Class list for PHB

[Minigiant]

Assassin

• Flavor: Murderous spell-warrior
• Mechanics: Shroud based skill user

Barbarian

• Flavor: Raw Natural Warrior
• Mechanics: Rage and Toughness

Bard

• Flavor: Magic Performer
• Mechanics: ???

Cleric

• Flavor: Divine caster
• Mechanics: Spontaneous support caster

Druid

• Flavor: Master of Nature
• Mechanics: Elementalist and Shapeshifter

Fighter

• Flavor: Trained Warrior
• Mechanics: Combat Maneuvers via CS dice

Monk

• Flavor: Spiritual Warrior/Skill Monkey
• Mechanics: Ki Point Warrior/Skill Monkey

Paladin

• Flavor: Blessed Warrior
• Mechanics: Passive bonus warrior

Ranger

• Flavor: Observant Wilderness Warrior
• Mechanics: Quarry based Skilled Warrior

Rogue

• Flavor: Sneaky Skill Monkey
• Mechanics: Sneaky Skill Monkey

Sorcerer

• Flavor: Natural Caster
• Mechanics: Willpower/Spell Point Caster

Warlock

• Flavor: Pact Caster
• Mechanics: At-will and Encounter Caster

Wizard

• Flavor: Formally Trained Caster
• Mechanics: Vancian Caster

 

[gideonpepys]

Have they stated that (every race)?

I believe so, yes.

 

[Steely_Dan]

I believe so, yes.

Last I heard all races outside the core 4 would be campaign/world specific (minotaurs for Krynn, etc).

 

[the Jester]

Well, in all honesty, you could add them in to the format I proposed, and basically end up with 12 classes to start, and an even 4/4/4 of Magic/Non-Magic/In between-kinda Magic.

Fighter (non-magic)
--Ranger (non-magic)
--Champion (magic stuff but no spells)

Rogue (non-magic)
--Avenger (non magic)
--Bard (magic stuff/minor spell use)

Cleric (caster)
--Druid (caster)
--Monk (kinda magic seeming but fluffed either as magical effects/psionics but no spells/not a caster)

Mage (caster)
--Warlock (caster)
--Psion (not actually using "magic" or "spells" but mental powers that appear as magical effects)

So, Non-casters: Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, Avenger
Casters: Cleric, Mage, Druid, Warlock
In-between/not casters per se: Champions, Bards, Monks and Psions.

That works for me too...since there's lots in there in each category that I have not played/wouldn't be interested in playing...but no problems with giving as many people that they can what they want.

Where's my warlord?

Where's my paladin?? (Even if the distinction between "paladin" and "champion" is only cosmetic, you know you'd hear this.)

Where on earth is my druid????

No, I don't think that your breakdown would satisfy very many people at all.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I would go with

Barbarian
Bard
Bladesinger
Cleric
Druid
Fighter
Monk
Paliden
Psion
Ranger
Sorcerer
Swordsage
Warden
Warlord
Warlock
Wizard

 

[Sadrik]

Assassin is the only one that there is some doubt for me; throughout the various editions, there hasn't been a lot of consistency to their form or mechanics. Sometimes assassin has just been a specialty or PrC for other classes, sometimes they have been a class, sometimes an evil/NPC only/mostly class (like the Blackguard PrC)...

Personally I would be perfectly happy if that were the final outcome.

I agree. I would rather have a ranger be chief choice for the character concept. Humanoid hunter with an assassin background. Wala! Multiclass into an illusionist to pick up some of the helpful illusion spells such as invisibility and darkness and others. Would be a really cool character! No need to make a whole class based on this, a background would suffice.

Barbarian, I think, needs to focus on Rage as its niche and maybe remove the 'savage' connection- if you are someone who fights with a sort of berserker rage as your focus, you are a Barbarian, whether you are raised in a primitive culture, a Dwarven battlerager raised in an otherwise sophisticated delving, or a holy warrior who fights in a fugue state.

Again I agree, there are several instances where a savage background would be helpful to distinguish a character from the more civilized counterparts. Savage rogue, savage druid, savage ranger all valid and interesting. One class should not be the only savage class.

