A base progressive...

[Glade Riven]

Okay, this may sound confusing, so please bear with me. I am rethinking classes from the ground up on this.

1. The BASE class/Character levels
The Base Class has the underlying math. BAB, Saves, Spell progression (if applicable), skills. Say, Warrior, Expert, Adept

Warrior - Good BAB, good Fort Save, spells start at 4th level (if your occupational class has spells) and only go up to level 4. Low skills
Expert - Medium BAB, good reflex save, spells start at level 1 and only go up to level 6 (if applicable)
Adept - Lousy BAB, good Will Save, spells go up to level 9 (if applicable)

Base classes cannot be changed.

2. Occupational Classes
Traditional class features: Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Wizard, etc.

Occupational Classes is where the multiclassing can take place. So, say a Warrior base class takes 3 levels of fighter and 1 of wizard. No matter how many levels a warrior takes of wizard, a warrior could never cast any spell higher than level 4. He'd have a good BAB, though. Conversely, an Adept that had fighter 1, wizard 1, would have a terrible BAB, but still have fighter feats. Experts are better at blending spellcasters and melee.

Multi-classing doesn't change the math - but it leaves open plenty of options open.

 

[mkill]

I think it's a good idea to have some flexible "super-class" that players can mix and match to build their dream character. However, such a super-flexible system is not for the PHB. The PHB should allow me to have a character up and running in 10 minutes, and that means nicely pre-packaged classes. I would love to have this in a book like Unearthed Arcana 5E instead (like UA 3E had).

Warrior - Good BAB, good Fort Save, spells start at 4th level (if your occupational class has spells) and only go up to level 4. Low skills
Expert - Medium BAB, good reflex save, spells start at level 1 and only go up to level 6 (if applicable)
Adept - Lousy BAB, good Will Save, spells go up to level 9 (if applicable)

It is better to use a basic mechanic that always produces classes of comparable power levels, no matter whether they are weapon-based or spell-based or summoners or whatever.

If I would write an RPG, I wouldn't use your model. This anchors "linear fighters, quadratic wizards" deep into the core game. The problem is that on a quick glance, this looks like fast BAB progression is something that you can balance against spells. But that just doesn't work. Wizards never had any disadvantage from low BAB. Their spells auto-hit. It's like giving up the ability to rhyme.

The Warrior, on the other hand, gets a good BAB, but it's merely to fulfill the minimum requirement. If your main job is to hit monsters with a sword, then yes, it's good to know that you'll be able to hit the monsters you'll face at high levels reliably. But I want more than "not suck", I want to have some interesting options, combat maneuvers or whatever.

The Expert is just stuck in the middle. Medium BAB means he won't hit well at higher levels. Ask any 3E monk how that feels ("flurry of misses"). He does get spells, but it's more like "yeah, now I can do what the Adept did 5 levels ago".

 

[Glade Riven]

True, but too much balancing of spells vs. melee equals some of the issues that some people have with 4.

That part of game design has to do with the power-curve (mostly of casters). Personally, I'd prefer that the power curve start leveling off where gains are smaller at higher levels. With the math locked in with this system idea by character level, it can be designed that way. It does mean adjusting the specifics, but as a general idea I think this method does provide a framework. Occupational classes become more along the lines of talent trees.

 

[mkill]

True, for some players 4E went too far in making every class equal. However, 4E was right that every class should have the same BAB, and that the class features and powers you get on top of that should be balanced with each other. ("Balanced" is more flexible than "exactly the same")

Of course, there are things 5E should do better than 4E, but it has to start from there.

 

[DonTadow]

True, for some players 4E went too far in making every class equal. However, 4E was right that every class should have the same BAB, and that the class features and powers you get on top of that should be balanced with each other. ("Balanced" is more flexible than "exactly the same")

Of course, there are things 5E should do better than 4E, but it has to start from there.

I still think there's a way to make classes distinct but balanced. Perhaps spellcasters can only damage in areas and melee single target.

 

[Greg K]

However, 4E was right that every class should have the same BAB.

I disagree.