Class Glut?

[Obryn]

I don't think we're hitting "glut" at all... As far as I'm concerned, the more classes the better. All the PHB2 classes feel rather fresh and new, IMHO. I think if they continue to make good choices for PHB3, we'll get other equally interesting options.

-O

 

[Sadrik]

What have you done with the new classes in PHB2? Have you allowed your players to switch characters if they wanted to try one of them? If not how are they getting into play? NPCs or used by starting completely new campaigns? How about the new 8 or 9 classes in PHB3 and adjacent materials?


One other point that has nothing to do withthose questions. I have heard from numerous people that the warlock has been stepped on by the sorcerer. Is that ok?

 

[Sadrik]

Neat a double post.

 

[xechnao]

More classes. Always more. SCADS of 'em, classes far as the eye can see, until they get so redundant and we're sick of 'em that the next edition of D&D will finally, finally be a classless-system.

hehe
no, really, this sounds reasonable to me

 

[MatthewJHanson]

I think that classes in 4e are less flexible, which requires it to have more classes than 3e had to cover the same archetypes.

 

[Moon_Goddess]

No, I don't have psionics yet so there can't be too many classes.

Come back and ask again when all the power sources are filled.

 

[Obryn]

What have you done with the new classes in PHB2? Have you allowed your players to switch characters if they wanted to try one of them? If not how are they getting into play? NPCs or used by starting completely new campaigns? How about the new 8 or 9 classes in PHB3 and adjacent materials?

I allow my players to switch characters freely between adventures, and we've added a new player since PHB2 came out. So, I've seen Barbarians and Invokers already - and an Artificer, from the Dragon playtest (who's far more potent than I ever expected, I have to say...).

One other point that has nothing to do withthose questions. I have heard from numerous people that the warlock has been stepped on by the sorcerer. Is that ok?

Like so many things, it depends on who you ask. IMHO, Warlocks are still perfectly good characters. A party is not actively harmed by having one instead of a Sorcerer. They do less damage, overall, than Sorcerers, given the limitation of using their damage kicker only 1/round instead of on every attack. Sorcerers also benefit from being an A-shaped, instead of a V-shaped class. Warlocks, OTOH, have more special effects, and have interesting pact boons & abilities that kick in fairly often - like Prime Shot and concealment just about every round. What's more, I think the Warlock flavor makes up for any power deficits. The Vestige Pact, for example, is just cool.

-O

 

[Dice4Hire]

So, we have 17 classes, a few more than a hundred Paragon paths, and a score or so of epic destinies so far.

Not too shabby. I cannot think of any classes that really step on each others toes thus far, though of course if the entire party is one role, it gets to be old and they start having trouble. So, no, I do not think we have too many classes yet.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

So, we have 17 classes, a few more than a hundred Paragon paths, and a score or so of epic destinies so far.

Not too shabby. I cannot think of any classes that really step on each others toes thus far, though of course if the entire party is one role, it gets to be old and they start having trouble. So, no, I do not think we have too many classes yet.

So far, the classes all seem to have a different flavor and play differently enough to each other.

And we haven't covered everything yet, either. Psionics and Monks are definitely missing.
Beyond that, I am not sure what could be missing.

 

[Ourph]

We could have 1000 classes and it wouldn't mean any kind of glut to me. I have 5 players in my game. That means I'm going to see a maximum of 5 classes at a time no matter how many books WotC publishes. More choice makes for happier players IME, so I say bring 'em on!