Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Matthias" data-source="post: 3898299" data-attributes="member: 3625">Well, it's supposed to be generic on purpose. I think what I was trying to say in my initial post is that a generic Adventurer class would fill the need for all the additional core classes that have popped up since 3.0 came out.3.0 and 3.5 was moderately successful at stopping the proliferation of core classes for every possible character concept with its introduction of prestige classes, although WOTC themselves has published at least thirty core classes (albeit most of them were generalized enough to be core-worthy).4E seems to be geared toward minimizing the actual number of core classes in favor of versatility within each class via talents and feats. If this is the case, then to forestall the proliferation this time around, a generic class could cover all the bases that the final set of 4E core classes won't sufficient cover so you won't need a new core class to do it.So this generic Adventurer class wouldn't be a "beginner class" for newbies to learn the game, or to create the ultimate class that has the built-in ability do a little bit of everything. (In that, the Factotum is sort of appropriate but not really.) The generic Adventurer would be a customizable class on which you'd build your Ninjas, Spellthieves, Dread Necromancers, and all those other unusual core classes.It would be impractical to make a core class for every possible logical combination of Hit Die sizes, good & bad saves, equipment proficiencies, and skill lists, so you'd need a "catch-all" well-rounded combination on which to build all those other core classes that people will want, but for which none of the existing 4E classes are quite appropriate. So instead of creating a whole new core class, new character concepts would consist of new feat trees to be grafted into the Adventurer (or one of the other core classes). Of course, new talent trees can always be created and grafted in to the existing classes so that you could use the 4E Fighter to build the 4E Samurai or turn a 4E Ranger/Rogue into the 4E Scout. But I doubt the existing classes will quite cover everything, even with customized talent trees.d20 Modern's basic classes and "occupations" are a closer example of what I'm getting at here. Not that I'm advocating dropping all of six generic classes into the 4E mix, but it would be good to have a mixture of "flavored" classes (all the existing 4E classes) with one "catch-all" class (Adventurer) to cover anything else that would be worthy of core-class status but is not easily covered by one of the existing classes.'Course, not knowing how those classes were built, I'm just speculating about what these will look like. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> When the Races & Classes book comes out it may turn out that the existing classes can cover all the bases and a "template" class for other character concepts won't be needed. But if there is room for another core class, I'll be able to get into specifics.I hope this clears things up.</blockquote>

Verification