Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MoonSong" data-source="post: 6142201" data-attributes="member: 6689464">I think your basic premise is extremely flawed, when I first read the title I thought &quot;mmm, non-core classes, he must be talking about shadowcasters, avengers, seekers, archivists, favored souls, runecasters and stuff&quot; instead of &quot;mmm, non-core classes, he means paladin, ranger, monk...&quot; because you see rogue, wizard, cleric, fighter are the &quot;Big Four&quot;, not the &quot;core four&quot;. Bards, paladins, druids, rangers and monks are core beyond any doubt, and while it is disputable for some, to many sorcerers, warlocks, warlords and barbarians are core too. (Assassins are a more contentious issue). I think we need to put an end to this &quot;d&amp;d is always been four classes&quot; myth, thankfully I've been able to see a good number of corebooks of d&amp;d across the early editions and can count the classes each one had, so far none of them has had 4 classes as core (not taking into account supplements and stuff): Original D&amp;D: 3 classes, fighting man, magic user, cleric 1st edition: 10 classes, fighter, magic user, cleric, thief, paladin, ranger, assasin, druid, illusionist, monk. with bard as an optional prestige class2nd edition:9 classes on four groups, fighter, ranger, thief, paladin, bard, cleric, druid, illusionist, magic user. with templates for specialty priests and specialist mages Mentzer Basic: 7 classes, fighter, magic user, cleric, thief, elf, dwarf and halfling Rules ciclopedia: 8 classes,&nbsp; fighter, magic user, cleric, thief, mystic(monk), elf, dwarf and halfling, with druid, paladin, knight and avenger as &quot;prestige classes&quot; I think this myth might have originated by the fact many retroclones typically feature the big 4, or that the big four constitute the archetypical party, however those are completely different things, and while the big 4 always will be core, they have never been &quot;The Core&quot;.Back to the main topic, I think it is reasonable to say those 14 classes have to be in the core as their own classes (though some say warlords and barbarians could potentially work out fine as fighter subclasses and assassins as rogue subclasses, however such is the minimal expresion they could take, and no doubt they will work best as their own classes). While some might argue you could have paladins as a cleric-fighter multiclass, rangers as refluffed fighters warlocks and sorcerers as refluffed wizards and druids as refluffed clerics, that simply won't work for and will upset many (and I bet this &quot;many&quot; will be a sizable chunk if not the majority of the player base)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MoonSong, post: 6142201, member: 6689464"] I think your basic premise is extremely flawed, when I first read the title I thought "mmm, non-core classes, he must be talking about shadowcasters, avengers, seekers, archivists, favored souls, runecasters and stuff" instead of "mmm, non-core classes, he means paladin, ranger, monk..." because you see rogue, wizard, cleric, fighter are the "Big Four", not the "core four". Bards, paladins, druids, rangers and monks are core beyond any doubt, and while it is disputable for some, to many sorcerers, warlocks, warlords and barbarians are core too. (Assassins are a more contentious issue). I think we need to put an end to this "d&d is always been four classes" myth, thankfully I've been able to see a good number of corebooks of d&d across the early editions and can count the classes each one had, so far none of them has had 4 classes as core (not taking into account supplements and stuff): Original D&D: [B]3 classes[/B], fighting man, magic user, cleric 1st edition: 10 classes, fighter, magic user, cleric, thief, paladin, ranger, assasin, druid, illusionist, monk. with bard as an optional prestige class 2nd edition:9 classes on four groups, fighter, ranger, thief, paladin, bard, cleric, druid, illusionist, magic user. with templates for specialty priests and specialist mages Mentzer Basic: 7 classes, fighter, magic user, cleric, thief, elf, dwarf and halfling Rules ciclopedia: 8 classes, fighter, magic user, cleric, thief, mystic(monk), elf, dwarf and halfling, with druid, paladin, knight and avenger as "prestige classes" I think this myth might have originated by the fact many retroclones typically feature the big 4, or that the big four constitute the archetypical party, however those are completely different things, and while the big 4 always will be core, they have never been "The Core". Back to the main topic, I think it is reasonable to say those 14 classes have to be in the core as their own classes (though some say warlords and barbarians could potentially work out fine as fighter subclasses and assassins as rogue subclasses, however such is the minimal expresion they could take, and no doubt they will work best as their own classes). While some might argue you could have paladins as a cleric-fighter multiclass, rangers as refluffed fighters warlocks and sorcerers as refluffed wizards and druids as refluffed clerics, that simply won't work for and will upset many (and I bet this "many" will be a sizable chunk if not the majority of the player base) [/QUOTE]

Verification