Sure, but I'd rather use words like "fighter" than "tank". In any case, if there are a lot of classes (instead or a few x subclasses), they could be organized better.
Core Classes: What and how many
- Thread starter Alaxk Knight of Galt
- Start date
Sure, but I'd rather use words like "fighter" than "tank". In any case, if there are a lot of classes (instead or a few x subclasses), they could be organized better.
Pour
First Post
I don't want to see all the great work done with a strong, creative Primal power source go away. I love primal spirits and the spirit world, and believe druids, shamans, and wardens are distinct enough concepts to stand apart from Divine and Arcane. Tacking them under clerics or wizards seems wrong.
delericho
Legend
I voted for 8 classes. Using the 4e power source/role notation, I think the classes should be:
Bard: Arcane Leader
Cleric: Divine Leader
Druid: Primal Controller
Fighter: Martial Defender
Paladin: Divine Defender
Ranger: Primal Striker
Rogue: Martial Striker
Wizard: Arcane Controller
(I know some of these don't have the same assignments as in 4e. This is deliberate.)
I feel this gives a nice blend: the four 'classics', plus an alternate for each of the roles in a different power source (that should give a nicely different feel).
(That I have two classes for each of four power sources, as well as two for each role, is a coincidence, albeit a pleasant one.)
Of course, I also think that 5e should keep the power sources implicit - they're useful as a guide for designing the classes, but I don't think they should be mentioned (ever, at all) in the print products.
And I'm also in favour of having the books define the four roles, and advising players that a party containing all four is probably the best balanced, but not assigning roles to the individual classes. Instead, each class should be built so it can be built for several roles (so the Fighter could be built as a Striker instead, the Wizard as a Leader, or the Cleric as a Defender, for example). Even so, I think having a primary role in mind is probably also a useful guide for designing the classes.
Bard: Arcane Leader
Cleric: Divine Leader
Druid: Primal Controller
Fighter: Martial Defender
Paladin: Divine Defender
Ranger: Primal Striker
Rogue: Martial Striker
Wizard: Arcane Controller
(I know some of these don't have the same assignments as in 4e. This is deliberate.)
I feel this gives a nice blend: the four 'classics', plus an alternate for each of the roles in a different power source (that should give a nicely different feel).
(That I have two classes for each of four power sources, as well as two for each role, is a coincidence, albeit a pleasant one.)
Of course, I also think that 5e should keep the power sources implicit - they're useful as a guide for designing the classes, but I don't think they should be mentioned (ever, at all) in the print products.
And I'm also in favour of having the books define the four roles, and advising players that a party containing all four is probably the best balanced, but not assigning roles to the individual classes. Instead, each class should be built so it can be built for several roles (so the Fighter could be built as a Striker instead, the Wizard as a Leader, or the Cleric as a Defender, for example). Even so, I think having a primary role in mind is probably also a useful guide for designing the classes.
TrippyHippy
Hero
I think I've said enough times before that I don't like classifying the Classes into roles, so I'll skip on that.
About 10-13 Classes is about right for a core book. Why, oh why, isn't there a Witch Class though? Totally undervalued archetype - much more so than a Warlock at least. Sorcerers are too similar to Wizards, although I could see an argument for redesigning the Sorcerer so that it becomes a warrior-mage type (like Elric of Melnibone).
There is an argument for doing a Four-Core Class system, with customisable options, but I actually have issues with the Cleric being one of them (I'd prefer a Ranger), and the truth is you are more likely to alienate players if you can't give skope to playing thier favourite Class from previous editions. At this stage in the game's development, you may as well give more options rather than less*.
So mine:
Barbarian
Bard
Cleric
Druid
Fighter
Monk
Paladin
Ranger
Rogue
Sorcerer (a warror-mage redesign)
Witch
Wizard
Possibly a Warlord type, if it was given a better name (like Lord), and redesigned it's function a bit (no healing!). The only 'classic' Classes missing, therefore are the Assassin and Illusionist, although, flatly I can't see why they can't be incorporated into the Rogue and Wizard (specialist) Classes respectively.
