[4.0]Would you like more or less classes in the next edition?

[The Goblin King]

I voted for fewer classes however I would like to see more customization.

 

[Tsyr]

I'd like to see D&D move to a classless system, something akin to GURPS with the level of adventure and campaign support currently supplied. Basically, maintain the advantage D&D has with adventure and campaign support combined with a superior game mechanics system. That would be real nice.

At that point it would have ceased to become D&D.

 

[Allanon]

Move along...

Triple Post...

 

[Allanon]

Nothing to see here...

Triple Post...

 

[Allanon]

I voted less classes, by combining D20 modern's class system with D&D's approach to classes you could get a system which adaptable enough to encompass everyone's needs, but do give 11 examples (like the barbarian, monk, sorcerer, rogue, druid, etc.) so that people who just want to keep everything can play with the standard D&D assortment.

 

[Maggan]

Less classes, more choice

Less classes, more options for customizing them.

For instance do we really need Barbarians and monks, or could that be done through a more customizable fighter class? I think the latter. The answer I think lies in feats, so great for customization.

I totally agree with this.

Hmmm... that felt lame, just chiming in. I should say something smart now... Hmmm... nope...

Dum dee dum.. dummm... hmmm...


Ok, the classes I would like as a base are Fighter, Wizard, Rogue.

I think the divine power of a cleric can be handled via a template, or special ability or something.

And sorcerers, because I'm not entirely comfortable with the Vancian magic of the Wizards.

Cheers!

m

 

[Li Shenron]

I voted to keep the same number, although I would like the current 11 minus the Monk who would be better to be core to oriental settings only.

 

[johnsemlak]

Hmmm, interesting results so far.

I am currently one of only two people who would like (a few) more classes. I like options (as do people who opt for fewer classes but more customizability) but I really think PCs should have some path to follow. There should be some options within a class for sure, I think 3.5e currently has that about right.

Plus, I think having additional classes are a great way to add more flavor, particularly from the beginning.

Sure, a swashbuckler can be created using existing rules, but often they arenlt quite balenced. I real swashbuckler class can allow such characters to really come into their own, and be flavorful.

Having said all that, as far as the three core rulebooks go I'm probably more or less happy with the current eleven. I'd like some more to be presented in splattbooks or other 'option' books though.

 

[Wee Jas]

More is good.

Everquest is good

 

[diaglo]

i like 3 core adventuring classes....aka...those available as PCs.

fighting man, cleric, and magic-user

i don't mind a ton/boatload of NPC classes tho.