For core PHB classes --> sorcerer and warlock

[Steely_Dan]

I am a bit disappointed that they released the Sorcerer and Warlock before the Bard, Druid, Monk, Paladin and Ranger, but not surprised, they had to pump out some non-Vancian deals before the hysteria got too much, but the Sorcerer (synonym for wizard) has been around since 2000, and the Warlock (synonym for wizard) since, what, 2006 (?), the other classes I mentioned have been part of the game for over 3 decades.

I would prefer overall less classes for 5th Ed, as opposed to 3rd (yikes) and 4th.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I must say, yesterday I was able to convince a player who last played in the 3rd edition to try a warlock. Because he did not really want to be a wizard, but wanted some magic.
And he ended up, with a cool character concept, which is hiding his abilities. Using crossbow and rapier instead of his eldritch blast.

And when a class is versatile and allows for such a playstyle, i am more than happy.
4e and even 3e before more or less assumes, that you use your classes abilities. With the warlock wielding his rapier and crossbow nearly as well as his magic, and monsters not too hard to bring down by mundane means, there is the possibility to hide your real powers. And this is what makes the game more than just a boardgame or computer game, where you just try to win. You want to play a role.
And this is why flavour and mechanics that match are important. Yes, the warlock is descripted as quite shady. So you should try to hide your abilities (which is why he has the suggested charlatan background and appropriate equippment), and his proficiency and the whole system helps playing this way!

 

[Li Shenron]

I would prefer overall less classes for 5th Ed, as opposed to 3rd (yikes) and 4th.

Less is more! At least to a certain point... I'd be happy with 8-10 classes, as long as they are well-supported in the PHB.

For me the PHB is absolute paramount. I might be buying supplements like I did in 3.0, but my players are probably not going to, therefore what they are going to have for sure is the PHB. Furthermore, "core only" is always the safe harbour for a DM to run games with unknown people (also at stores, convention, online...) without offering too much in advance to powerplayers.

But PHB classes need to have enough material to offer variety, and make the core stand up on its own without supplements for a long time, especially because published adventures can only assume the core! (Unless they are setting-specific, in which case they can also assume setting books)

Usually Wizards are the least problematic because they get a large array of spells (which in fact occupy a vast portion of the PHB!). Rather than have too many classes, each of which has only material to create at most 2-3 somewhat different characters, I would have less classes with strong support.

And please WotC don't give us the "everything is core" concept again... that is either meaningless or it says "buy all books or you can't play this game well", in which case I'm afraid I already know what my choice will be (hint: same as previously).

If you really cannot avoid putting 15+ classes in the PHB, then as a last resort I would be in favor of a 500+ pages, 100$ PHB... which would still be cheaper than trying to ransack additional class material from different splatbooks just to have enough for some variety in each class.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Usually Wizards are the least problematic because they get a large array of spells (which in fact occupy a vast portion of the PHB!).

Though I prefer that doesn't happen in 5th Ed (no one class should dominate the PHB).

 

[GX.Sigma]

Less is more! At least to a certain point...

Less is sometimes more. More is always more.

I'm currently playing a Psion in a 4e game, and the other PCs include a Sorcerer, a Monk, and a Runepriest. If we're not able to convert our characters smoothly, switching to 5e is going to be a major hassle.

 

[Remathilis]

Less is sometimes more. More is always more.

I'm currently playing a Psion in a 4e game, and the other PCs include a Sorcerer, a Monk, and a Runepriest. If we're not able to convert our characters smoothly, switching to 5e is going to be a major hassle.

I predict two of your group are going to be happy...

 

[Remathilis]

Less is more! At least to a certain point... I'd be happy with 8-10 classes, as long as they are well-supported in the PHB.

The 3.5 PHB, which clocks in at a hearty 317 pages, has 11 classes, 7 races, roughly 100 feats and 300 spells.

Beyond these 11, we might be adding warlock, assassin, and warlord. Two of those are not spellcasting classes. That doesn't seem like it would be a lot of additional page weight. Considering how truncated skills, spells, and feats all are in the playtest, I imagine there will ample room in a 350 page book for all 14 classes and 8 races of the PHB's of Christmas Past with room for a good count of the wizard schools, cleric domains, warlock pacts, fighter styles, rogue schemes, paladin oaths, druidic wildshapes, bardic colleges, monastic traditions, and sorcerer bloodlines to create a variety of PCs.

 

[Li Shenron]

The 3.5 PHB, which clocks in at a hearty 317 pages, has 11 classes, 7 races, roughly 100 feats and 300 spells.

Yes, and IMHO they were too many And I mean too many classes and races, but OTOH not enough feats at least. It wasn't bad, but it could be better.

Here's some examples why I got that feeling back then already after just a few months of playing 3.0:

- IIRC if you play a specialist wizard, 1 of your 2 new spells known when you level up must belong to your school, but there are not enough spells in the PHB to cover this requirement for almost all school, unless you purposefully select to learn spells of lower level

- there are no feats oriented at making class features more versatile, such as expaning the barbarian's rage, the the rogue's sneak attack, the ranger's favored enemies, the druid's wildshape...

- there is just one fighter-only feat, which means just one single (optional) little feature for an entire class to mark its uniqueness

- there are very few Rogue's special high level abilities, and very few Bard's songs

I would like a PHB that gives immediately more depth to the classes by offering basic alternatives to their class-specific features. Had they included 2-3 classes less in the 3ed PHB, they could have certainly made space for all those examples I mentioned above.

Then additional classes should deserve a throughly treatment like in 3ed Complete Books, where new classes were introduced and they had (presumably, I don't own those books) enough material to stand on their own.

Too many classes in the PHB means they will have low depth/customization, meaning supplements will be more necessary.

 

[tlantl]

Though I prefer that doesn't happen in 5th Ed (no one class should dominate the PHB).

Were this true you might have an argument, but there are seven core classes that use spells in the 3e player's handbook. There's no telling how many others exist in other books.

Sure spells take up a lot of space, but skills and feats do too. You need to have this out with the devs of 3e they're the ones who turned the fighter into a caddy. Not the wizard.

In a way it's a good thing Mr cook's no longer on the team. After 3e I view his design methods as suspect.

 

[Minigiant]

If you can't write 20 levels a class in 5-6 pages not counting references to spells, backgrounds, and specialties, then something is wrong.