Class list for PHB

[Sadrik]

List of classes for 5e. I am really against class bloat. What classes would you like to see in phb1. Somewhere I saw they intend to include every class that was once in a phb1. I would prefer a robust multi classing system merged with backgrounds and specialties to create all the 1/2 this and 1/2 that character concepts.

Auto inclusion:
Fighter
Cleric
Wizard
Rogue

Almost automatic:
Druid
Ranger
Paladin
Sorcerer (psionic, fey, draconic, celestial, infernal)

These get dicier:
Monk (remove the Asian theme, go Jedi)
Warlock (better in its own supplement or merged as a heritage of sorcerer or heck even a cleric, IMHO)
Psionics (In the 1e phb, I would like to actually see this in the book and merged into the magic system)

Would prefer as specialties and or backgrounds:
Barbarian (rage as specialty, savage as background)
Assassin (background)
Bard (background, and specialty, would be neat to plug into Druid rogue sorcerer or even ranger)
Warlord (specialty)
Illusionist (Go the way of Necromancer, a specialty)

PHB1 classes

		1e	2e	3e		4e
Assassin	x	-	-	-
Barbarian	-	-	x	-
Bard		*	x	x	-
Cleric		x	x	x	x
Druid		x	**	x	-
Fighter		x	x	x	x
Illusionist	x	***	-	-
Monk		x	-	x	-
Paladin		x	x	x	x
Psionics	****	-	-	-
Ranger		x	x	x	x
Rogue		x	x	x	x
Sorcerer	-	-	x	-
Warlock		-	-	-	x
Warlord		-	-	-	x
Wizard		x	x	x	x
* The 1e bard was more akin to a prestige class comprised of a fighter rogue (thief) and druid
** The druid was an example specialty cleric (priest)
*** The Illusionist was an example specialty wizard (mage)
**** Psionics did not have base class but all the powers were there

 

[ComradeGnull]

I think pretty much everything that you list is going to be in the PHB if what we've heard to date is true, each as an entire class rather than as anything else.

Assassin is the only one that there is some doubt for me; throughout the various editions, there hasn't been a lot of consistency to their form or mechanics. Sometimes assassin has just been a specialty or PrC for other classes, sometimes they have been a class, sometimes an evil/NPC only/mostly class (like the Blackguard PrC)...

Personally I would be perfectly happy if that were the final outcome.

Barbarian, I think, needs to focus on Rage as its niche and maybe remove the 'savage' connection- if you are someone who fights with a sort of berserker rage as your focus, you are a Barbarian, whether you are raised in a primitive culture, a Dwarven battlerager raised in an otherwise sophisticated delving, or a holy warrior who fights in a fugue state.

Bard covers too much ground to fit well as a specialty. They are the social pillar-focused jack of all trades, with some thief skills, some combat skill, some arcane magic, some buff utility... I don't see that fitting any other class unless you make them a 3 or 4 ingredient multiclass of the basic classes (which won't happen).

Warlord would be a specialty of what? Fighter? Their buffing/healing role seems to need more mechanical support than a feat chain can provide, and having buffing, healing, and the Fighter's combat capabilities could easily put them over the top.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Assassin is the only one that there is some doubt for me; throughout the various editions, there hasn't been a lot of consistency to their form or mechanics. Sometimes assassin has just been a specialty or PrC for other classes, sometimes they have been a class, sometimes an evil/NPC only/mostly class (like the Blackguard PrC)...

I just kind of assumed that the reason for having Rogue "schemes" was so that Assassin could be one of them.

 

[Steely_Dan]

-Bard
-Cleric
-Druid
-Fighter
-Monk
-Paladin
-Ranger
-Rogue
-Sorcerer (still on the fence with this one)
-Warlock (still on the fence with this one)
-Wizard


I would prefer Assassin, Barbarian and Warlord to be something else (same with Samurai).

Oh, and would like psionics in core, either as a class, or a sorcererous heritage.

 

[ComradeGnull]

I just kind of assumed that the reason for having Rogue "schemes" was so that Assassin could be one of them.

I would hope that would be how they would do it, but the Assassin has been its own class in enough different versions of the game that I could also see them feeling compelled to create it as a whole class at some point- I would lean away from it coming in as a core book class, though, even if they do that.

 

[steeldragons]

Agreed about the Assassin. It seems odd that the "Thief", who is/was the "Rogue" class since time immemorial should be shuffled off to a scheme, but Assassin is going to be a class of its own...but from the way I've heard it mentioned and referenced in articles and such, it does sound like it is going to get to be it's own class...

I, personally, would like if they renamed it and opened it up in concept a bit so that "Assassin" wasn't class...regardless of the popularity of "Assassin's Creed."

Make it an "Avenger" - a roguish fighter type (even a roguish paladin if that's the flavor you want to go for), non-magical, think Assassin's Creed or, even, Batman! Diverse skills and decent fighting abilities, possibly wrapped up in a "cause" that they are fighting for. Keep the poison/alchemical knowledge and use, keep the "kill" attack (which could just be a standard "Sneak Attack" with a lil' extra something, like an auto-unconsscious for those who don't want to kill everyone). Add in the specialties for variants (like a shadow-walker/caster/magic assassiny guy, a gadget/tinkerer/refluffed artificer maybe guy, a more acrobat-y/judo-ish/almost monk style fightery guy, etc...)

An "Assassin" then, is simply someone who labels themselves as such...an Avenger who kills for cause (most likely cause=money but doesn't have to)...and/or has no moral qualms about killing at all.

