative would be to produce multiple themed Player's Handbooks. Fewer but beefier classes in each PH. Which they tried, in 4E. I wouldn't be able to say whether that particular strategy was successful or not.

Speaking for myself, as to what I want, I want more options. I want twenty races and twenty classes in the PH, each with rather short descriptions. I feel like if I really want depth, I can do it with houserules and homebrew.

 

[RHGreen]

Definite Core Races:

Human
Dwarf (Don't bother with Dark/Hill/Mountain ect - what's the point they're all the same.)
Elf (with customization/specialization options to Wood/High/Drow - that can be done with feat like options, but can only choose one group)
Halfling (Don't bother with Burfoot, etc, etc - what's the point they're all the same.)

I like, but I'd understand if they weren't core core:

Half-elf
Half-orc

Non-core but quickly supported:

Gnome
Dragonborn
Tiefling

I don't like these races, but some do, and I can't be bothered with "I want my Gnome!" stuff on the boards so I think they should be catered for (and why not - it's your game too) - but they definitely aren't core. I like the Half-Orc and Half-Elf but I'm willing to make a compromise. Keep the Gnome, Dragonborn and Tiefling out of the core and I will not complain when they keep out Half-Orcs and Half-Elves.

 

[delericho]

I think it's pretty well established in any edition that the publisher can sell a pretty big number of Class books. Sword and Fist, Complete Warrior, Complete Champion, Martial Power... After the Core Rules, these are usually the next best sellers.

A bit less true in 4e. Actually, a lot less true in 4e - the DDI basically ripped the heart out of splatbook sales. However, since the DDI itself can pick up the slack, that doesn't negate the rest of your points.

Given that each class is likely to have that sort of treatment in a supplement, I think it makes sense to leave the Core Rules version very bare-bones. Playable, of course, but only just. Proceed with the assumption that players who want a deeper experience with a given class will invest in its splatbook anyways.

This may be one of the big issues WotC face with 'reunification', but this is the absolute opposite of what I want. Pre-4e, I found that the splatbooks most often made the game considerably worse, as material outside the core wasn't playtested enough and so was too strong, too weak or (most commonly) conditionally broken depending on whether the Character Optimisation boards had found a hack.

4e didn't have this problem to the same extent, because of the ease of errata/revisions. Unfortunately, those same errata/revisions were a major stumbling block for me with 4e. Also, the game very rapidly suffered from option bloat.

My strong preference is to play "Core Rules Only". I don't expect that to change. So, I want those core rules to provide a smallish set of well-developed options - I only need 4-8 classes, but I want several options within those classes.

The alternative would be to produce multiple themed Player's Handbooks. Fewer but beefier classes in each PH. Which they tried, in 4E. I wouldn't be able to say whether that particular strategy was successful or not.

I like the Pathfinder model: a reasonable set of fully-detailed classes in the Core, then another 6 fully detailed classes in the APG, and then the "Ultimate..." books each with a few more fully-detailed classes. (3.5e had much the same idea, but a different order: PHB, then "Complete...", then PHB2.)

I think it is important to note that any class that isn't in the Core simply will not get the same support as the core classes. This was particularly note-worthy in 4e with Wizards, which seemed to get a huge amount of support. Therefore, if you are going to introduce classes outwith the core, it's probably important to fully-detail them at the outset, so that people aren't scabbling around for scraps of support later. (It would be nice to think that new classes would get proper ongoing support... but the reality is that they just won't. That's just economics at work - almost everyone can use support for the Core, but a relatively small subset can use support for their own favoured supplements.)

 

[Desdichado]

Speaking for myself, as to what I want, I want more options. I want twenty races and twenty classes in the PH, each with rather short descriptions. I feel like if I really want depth, I can do it with houserules and homebrew.

Me too.

Although I have to wonder--is it too radical a notion to not ask people what they think the core races and classes should be, but instead ask what races and classes that they've played, and base the core races and classes of the "new iteration" on the results of that poll?

If everyone says--for example--that the gnome has to be a core race, but we find that gnome playing is a paltry fraction of a single percentage point--wouldn't it be smarter to ignore the (admittedly loud) voices that call for gnome inclusion in favor of something that people are actually more willing to use?

Although they're not traditional per se, I bet we'd find that the Dragonborn and Tieflings were actually pretty popular additions to the game; quite possibly more popular than other sacred cows that have hung out because of reluctance to buck tradition. Same could be true across classes.

Arguably 4e did that, and arguably WotC fell on their face with it, but I'd say that that's a problem with execution and communication, not with the fact that they did it in the first place. If they'd come forward in an open manner before release and said, "hey, folks, market research suggests that such and such alternative races/classes are extremely popular and such and such core races/classes hardly get any play at all, so here's what we're going to do--craft a race and class list that is more based around what people like playing than around a traditional list that is included just because. But don't worry, folks! If you're one of the fans of the race/class that polled poorly, you'll still get a chance to use them when we release such and such supplement that will include lower tier race/class options." I think that would have gone over a lot better than the way that tieflings and dragonborns replaced gnomes, which came across as slightly condescending and "dictate from on high" rather than, "WotC has their finger on the pulse of their market." Even if it turns out to be so that they did.

 

[Jawsh]

I think it is important to note that any class that isn't in the Core simply will not get the same support as the core classes.

Wouldn't that kind of support my desire for twenty(-ish) classes in Core?

This was particularly note-worthy in 4e with Wizards, which seemed to get a huge amount of support.

I think the problem with 4E was the classes that didn't have roots in fantasy archetypes. Designers have a built-in appreciation for the archetype of the Wizard, therefore they write more for it. Players have a built-in appreciation for the archetype of the Wizard, therefore they select it when creating new characters, and choose to read or purchase books and articles about it.

Therefore, if you are going to introduce classes outwith the core, it's probably important to fully-detail them at the outset, so that people aren't scabbling around for scraps of support later.

Perhaps. Or perhaps another word for scrabble is demand, which drives WotC to put effort into that support material, and results in higher quality.

(It would be nice to think that new classes would get proper ongoing support... but the reality is that they just won't. That's just economics at work - almost everyone can use support for the Core, but a relatively small subset can use support for their own favoured supplements.)

I think it's true that some classes get better support, and I think that's because they deserve it, because some archetypes are more suitable than others. I don't think the runepriest, battlemind, warden, or seeker deserve support. However, I think the assassin, swashbuckler, psion, and scout should and would get support.

 

[DEFCON 1]

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?...

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

Why are you 'not so sure about that'? You don't think some people aren't going to be annoyed if half-orcs are put in as a "core" race? Take a look at the responses people have been giving. Most people are not including the half-orc as part of the "core".

And if they 'throw in' the dragonborn or warforged into the so-called 'core' set like you recommend... you can read many of the responses right here that say that they WILL be pissed off.

The human, dwarf, and elf are the only three that are appearing on almost all of the lists, and thus are the only three that would not generate "Wait, you included X race but not Y?!?" comments and complaints from people when the book was released.