Elemental Hero' Handbook

[the Jester]

I don't really see the big worry about more classes. 100 might be a bit much, sure, but 40 over 8 years is cake.

As others have stated, a new class burns many more pages than even its class writeup indicates.

Option overload sucks; it is typically one of the things that drags each edition down.

Moreover, option overload leads to more unforeseeable broken combos leads to more errata leads to more online whinging.

Unless it is genuinely new and different, I don't think we need new classes. I would always ask: Could this fit as a build for an existing class? If the answer is yes, then there is no need to make it a new class.

Runepriest? Could be a cleric build.
Seeker? Ranger build.

Vampire as a class? Doesn't work as a build. Make it a class. Preferably one that doesn't suck.

All, of course, IMHO; YMMV.

 

[twilsemail]

Vampire as a class? Doesn't work as a build. Make it a class. Preferably one that doesn't suck.

So you're thinking something like Psychic vampires? Some non-blood-related leech-y PC. What've you got against the traditional "I vant to bite your neck." vamps?

 

[Incenjucar]

Personally, I feel we're quite a distance from options overload. Different people are going to have a different capacity for handling options - hence Essentials-only games. Indeed, WotC has spent some effort declaring limits on what they will produce, ensuring that there are conceptual gaps waiting to be filled.

That also leaves the question of what WotC is going to sell if not new options.

 

[Major Moab]

My opinion, for what it's worth:
I don't need more options for classes to make. I tend to think in a classic fighter/mage/thief/priest format. I don't need more power sources. I think shadow, psionic and, to an extent, primal are bit silly, honestly.

I would personally prefer more options within the existing classes. Say I want to make a sniper. If he is going to be effective, he HAS to be a ranger. But I wanted a sneaky assassin-y sniper. I want him as a rouge. But I can't, because rogues have limited range related abilities. Give me more options within the class. I want a gutsy mage on the frontline, making goofy green boxing gloves of light. I want a priest of darkness, sneaking alongside the rogues. A warrior who first faces the enemy from a hundred yards with his longbow. OK, maybe not the last one.

I miss the schools of magic, giving you 9 types of generic mage to make, or many more as you tweak the concept of your character. Essentially, I would rather have 100 swordmage options, than 100 options besides swordmage.

Note: My opinion is worth only the time you spent reading it, and the cost of your internet service provider.

 

[Incenjucar]

D&D is missing what I feel are far too many and far too obvious character concepts which would work perfectly fine with the rules system, but which would have to be cobbled together from scratch, and I don't see why that should BE. It's understandable that those who already have access to all the stories that THEY want to tell would not feel the need for more - but I have stories that as yet cannot be told, and I see many with the same predicament.

 

[Jhaelen]

Unless it is genuinely new and different, I don't think we need new classes. I would always ask: Could this fit as a build for an existing class? If the answer is yes, then there is no need to make it a new class.

Runepriest? Could be a cleric build.
Seeker? Ranger build.

Meh.

Cleric? Could be a paladin build.
Ranger? Could be a fighter build.

Paladin? Could be a fighter build.

Fighter? Could be created without requiring the concept of a class.

Is it time for D&D to turn into a classless system?

If they did away with attributes the need for different classes would go away, too.
As long as there are six ability scores, I'd like to see six classes, one based on each of the ability scores. Everything else is a hybrid.

Alternatively, and more likely: three classes (fighter, expert, magic-user? ) based on different attributes, with builds focusing on different secondary attributes.

Vampire is not and should not be a class, imho, ymmv.

 

[Incenjucar]

Alternatively, and more likely: three classes (fighter, expert, magic-user? ) based on different attributes, with builds focusing on different secondary attributes.

So, basically, Dragon Age.

 

[the Jester]

Meh.

Cleric? Could be a paladin build.

Sure, but since...

Paladin? Could be a fighter build.

...don't you think the cleric is more iconic than the paladin?

Fighter? Could be created without requiring the concept of a class.

Is it time for D&D to turn into a classless system?

I'm not even seeing your point here. Of course a classless system can accommodate fighting characters. D&D uses classes. If you're suggesting that I am suggesting that D&D should go classless- not at all.

