class traction

[GMforPowergamers]

ok, rewind to 1990, and no one had ever herd of more then 1/2 classes we have today, but lets be honnest, there were alot over the years that did not catch on.

I see the warlock as a great example of a victory, intoduced in Complete Arcane 3e, and was so liked that it made it to phb1 for 4e only a few years later, and I am sure most feel they have made it into the core of the game... I bet if 5e saw print and we didn;t have a warlock it would feel like we needed it.


so what 4e classes have enough traction to be worth keeping? What ones need to be axed?

 

[drothgery]

Although I didn't vote for everything, I'm a pretty strong proponent of more narrow classes.

I kind of think power source, role, primary stat, and whether you're a melee or ranged combatant should be the same for all builds/variants/whatevers within a class. Mostly because I think when get the name of a D&D class, that should be enough to tell you how they fit into a party - and multi-role classes and V-shaped classes go against that.

So I'm not a big fan of two-weapon strength guys and dex-based archers be jumbled into Ranger, let alone some of what's been done in Essentials.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Shamans were in 3.5 also and are very similar.