MerakSpielman
First Post
what he said.Oni said:
[4.0]Would you like more or less classes in the next edition?
- Thread starter johnsemlak
- Start date
Geoff Watson
First Post
Depends on how they do it, but unless they change things to allow a lot more customisation, I'd like to see some different classes.
Noble Warrior/Knight/Samurai, similar to the OA Samurai class.
Light Fighter, similar to the dozens of Martial Artist classes out there.
Spontaneous Divine caster.
Maybe dump the Monk and have superb unarmed combat, and some of the other specials available as feats.
Geoff.
Noble Warrior/Knight/Samurai, similar to the OA Samurai class.
Light Fighter, similar to the dozens of Martial Artist classes out there.
Spontaneous Divine caster.
Maybe dump the Monk and have superb unarmed combat, and some of the other specials available as feats.
Geoff.
I voted Other. Here's why:
I think the current range of 11 classes is perfect for the D&D core rules. They cover every area I see as "core" to the D&D experience. (The one possible change is to add the Favoured Soul to cover the spontaneous cleric).
However, I would like to see more classes added in supplements. I've been very happy with the new classes in the Miniatures Handbook and the Complete Warrior, and I'm looking forward to the new classes and variations in the upcoming Complete books and Unearthed Arcana.
Cheers!
I think the current range of 11 classes is perfect for the D&D core rules. They cover every area I see as "core" to the D&D experience. (The one possible change is to add the Favoured Soul to cover the spontaneous cleric).
However, I would like to see more classes added in supplements. I've been very happy with the new classes in the Miniatures Handbook and the Complete Warrior, and I'm looking forward to the new classes and variations in the upcoming Complete books and Unearthed Arcana.
Cheers!
Ditto the Corinthian, although I could get equal mileage out of either "The d20 Modern Classes with new Talent Trees, and Advanced Classes to get more specific" or "3 Basic D&D classes (Fighting Guy, Magic-Using Guy, Skill Guy) and a lot of customizability to get everything from Monk to Druid to Swashbuckler to Bard out of 'em"... both of which are actually fairly close to the same thing.
I want a system that encourages, practically even requires, multiclassing, because I don't like multiclass-substitute PrCs, and I don't always want to play one of what the D&D designers thought were archetypes. I can put flavor into my own game, thanks. Give me the basics in some form, and heck, give me 20 pages of examples -- "Here's one way to make a barbarian: this class with this talent, this other class with these talents, and these feats, tadah! Okay, suppose you want to make a shaman instead..."
I want a system that encourages, practically even requires, multiclassing, because I don't like multiclass-substitute PrCs, and I don't always want to play one of what the D&D designers thought were archetypes. I can put flavor into my own game, thanks. Give me the basics in some form, and heck, give me 20 pages of examples -- "Here's one way to make a barbarian: this class with this talent, this other class with these talents, and these feats, tadah! Okay, suppose you want to make a shaman instead..."
RangerWickett
Legend
I voted other, because I want to reduce the core classes to a very small number, but to still have lots of classes. Maybe it's because I just finished Final Fantasy X-2, but I think classes are one of the more fun aspects of the system. Before I get to the specific way I'd suggest implementing them, let me address the concern about the animezation of D&D.
Low level D&D is gritty heroes and average joes. High level D&D is superheroes.
Low-point GURPS is gritty heroes and average joes. High-point GURPS is superheroes.
What's the difference? Well, in GURPS, the GM is supposed to decide what sorts of powers are available, according to the genre of the game, and though you can gain more points for your character, it is very rare for someone to go from a 100 pointer to a 400 pointer in the same game. In D&D, the rules assume all fantasy worlds can actually go to 20th level. I think 4e should just say that high-level characters represent a different level of power completely, and GMs should be encouraged to determine the power level they and their players want, and then to plan the world and the story arc to match it. Because GURPS is even more generic than D&D, of course the GM has to decide what's appropriate; in D&D, though, often the GM just assumes he should use everything in the rulebooks, when you really don't have to if you don't want to.
