Eight is Enough: How Many Classes?

[Desdichado]

I'd say that the odds of them being removed are long. But then, I have been known to make mistakes . . . from time to time.

How long are the odds? Would you say they were 725 to 1?

Good heavens, I'm such a Star Wars nerd...

 

[Remathilis]

How long are the odds? Would you say they were 725 to 1?

Good heavens, I'm such a Star Wars nerd...

Nothing wrong with that...

also, they might have found the necessary "space" in the book to put a 9th class in, now that draft 1 is done...

Thought though: The "Middle 8" (heh, Dr. Who reference!) might also assume a class is cut? 7 classes might cut striker (ranger) and keep the game 2 leaders, 2 defenders, 2 strikers, 1 controller as well.

 

[Lab_Monkey]

Thought though: The "Middle 8" (heh, Dr. Who reference!) might also assume a class is cut? 7 classes might cut striker (ranger) and keep the game 2 leaders, 2 defenders, 2 strikers, 1 controller as well.

That would make this monkey cry.

Rangers are so popular and iconic that I would be pretty stunned and disappointed if they went this route. I'd rather see an extra controller added than to have a great class like the ranger removed.

 

[Gloombunny]

I'm still hoping for 12 classes in the PHB. One for each power source, for each role. So a Martial, Arcane, and Divine Defender. A Martial, Arcane, and Divine Leader. A Martial, Arcane, and Divine Striker. And a Martial, Arcane, and Divine Controller.

I'm very glad they're not doing that. They should create a class when they have a good concept for it, not to satisfy some meaningless symmetry. Classes should remain classes, not just combinations of power source and role. If that means that some possible combinations remain unfilled, or if some combinations get used more than once, then so be it. What's important is that we have classes that are fun to play with. Filling in a grid might look pretty but it's not gonna mean piddly-squat when it comes to actually playing the game.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

I'm very glad they're not doing that. They should create a class when they have a good concept for it, not to satisfy some meaningless symmetry. Classes should remain classes, not just combinations of power source and role.

I agree to an extent, but I would have like to see the full 12; but only if each had a good concept. I like the idea for each, so that there would be a base example of each type for future developers (WotC or 3rd party) to work from. I think would be good for the game.

 

[SSquirrel]

Sorry Lab_Monkey, I've never been into Rangers and think if they were choosing a class to get the axe for PH1 it's a good start. Rangers have never really felt like they were worth having as a class to themselves to me, TSR/WotC have never really staked a great claim to the gaming space for them IMO. Yes I know a certain Drow is a Ranger, but Rangers can be accomplished just fine w/fighters having a broader skill base.

Don't even get me started on the poor spell selection/casting attached to the Ranger (or the Paladin or somehow the Assassin for that matter). No Ranger I've ever played with really ever used their spells for much, they could have been given much more useful other abilities.

Rogue, Cleric, Wizard, Fighter. 4 or more others. Paladins and Rangers are prestige classes at best. Sorcerors can go away happily. I'm one who would like to see Psionics around and actually core, but I don't see it happening really. Monks don't need to be core, Bards can be provided they're done better than 3E had them. 3.5 Bards were a good deal better. but still more likely to get passed over among my circle of gamer friends. I tried making a 3E Bard work in one of my friend's games, but I'll admit it wasn't a campaign that played to the Bard's strong suits

Really, do we need more than 4 classes? Psionics can be covered ala Arcana Evolved w/flavor feats, and most of the classes in the game are basically a blending in different measures of the 4 base classes. Having effectively designed talent trees to allow people to go to different class extremes would be more than enough really. Less space devoted to character classes, more space spent on important things. Like all the gnomes of the world being put thru an abattoir

 

[Gloombunny]

Really, do we need more than 4 classes?

We do unless those classes are extraordinarily flexible and multiclassing works very smoothly. But then, I'd say we don't need more than 3 classes if we're going that route, like True20. Or even no classes, if we're making everything so flexible and generic.

4e isn't going that route, though, and I'm glad.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Really, do we need more than 4 classes?

It is not a question of essentials, it is a question of desires.

Heck, we don't even need 4 classes. Or any classes. Or dice. It's all about what you want.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I really hope the 9th class will be the Druid.

 

[SSquirrel]

Rechan>The sugar comment was exactly what I hoped to receive I was bored and it amused me.

Classes>I don't think having fewer classes that are more flexible really makes things generic when you're also talking about multiple talent paths and such, plus all the variety of per encounter/day/whatever abilities. No, I have no desire to play GURPS and I've never looked at True20 besides some reviews (can never find a printed copy of the main book in a store), but I like the idea of the game being much mroe flexible than it currently is.

Currently we HAVE to have more classes and prestige classes to get our ideas across b/c the classes are inherently inflexible. If all class based abilities are obtainable thru the feat system (ala Dr Spunj's variant here ) then it's much easier to truly tailor any class more towards what you want. Yes you end up with more cases of a fighter w/a bit of thievery and maybe an occasional spell, but that describes a lot of characters from novels too.

I'm really not intending to derail things here, so I'll stop at that. I just think people on ENWorld are (generally speaking) getting bent out of shape over very little.