For core PHB classes --> sorcerer and warlock

[Li Shenron]

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.

In the 3.0 PHB, classes take up 2-3 pages each and races ~1 page each.

But I don't think the class description itself is a big deal, it's their character options (spells, class-restricted feats or whatever, special abilities) that may take up space. Or they might happen to be too few... for instance I didn't like very much the rigidity of the 3.0 Paladin, Ranger, Monk, Barbarian and even Rogue... Fortunately the first array of 3.0 splatbooks gave us some extras, especially in the form of feats, but I would have liked those in the PHB. If you don't put something straight in the PHB, then you're very unlikely to see that stuff used in published adventures and you might see it reprinted multiple times in a splatbook and a campaign setting for example.

 

[underfoot007ct]

Out of the six classes that have been shown. Two of them are too specific for my tastes. They feel like they should be in a campaign that is specifically tailored to them. I want generic classes, the sorcerer and warlock do not fit this bill as of now. I honestly don't need both of them in the game. Pick one and go with it. Two innate casters with whatever backstory however they acquire their magic don't need to exist. I think the caster that utilizes books i.e. the wizard and one that does not utilize any books whatsoever as all we need.

I am not saying that what they created is not flavorful, it is, however it needs to be generic and fit into many campaign worlds. I don't want to have to account for all the different types of magic in my games. You have divine you have nature, bard, wizard, sorcerer, warlock, and psionics. Mechanically speaking the sorcerer, warlock and psion are all fairly similar concepts that could be housed under one roof. They're all innate casters. Refluff them with pacts or inner mental energy for any genetically infused magic. Bottom line is they have one way of using their magic, make it spell points, make it willpower, make it whatever... but they're all mechanically under one roof. No need to account for many different systems and all their nuances.

One other thing specifically about the sorcerer is that it is a gish and A gish should not be a base class. Why not simply have a robust multi-classing system, that is well-thought-out and implemented.

So are we having the "we only need 4 classes If...", we have specialties & multi-classing. Really? again? Really? Do we really have any new arguments that have not been beaten to death. Little chance that anyone is going to change there view. You won't, I won't.

I want lots of classes. Lots of choices. So do many others.A swordmage warlock MC maybe. A gish is not just a MC fighter / wizard. No they are not all the same. If you don't like it they, just don't play that class. Will the game be better if thay have lots of classes, even if you never use them, not really.

Think unification & inclusion rather than forcing omitting & removal.

 

[Li Shenron]

So are we having the "we only need 4 classes If...", we have specialties & multi-classing. Really? again? Really?

In 3ed the Unearthed Arcana showed that classes could be reduced to 3 (warrior, expert and spellcaster) and that was because of the skill subsystem that you could base an entire class on. 5e doesn't have a complex subsystem for skills hence the classes would be reduced to 2, at which point why keeping classes and not go completely classless?

But don't worry, it's never going to happen... I think it's pretty established that D&D is a class-based game, and when was the last time that there were 4 or less classes? OD&D?

 

[Remathilis]

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.

3.5 fixed a few of these problems (esp bard songs, additional feats, and more spells). Compare to Pathfinder then. Nearly 600 pages of material with dozens of new feats, rogue abilities, bard songs, rage powers, cleric domains, sorcerer bloodlines, wizard specializations, fighter abilities, etc. It also managed to cram in the DMG prestige classes and magic items to boot!

So between the 300 PHB and the 600 Pathfinder Core, we could make a good 400 page PHB with 14 classes and 8 races + stuff to go with.

In 3ed the Unearthed Arcana showed that classes could be reduced to 3 (warrior, expert and spellcaster) and that was because of the skill subsystem that you could base an entire class on. 5e doesn't have a complex subsystem for skills hence the classes would be reduced to 2, at which point why keeping classes and not go completely classless?

But don't worry, it's never going to happen... I think it's pretty established that D&D is a class-based game, and when was the last time that there were 4 or less classes? OD&D?

A class needs one of three reasons to live.

