Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nivenus" data-source="post: 5788803" data-attributes="member: 71756">When it comes right down to it you don't really need anything else besides those four basic classes (cleric, fighter, mage, rogue). I suppose you might need a psionic class given its long tradition as an optional playstyle, but it would naturally come later in supplements, rather than part of core.As others have said, most other classes in any edition are just a reflavoring or variant of the classic four and in fact, except for rogues, they basically amount to 4e's three basic power sources: arcane (mages), divine (clerics), and martial (fighters). Using a sub-class / archetype system there's no reason you couldn't replicate most of the other classes and for those you couldn't, there's always the potential of hybrid classes (paladins could be cleric/fighter hybrids, for example).I think the most important classes in 5e need to do to contrast with 4e is be distinctive. And if you have four to six different classes that do a slightly different variation of the same thing, you kind of lose that distinctiveness, at which point you're almost better off with a point-buy system.The only real exceptions I can see to this are druids, which have a lot of support at this point as an alternative power source and as of 4e act pretty differently from clerics. But with a little bit of work they could easily be brought back to their 2e nature as an alternative kind of cleric, so even they aren't too much of an exception.EDIT: Bards are also kind of an exception, depending on how social/roleplay-heavy the adventure or campaign you're running is, since they're the only class that kind of specializes in non-combat skills and playstyles. However, I'm not sure how popular this playstyle is or if it couldn't just be rolled into one of the other classes somehow.</blockquote>

Verification