As to the rage part, make it a specialty. I see it as no different than fighting with two weapons, it is a technique.

Bard covers too much ground to fit well as a specialty. They are the social pillar-focused jack of all trades, with some thief skills, some combat skill, some arcane magic, some buff utility... I don't see that fitting any other class unless you make them a 3 or 4 ingredient multiclass of the basic classes (which won't happen).

A bard could be a triple classed character! Look jack of all trades does not have to be a class that comprises of 3 classes. A rogue/druid/fighter or a rogue/wizard/ranger all of these seem very applicable. Tack on the bardic college background, add in the bard specialty. I really like this concept. It really frees the character concept to do so much and still have the ability to boost your allies with words of praise via feats rather than spells. Then a whole "musical" magic system does not have to be tacked on to the game and explained away with a wave of the hand and saying no one plays that class anyway. Example: if the bard was a wizard/rogue they would have wizard magic and they would still be able to boost allies via their bard specialty! very cool. Also there are several clerics and specific gods that would make excellent bards too!

Warlord would be a specialty of what? Fighter? Their buffing/healing role seems to need more mechanical support than a feat chain can provide, and having buffing, healing, and the Fighter's combat capabilities could easily put them over the top.

Warlord would be a specialty of any class. If you are a leader and you want to give your allies bonuses, similar to the bard actually. Non-magical boosts that you have the option to utilize. In fact, doesn't the warlord step on the bard's concept too much?

I also feel like the ranger should eat a lot of the features out of this class. The ranger should be the INT based warrior. For those die hard warlord fans would it be too much to have a ranger build that encapsulated the INT based warlord?

All warrior types use STR but also important...
Fighter CON
Rogue DEX
Monk WIS
Ranger INT
Paladin CHA

Just a thought...

 

[Sadrik]

I want the monk and psion straight out the gate (in whatever form), not tacked on, after the fact action.

I would rather see a psion in the main game than a warlock. Psion has way more applications throughout the history of the game than the warlock. Mindflayers that work out of the gate is very good! Warlock feels very niche the way it is constructed, psion is a very broad class that has application in almost every setting. Some settings even require it! Warlocks I see no requirement.

So per my original post, a psionic class that is folded into the magic system and a sorcerer that can latch on with a heritage would be very important in my book.

As to speaking to the monk, I want the concept broadened. Simply an asian guy that punches is too narrow. I really like the idea of the jedi. A mystical warrior who can use weapons and draws physical power from his magical abilities. Not a spellcaster per say, but has trappings of doing spell-like things. So a true at-will/always-on caster. Can you build an effective asian puncher still? Yes, are you limited to it? no.

Should we have asian weapons in the PHB to accommodate the monk? No. Should there be a supplement with weapons of different cultures? Yes. Should many cultural weapons simply be re-skinned versions of other weapons? yes. Currently katana are its own weapon, I really liked them as a bastard sword by a different name.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Have they stated that (every race)?

No. They stated, during one of the first D&D Next panels, that their goal was to include every class that had appeared in a PHB1. That said, there has been talk on various panels and podcasts that some of the classes might be better served as specialties. The warlord was mentioned specifically in the Penny Arcade podcast as something that might work well as such.

The implication that I'm reading is that they want to properly support the types of characters that fit in a D&D game, but that that may not mean having every class return as a class if that doesn't fit the story properly.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

-Bard
-Cleric
-Druid
-Fighter
-Monk
-Paladin
-Ranger
-Rogue
-Sorcerer (still on the fence with this one)
-Warlock (still on the fence with this one)
-Wizard


I would prefer Assassin, Barbarian and Warlord to be something else (same with Samurai).

Oh, and would like psionics in core, either as a class, or a sorcererous heritage.

Pretty much this, with a couple of relatively minor exceptions. Assassins should be Righ Out as PCs. Barbarian is a social term, change the class to Berseker. Better yet, it should be a Fighter with Rage and a barbarian theme. And Warlord is a title, so should also be renamed. (Don't know to what, as I've never paid much attention to the class.)

 

[GX.Sigma]

Assassins should be Righ Out as PCs.

This isn't 1989, man. Why not let people play what they want?