D&D 2E As a strategy 4e or 2e on classes

[Remathilis]

Do you really think others who do not want to play themes and backgrounds want the extra complexity of lots of classes? I don't think someone who wants lower complexity, who is willing to drop the themes and backgrounds from the game, is going to feel like enhanced gameplay exists in a vast array of narrowly defined niche classes.

How much is "a lot"?

AD&D had 10 classes in the PHB. 2e had 9 (adding bard, losing monk and assassin). 3e had 11 classes (adding barbarian, monk, and sorcerer). Its only after 3.5 that we start seeing lots of oddball classes emerge. 4e added a bunch of classes, but I'm afraid few of them were really unique (vs. being grid-fills; warden and invoker, I'm looking at you). Even BECMI had a dozen classes by the time it was done (9 alone in the RC, though druid was for high level clerics and 3 were races-as-classes).

AT MINIMUM the Next PHB needs all the 3e PHB classes. I'd really like to see it cram warlock, warlord and assassin in as well for completeness. After that, we can debate if a swordmage demands its own class or if the avenger really is unique archetype or whether the game benefits from an artificer class. Its really counterproductive though to debate the merits of a ranger, paladin or barbarian at this point. Lets start figuring out if this game is going to need a beguiler, not a druid...

 

[Authweight]

I want ALL the classes.

I think that each class should be made to fill an archetype, but it is ok if the same archetype has many classes. Fighter is such a diverse archetype, it should have several different classes, each one with its own approach. IMO each build in 4e should have just been its own class, and they should have made the builds more distinctive and special. One person's fighter is a tactical, tanky defender. Another guy's fighter is a run-in-and smash striker. Why should they be the same class? It is true that theme can make up some of this gap, but why make it take on that burden? I want my defender fighter to still have a theme for other stuff, while still being fundamentally a defender. Same goes for my striker fighter. And please make the gish concept its own class, if not several different classes. I think there is plenty of design space for unique classes in the gish archetype. One gish might be highly mobile, dancing around a fight, teleporting, and stabbing people with supernatural speed. Another gish might be slow-moving but tough as nails, surrounding himself with shields of magic and using a hammer to throw people around the battlefield. There is no reason to try and make those very different concepts sit inside one class, its just unnecessary.

 

[Steely_Dan]

The 2nd Ed system could work:


-Warrior (fighter, paladin, ranger, warlord etc)

-Priest (avenger, cleric, druid, invoker etc)

-Rogue (bard, rogue, swashbuckler etc)

-Wizard (artificer, sorcerer, warlock, wizard etc)


Done; or pretty much the every class from a PHB 1 deal.

But I do like my Monks, though, do not make me wait 3 years for that bad-boy.

I really do not want over-specialization in character classes: Gnome Cobbler or what-have-you.

 

[Remathilis]

The 2nd Ed system could work:


-Warrior (fighter, paladin, ranger, warlord etc)

-Priest (avenger, cleric, druid, invoker etc)

-Rogue (bard, rogue, swashbuckler etc)

-Wizard (artificer, sorcerer, warlock, wizard etc)


Done; or pretty much the every class from a PHB 1 deal.

But I do like my Monks, though, do not make me wait 3 years for that bad-boy.

I really do not want over-specialization in character classes: Gnome Cobbler or what-have-you.

In 2e, Monk was a priest class (once with spell ability, once without) and assassin could replace swashbuckler and you're done!

 

[Sadrik]

10 - 12 broadly defined classes would be fine in my book, all falling under the 4 main classes: Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue. I want them to all stand mechanically apart, no half of this and half of that classes. I also want them to have a very robust multi-class system, either 1e style or 3e style or heck both. I want to decide the half this and half that of my class combinations, no need to have the underpinnings of a classes abilities be a multi-classed character. This is doable. Even a ranger and paladin can feel unique and not simply be a rogue/fighter or cleric/fighter with a different background.

 

[howandwhy99]

Fewer PC core classes, no reliance on themes and backgrounds

 

[Herschel]

I want classes. The fewest possible/acceptable would be along the lines of:

Fighter
Cleric
Mage
Rogue
Warlord
Swordmage
Ranger
Paladin
Warlock
Sorcerer
Monk
Psion
Bard
Druid
Barbarian

That would be a pretty strong base to build from.

 

[Oni]

Where is the option for a lot of both?

If a background or theme is all that's needed then a new class probably isn't necessary, but on the other hand, I really hate when designers start making compromises to try to squeeze everything into one mechanic.