My definition is not related to that part, just that it is not a subclass or prestige class. it has its own advancement track and is not dependent on any other class for its basic mechanics.
D&D General Which of these should be core classes for D&D?
- Thread starter Reynard
- Start date
doctorbadwolf
Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Rogue, Barbarian, Bard, Ranger, Warlock, Alchemist/Artificer*, Summoner, Druid, Monk, Gish, Witch, Assassin, Commander, Priest, Swashbuckler, Archer, Other (Paladin, Knight/Cavalier)
Rogue is the only core 4 class that is a good class concept IMO. Fighter is better as 2-3 classes and/or it’s parts spread amongst various “mundane” warrior classes. Cleric should be replaced with Priest. Wizard should be split amongst Warlock, Sorcerer, and Witch.
Then you have the other PHB classes which are all solid and good.
*Alchemist and Artificer should be one class, but it should be called the Alchemist, and it should not be the weird magic chemist concept that D&D and PF think an Alchemist is.
Assassin should be separate from Rogue, which can then focus more on expertise, dirty fighting, etc.
Commander I voted for in spite of disliking the “military leader” vibe. The class should instead be a paragon. A Captain in the sense that Aragorn and Boramir are Captains. Warriors who lead the charge and inspire their fellows and provide warrior expertise and morale and just generally stand out in a positive way. MCU Captain America is a great model, as well.
Gish. Just give us a Spellblade class and do it right again. Goodness sake.
Tony Vargas
Legend
Another consideration. I'd assume 3e/5e style multi-classing which would mean a relatively small number of classes could cover many via simple combinations. But, "Gish" - strictly speaking, exactly a fighter/magic-user - is on the list, so maybe that was a bad assumption.
Oh so a full class that isn't just a variant of another?
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
Frankly, I would re-design things to be akin to 4e, but redoubling all efforts to support option flexibility.
All that, plus novice levels for "level 0" characters, who have no classes, lack certain basic features, and (potentially) may not even have races yet. Rules to keep adventuring at this stage for a very long time, or to spool out advancement between proper character levels, would be crucial for ensuring that the "zero to hero and mostly zero" crowd get the kind of gameplay they want.
Six sources: Martial, Divine, Primal, Arcane, Shadow, Psionic. Simple enough.
Four specializations, meant purely as descriptive for the baseline of a class, something you build up or out from. Defense, Offense, Support, Control. Again, simple enough.
Within them, focuses (again, purely descriptive, build toward what you want if it isn't the starting focus). Offense specialists can start with a "Skirmisher" focus (fragile speedster, zips in, clobbers, and zips out) or "Bruiser" focus (durable/self-sustaining wrecking balls.) Defense specialists can start with a "Bulwark" focus (sky-high defense and enemy/location lockdown) or "Slayer" focus (strong offense and defense and brutal counter-attacks). Etc.
By level 10, any character can pick up a second focus, whether in their specialization or outside of it, with a bit of effort (e.g. 1-3 feats, equipment useful to that focus, and appropriate powers), especially if they choose a subclass that already minors in some other specialty. Any character, by level 13-15, should be either a total master of their original focus, or very good at both that focus and a second that meshes with their subclass, e.g. a War Wizard (Control, focus Warder) could pick up Defense specialist stuff (e.g. invoking AC-boosting actions, using a Staff of Defense spellcasting focus, taking the Polearm-Warrior and Arcane Vitality feats), becoming a shockingly durable spellcaster able to lock down foes near and far and shrug off blows that really should kill someone just wearing a bathrobe. Any character by level 20 should be able to pick up any second focus they like, whether it is a natural fit for their class/subclass or not, it just requires different (and likely greater) investment. In theory, a level 20+ character could even try to add a third focus, but this would be stretching other parts of the game--like the action economy--to their limits.
Classes (and their specialties)
Martial: Fighter (defense, Slayer), Rogue (offense, Skirmisher), Ranger (offense, Bruiser), Warlord (support, Vanguard), Scout (control, Warder). All Martial classes have a natural bias toward offense specializations.
Divine: Paladin (defense, Bulwark), Avenger (offense, Skirmisher or Bruiser), Invoker (control, Guide), Cleric (support, Mender). All Divine classes have a natural support bias.
Primal: Warden (defense, Bulwark), Barbarian (offense, Bruiser), Druid (control, Warder), Shaman (support, Vanguard or Mender). All Primal classes have a natural defense bias.
Arcane: Swordmage (defense, Slayer), Sorcerer (offense, Bruiser or Skirmisher), Wizard (control, Warder or Guide), Bard (support, Mender or Vanguard). All Arcane classes have a natural control bias.
