The classes you would actually want to play poll

[Kavon]

Actually, regardless what they decide to do, I would think that you are still free to take the 'base four' and add the given themes to them to create a semblance of the other classes (like the Playtest Dwarf Cleric looks like a Paladin), and just ban the actual classes from your table if that is the way you wish to do it.

 

[TerraDave]

I suppose popularity is really the best way to decide what classes should be in. But we'd need more options than this poll provides, since it has some classes that were not in "PHB1"s (cavalier, psion) but not others.

There is an "other" option, for the artificers, and shamans, and gladiators, and whatevers. Its at about 14 percent.

(FWIW themes could, probably pretty easily, address swashbuckling and arcane fighters...but so could new classes).

 

[Fifth Element]

There is an "other" option, for the artificers, and shamans, and gladiators, and whatevers. Its at about 14 percent.

Yes, unfortunately it effectively means "other that you can think of off the top of your head" which biases the results. Not everyone is responding to the same "other".

 

[Fifth Element]

I have a CHA-paladin in my 4e game. I think of the CHA-paladin as being like Galahad - his/her hand is guided by purity of spirit and divine intervention - whereas the STR-paladin is more like Lancelot or Gawain - a true master of the fighting arts.

Oh sure - I was thinking more along the lines of no-outside-intervention justifications. You could just say that the swordmage uses Int because it's magic, but I was looking at it from a non-magic point of view.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Your points have merit and I think there should be some kind of Finesse Fighter in the game, but Dex is already over-modeled.

In the well-meaning race to simplicity, it is has been abstracted away the fact that combat is a full contact sport.

The binary nature of brute force versus finesse combat ensures that melee always over-models either Strength or Dexterity. You'd need a system like Rolemaster to model it accurately, wherein Strength and Agility contribute equally (or near-equally) to your attack bonus, and your weapon skill was used for defense as well as attack.

Given the scale of D&D's mechanics, I'm comfortable with melee combat being (mostly) a STR or DEX affair.

 

[Fifth Element]

The binary nature of brute force versus finesse combat ensures that melee always over-models either Strength or Dexterity. You'd need a system like Rolemaster to model it accurately, wherein Strength and Agility contribute equally (or near-equally) to your attack bonus, and your weapon skill was used for defense as well as attack.

Given the scale of D&D's mechanics, I'm comfortable with melee combat being (mostly) a STR or DEX affair.

Wouldn't DEX for attack and STR for damage be a very easy change, thus ending the super-primacy of STR for melee combat? There's no reason the same stat has to apply to both. You'd still have DEX only on defence, which could be a problem.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Wouldn't DEX for attack and STR for damage be a very easy change, thus ending the super-primacy of STR for melee combat? There's no reason the same stat has to apply to both. You'd still have DEX only on defence, which could be a problem.

You could do that, but you'll notice there doesn't seem to be as much of a drive to force spellcasters to split their mental attributes this way.

Personally, I prefer an approach a little closer to 4e and Book of Nine Swords: your attacks and damage use a primary attribute and you get other bonuses from a secondary attribute. I like INT for Fighters (and 'mundane' Rogues), WIS for Monks and Rangers, and CHA for Barbarians, Cavaliers, and Paladins.

 

[Fifth Element]

You could do that, but you'll notice there doesn't seem to be as much of a drive to force spellcasters to split their mental attributes this way.

Well, there's not much of a drive for my suggestion, either. But I'd be all for making other stats more important for casters as well.