Core Classes: What and how many

[JohnSnow]

My tastes tend toward Classic+.

Core Four: Fighter, Wizard (mage), Rogue (thief), Cleric

Traditional: Ranger, Druid, Paladin, Bard

Legacy: Assassin, Barbarian, Monk

Fun: Warlock, Cavalier (better name for warlord)

NEW: Swordmage or some other Gish.

Given the widespread popularity of fighter/mages over the years, the last is something D&D has needed as a core class for about, oh, 30 years. Let's just do it - and get it right for a change.

The concepts of "complex fighter" (a la Tome of Battle) and "simple wizard" (a la Sorcerer) are just things that should be handled by character complexity options. In other words, they shouldn't be separate classes, just variations of the core.

My two cents.

 

[Nebulous]

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.

Just an aside, but there should be a poll as to whether anyone wants to see that kind of retro 1e humor in their 5e core books

 

[Li Shenron]

I had two possible ways of answering this poll.

I'd be happy (and this is how I voted) to just have the four basic archetypes of fighter, rogue, cleric and wizard done well. I believe that every character concept can be covered decently with those four (provided there is enough customizability through spells et al), plus multiclassing.

However, I'm not so fond of multiclassing. I'm pretty sure there will be multiclassing rules, but in case they weren't I would not be sad. In that case however I would want 3-4 additional classes to cover for concepts that are perhaps harder. First and foremost the bard, and secondarily the druid, ranger and maybe also paladin.

Except maybe the very last, notice how these additional characters have enough variant concepts to warrant them a whole class. In fact, we've always been arguing about things such as "what should really the ranger be like?". Aragorn-based, archer-type, fighting druid, scout, wilderness rogue, wilderness guard (notice the opposition of the last two)? Maybe this is a symptom that it should be a core class of its own, with enough customizability to create all those characters.

I don't think classes other than these 7-8 have ever had the same breadth, except when the class was just a mechanical variant of another (Sorcerer, Warlock).

 

[mlund]

My take on it is to have Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Magic-User as Core Super-Classes, each with a default sub-class that's classic: Fighter: Slayer, Rogue: Thief, Cleric: War Priest, Magic-User: Wizard (Mage).

So at the most basic level you get the most classic implementation of the super-type pre-packaged.

There'd be two alternative sub-classes to pick if you wanted an extra layer of complexity - each one with a distinct role from other others.

Fighter (Leader): Warlord, Fighter (Defender): Knight
Rogue (Leader): Bard, Rogue (Controller): Ranger
Cleric (Controller): Invoker, Cleric (Defender): Paladin
Magic-User (Striker): Sorcerer, Magic-User (Defender): Swordmage

That covers all the Iconic classes pretty well with solid defaults out of the box. It also has incremental complexity for a balance of variants that cover roles and most classical classes. That's what I'd like to see in a game's "Core" presentation.

Complexity Level 1 - 4 Classes (Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Magic-User)
Complexity Level 2 - 4 Classes with 12 Sub-Classes (first 4 defaults plus 2 variant classes each)

- Marty Lund

 

[Mokona]

Would you buy the 5th edition Player's Handbook if it had only four (4) classes. Period.

1. Cleric / Priest / Whatever you want to call holy warrior - heal bot
2. Fighter / Warrior
3. Thief / Rogue
4. Wizard / Magic-user

Yes? No?

 

[TwinBahamut]

Would you buy the 5th edition Player's Handbook if it had only four (4) classes. Period.

1. Cleric / Priest / Whatever you want to call holy warrior - heal bot
2. Fighter / Warrior
3. Thief / Rogue
4. Wizard / Magic-user

Yes? No?

Honestly... no. I wouldn't. That is too simplistic for me. I'm not really the type to play any of those four classes, so a book that only covered them would be less valuable to me. Well, I'd probably pick it up eventually, once other materials were released, but it would be a hard sell.

I doubt that such a thing is going to happen, though.

 

[gyor]

My tastes tend toward Classic+.

Core Four: Fighter, Wizard (mage), Rogue (thief), Cleric

Traditional: Ranger, Druid, Paladin, Bard

Legacy: Assassin, Barbarian, Monk

Fun: Warlock, Cavalier (better name for warlord)

NEW: Swordmage or some other Gish.

Given the widespread popularity of fighter/mages over the years, the last is something D&D has needed as a core class for about, oh, 30 years. Let's just do it - and get it right for a change.

The concepts of "complex fighter" (a la Tome of Battle) and "simple wizard" (a la Sorcerer) are just things that should be handled by character complexity options. In other words, they shouldn't be separate classes, just variations of the core.

My two cents.

I like your list with 2 caveats, one I'd add thier idea for a priest class because it appears to be very interesting idea and thier reasoning is sound. And secondly I think they have something interesting in mind for the sorceror, different from the past, but still cleaves to the basic theme of the class. I have a feeling the elementalist subclass is a prototype for the 5e sorceror, the way I think that the cavalier/blackguards are prototypes for paladins or kits, and the slayer subclass is a prototype for the basic fighter.

As a side note I have no objection to an illusionist or psion classes, but they will not be seen as as key, plus the psion maybe having,problems. The Illusionist maybe should be renamed if they bring it back.

In fact I am a fan of restoring all the phb1 classes from all editions.

 

[The Shadow]

I am disappointed that the Illusionist is not on the list! One of the few things I miss from 1e.

 

[Sunseeker]

I would rather see a number of these classes rolled into "skill trees" or "advancement trees" for "core" classes, such as fighter, cleric, rogue, ect...

But otherwise I've enjoyed playing at least half those classes, and I've seen how fun most of the rest can be when my friends play them. I'd love to see all of them return. The more classes, the more ways to play, the more ways to have fun.

 

[Stormonu]

I'd kind of like to see a hybrid of SW Saga Talent trees and 4E's themes/backgrounds, inspired by CleverNickName's post.

Arcanist (Arcane talent tree)
- Abjurer (Abjuration specialization/talent tree)
- Artificer (Artifice talent tree)
- Conjurer (Conjuration specialization/talent tree)
- Diviner (Divination specialization/talent tree)
- Illusionist (Illusion specialization/talent tree)
- Invoker (Invocation specialization/talent tree)
- Necromancer (Necromancy specialization/talent tree)
- Sorcerer (Bloodline talent tree)
- Warlock (Pact talent tree)
- Wizard (Vancian talent tree)
Cleric (Miracle talent tree)
- Cleric of Pelor (blessed by Pelor background, Sun and Healing specialization/talent tree)
- Druid (wilderness background, Friend of Nature talent tree)
- Paladin (Combatant talent tree)
- Shaman (savage background, Spirit talker talent tree)
Fighter (Master Combatant talent tree)
- Barbarian/Beserker (savage background, Rage talent tree)
- Knight (noble background, Mounted talent tree)
- Ranger (wilderness background, Archery or Two-weapon tree)
- Warlord (Leadership talent tree)
Rogue
- Assassin (Assassin talent tree)
- Bard (Perform talent tree, Lesser Combat tree, Lesser Magic tree)
- Charlatan (Conniver talent tree)
- Trapspringer (Sabotage talent tree)

If you want to make, say, a Swordmage, you might start with Fighter and take up the Vancian talent tree (or start with Wizard and pick up Master Combatant...).