Shadow: Ninja (defense, Slayer), Assassin (offense, Skirmisher), Warlock (control, Guide), Occultist (support, Vanguard). Shadow classes do not have a natural bias; instead, they fulfill their specialization in unique or unusual ways, e.g. Ninjas use stealth and guile to avoid ever taking damage in the first place, and Occultists grant temporary benefits that must be locked in through violent conflict.
Psionic: Monk (offense/defense, Skirmisher) and Psion (control/support). The Psionic source is unique; its classes are looser by design, allowing the player to mix and match parts as they desire, with no guarantee of functionality. "Monk" and "Psion" can even dip from one another's pools for the price of a single feat, allowing almost total freedom to assemble whatever character the player likes.
Four specializations, meant purely as descriptive for the baseline of a class, something you build up or out from. Defense, Offense, Support, Control. Again, simple enough.
Within them, focuses (again, purely descriptive, build toward what you want if it isn't the starting focus). Offense specialists can start with a "Skirmisher" focus (fragile speedster, zips in, clobbers, and zips out) or "Bruiser" focus (durable/self-sustaining wrecking balls.) Defense specialists can start with a "Bulwark" focus (sky-high defense and enemy/location lockdown) or "Slayer" focus (strong offense and defense and brutal counter-attacks). Etc.
By level 10, any character can pick up a second focus, whether in their specialization or outside of it, with a bit of effort (e.g. 1-3 feats, equipment useful to that focus, and appropriate powers), especially if they choose a subclass that already minors in some other specialty. Any character, by level 13-15, should be either a total master of their original focus, or very good at both that focus and a second that meshes with their subclass, e.g. a War Wizard (Control, focus Warder) could pick up Defense specialist stuff (e.g. invoking AC-boosting actions, using a Staff of Defense spellcasting focus, taking the Polearm-Warrior and Arcane Vitality feats), becoming a shockingly durable spellcaster able to lock down foes near and far and shrug off blows that really should kill someone just wearing a bathrobe. Any character by level 20 should be able to pick up any second focus they like, whether it is a natural fit for their class/subclass or not, it just requires different (and likely greater) investment. In theory, a level 20+ character could even try to add a third focus, but this would be stretching other parts of the game--like the action economy--to their limits.
Classes (and their specialties)
Martial: Fighter (defense, Slayer), Rogue (offense, Skirmisher), Ranger (offense, Bruiser), Warlord (support, Vanguard), Scout (control, Warder). All Martial classes have a natural bias toward offense specializations.
Divine: Paladin (defense, Bulwark), Avenger (offense, Skirmisher or Bruiser), Invoker (control, Guide), Cleric (support, Mender). All Divine classes have a natural support bias.
Primal: Warden (defense, Bulwark), Barbarian (offense, Bruiser), Druid (control, Warder), Shaman (support, Vanguard or Mender). All Primal classes have a natural defense bias.
Arcane: Swordmage (defense, Slayer), Sorcerer (offense, Bruiser or Skirmisher), Wizard (control, Warder or Guide), Bard (support, Mender or Vanguard). All Arcane classes have a natural control bias.
Shadow: Ninja (defense, Slayer), Assassin (offense, Skirmisher), Warlock (control, Guide), Occultist (support, Vanguard). Shadow classes do not have a natural bias; instead, they fulfill their specialization in unique or unusual ways, e.g. Ninjas use stealth and guile to avoid ever taking damage in the first place, and Occultists grant temporary benefits that must be locked in through violent conflict.
Psionic: Monk (offense/defense, Skirmisher) and Psion (control/support). The Psionic source is unique; its classes are looser by design, allowing the player to mix and match parts as they desire, with no guarantee of functionality. "Monk" and "Psion" can even dip from one another's pools for the price of a single feat, allowing almost total freedom to assemble whatever character the player likes.
Good luck. I floated that trial balloon a while back. The response was overwhelmingly negative.
That's the thing. Damn near everything gets the fireball treatment. Taking away any nice things from Wizards gets a vocal minority up in arms like nobody's business. And giving nice things to others (remember the gleeful celebration about Spell Versatility being deleted? Presenting this as sanity?) is likewise extremely prone to drawing out the torches and pitchforks.
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
That would be my preferred definition as well. If it's good enough to be published in a first-party book, it should be just as thoroughly playtested as anything published in the PHB (or PHB1, if there's more than one.)
Quickleaf
Legend
Could you tell me more about your aversion to sub-classes? Is it because they're diluting the narrative core of the class? Becoming more mechanical differentiation rather than narrative?
Corinnguard
Hero
A full class should be a class with it's own concept that doesn't tread on the concept of another class.
Similar Threads
