So what races and classes do we consider core?

[delericho]

Although I have to wonder--is it too radical a notion to not ask people what they think the core races and classes should be, but instead ask what races and classes that they've played, and base the core races and classes of the "new iteration" on the results of that poll?

WotC already pretty much have that data, through the DDI. According to Klaus over on Circvs Maximvs, Humans are by far the most played race, followed by Elves and the Dwarves. He doesn't go beyond that, save to note that those are the overwhelming favourites.

However, I (mostly) agree with you: the game should include Humans, Elves, Dwarves and Halflings regardless; if it goes beyond the 'classic 4' in the Core, then it should base those selected purely on actual popularity.

Wouldn't that kind of support my desire for twenty(-ish) classes in Core?

That point, in isolation, does. In a perfect world, the PHB would have enough room for dozens of fully-detailed classes.

However, if the choice is "twenty bare-bones classes" or "eight fully-detailed" classes, then my preference is the latter - I want to be able to play "Core Rules Only" without feeling overly limited. I want "less, done well" rather than "more sketched out". YMMV, of course.

I think the problem with 4E was the classes that didn't have roots in fantasy archetypes. Designers have a built-in appreciation for the archetype of the Wizard, therefore they write more for it. Players have a built-in appreciation for the archetype of the Wizard, therefore they select it when creating new characters, and choose to read or purchase books and articles about it.

I think it's true that some classes get better support, and I think that's because they deserve it, because some archetypes are more suitable than others. I don't think the runepriest, battlemind, warden, or seeker deserve support. However, I think the assassin, swashbuckler, psion, and scout should and would get support.

I've re-grouped these two paragraphs, as I think they go together. I think there's certainly a lot of truth in your assertion of the weakness of some of the archetypes. Conversely, I would note that while there are relatively few people playing, say, Runepriests, I think it's a good bet that for someone out there, the class was a revelation, was what they didn't know they always wanted, and instantly became their new favourite. Does that person not deserve support?

Perhaps. Or perhaps another word for scrabble is demand, which drives WotC to put effort into that support material, and results in higher quality.

They're two sides to the same coin. I did see plenty of people demanding more support for the 'minor' classes in 4e. But, due to cruel economics, they rarely got it. And so, to get decent support for their chosen classes, they had to gather together every little scrap of support they got.

It's tricky. I wouldn't really want to be in WotC's current position, since they can't please everyone. If they do decide to go with "lots of bare-bones classes", I'll certainly understand them taking that choice. It's just not my preferred way forward.

 

[scruffygrognard]

Races: Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling.

1/2 elves and 1/2 orcs can be accommodated with a background option (whether that's a feat or some other type of tweak).

Classes: Cleric, Fighter, Magic-User, Thief.

All other classes can be created by plugging mods onto one of these core classes.

 

[Minigiant]

Races:
Human
Elf
Half-Elf
Half-Orc
Dwarf
Halfling
Dragonborn

Then have a system for templates/racial backgrounds for Fey, Infernal, Underdark, and Celestial races (Elf + Fey = Eladrin, infernal + Human= Tieflings, etc)

Classses:

Fighter (with Barbarian and Warlord option)
Ranger
Rogue (with Bard option)
Cleric (with Palidin and Druid options)
Wizard
Sorceror (With Warlock option

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I'd be pretty happy with any list that started with human, elf, dwarf, and some form of hafling/gnome, and then added a few oddball elements on top of that. (Doesn't matter much to me what the oddball elements are. In any list that would make it, I'll only like about half of them.) I'd be even happier if all "half" races were systematically wiped mechanically from the system, and replaced with supplemental rules for half breeds based off the original race information. That's the kind of change I'd prefer out of the options that we might get.

What I'd really prefer is that races become packages to present a few of the common archetypes off of a "blood" system, where the character had, say, from 1 to 8 parts "fey" or "rock" or "dragon" or "wood" and a handful of other such evocative origins. Humans and orcs, by definition, are "mongrels", and never have more than 1 part of any one thing, whereas even your rustic wood elf, generations removed from any fairy ring, is still several parts "fey". Gnomes are fey/something dwarves. And so forth.