1.) I covers a specific archetype (monk, barbarian, druid)
2.) It have a unique mechanical niche (sorcerer, warlock)
3.) Its ubiquitous to the realms of fantasy (swordmage, rogue, bard)

Reductionists (those who want as few classes as possible) tend to only believe 2 is the only reason for a class. I really don't believe that a PHB with just UA's generic classes would sell well as D&D. So if your going to do it do it right.

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

I'm seeing two groups of posters in this thread; one group seems to want D&DNext to be a fantasy role playing game system and the other wants D&DNext to be a fantasy role playing game. The difference between these seems to be similar to the differences between GURPS and WoD.

I do not know which or even if one of these groups is right on what D&DNext should be.

 

[steeldragons]

There are any number of ways to categorize the classes...and where what lines are drawn for whom is really an individual and subjective taste/preference thing. How detailed or general things are, how many classes are too many or how many we need to start with, what could/should/would/will be a prestige class or a specialty/tradition/domain/style/scheme/college/grove/guild/company/order/etc/etc/ad/infinitum.

Not to suggest or desire any connection to 4e-style power sources, but just as an organizational tool, here's a couple of ways I generally look at these things...

General/Broad: ("the Big Four") Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Mage
Specific: Ranger, Assassin, Druid, "Specialist Mages" (and one can argue which are more rare than others per setting) and/or Sorcerers...Barbarians and Warlords if you use them, I'd rather they be done through background and specialty, myself.
Rare: Paladins, Bards, Shamans, Warlocks, Monks

OR you can go like this...
Where Warrior classes = primarily Weapon focused, Expert = primarily Skill based/focused, Magic-user = [obviously] primarily "Spell" based/focused:

. . . . . . . . . .Warrior. . . . . . .Expert. . . . . .Magic-User
Martial. . . . . Fighter. . . . . . .Warlord ?. . . . .Sorcerer ?
Arcane. . .Swordmage ?. . .Specialist Mage. . .Mage/Wizard
Divine. . . . . .Paladin. . . . . . . Monk. . . . . . . .Cleric
Nature. . . . . .Ranger. . . . . . .Bard. . . . . . . . .Druid
Stealth. . . . .Assassin. . . . . ..Rogue. . . . . . .Warlock
​

again, Barbarians and Warlords not really my thing, but you could add, in theory, Barbarians at "Martial/Warrior" or "Nature/Warrior"..."Spirit/Warrior" if you wanted to add a "Spirit" power line (for which I'd probably make Shaman the Spirit/Expert and Medium or Oracle or something the Spirit/Magic-user...or Monk the Spirit/Expert and Shaman the Spirit/MU..but I digress...)

Sorcerer and Swordmage could conceivably be swapped depending on whether you prefer/fluff one or the other be "someone who uses magic with/through their weapons and armor" (Arcane Warrior) or "someone who uses magic AND can use weapons and armor also/in addition to their magic" (Martial Magic-user).

In a general way...I agree with pretty much all sides of this discussion...

to the Original Post, yes, I do feel the backstory/fluff they have introduced for the Sorcerer is a bit toooo specific to warrant its own class. And transforming oneself as they loose willpower doesn't sound, to me, to make them any more appealing. But then, I have never liked the Sorcerer as its own class...ever. About as pointless as the elf/eladrin split in my eyes. No reason spontaneous casting couldn't have been introduced and added in somehow to the Wizard class' options.

The Warlock is, simply by definition, a very specific archetype. But somehow, the differences between a Wizard and a Warlock work for me/are separate (in both flavor and mechanics) enough in a way that I don't mind the idea of them both being classes...and that's coming from someone with a VERY narrow/specific idea of what/who Warlocks are.

They are flavorful. Yes. But do they a "base class" make? For one I say "Yay" and one I say "Nay."

So, again, it's a personal preference/individual taste kind of thing where that line is drawn between "too specific" or "too broad" or simply "I don't like/want/need it"...but that ought not translate into "don't offer it in the books for ANYbody".

But then I also see the desire for a full-bodied array of possible archetypes for players to choose from...and while I think the whole notion of 100 classes is a silly one, and personally do not desire to see more than 10 or 12, initially, out of the box ("paragon archetypes/prestige classes/advanced specialties/whatever they are termed" don't really bother me in theory...but the splats can get splatty verrrry quickly/easily.)

