Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kalontas" data-source="post: 5771635" data-attributes="member: 6686378">Discussion on official boards made me realise one question - what do we, RPG players in general, consider to be "core"? What races, and classes, are to us iconic enough to warrant a "MUST BE" stamp on such race's or class's inclusion in the original PHB for next "iteration"? Which concepts are for us strong enough to warrant them the place among core?Copying my list of races from Wizards' boards:- Humans (doh)- Elves and Eladrin - keep them split up, to keep the flavour differences between the "wood" and "high" elf variety.- Dwarves - It's no fantasy without dwarves.- Gnomes and Halflings - we all need the short dudes. But just makes gnomes the crazy tinkerers again - that's what makes them gnomes, as opposed to "generic small fey". Give the prankster-ish background to Halflings.- Goliaths - I definitely think they fit the mold of classic races. They are essentially big humans, with primal connections.- Dragonborn and Kobolds - Dragonborn definitely found their own niche during 4E, and D&D is not itself without Kobolds.- Devas and Tieflings - I think those are very popular races. Maybe Tieflings more than Devas, but Devas have a very Gandalf-like flavour (an incarnated angel and divine wizard) - meaning they should satisfy even the Tolkien-starved folk. That's rather a lot of races for the first PHB but I was always of the "gotta catch 'em all" mentality - always wanted to have a lot of unique options right from the start. And I think all those fulfill certain concepts that make them strong enough to feel core.As for classes...Martial: warlord, fighter, rogue, ranger. The latter three are a no-brainer, while I think warlord managed to earn its place among the classics during 4E's run. Its martial leadership was very unique and still working.Divine: cleric, paladin. While I love invoker personally, I agree it might not be the best candidate for the original core option. Clerics and paladins are both strong enough to hold on their own. (Also, poor runepriests).Arcane: bard, swordmage, wizard, sorcerer. Out of those only the swordmage is new, and that's because I feel it filled a unique niche that might work very well - if you work on its fluff other than "wizard with a sword, who's a defender".Primal: Shaman, Druid, Barbarian. Again, two old classics and one new option that IMO differentiated itself enough to make its place among the core classes.Psionic: Monk, Psion. Sadly, no powerful newcomers here - but I do think 5E should feature psionics (even if in a state as limited as this) right off the bat.And again - yes, that's a lot of options, but I believe each of those is strong enough on its own and I always say - there is never too much options (feats don't count <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":P" title="Stick out tongue    :P"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":P" />)So, what is core for you? I'm looking forward to seeing both short and long lists - hopefully not too much people limiting themselves to Tolkien.</blockquote>

Verification