As long as there are six ability scores, I'd like to see six classes, one based on each of the ability scores. Everything else is a hybrid.

Fast hero, strong hero, etc, like in d20 Modern? Viable, interesting, but not my bag personally.

Vampire is not and should not be a class, imho, ymmv.

See Heroes of Shadow. Like it or not, it is a class in the game. (Not that I especially like it, but saying "Vampire is not a class" is a lot like saying "Ardent is not a class." Should be is a whole nother animal, though.)

I guess my point is that, through D&D's history, class bloat turns into stuff like the warmage (I'm like a socerer, but better!), the runepriest (I'm like a cleric, but more fiddly!), the seeker (I'm like a ranger, only more naturey!), the wu jen (I'm like a wizard, only more Oriental), etc.

I mean really, if we distill it down, what character concept can't you build with the existing tools? What are these mysterious stories you can't tell?

You want to play a samurai? That's easy; play a fighter and call yourself Sapporo. You want to play a scout? That's easy; play a ranger.

There are a very few concepts that are hard to emulate from previous editions- the spellthief is the one I'm thinking of here- but really, I think you can get pretty darn close with a little judicious reflavoring.

If WotC keeps pushing tons of classes out the door, what they will end up with is dwindling sales. I haven't picked up Heroes of Shadow yet, despite being interested in a lot of it, because the cost : stuff I'll never use ratio is too high for my current lack of income. If they publish a PH4 that focuses on a bunch of classes from the Apple Pie power source and folks don't like it, not only have they invested in producing that stuff, they have set the expectation that they'll print a Heroes of Apple Pie or Apple Pie Power book- which are going to sell to fewer customers than PH4 did. Or else everyone accuses them of dropping support for the new stuff (hi there seeker and runepriest!).

Only if the PH4 sells well does WotC win, and I think this thread makes clear that a substantial number of potential customers don't want new classes. It doesn't seem like a good bet for business.

 

[Incenjucar]

I mean really, if we distill it down, what character concept can't you build with the existing tools? What are these mysterious stories you can't tell?

Examples:
There is no controller class with attacks that can be either short or close range.

There is no defender class that fights through a conjuration in order to occupy two locations.

There is no striker class that makes attacks through allies.

There is no class that has at-will conjurations that it channels attacks through which are modified by the specific at-will used.

Samurai warriors are not a fair example as they aren't mechanically remarkable even in the real world.

Furthermore, if WotC doesn't put out more classes, they get NO sales because their business model is to sell game options.

 

[the Jester]

Examples:
There is no controller class with attacks that can be either short or close range.

There is no defender class that fights through a conjuration in order to occupy two locations.

There is no striker class that makes attacks through allies.

There is no class that has at-will conjurations that it channels attacks through which are modified by the specific at-will used.

Fair enough, at least for the most part (though I'd point out the druid for the first one). The thing is, there is (for example) at least one class that makes attacks through allies. There is at least one class that conjures creatures.

Are you suggesting that should be able to expect, for instance, a primary striker, secondary leader that can inflict large area attacks that immobilize? And a two-weapon fighting leader that specializes in granting saving throws and has special features that help against monster auras?

All of the ideas you have are (IMHO) better served by new builds. A defender with conjurations? How about a swordmage build?

A "striker through allies" sounds like a striker build for warlord.

At will conjuring hoohah guy sounds to me like a shaman build.

Furthermore, if WotC doesn't put out more classes, they get NO sales because their business model is to sell game options.

I disagree. There are a lot more interesting things they can put out than new classes. A book of magic items to support the new rarity system; more monster books; a book of new powers usable by characters of existing classes; more rituals; themes (even though I don't use them!); setting information; books akin to Open Grave for fey; environmental books like Frostfell and Sandstorm; new builds for existing classes; adventures; a book with good power-creation guidelines; an Unearthed Arcana-style book of optional alternate rules... all of these would get more traction than a book full of new classes, races and feats, IMHO.

Unless those new classes really do stand out and really don't fit into any existing class! The problem is, we're already past that point.

Obviously, YMMV.