But, yeah, I can appreciate the "gimme more options" position. And, like it or not, Sorcerers are now around a decade (lil' more than?) in the game...can't really argue with that sorta traditional base.

So, while I will agree that the Sorcerer and Warlock are a bit too specific, even so far as to not warrant their individual class for some tastes, they are NOT one of the Big Four...and so, being "Not one of the Big Four" (what we old'uns used to call "sub-classes") I expect their archetype, in flavor and mechanics, to be more specific than a Fighter/Rogue/Cleric/Mage.

...did I answer the thread or just ramble on...I've lost track.
--Steel Dragons

 

[Li Shenron]

So between the 300 PHB and the 600 Pathfinder Core, we could make a good 400 page PHB with 14 classes and 8 races + stuff to go with.

In fact I've said somewhere in this thread or another, than rather than having too many classes with too little material, if lots of classes are considered necessary then at that point I'd rather spend 100$ for a much bigger PHB.

Also, I think this is one (definitely not the only, probably not even the main) reason for PF success.

A class needs one of three reasons to live.

1.) I covers a specific archetype (monk, barbarian, druid)
2.) It have a unique mechanical niche (sorcerer, warlock)
3.) Its ubiquitous to the realms of fantasy (swordmage, rogue, bard)

Reductionists (those who want as few classes as possible) tend to only believe 2 is the only reason for a class. I really don't believe that a PHB with just UA's generic classes would sell well as D&D. So if your going to do it do it right.

Nice list. Although we have to acknowledge that point 2.) was not always the case in previous editions. There is much more importance given to that point now than ever IMHO.

And no, I don't think such nearly-classless version of D&D would sell much. It won't be very much D&D-like anyway...

 

[slobster]

A class needs one of three reasons to live.

1.) I covers a specific archetype (monk, barbarian, druid)
2.) It have a unique mechanical niche (sorcerer, warlock)
3.) Its ubiquitous to the realms of fantasy (swordmage, rogue, bard)

I think 1 and 3 on your list are pretty much the same thing. By the time a character idea has established itself so firmly in fantasy that you could call it ubiquitous, I think it embodies a pretty specific archetype.

I also think that a class needs to satisfy both of your (now consolidated) points if it is going to be made. It needs to have a specific niche in the gameworld to give players and GMs a starting point for how to include it in the game. Playing off of existing fantasy tropes is a great way to do this, because you get a lot of mileage out of relatively little text thanks to the miracle of association. If you want to make a class that blazes new ground without a huge body of fictional predecessors to back it up, good luck, but you'll be swimming upstream in getting people to accept it.

Mechanically all the classes should be distinct as well. If they aren't, then you open yourself to the criticism that you are publishing unnecessary bloat. If my ranger is nothing more than a slightly modified fighter, why couldn't you just give me the fluff about the ranger and a couple of feats and called it a day? Why is the ranger class taking up valuable page space in the expensive book you expect me to buy?

When you get classes that are unique in both fiction and mechanics then you get great classes that players love. The 3.X warlock, love it or hate it, is a good example. It was fictionally distinct from other arcane casters (something that the many wizard/sorcerer derivatives like wu jen, warmages, shugenja etc. failed to do), mostly by dint of being dark and shadowy. Its mechanics were something that hadn't been seen yet in 3.5, which was especially refreshing after the dozens of published classes that basically reused the same mechanics in slightly different combinations.

If all the classes are as distinct in those two categories as are the sorcerer/warlock/wizard in the playtest, I'll be a happy camper.

 

[Steely_Dan]

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.

Which is fine, but not if the feat and skill section is for 7 out of 11 classes.

No, they didn't, 3rd Ed Fighters contribute just fine, IME.

 

[Minigiant]

I wonder if you can look at it from the other angle.

Which characters should the PHB handle mechanically and narratively?

Many would say the PHB should handle an offensive melee warrior, a defensive melee warrior, a light warrior, a heavy warrior, and an archer. But what about a battlefield tactics based warrior? An illusion based Spellcaster? Am illusion based non-daily Spellcaster.

Once you make the long list of characters you want supported by the PHB then you need all the classes and subclasses to support that massive list.