Core Classes: What and how many

[Sunseeker]

Sort of. It's also like that guy in another thread who objected to the term "buff" - if we already have concerns that the game is too "video-gamy", having obvious WoW slang or concepts showing up makes the feeling worse.

In other words, it's an emotional reaction.

The sad part of how emotional it is is that the terms "buff", "debuff", "heal", "dpr(which became dps)" all existed long before WoW.

 

[Ratskinner]

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?

Yes, if they're done right.

Recalling that they said the "advanced" rules with all the flexibility will be at the end of the book, sure. 2e, for example, had only the 4 base classes and everything subclassed off of that. So while technically there were only 4 classes, I think the first 2e book had 9 (I'm sure someone can correct me) subclasses to choose from.

The 2e scheme wasn't very easily customizable (or multiclassable), but that could easily be changed with some of the advances in d20 rpgs over the years. (Talent trees etc.) However, I'd be perfectly fine with the big 4 being "premade" and presented as the "common" classes, and the Talent/Skill/whatever options being in a later "uncommon" or "rare" class chapter.

I especially like the idea of some 4e classes being reduced to Talent trees available to different "base classes." A Warlord tree attached to a Fighter, Cleric, or a Thief might work differently in interesting ways. Honestly, I wonder if Fighter-Paladin-Cleric wouldn't just be Warrior subclasses who dip into the "Divine Magic" talent tree to differing degrees, but that might be pushing it for historical reasons.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

The objection to roles always perplexes me. They've always been a fixture of D&D, they'd just never been formalized - and consequently hadn't been done in a really functional consistent way.

Maybe it's too much 'seeing the strings?'

For me it's because it makes all of the classes about combat. I'd also like bards focused on social interaction, thieves based on stealth, rangers based on wilderness skills, etc.

 

[dnlas]

Please dont made druid as a subclass of cleric

Maybe they're role in battle is very similar

But they're role in the role-playing is very different

Druid's Code of conduct is unique and I love it (I mean 3e or Pf...I dont like 4E)

D&D is not just a battle game, don't classify a role by combat.

 

[Tallifer]

Please dont made druid as a subclass of cleric

Maybe they're role in battle is very similar

But they're role in the role-playing is very different

Druid's Code of conduct is unique and I love it (I mean 3e or Pf...I dont like 4E)

D&D is not just a battle game, don't classify a role by combat.

I gave you experience because you want separate classes for different conceits. And roleplaying concerns should count for certain archtypical classes.

However I disagree that their combat role is even the same: the druid is a controller, like a primal wizard, whereas a cleric is a support class (buffer/healer).

 

[Charleois]

The mighty man, and the man of war, the judge and the prudent and the ancient,
The captain of fifty and the honourable man, and the counselor and the cunning artificer and the eloquent orator.

So I guess the barbarian, fighter, invoker, cleric, druid, warlord, paladin, wizard, artificer and bard.

 

[steeldragons]

Just to point out, taking those classes from the poll [as it stands at the moment] that broke 100 votes -indicating a 40% or higher response, for those of you who like your statistics/percentages- (seems a reasonable line to draw) is as follows:

Barbarian
Bard
Cleric
Druid
Fighter
Paladin
Ranger
Rogue
Sorcerer (barely, at just 104)
Warlord (even more barely/skin of his teeth, at 101!)
Wizard

So we seem to be voting pretty well/much in line with the proposed "everything from a 1st PHB of any edition" list.

Interestingly (to me, anyway) "Assassin" which I have seen and read much fervor for is only at 49! And the "Warlock", also an apparent crowd-pleaser (as well as a "core class" from some edition's PHB, I believe. Was it core in 3.x? I'm almost positive it was in 4. Anybody?), stands at only 66!

Just thought I'd bring that to everyone's attention. That's all.
Carry on.
--SD

 

[Hassassin]

Just to point out, taking those classes from the poll [as it stands at the moment] that broke 100 votes -indicating a 40% or higher response, for those of you who like your statistics/percentages- (seems a reasonable line to draw) is as follows:

Barbarian
Bard
Cleric
Druid
Fighter
Paladin
Ranger
Rogue
Sorcerer (barely, at just 104)
Warlord (even more barely/skin of his teeth, at 101!)
Wizard

Compare to classes that have so far broken 40% in classes played:

Barbarian
Bard
Cleric
Druid
Fighter
Monk
Paladin
Ranger
Rogue
Sorcerer
Warlord
Wizard

Warlock is barely ahead of Warlord, both at 33%. Assassin and Psion follow at 29% and 27%.

 

[Knight Templar]

Just the core 4, they can be customized into any other class you like.