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

[johnsemlak]

With all the discussion of 4.0 already heating up (ok, maybe that's an exaggeration, but it's always good to think ahead), here's a question I'd like answers to.

Would you like more core classes to be added to the standard 11 (not including the Psionics classes). Or would you like the number reduced, perhaps to 4 base classes (fighter, rogue, wizard, cleric).

Of course, making either change may have implications requiring changes in other rules (say, a more flexible magic system, more feats, more customization etc), but let's set that aside.

 

[Oni]

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.

 

[Turjan]

I voted "Other", because I think that about 10 classes is a good number to allow lots of choices without getting too specific. On the other hand, I like them to be more streamlined (no incompatible magic systems that compose a hindrance for multiclassing) and more customizable (like in AU).

 

[CRGreathouse]

I'm happy with the core 11, which seems about right, but trimming the list slightly (to 8 or 9) wouldn't be bad, either. I don't want just the basic 4 by any means, though; if that was the way 4E was doing it, I'd be unlikely to buy.

 

[Zappo]

I'd like just a bit less. A couple of the current base classes could become PrCs.

 

[Buttercup]

I think the base 11 cover all the major archetypes. However, options are good, since they allow everyone to pick and choose, thus getting the game they want.

 

[TiQuinn]

I'd like to pare it down to a few base classes with options to customize.

Make the ranger be how YOU think a ranger should be!
Barbarian: Noble savage or Raging Berserker? Take your pick.

 

[Numion]

Hey people ease of all these 4th edition polls and threads .. WotC'll take the hint and actually make the damn thing!

 

[Tsyr]

Were I designing it just for me, here is what I would have for base classes:

Holy Warrior: A much more flexible version of the paladin, and alignment unrestricted. Your alignment would control the spells you had access to, as well as special abilities. Paladins would be LG ones, Chaos Knights CE, Blackguards LE, Knights of Order Lawful Neutral, etc.

Eliminate the monk core class, but make an unarmed, unarmored fighter a viable option with the core class fighter. Also make it flexible enough to handle a swashbuckler type, or the juggernaught archtype, or the line-soldier type (Abilities for fighting with others), or the mounted warrior type, the berzerker, etc.

Keep the bard, but make it more customizable... By swapping certain abilities for others, let it suit anything from a nordic skald to a jester to a sterotypical lute-playing bard.

Make the rogue even more flexible with swapable abilities. So you could have a rogue that took the Tracking, Trapsetting, Survival, and Knowledge (Focus nature) packages to be a ranger/woodsman type, or a rogue that took the Petty Thievery, Breaking and Entry, Stealth, and Knowledge: Urban packages to be a typical theif, or a rogue that took Tracking, Trapsetting, Increased Combat Proficiency, and Increased Armor proficiency to make a bounty hunter, etc.

Keep the ranger class as a combination Warrior/Druid. Enphasise that they are a combination Warrior/Druid more (Some more duidic ties to the land, etc). Let them have some control over how much of a druid and how much of a warrior they are, percentage wise.

Playing into the "Let's have combination classes" theme, create a good fighter/mage core class. Because I'm not convinced a multiclass one can never work in a balanced fashion. Allow enough customization to let them play a warrior who dabbles in magic, a mage that dabbles in swordplay, or a nice combination.

Keep the druid but change the name, I don't know to what exactly, but make it flexable enough to cover the woodlands witch, the druid, the shaman, etc as archtypes.

Keep Wizards, but allow different types "Out of the Box"... a viable necromantic type wizard, a viable elementalist, etc. Obviously, a lot of this would be revamping the spell list.

Dunno about sorcs at this point. Probably keep them and call them "Wild Mages" or something, which is sorta how I see them.

 

[Celtavian]

re

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.