Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Shadow" data-source="post: 5892711" data-attributes="member: 16760">Given what we now know about backgrounds and themes, how many classes are really necessary to replicate classes that have been in previous PH's?Obviously, the core 4:&nbsp; Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, and Cleric.&nbsp; My own preference would be for the Priest to take the Cleric's place, and let the armored cleric be a theme or a multiclass, but whatever.Ranger and barbarian seem easily doable as a combination of background and theme on a fighter or rogue base.&nbsp; (Or even a druid base, for the ranger.)&nbsp; Likewise, it seems obvious to me that the assassin can be done easily on a rogue base.Paladin... the argument could be made that it has enough unique touches to justify a class.&nbsp; Personally, though, I think it would do well as a theme, or perhaps even an advanced theme.Depending on just how flexible the Cleric/Priest's options are, druid could perhaps be folded in, a la 2e, but I'm inclined to doubt this.It is to my mind necessary for the game to offer some alternatives in terms of magic, so I regard the sorcerer and/or warlock to be essential.&nbsp; Not necessarily both, though - it wouldn't be hard to fold them together.I think the bard pretty much has to be its own class, though a case could be made for a rogue/druid or rogue/sorcerer multiclass - especially if they fix the issues 3e had with caster multiclasses.&nbsp; You'd need some sort of 'spellsinger' theme, but that seems doable.Specialty mages... they seem to be going for advanced themes for these, which makes me very uneasy.&nbsp; I would much rather see them get their own spell lists, personally.Though...&nbsp; If a specialty-mage theme granted you *access* to a list of specialty spells the base wizard didn't get, I could maybe go for that.The monk is an odd duck.&nbsp; To the extent he's a martial artist, a theme should suffice.&nbsp; But they've also got the whole ki/psionics thing going on, I dunno.&nbsp; Probably rates a class.Any other thoughts?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Shadow, post: 5892711, member: 16760"] Given what we now know about backgrounds and themes, how many classes are really necessary to replicate classes that have been in previous PH's? Obviously, the core 4: Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, and Cleric. My own preference would be for the Priest to take the Cleric's place, and let the armored cleric be a theme or a multiclass, but whatever. Ranger and barbarian seem easily doable as a combination of background and theme on a fighter or rogue base. (Or even a druid base, for the ranger.) Likewise, it seems obvious to me that the assassin can be done easily on a rogue base. Paladin... the argument could be made that it has enough unique touches to justify a class. Personally, though, I think it would do well as a theme, or perhaps even an advanced theme. Depending on just how flexible the Cleric/Priest's options are, druid could perhaps be folded in, a la 2e, but I'm inclined to doubt this. It is to my mind necessary for the game to offer some alternatives in terms of magic, so I regard the sorcerer and/or warlock to be essential. Not necessarily both, though - it wouldn't be hard to fold them together. I think the bard pretty much has to be its own class, though a case could be made for a rogue/druid or rogue/sorcerer multiclass - especially if they fix the issues 3e had with caster multiclasses. You'd need some sort of 'spellsinger' theme, but that seems doable. Specialty mages... they seem to be going for advanced themes for these, which makes me very uneasy. I would much rather see them get their own spell lists, personally. Though... If a specialty-mage theme granted you *access* to a list of specialty spells the base wizard didn't get, I could maybe go for that. The monk is an odd duck. To the extent he's a martial artist, a theme should suffice. But they've also got the whole ki/psionics thing going on, I dunno. Probably rates a class. Any other thoughts? [/QUOTE]

Verification