* Although in a 'Basic Set' you could reduce the number of Classes back to four again.
About 10-13 Classes is about right for a core book. Why, oh why, isn't there a Witch Class though? Totally undervalued archetype - much more so than a Warlock at least. Sorcerers are too similar to Wizards, although I could see an argument for redesigning the Sorcerer so that it becomes a warrior-mage type (like Elric of Melnibone).
There is an argument for doing a Four-Core Class system, with customisable options, but I actually have issues with the Cleric being one of them (I'd prefer a Ranger), and the truth is you are more likely to alienate players if you can't give skope to playing thier favourite Class from previous editions. At this stage in the game's development, you may as well give more options rather than less*.
So mine:
Barbarian
Bard
Cleric
Druid
Fighter
Monk
Paladin
Ranger
Rogue
Sorcerer (a warror-mage redesign)
Witch
Wizard
Possibly a Warlord type, if it was given a better name (like Lord), and redesigned it's function a bit (no healing!). The only 'classic' Classes missing, therefore are the Assassin and Illusionist, although, flatly I can't see why they can't be incorporated into the Rogue and Wizard (specialist) Classes respectively.
* Although in a 'Basic Set' you could reduce the number of Classes back to four again.
Last edited:
howandwhy99
Adventurer
I think the degree of similarity between all the options has really made it hard to pick more than a small handful for myself. We have magic spellcasters, physical warriors, mental warriors, and holy agents of the divine. I think if we call the rogue a thief, then acting in that class has enough distinction as well. Artificer could qualify as its own field, but I think it just uses lots of material components for a magitech wizard in the end.
If we don't break out of this rut, what we get is Grand Fire Shaman of the Volcano as a class, which really could be covered under a generic enough cleric class.
Let's get creative though. Let's get out of the 4 class model of thinking (+ brain wars!) and really suggest some outside of the box classes. For instance:
Merchant (trader, seller, advertiser, import/export, etc.)
Entertainer (here's our bard, musician, showman, storyteller, politician)
Educator (These specialize in another class, but don't perform it much)
Crewman (Sailor, engineer, driver, navigator)
Craftsmen (woodcutter, smith, leather worker, bowyer/fletcher, etc.)
Farmer (Field farmer, orchard farmer, wine maker, gardener, etc.)
Husbandry (Animal trainer, zookeeper, veterinarian-prestige class)
Doctor (mundane healer, shaman, surgeon, psychoanalyst?)
Lackey (maid/butler, laborer, etc.)
Here's the problem though, are these really the classes and adventures you want to go on? Is your game all about getting that rug for sir John just perfect by the deadline he's given you so you get collect your fee and pay your taxes? It's not a bad game, but it's not what I call high adventure either. Does no adventure ever come into these professions? Of course not, but, if you're feeling really adventurous, then you can run down an ancient fairy tomb and try not to die. Yeah, the name on the door is Acererak, but I'm sure your expertise with the sextant will come in handy.
If we don't break out of this rut, what we get is Grand Fire Shaman of the Volcano as a class, which really could be covered under a generic enough cleric class.
Let's get creative though. Let's get out of the 4 class model of thinking (+ brain wars!) and really suggest some outside of the box classes. For instance:
Merchant (trader, seller, advertiser, import/export, etc.)
Entertainer (here's our bard, musician, showman, storyteller, politician)
Educator (These specialize in another class, but don't perform it much)
Crewman (Sailor, engineer, driver, navigator)
Craftsmen (woodcutter, smith, leather worker, bowyer/fletcher, etc.)
Farmer (Field farmer, orchard farmer, wine maker, gardener, etc.)
Husbandry (Animal trainer, zookeeper, veterinarian-prestige class)
Doctor (mundane healer, shaman, surgeon, psychoanalyst?)
Lackey (maid/butler, laborer, etc.)