A single-book core system would still give you just that short list of canonical races + a few oddball ones, but they'd all be built off the "bloods". Then one of the supplmental advanced books would include the information on using the system to make your own races.

For classes, as long as something approximates the fighter, cleric, wizard, and rogue, and fits well within the system, that is the core. Other classes should be driven by the system, not the the other way around. (You should be able to play something like a bard or druid or paladin. Whether you need a class to do so, is an open question to me.)

 

[MoxieFu]

Any race or class that appeared in all editions of D&D should be in the core books. Any race or class that appeared in only ONE edition of the game shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the core books. Putting them in a supplement, especially a themed supplement is fine with me, but NOT in the core.

 

[grimslade]

The initial rule book should be a complete game. Races are not a necessary component they are options/enhancements. There should be a few included to give flavor to the rule set, but they should be more than man, shorter bearded man, pointy eared man, and child sized kleptomaniac man. They should be representative of expanding and opening the ruleset.
You could have human, dwarf, elf and harfling be the races to start but they better be more differentiated than in previous editions both fluff and mechanics. The eladrin were a departure but made a fey-er elf. I would like to see a group of races that are distinct. I love to play halflings but they really are not differentiated from humans other than size.

 

[MarkChevallier]

Races:

Human
Elf
Dwarf
Halfling

Classes:

Fighter
Magic User
Cleric
Rogue

I think, if they open with a basic box with these in place, they're golden. For a more "advanced" style game, add Half-Elves, Half-Orcs and Gnomes to Races and Rangers, Paladins, Druids and Bards to the classes.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Halflings are actually a little controversial.

Do you go with the 3e/4e style sneaky bastards who chiv you in the darkness and skitter around your feet like hyperactive squirrels? (call these the thief-based halflings)

Or do you go with the 1e/2e style doughty hobbits? (maybe the cleric/bard/paladin-based halflings)

Or do you do both, in an example of how subraces work?

Or do you do something totally different?

Elves are kind of in a similar camp.

Do you go with the High Elf, super-magical, otherworldly, immortal type?

Or do you go with the woodsy, archery, huntery type?

Dwarves are less ambiguous.

Though I personally think that the core rules should have options to turn the race and class dials down to one race, one class, the end, if you want.

 

[MarkChevallier]

Do you go with the 3e/4e style sneaky bastards who chiv you in the darkness and skitter around your feet like hyperactive squirrels? (call these the thief-based halflings)

Or do you go with the 1e/2e style doughty hobbits? (maybe the cleric/bard/paladin-based halflings)

...

Do you go with the High Elf, super-magical, otherworldly, immortal type?

Or do you go with the woodsy, archery, huntery type?

I think halflings were always about the thieving, even when they were doughty: Bilbo Baggins, to name but one! Mechanically, that's where they excelled, but they could make decent fighters (and in 3E, Wizards and Clerics). In terms of the racial default culture, though, I prefer a traditional approach: halflings as a conservative, usually somewhat insular race. Of course, this only makes sense in a default implied setting, but as that's inevitable, this is where my personal preference would lie.

As for elves, woodsy, magical creatures of advanced moral character but somewhat aloof? Just combine the two. I think the "advanced moral character" is important though - their culture should be kinder and more socially advanced than others (although obviously not necessarily perfect and many individuals can be at odds with this).

The reason why I'm suggesting these very traditional cultures is simply that in a default, implied setting, you want the default cultural approaches to match up with a general readership's vague collective notion of the type. In my opinion, obviously. It means you don't need too much detail to imagine the race and can pretty much rely on your own assumptions. Which makes for a quicker, easier-to-access game.

Special races and cultures can come later, when you have time to develop settings etc.

 

[Elf Witch]

Races:
Eladrin
Drow
Dragonborn
Created
Tiefling

We want the races people are going to want to play.

.

I can honestly say that no one I play with would choose those races all that often maybe drow and once and awhile dragonborn.

9 out of 10 times most of them choose human followed by dwarf then evenly split between elf and halfling.