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

[OnlineDM]

I'm a fan of 4e, but I like the idea of having fewer core classes and then effectively have sub-classes through the use of themes and backgrounds. I know I'm in the minority, but I'd be happy if the paladin was a theme of fighter, ranger a theme of rogue or fighter, sorcerer/warlock themes of wizard, and so on. I'd be totally fine with that.

But if the game is loaded with classes, I'm fine with that, too. I'm pretty easy to please.

 

[Remathilis]

You know, that said there are a number of very niche classes that might not warrant a separate class due to being kinda one-trick ponies. Spellthief, for example, was a nerfed mage/thief hybrid whose main point was to randomly steal spells from bad guys. That sounds like some sort of advanced theme. Likewise the avenger is a cleric/rogue type whose primary ability would be automatic advantage against one foe. That sounds more like a theme than a full class.

I'd like to see all the PHB1 classes (Assassin, Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Warlock, Warlord, Wizard) come back, but I'd equally like some of the more niche classes (runepriest, warden, spellthief, swashbuckler, scout, warmage, duskblade, etc) back in either a supplement or as a theme.

 

[CasvalRemDeikun]

You know, that said there are a number of very niche classes that might not warrant a separate class due to being kinda one-trick ponies. Spellthief, for example, was a nerfed mage/thief hybrid whose main point was to randomly steal spells from bad guys. That sounds like some sort of advanced theme. Likewise the avenger is a cleric/rogue type whose primary ability would be automatic advantage against one foe. That sounds more like a theme than a full class.

I'd like to see all the PHB1 classes (Assassin, Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Warlock, Warlord, Wizard) come back, but I'd equally like some of the more niche classes (runepriest, warden, spellthief, swashbuckler, scout, warmage, duskblade, etc) back in either a supplement or as a theme.

Well, clearly the system does not want me to give you experience, so I am just going to have to agree here. My biggest problem with class reduction is that if a person plays without themes or backgrounds, they wouldn't have access to themes. This leaves people that don't want to play with these things (myself NOT included) totally in the dust. What would be the draw for fans that don't want backgrounds and themes that could play 80% of the classes listed in their beloved game without issue, but now has to either use a subsystem they don't care for, or lose out on half the classes they enjoyed.

I am for lots of classes and lots of backgrounds and themes, but I won't compromise on classes. If someone wants to play a game with the Fighter/Rogue/Cleric/Wizard, they can ban everything else, but as someone who loves playing Warlords or Assassins or BARDS (BARDS FOR LIFE!), I should be able to. I had a hard enough time surviving the first year of 4E without the Bard, I won't suffer an entire edition of D&D without them.

 

[haakon1]

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.

Option #4 : Few classes. No mandatory complex variants.

My favorite editions are two not on offer -- AD&D (pre-UA) and 3.5e.

In both, I run core rules, with real little allowed in from splatbooks and expansions.

3.5e is complicated enough for me and my players -- with multi-classing and with free rein to create weird backgrounds, it's been fine for everything we wanted to do.

AD&D worked the same for us. The difference between a Viking warrior paladin fighting to defend his people and his king, a Roman legionnary paladin fighting for hold back the chaos devouring civilization, an orphan paladin trying to prove his worth to the church, and a knightly paladin living up to his chivalrous oaths? Role playing. We didn't need to rules to do it, sonny boy. Get your kits off my lawn!

 

[Invisible Stalker]

I'll take more classes and fewer themes. The only class I'd like to see take a 2e approach is the Cleric.

 

[Ahnehnois]

D&D has always had too many classes (or almost always, if you go back really far).

I am not a 4e expert, but certainly I found its new classes to be remarkably uninspiring. D&D has plenty. Do the ones that exist right, make them more flexible with themes and such, and stop adding more.

Also, look at PF's take, archetypes, and how that's cut down on class proliferation.

 

[Blood & Bones]

3rd and 4th edition has way too many classes for my tastes... And I'm someone who really likes a lot of options. I voted for less.

However, if we are going to have a variety of magic systems available in 5th, we are going to need a variety of classes to fill respective niches... That, in and of itself, may cause some measure of class bloat.

The OP did not account for the fact that there are additional and alternative classes for 2nd edition in various splat-books. Still not as many as 3rd or 4th edition, but I don't think there were as few as he thinks there is. For instance, anyone else remember the Chronomancer?

 

[Incenjucar]

Egh. This poll is kind of depressing.

I found that 4E had too few classes. There were a lot of concepts that I would like to see in a D&D game that were never attempted, and which wouldn't work well as a subclass, and which wouldn't work as a feat selection in 5E based on what we've seen of feats. The notion that people want such a small game is disheartening.

I certainly feel that some classes could use better definition, but I think that falls on issues like presentation and rules more than concept. PHB3+ a lot of designers seemed to be phoning it in, and the game suffered for it. I personally think that the failure to create a collection of elemental and shadow classes in 4E was a huge, huge loss of opportunity.

 

[Sadrik]

You are right I did forget about the chronomancer and there was the gladiator too. Still though, I would rather see settings with specific themes that allow the core classes be interpreted in new ways rather than throw out the core classes in favor of new classes because the classes are narrowly defined and don't stand firmly mechanically on their own.

Also El Madi, you and several others have made the argument that you want more classes because it makes the game more complex. Let me elucidate, you say the game needs more base classes because if someone is not playing with themes and backgrounds then it will feel limited. To me it sounds like your game will indeed use themes and backgrounds but by making the argument that others who do not want to play themes and backgrounds want the extra complexity of lots of classes strikes me odd. I don't think someone who wants lower complexity, who is willing to drop the themes and backgrounds is going to feel like enhanced gameplay exists in a 4e style class structure.

The beautiful thing in my opinion is that you can get both camps very happy by having meaningful themes, turning a base class into a specialty class. To have the broad diversity of fire elementalist wizards, shadowdancer rogues, assassin fighters, and runepriest clerics yada yada yada

 

[Texicles]

I say more classes, but only by virtue of the fact that there are many who don't feel that some of the more crucial (imo) archetypes deserve their own class (Paladin, Ranger, Druid, et. al.) because they're just variants on some other class.

I think that things got out of hand with 4e essentials classes, and most of those, I'd be happy to see in the "Wacky Classes" or "Themes to make your class more wacky" module.

Ultimately, as long as I see my short list - Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Warlock and Wizard - in the core classes, I'll be as pleased as punch. If there are others, well that's fine too, because I don't have to play them, but it's not going to hurt my feelings if someone else wants to. If any of those classes are excluded, I'll be bummed, and await them in a supplement.

The problem is that my list of definite, distinct classes isn't someone else's (colored largely by which edition they're using to think of what a particular class is/does). What is, most certainly, it's own archetypal class in my eyes, can be hand-waved as some minor variant on another by someone who thinks of the class in a different way.

I suspect that we all have our lists, but the important thing to remember is, it's easier for you to not play/disallow a class you don't like or doesn't fit the campaign than it is for all the people who want to play that class to just make one up. That's why I am not interested in the discussion of what should be excluded, and prefer to focus on what should be included.