Here's the problem though, are these really the classes and adventures you want to go on? Is your game all about getting that rug for sir John just perfect by the deadline he's given you so you get collect your fee and pay your taxes? It's not a bad game, but it's not what I call high adventure either. Does no adventure ever come into these professions? Of course not, but, if you're feeling really adventurous, then you can run down an ancient fairy tomb and try not to die. Yeah, the name on the door is Acererak, but I'm sure your expertise with the sextant will come in handy.
CleverNickName
Limit Break Dancing (He/They)
Oooof....long day. Sorry for the delay in posting.
But I'm totally with you on the "work in different ways" thing. That's one of the biggest strengths of the skill tree system, I think...a wizard's skill tree would have schools and specialization, item creation, metamagic stuff, and the like, while the sorcerer's tree would have light armor and shields, dragon-born abilities, better fighting ability, and what-have-you.
But because the sorcerer started out with a base of a Mage, he will never be as good in combat as a Fighter would have, even if he were to switch completely to the Fighter's skill tree. And likewise, a fighter would never be as good of a spellcaster as the Mage would be, no matter which skill tree he puts ranks into. They started from different baselines. Different cores.
Actually, that wouldn't be a bad idea. If the fighter uses high combat and low magic, and the wizard uses low combat and high magic...well, maybe the "cleric" would be medium combat and medium magic.
Anyway, your point is valid. Maybe the "cleric" is just a mage with a different spellbook.
Fighers are not paladins are not rangers...sure, they all have the same base stats, but they have to be dramatically different in just about every other way or else the character (and the game) quickly becomes boring. Nobody wants a cherry-picking contest.
I agree with you, to a point. Yes, warlocks and wizards have different core mechanics...but they don't "have" to. If they drop the Vancian magic system and use spell points, the distinction between a wizard and a sorcerer becomes a matter of play style and flavor elements. "You use a spellbook, I was born this way...but we both know how to use a fireball."
But I'm totally with you on the "work in different ways" thing. That's one of the biggest strengths of the skill tree system, I think...a wizard's skill tree would have schools and specialization, item creation, metamagic stuff, and the like, while the sorcerer's tree would have light armor and shields, dragon-born abilities, better fighting ability, and what-have-you.
But because the sorcerer started out with a base of a Mage, he will never be as good in combat as a Fighter would have, even if he were to switch completely to the Fighter's skill tree. And likewise, a fighter would never be as good of a spellcaster as the Mage would be, no matter which skill tree he puts ranks into. They started from different baselines. Different cores.
You make an excellent point. I don't know why. Tradition? Habit? Maybe so that there can be a "fighter-mage" baseline in the core classes?
Actually, that wouldn't be a bad idea. If the fighter uses high combat and low magic, and the wizard uses low combat and high magic...well, maybe the "cleric" would be medium combat and medium magic.
Anyway, your point is valid. Maybe the "cleric" is just a mage with a different spellbook.
I agree totally. This is why the wording and writing of these skill trees will be vital to the game. The game developers cannot simply lump everything into a big pile of "powers," force a bunch of equal signs between them, and expect the game to have the same spirit as Dungeons & Dragons. They will need to spend a lot of time developing the skill trees, organizing them in ways that make sense, inspire the imagination, and create a sense of accomplishment in the player.
Fighers are not paladins are not rangers...sure, they all have the same base stats, but they have to be dramatically different in just about every other way or else the character (and the game) quickly becomes boring. Nobody wants a cherry-picking contest.
Dice4Hire
First Post
I think the basic four, with some of the other popular classes defined inteh basic rules like Druid, Ranger, Assassin and Bard or some such
Otehrs for different worlds or theme sets.
I really wnat it simpler, and let skill or class ability choices define what the class plays like. And RP, RP should be half of what makes a character different from a character of the same class.
Otehrs for different worlds or theme sets.
I really wnat it simpler, and let skill or class ability choices define what the class plays like. And RP, RP should be half of what makes a character different from a character of the same class.
The thing with wizard and (witch/warlock/sorceror/what-have-you) is that a lot of people, like me, really hate Vancian magic. And a lot of other people really want Vancian magic.
