Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 5995254" data-attributes="member: 996">I think 5e should try to keep some sort of higher-level grouping of classes.&nbsp; Like 2e groups or 3e iconics or 4e role (or source).&nbsp; It clarifies presentation and can make it easier for players to create a complete party with a full range of capabilities, or for the DM to customize his campaign.The 2e groups, for instance, were Warrior, Priest, Rogue &amp; Wizard.&nbsp; The 3e iconics were Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, and Wizard.&nbsp; The 4e roles were Defender, Leader, Striker &amp; Controller.&nbsp; See the pattern?&nbsp; The hardest part would be coming up with names that don't freak anyone out. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Having groups that help define how the character contributes to the party are helpful to players in building a good party.&nbsp; All the above do that to some extent.&nbsp; Having groups that define the what/how/why of the class is handy for the DM, letting him customize his setting in a sweeping way (there are no Gods, so the Priest group is just gone, for instance).&nbsp; The 3e iconics and 4e roles don't do that, but the 2e groups do (and so do 4e sources, though they're separate from role).Based on the above, I'll use the 2e groups as a place-holder.&nbsp; 2 classes per group would give a very workable 8 classes:Fighter-&nbsp; Fighter-&nbsp; WarlordPriest-&nbsp; Cleric-&nbsp; DruidRogue-&nbsp; Thief-&nbsp; RangerWizard-&nbsp; Wizard -&nbsp; Bard</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 5995254, member: 996"] I think 5e should try to keep some sort of higher-level grouping of classes. Like 2e groups or 3e iconics or 4e role (or source). It clarifies presentation and can make it easier for players to create a complete party with a full range of capabilities, or for the DM to customize his campaign. The 2e groups, for instance, were Warrior, Priest, Rogue & Wizard. The 3e iconics were Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, and Wizard. The 4e roles were Defender, Leader, Striker & Controller. See the pattern? The hardest part would be coming up with names that don't freak anyone out. ;) Having groups that help define how the character contributes to the party are helpful to players in building a good party. All the above do that to some extent. Having groups that define the what/how/why of the class is handy for the DM, letting him customize his setting in a sweeping way (there are no Gods, so the Priest group is just gone, for instance). The 3e iconics and 4e roles don't do that, but the 2e groups do (and so do 4e sources, though they're separate from role). Based on the above, I'll use the 2e groups as a place-holder. 2 classes per group would give a very workable 8 classes: Fighter - Fighter - Warlord Priest - Cleric - Druid Rogue - Thief - Ranger Wizard - Wizard - Bard [/QUOTE]

Verification