Class Revisions:
I'd like to divide character classes into Core classes, Advanced classes, and Prestige classes. The core classes are very simple and diverse; the advanced classes handle more specialized activities (and you can get into them after 3rd level); finally, Prestige classes. The Core classes get a bonus feats or a talent at every level. The talents let you get cool class things, like proficiency in all martial weapons, the ability to summon familiars, or skill mastery; the bonus feats are limited to a specific list of generally weaker feats, like save bonuses or skill bonuses.
There are three Core classes, covering the most basic things people do in fantasy stories. Warriors, magicians, and thinkers. So we have the Fighter class, who hurts things. We also have the Mage, which covers all forms of spellcasting you want (primarily on-the-fly casting). And finally we have the Expert, who is our skills guy. I thought Expert would be better than Rogue, since rogues also have a bit of combat in them. Expert is just skills.
There'd probably be fifteen or so Advanced classes, four for each core class, plus a couple cross-class ideas. I'm thinking of:
That should provide a lot of range for characters.
Low level D&D is gritty heroes and average joes. High level D&D is superheroes.
Low-point GURPS is gritty heroes and average joes. High-point GURPS is superheroes.
What's the difference? Well, in GURPS, the GM is supposed to decide what sorts of powers are available, according to the genre of the game, and though you can gain more points for your character, it is very rare for someone to go from a 100 pointer to a 400 pointer in the same game. In D&D, the rules assume all fantasy worlds can actually go to 20th level. I think 4e should just say that high-level characters represent a different level of power completely, and GMs should be encouraged to determine the power level they and their players want, and then to plan the world and the story arc to match it. Because GURPS is even more generic than D&D, of course the GM has to decide what's appropriate; in D&D, though, often the GM just assumes he should use everything in the rulebooks, when you really don't have to if you don't want to.
Class Revisions:
I'd like to divide character classes into Core classes, Advanced classes, and Prestige classes. The core classes are very simple and diverse; the advanced classes handle more specialized activities (and you can get into them after 3rd level); finally, Prestige classes. The Core classes get a bonus feats or a talent at every level. The talents let you get cool class things, like proficiency in all martial weapons, the ability to summon familiars, or skill mastery; the bonus feats are limited to a specific list of generally weaker feats, like save bonuses or skill bonuses.
There are three Core classes, covering the most basic things people do in fantasy stories. Warriors, magicians, and thinkers. So we have the Fighter class, who hurts things. We also have the Mage, which covers all forms of spellcasting you want (primarily on-the-fly casting). And finally we have the Expert, who is our skills guy. I thought Expert would be better than Rogue, since rogues also have a bit of combat in them. Expert is just skills.
There'd probably be fifteen or so Advanced classes, four for each core class, plus a couple cross-class ideas. I'm thinking of:
- Arcanist - Wizard-like, focusing on preparing spells and studying magic.
- Bard - Expert who focuses in performances, and he has only a few magic powers as a default.
- Berserker - Fighter class that rages.
- Cavalier - Fighter class that gets armor skills and horsemanship.
- Cleric - Mage class that channels divine power.
- Commander - Expert class good at directing others.
- Druid - Nature mage that controls creatures and shapeshifts.
- Eldritch Knight - Fighter-Mage class that focuses on offense.
- Holy Warrior - Fighter-Mage class with divine blessings.
- Monk - Fighter class that focuses on unarmed attacks and enlightenment.
- Psion - Mage class that focuses on the powers of the mind.
- Ranger - Fighter-Expert class that is great in the wilderness.
- Rogue - Fighter-Expert class good at sneaking and catching folks off guard.
- Sage - Expert class that learns esoteric lore.
- Swashbuckler - Fighter class that's light and fast.
That should provide a lot of range for characters.
Shadowsmith
Explorer
Fewer. Make them customizable and stop worrying so much about 'balance'.
In my homebrew there are three base classes: sorcerer (an instinctive caster based on the AU witch), talent (the skill monkey), and warrior (the combat expert). Characters are encouraged to multiclass and customization is accomplished via feats and skills. Divine magic has been turned into feat chains.