But then, I also wouldn't mind the Paladin be reskinned as "Champion" (or something) so that the folks that want to argue "Lawful Good/Alignment restrictions" vs. "Paladins should be ALL alignments" vs. "No Alignment in my game at all" and "Deity/religion/divine" versus "Ideal/virtue/vow" flavor can get in on the game...and the "Paladin", then, is just one Champion specialty/variant/package, who must be Lawful Good (or at least Lawful) and fights for her god and temple...and other Champions of other religions or alignments or ideals or vows or whatever are simply called something else/some other "Specialty/variant" that can easily be incorporated.

I THOROUGHLY SINCERELY AND WHOLE-HEARTEDLY agree (the use of typed words can not get this across fully enough), that the Barbarian as a Class has seen its day and should be put in its rightful place as a cultural background. A Berserker/Rager fighting style/specialty for Fighters is all that is required since the Barbarian's only shtick was "raging" and what that did for/gave them.

Throw in a Barbarian or Tribesman or Savage or Woodsman or any number of other backgrounds should be able to replicate any sort of what was once called a "Barbarian" class.

Warlord, also, and I will respectfully disagree with ComradeGull here, is definitely fit for a Specialty and nothing more. I think you could EASILY get the Warlord's leadership traits and "inspiring" flavor threw a few feat tricks that could easily be wrapped up in a Specialty package or 3 or 4 feats (even the "healing" if you wanted, either through imbuing Temp HP during a combat - "rallying the troops" - or simply getting a Healing/Medic skill where they have mundane healing knowledge to use after or during a combat, also makes flavor sense).

In fact, I would say, other than the Ranger and Paladin (who we've already discussed), as they kind of have the "traditional/senority" cards in their corner, MOST Warrior-based classes, PHB1 or not, could be easily relgated to Specialties/Thematic packages: Knight/Cavalier, Barbarian, Warlord, Swordmage, Swashbuckler/Duelist, etc.

Moreso, it seems to me than primarily magic-using/caster classes for whom "built-in" flavor (particularly magic/power source and casting/how it is practiced) is/should/needs to be a defining element.

I also do not like the Sorcerer flavor [never have] enough to warrant its own class. I know it's a moot point. But I see no reason "spontaneous arcane caster" can't just be a specialty that any Wizard/mage could take.

But, in the interest of symmetry and organization, I WOULD like to see the non-magic/non-caster by default classes equal to the caster/magic-user classes.

So it would be something like this...which you've all seen some variation of a hundred times by now, I'm sure:

Fighter
--Ranger -no magic as default. Specialties that allow some.
--Champion (ne Paladin) -still "granted/imbued" with certain powers that would be "magical" in nature but no spells/not a caster.

Rogue
--Avenger (ne Assassin) -no magic as default. Specialties that allow some.
--Bard -has magic/spell-knowledge and use but as a secondary
(if not tertiary) thing, not a "primary caster".

Cleric
--Druid

Mage
--Warlock -whose flavor and mechanics I DO consider far and enough away from a Mage/wizard to warrant their own class.

So you'd have fair/even options:
Non-magical: Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, Avenger/Assassin
Magical: Cleric, Mage, Druid, Warlock

...and the "Kinda in between/magical but not really casters" exceptions to the rule: Champion/Paladin and Bard.

Shamans, Monks, Psionics, and whatever else might be wanted...can wait/all come later.

That's what I'd like to see/could be happy with, anyway.
--SD

 

[Steely_Dan]

Shamans, Monks, Psionics, and whatever else might be wanted...can wait/all come later.

I want the monk and psion straight out the gate (in whatever form), not tacked on, after the fact action.

 

[gideonpepys]

I think they should take the same line they have with races and include every class that has ever been in the PHB1 of a previous edition.

So assassin, bard, druid and monk would be in there from AD&D - along with illusionists as a separate class. (Funny how no one ever talks about that distinction. There's plenty written about necromancers, but they were never a distinct class in their own right.)

Barbarian and sorcerer would squeak in thanks to 3E, and warlord would be included from 4th.

I really don't want to see players having to wait one, two or three years following the release of the game to play the class they love most. That was one of the most frustrating aspects of 4th edition.

I started up a campaign a full year after release, and there was still no monk class in the game.

 

[steeldragons]

I want the monk and psion straight out the gate (in whatever form), not tacked on, after the fact action.

Well, in all honesty, you could add them in to the format I proposed, and basically end up with 12 classes to start, and an even 4/4/4 of Magic/Non-Magic/In between-kinda Magic.

Fighter (non-magic)
--Ranger (non-magic)
--Champion (magic stuff but no spells)

Rogue (non-magic)
--Avenger (non magic)
--Bard (magic stuff/minor spell use)

Cleric (caster)
--Druid (caster)
--Monk (kinda magic seeming but fluffed either as magical effects/psionics but no spells/not a caster)

Mage (caster)
--Warlock (caster)
--Psion (not actually using "magic" or "spells" but mental powers that appear as magical effects)

So, Non-casters: Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, Avenger
Casters: Cleric, Mage, Druid, Warlock
In-between/not casters per se: Champions, Bards, Monks and Psions.

That works for me too...since there's lots in there in each category that I have not played/wouldn't be interested in playing...but no problems with giving as many people that they can what they want.

 

[Steely_Dan]

I think they should take the same line they have with races and include every class that has ever been in the PHB1 of a previous edition.

Have they stated that (every race)?