D&D 2E As a strategy 4e or 2e on classes

[drothgery]

I'm in the 'lots of classes' camp. Even if it means putting some more niche concepts off to later books (granted, if WotC asked me, they'd basically be making 4.5 with Epic chopped out and more 3.x-esque flavor).

 

[CM]

Classes, classes, for the love of Pelor, CLASSES!

Must spread xp...

 

[El Mahdi]

I like: More classes and fewer and less reliance on themes and backgrounds.

My reasoning is that a class can carve out the niche feel of an archetype better than a basic class and themes/backgrounds. And themes/backgrounds can add that little bit to make an archetypal class unique for each player, or give a PC of one class a little taste of another.

I think relying on themes and backgrounds for the lions share of character differentiation (as opposed to classes) means that the end products end up being things completely unrecognizable in an archetypal manner, and at the same time all characters end up looking the same.

 

[Viking Bastard]

My reasoning is that a class can carve out the niche feel of an archetype better than a basic class and themes/backgrounds.

I agree and that's why I dislike having too many classes. A class is something I should get a very clear idea what it is by it's name, concept-wise. So I don't mind a fair amount of niche classes like Sorcerors, Warlocks, Assassins, etc. But what is a Runepriest? Or a Soulknife? Or the other multitudes of classes people reference around here from books I don't own.

 

[TerraDave]

5E should have enough classes.

Enough in the core for most gamers, and enough in other supplements for those that want them.

And no more.

 

[the Jester]

What I think we don't need is a bunch of classes that fill space already represented by other classes; if a class can't have a distinct identity, I think focusing on building it with a base class theme and background is better.

(For example, I really think the swordmage archetype is better served by a fighter/wizard [or ranger/wizard or fighter/sorcerer or... etc], or the swashbuckler archetype by some combination of rogue, fighter and ranger; otherwise there is too much overlap. The base system's classes should support such archetypes without needing artificial classes to patch the holes [see the 3e swashbuckler, beguiler, etc.- I have been told the Book of Nine Swords was especially egregious in that it made the fighter obsolete, but don't know that first hand].)

 

[drothgery]

What I think we don't need is a bunch of classes that fill space already represented by other classes; if a class can't have a distinct identity, I think focusing on building it with a base class theme and background is better.

(For example, I really think the swordmage archetype is better served by a fighter/wizard [or ranger/wizard or fighter/sorcerer or... etc], or the swashbuckler archetype by some combination of rogue, fighter and ranger; otherwise there is too much overlap. The base system's classes should support such archetypes without needing artificial classes to patch the holes [see the 3e swashbuckler, beguiler, etc.- I have been told the Book of Nine Swords was especially egregious in that it made the fighter obsolete, but don't know that first hand].)

The thing is that the multi-classing approach has never given us a good and balanced fighter-mage. We had the one that was way better than a fighter or a mage in 1e and 2e (the balancing factors being largely irrelevant), the one that was way worse than a fighter or mage in 3e (even if you were very careful and took 'patch' prestige classes), and the one that was either not much of a fighter or not much of a mage (4e multiclassing); the only multiclass version that's not horribly imbalanced is a 4e hybrid (though it's on the weak side because there's little synergy).

 

[Tallifer]

Option # 3: Lots of classes, sub-classes and prestige classes; lots of themes and backgrounds; plenty of feat trees, domains, schools, alternate class features, builds, powers, paragon paths and epic destinies.

If the game is going to be modular, the core can be relatively simple, but they can add tons of extra stuff through the Dragon Magazine and supplemental books.

 

[El Mahdi]

I agree and that's why I dislike having too many classes. A class is something I should get a very clear idea what it is by it's name, concept-wise. So I don't mind a fair amount of niche classes like Sorcerors, Warlocks, Assassins, etc. But what is a Runepriest? Or a Soulknife? Or the other multitudes of classes people reference around here from books I don't own.

Well, despite a Runepriest or Soulknife not being archetypal character classes, they do appeal to a significant portion of the D&D fanbase. They definitely have an obvious Gamist aspect to them, and may appeal to many Gamist players. But, even though not archetypal or Gamist influenced, they may still appeal to Narrativist gamers, and even Simulationist gamers. I know I prefer my games to be archetypal, but others enjoy taking Fantasy to new places not explored before (in fiction or in games). So, there is definitely a market for it. Genre is definitely not restricted to specific playstyles. But, I do think that "Core" should be restricted to the more archetypal characters. Especially as polling seems to show that they are the most popular. But it's not a dealbreaker for me if classes like Runepriests and Soulknifes are included. Even if they end up in a core book, I can simply ignore them or exclude them from my games.

Also, classes like that give RPG companies product ideas to expand into and produce beyond just the archetypal sources, generating more revenue for the company. I think most people would agree that a game company being able to stay in business, is good for both the company and the hobbies' fans.





*(I know...some DM's seem to have problems with some players raising hell about DM's limiting what they can play. I'm up front with the players in my group that I limit material based on the campaign, and have never had a problem with anyone over this. However, if I did, I'd have no problem telling such a player to hit the bricks...)

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

When life doesn't give you lemons...

Seriously, split the difference. 2e used lots of kits to differentiate characters of the same class, 4e used lots of classes with subclass options and class feats.

The way I see it, 'Theme' is a cross between the 2e kit and, appropriately enough, the 4e Theme. (And in Planescape, it could be extended to Faction.) It occupies a similar design space and is similarly designed to be optional.

I've said it before: I want Race, Class, and Theme to be independent character design options and I want all of them to contribute directly to the development of the character for his entire career. I want every Race to automatically gain racial powers as they level and every Theme to grant powers in addition to Race and Class powers.

And I don't like Themes as feat delivery systems, because feats should be the mechanism by which characters expand upon their Race and Class options-- as they are in 4e. Themes should be independent of Race and Class (even if some have Race/Class prerequisites) and they should grant powers independently. I must confess to being really stoked about the fact that Themes are going to be multiple choice, however, and lead to bigger themes. Kinda like Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies, I suppose, but more flexible.