In my homebrew there are three base classes: sorcerer (an instinctive caster based on the AU witch), talent (the skill monkey), and warrior (the combat expert). Characters are encouraged to multiclass and customization is accomplished via feats and skills. Divine magic has been turned into feat chains.
Valiantheart
First Post
I would like fewer general classes that you could customize into a more specific role. I.E. A fighter class could become a barb, paladin, ranger, or swashbuckler etc.
Kannik
Legend
less is more...
I chose 'none of the above' for this reason: if we are sticking with classes they need to be broadened. Or, in other words, give us an inch and we want a mile }:> We can freely multiclass and some classes have choices and we can choose feats -- now lets go the whole way. As many others have said, by opening up options on the classes, we can get away with fewer. Barbarian vs Fighter vs Ranger vs Paladin: can't we model most of those with feats? Gets touchy with the saves and with the skill pts/lvl plus class vs x-class skills, but even that can be worked out probably from 3 basic templates: skilled warrior, brute warrior, fast warrior... then its feats and go from there.
Do this with most of the classes (rogue as skill-dude w/ feat for detect traps, magic type with different foci feats, etc) and you could also reduce the number of prestige classes* out there.
All this having been said, I probably wouldn't want to see going as far as D20Modern's 6 stat-based heroes, lest it feel too little like DnD (which some may argue the above already does feel too little, and why aren't I playing HERO already?).
Kannik
* -- prestige classes make me laugh at times since they are the 'way out' from the rigidity of the class system. Classes are to rigid? Make more classes! Are we compounding the problem now?
I chose 'none of the above' for this reason: if we are sticking with classes they need to be broadened. Or, in other words, give us an inch and we want a mile }:> We can freely multiclass and some classes have choices and we can choose feats -- now lets go the whole way. As many others have said, by opening up options on the classes, we can get away with fewer. Barbarian vs Fighter vs Ranger vs Paladin: can't we model most of those with feats? Gets touchy with the saves and with the skill pts/lvl plus class vs x-class skills, but even that can be worked out probably from 3 basic templates: skilled warrior, brute warrior, fast warrior... then its feats and go from there.
Do this with most of the classes (rogue as skill-dude w/ feat for detect traps, magic type with different foci feats, etc) and you could also reduce the number of prestige classes* out there.
All this having been said, I probably wouldn't want to see going as far as D20Modern's 6 stat-based heroes, lest it feel too little like DnD (which some may argue the above already does feel too little, and why aren't I playing HERO already?).
Kannik
* -- prestige classes make me laugh at times since they are the 'way out' from the rigidity of the class system. Classes are to rigid? Make more classes! Are we compounding the problem now?
Viktyr Gehrig
First Post
I voted "Other".
See, the core 13 (including PsiHB) are good, and I don't quite like the connotation of the "more classes"-- so far, most of the new base classes I've seen in either Dragon Magazine or various D&D/d20 products (including WotC) have been poor, and I do not like the idea of every separate martial tradition getting its own class-- that's why the Fighter is so variable, itself.
However, I would like to see a more stealthy Psionic class (akin to the Psionic Agent), and I would like to see a spontaneous Divine caster, along the lines of the Evangelist. And, I really think the game needs a real Noble/Aristocrat PC base class-- neither of the two strongly social classes really fits the idea of an adventuring Aristocrat.
See, the core 13 (including PsiHB) are good, and I don't quite like the connotation of the "more classes"-- so far, most of the new base classes I've seen in either Dragon Magazine or various D&D/d20 products (including WotC) have been poor, and I do not like the idea of every separate martial tradition getting its own class-- that's why the Fighter is so variable, itself.
However, I would like to see a more stealthy Psionic class (akin to the Psionic Agent), and I would like to see a spontaneous Divine caster, along the lines of the Evangelist. And, I really think the game needs a real Noble/Aristocrat PC base class-- neither of the two strongly social classes really fits the idea of an adventuring Aristocrat.
Similar Threads