The only way to get both groups in the 5E tent is to have a Vancian arcane caster and a non-Vancian one, and they almost have to be in the PHB. So, yes, there really is a need for distinct core mechanics here.
For my own list, I'm going with ten core classes:
Bard
Cleric
Druid
Fighter
Paladin
Ranger
Rogue
Warlord
Witch*
Wizard
[size=-2]*Adopting HippyTrippy's proposal here. The witch archetype would add a lot to D&D, I think; a more primal, less scholarly version of the wizard, sort of a mix of warlock and druid. If WotC doesn't want to break new ground with the core classes, then I vote warlock; failing that, sorceror.[/size]
The only way to get both groups in the 5E tent is to have a Vancian arcane caster and a non-Vancian one, and they almost have to be in the PHB. So, yes, there really is a need for distinct core mechanics here.
For my own list, I'm going with ten core classes:
Bard
Cleric
Druid
Fighter
Paladin
Ranger
Rogue
Warlord
Witch*
Wizard
[size=-2]*Adopting HippyTrippy's proposal here. The witch archetype would add a lot to D&D, I think; a more primal, less scholarly version of the wizard, sort of a mix of warlock and druid. If WotC doesn't want to break new ground with the core classes, then I vote warlock; failing that, sorceror.[/size]
Last edited:
Incenjucar
Legend
It might be interesting to start with the whole pack of martial classes, and then introduce one example of each of the non-martial power sources to give everyone a taste of the possibilities.
So:
Fighter
Ranger
Rogue
Warlord
Wizard (Arcane)
Cleric (Divine)
Druid (Primal)
Assassin (Shadow)
Psion (Psionic)
Elementalist (Elemental)
So:
Fighter
Ranger
Rogue
Warlord
Wizard (Arcane)
Cleric (Divine)
Druid (Primal)
Assassin (Shadow)
Psion (Psionic)
Elementalist (Elemental)
Adept (spellcaster): Animist, Priest, Psychic, Shaman, Sorcerer, Witch, Wizard
Expert (Skill Person): Sage, Rogue, Wilderness Rogue
Warrior: Barbarian (heavy armor), Fighter, Knight
Warrior Adept: Arcane Warrior, Holy Warrior, Nature Warrior, Psychic Warrior, Martial Cleric, Paladin, Ranger (spellcasting), Warden)
Physical Adept: Monk, Ninja (mystical)
? (lightly armored warrior/expert hybrid): Barbarian (light armored), Rogue (martial), Ranger (non-spellcasting), Scout, Swashbuckler
Option 2
Arcane Warrior
Animist (Druid)
Barbarian: with urban variant
Bard: with divine and nature variants
Fighter
Holy Warrior (Cleric, Paladin)
Knight
Monk (OA Shaman)
Nature Warrior
Priest
Psychic (green Ronin)
Ranger (non-spellcasting): with urban variant
Rogue: with martial and wilderness rogue variants
Shaman (Green Ronin)
Sorcerer
Witch (Green Ronin)
Wizard
Wizard Specialists
Expert (Skill Person): Sage, Rogue, Wilderness Rogue
Warrior: Barbarian (heavy armor), Fighter, Knight
Warrior Adept: Arcane Warrior, Holy Warrior, Nature Warrior, Psychic Warrior, Martial Cleric, Paladin, Ranger (spellcasting), Warden)
Physical Adept: Monk, Ninja (mystical)
? (lightly armored warrior/expert hybrid): Barbarian (light armored), Rogue (martial), Ranger (non-spellcasting), Scout, Swashbuckler
Option 2
Arcane Warrior
Animist (Druid)
Barbarian: with urban variant
Bard: with divine and nature variants
Fighter
Holy Warrior (Cleric, Paladin)
Knight
Monk (OA Shaman)
Nature Warrior
Priest
Psychic (green Ronin)
Ranger (non-spellcasting): with urban variant
Rogue: with martial and wilderness rogue variants
Shaman (Green Ronin)
Sorcerer
Witch (Green Ronin)
Wizard
Wizard Specialists
