Core Classes: What and how many

[steeldragons]

Alright, so all of my posts are gettign too long/involved. Here is Steel Dragons' proposed Beginning/Starter DnD:TNG Class List:

Avenger (an assassin, acrobatic, monk-ish/unarmed combat mish-mash Rogue sub-class)
Bard
Barbarian
Champion (I decided I like that better than the religious overtones of "Crusader", the socio-political implications of "Knight" or the French-based "Chevalier" a.k.a. "Cavalier/member of the "Cavalry"...nothing against the French, of course. "Champion" just sounds more broad/open for interpretation by the player. Someone who fights for some "greater cause/code" but without the additional "Divine" weight/restrictions of the Paladin)
Cleric
Druid
Fighter
Mage (I do so like this better than the baggage that comes from "Wizard" and it could allow for a combo-casting system of memorized and spontaneous to scratch everyone's "Sorcerer" itch.)
Paladin
Ranger
Shaman
Thaumaturge
Thief
Witch

Ok...There. I'm done....Really, this time.
--SD

 

[Tallifer]

I want two Players' Handbooks:

#1. Starter Box: Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Thief

#2. 400 page Players' Handbook: Those four plus the Warlord, Barbarian, Druid, Shaman, Warden, Bard, Avenger, Seeker, Swordmage, Runepriest, Artificer, Warlock, Sorcerer, Theurgist, Ranger, Invoker and Friar.

 

[Hassassin]

Warrior, expert, spellcaster. Three classes, apply CleverNickName's skill trees. Why separate the cleric and the wizard?

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.

Ok, here we have an argument to join divine and arcane magic, and an argument to separate Vancian and non-Vancian.

How about Cleric with non-Vancian and Wizard with Vancian magic by default, with rules for swapping? That way the basic four should be enough to satisfy a larger number of people.

(Or vice versa, but Vancian screams "Wizard" to me.)

 

[Aeolius]

I think I've said enough times before that I don't like classifying the Classes into roles, so I'll skip on that.

This. I'm hoping one can "dial down" the complexity dials to eliminate the Leader/Striker/Defender/Controller roles.

 

[TwoSix]

A list of both my assumptions and hopes driving this.

Assumption 1) Any purely 4e-ism will be eradicated. (Sad, but necessary for the overall feel they're going for.)
Assumption 2) Some older edition standbys will be brought back.

Hope 1) Druids won't fall back under the "divine" classification.
Hope 2) Releasing new classes will continue to be a driver of future sales, rather than a system of "few classes, but endless modifications."

So, what I'm hoping for:

Non-magic classes: Fighter, Thief.
Arcane classes: Wizard, Illusionist.
Divine Classes: Cleric, Paladin.
Nature Classes: Druid, Ranger.

 

[kitsune9]

If we're going to get back to basics and introduce modularity in the 5e, I'm more inclined that the classes will be the basic 4--fighter, cleric, rogue, and wizard.

 

[Kaodi]

My list basically came down to dropping the monk and adding the warlord and swordmage. Monk is a classic D&D class, no doubt, but it never quite belongs until you start adding in more Eastern flavoured classes in general. Though now that I think of it, some Eastern flavoured monsters could perhaps be treated the same way (Ogre Mage, I am looking at you).

In any case, my list reasoning goes something like this:

Cleric
Fighter
Rogue
Wizard

Cleric + Fighter = Paladin
Fighter + Rogue = Ranger
Fighter + Wizard = Swordmage (Paladin Counterpart)
Rogue + Wizard = Bard

Druid = Nature Cleric
Sorcerer = Natural Wizard (Druid Counterpart)
Warlord = War Fighter
Barbarian = Primitive Fighter

As far as that goes, I think you could perhaps justify dropping the Druid, Sorcerer and Barbarian together as a group, as they sort of fit a theme (which the Ranger also partakes in). But the Warlord should probably stick around, unless the Fighter can manage to kill it and take its stuff. I mean, I seem to recall that once upon a time " leader " was part of the designation that included " guy that walks at front of the party " .

 

[TarionzCousin]

Lan-"and what in the nine hells is Vampire doing on that list?"-efan

Presumably to make my wife happy, since that's her favorite 4e class (well, that and the Executioner).

If I were you, I would sleep with at least one eye open. She sounds... dangerous.


Also, I'm still waiting for the official dwelf race.

 

[Nebulous]

Even though I support the notion of combining class with a skill tree I think something is missing. A paladin is more than just a fighter with cleric skills. We need to add Title: Paladin, complete with a unique ability to the build. Otherwise some of the poetry is lost.

Agreed. There need to be some special powers tacked on there in a case like the paladin, and for most classes really. Still, the skill tree idea is an interesting one.

I second the idea though of having a basic Fighter, and then deviating from that to make any kind of person who is especially skilled with a blade. It sorta harkens back to 2e kits. If better implemented, that would be awesome.

 

[JohnSnow]

Yes. It does not quite say "Heroic adventure/exploration of excitement for fame and fortune."

I'm reminded of a cartoon from the 1e DMG which a bunch of adventurers around the gaming table explaining to a comrade that they are playing "Taxes & Townhomes" or "People & Professions" or something like that. hahaha.

Page 111. I believe the game is called "Papers & Paychecks" - which is the title of the book the cleric is reading. The wizard is throwing dice and the fighter is explaining to the innkeeper: "It's a great new fantasy role-playing game. We pretend we're workers and students in an industrialized and technological society."

One of my favorite 1e DMG cartoons.