April 3rd, Rule of 3

[I'm A Banana]

Your premise is faulty.

That's not my premise, that's me explaining why the idea that worrying first about the "core four" classes isn't really a problem. Folks said it was. The only time I could think of that it was was in 3e, where we had classes like the Swashbuckler ("Like the Fighter, but sucks more").

Is there another point at which people think designing the "core four" classes first hurt the game? Certainly pre-3e didn't have that problem (quite the reverse actually, new classes tended to be MORE powerful than before). If 3e didn't have that problem, either, then I guess, well, we've never had that problem? So then the fear is also unfounded in that way?

 

[BobTheNob]

Oh Doom, Oh Gloom! He said the exact things I would expect someone in his position to say.

Well thats it, Im out....

No wait. Im an adult and fully understand that everything he said is reflective of an early stage development where ideas are still on the board. Im not out, its even ridiculous to speculate at this stage. Sheesh, divining that the game is going to suck based on early stage vague references? Really?

 

[gyor]

Actually I prefered 3.x Sorceror with a good prestige class over a wizard, I just liked the flexible casting mechanic better.

As for outside the four cores of class and race, they seem to have a basic idea of how they want to approach each class, its just not nearly fleshed out yet, unlike the core four. The core four allows them to test out the core mechanics and most of thier basic systems like,spellcasting. Once the core system is figured out and tested fleshing out the rest of the classes and races will be easier.

 

[KesselZero]

Still pretty darn excited about the whole adventure-focus-not-encounter-focus thing. He hit the right notes (for me) with the bit about making exploration more meaningful.

 

[Dausuul]

That's not my premise, that's me explaining why the idea that worrying first about the "core four" classes isn't really a problem. Folks said it was. The only time I could think of that it was was in 3e, where we had classes like the Swashbuckler ("Like the Fighter, but sucks more").

Ah, okay. Although that's happened in other editions, too. Think of the specialty priests from 2E's "Complete Priest's Handbook," widely held to be utter weaksauce.

But I agree that it's fine to start with the "basic four" and build on that. We know they're going to have somewhere between 14 and 22 classes in the core PHB, depending on how liberally they interpret "every class that's been in a PHB1," and I'm sure those will get their share of playtesting. But you have to start somewhere.

 

[gyor]

22?

1 Barbarian
2 Bard
3 Cleric
4 fighter
5 wizard
6 Priest
7 Paladin
8 Assassin
9 Rogue
10 Psion
11 Ranger
12 Druid
13 Illusionist
14 Sorceror
15 Monk
16 Warlock
17 Warlord

What classes am I missing to get to 22?

 

[Dausuul]

22?

1 Barbarian
2 Bard
3 Cleric
4 fighter
5 wizard
6 Priest
7 Paladin
8 Assassin
9 Rogue
10 Psion
11 Ranger
12 Druid
13 Illusionist
14 Sorceror
15 Monk
16 Warlock
17 Warlord

What classes am I missing to get to 22?

As I said, it depends on how liberally you interpret "every class":

18 Necromancer
19 Diviner
20 Conjurer
21 Enchanter
22 Invoker
23 Abjurer
24 Transmuter

(I forgot the priest from my own count. What PHB1 did psion appear in?)

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I am sure, a psion is not in any PHB1, but there are 7 more wizard variants.

 

[Knight Templar]

Still one short, the psion was never in a true PHB.

 

[Steely_Dan]

22?

1 Barbarian
2 Bard
3 Cleric
4 fighter
5 wizard
6 Priest
7 Paladin
8 Assassin
9 Rogue
10 Psion
11 Ranger
12 Druid
13 Illusionist
14 Sorceror
15 Monk
16 Warlock
17 Warlord

What classes am I missing to get to 22?

Technically Psion has never been a class in a PHB 1.