[4.0]Would you like more or less classes in the next edition?
- Thread starter johnsemlak
- Start date
A'koss
Explorer
I'm also solidly in the camp of "fewer, but more flexible" classes in D&D. Yes, I believe you can roll most of the abilities the Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger and some of the Monk as Warrior-specific, talent-like feats. Prestige classes can incorporate things like Rage (Berserker), Ranger spellcasting, esoteric Monk abilities (X Art Master), Paladins, etc. Have 4 primary, but highly customizable classes, and everything else goes to PrCs. At the same time however I'm not big on "classless" systems.... I think the essential class structure should remain intact.
Cheers,
A'koss.
Cheers,
A'koss.
wocky
Masterwork Jabberwock
My own vote for "fewer" also falls in the "but with more customization" group.
I'd even go for a classless system, but I know that probably won't happen. I figure balancing the game (and/or learning it, for the players) is hard enough as it is... Still I kinda hate Prestige Classes, I'd rather have a more complex feat subsystem, or some other "building block" approach.
I'd go for three core classes: Fighting-type, Magic-user and Skillful. Divine casters would be a specific type of Magic User, since as much as fluff attempts to separate divine from arcane casting, most of the rules for both types of magic are the same.
I'd even go for a classless system, but I know that probably won't happen. I figure balancing the game (and/or learning it, for the players) is hard enough as it is... Still I kinda hate Prestige Classes, I'd rather have a more complex feat subsystem, or some other "building block" approach.
I'd go for three core classes: Fighting-type, Magic-user and Skillful. Divine casters would be a specific type of Magic User, since as much as fluff attempts to separate divine from arcane casting, most of the rules for both types of magic are the same.
Desdichado
Hero
That's a tough question -- I could answer with the things that are D&Disms that I don't like should go, but that's not really a reasonable position to take. Classes, including many of the specific classes, are legacy in D&D and it wouldn't really be D&D without them.
With that said, there seem to be some "holes" in the lineup of classic archetypes that a fantasy adventure game should have. So, I'd like a few more classes. I'd also like the classes we do have to be more a la carte and flexible, as they are in AU or Midnight.
With that said, there seem to be some "holes" in the lineup of classic archetypes that a fantasy adventure game should have. So, I'd like a few more classes. I'd also like the classes we do have to be more a la carte and flexible, as they are in AU or Midnight.
re
True, but if done right they could keep their core while drawing in those player's who prefer systems like GURPS or Hero System. I'm pretty sure that WotC wants to keep expanding their player base and a good way to do that would be to move to a system that will attract gamers who can't stand D&Dism's like class and hit points.
Its pretty obvious that GURPS and Hero System aren't particularly interested in exploiting the advantages of their system by expanding campaign and adventure support. I'd love to see WotC grab that last bit of the market that eludes them.
I know for myself the class system is becoming whacky. When I was younger all the D&Dism's like linear cumulative xp and the class system didn't seem so bad, but now that I'm older and have started writing, D&D is starting to seem like a very poorly designed system for emulating literary archtypes and for storytelling. I'm really getting more of a anime-superhero-video game feel from D&D rather than a fantasy hero feel. I'd like to get a little more fantasy hero feel back in my games. I've been doing alot of rules modification lately to capture this, but the more rules modification I do the more I realize I'm probably just going to have to use a different system. Selfishly, I'd like to see D&D move closer to a system that I would find palatable.
Tsyr said:
True, but if done right they could keep their core while drawing in those player's who prefer systems like GURPS or Hero System. I'm pretty sure that WotC wants to keep expanding their player base and a good way to do that would be to move to a system that will attract gamers who can't stand D&Dism's like class and hit points.
Its pretty obvious that GURPS and Hero System aren't particularly interested in exploiting the advantages of their system by expanding campaign and adventure support. I'd love to see WotC grab that last bit of the market that eludes them.
I know for myself the class system is becoming whacky. When I was younger all the D&Dism's like linear cumulative xp and the class system didn't seem so bad, but now that I'm older and have started writing, D&D is starting to seem like a very poorly designed system for emulating literary archtypes and for storytelling. I'm really getting more of a anime-superhero-video game feel from D&D rather than a fantasy hero feel. I'd like to get a little more fantasy hero feel back in my games. I've been doing alot of rules modification lately to capture this, but the more rules modification I do the more I realize I'm probably just going to have to use a different system. Selfishly, I'd like to see D&D move closer to a system that I would find palatable.
howandwhy99
Adventurer
I like the 4 core classes as they are the most easily customized. The 7 add-ons are all rather specific, but still nice to have in the game. I imagine any other additions would follow along the same lines.
The Artificer (from the Eberron preview) and Psion classes seem to me the most out of the norm. I think they are different enough to require changes to the core rules. I'm not sure if I would like them in an archetypal fantasy game, though.
A full-level Knight class with a Code of Honor not tied to a specific religion (like the Paladin's) would be nice; if it hasn't been done already.
The Artificer (from the Eberron preview) and Psion classes seem to me the most out of the norm. I think they are different enough to require changes to the core rules. I'm not sure if I would like them in an archetypal fantasy game, though.
A full-level Knight class with a Code of Honor not tied to a specific religion (like the Paladin's) would be nice; if it hasn't been done already.
I think they did a fairly good step in the right direction with th D20 Modern system, where you can easily multiclass in the Tough/Brawny/Charismatic class and diversify your character as you go along. You are a fighter but you want some more social skills, take a lvl in charismatic.You're a thief but you wanna beef up your ability to take some damage, take a lvl of Brawny. The "classes" as we know 'em are prestige classes in Modern D20.
I like this approach, and it would be nice to see if it could be implemented in the classic fantasy rules.
I like this approach, and it would be nice to see if it could be implemented in the classic fantasy rules.
johnsemlak
First Post
bump
Corinth
First Post
Ideally, I'd like to see the basic classes of d20 Modern adapted to D&D. I will support the previously-made suggestion of cutting away all but the fundamental four basic classes--cleric, fighter, rogue & wizard--with the other classes either becoming Feat/Talent chains (Monk, Barbarian, Druid, Sorcerer) or advanced classes (Ranger, Paladin, Bard) while some existing prestige classes get some actual prestige by being the third tier (and the rest get the boot by being replaced with Feat/Talent chains and a few rule changes).
Similar Threads
