Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ZombieRoboNinja" data-source="post: 5990164" data-attributes="member: 54843">Just to echo what some others here are saying - any debate here about only having 4 or fewer &quot;base&quot; classes is completely academic at this point, because that's not going to happen in Next. The original plan was to start with every class that has ever been a D&amp;D base class, and carve it down from there where necessary.Fighters may or may not have built-in &quot;styles&quot; that subdivide the class (like wizard traditions, rogue schemes, and cleric domains do to varying degrees).Monks have already been written up as a 5e class, and Mearls said they were the &quot;easiest&quot; class to design. That was a few weeks ago in that big Redditt thread, but it seems unlikely they'd toss it out completely without a darn good reason.Warlocks have also been written up as a class, with unique spellcasting mechanics (something do do with at-will powers that can be powered up into encounter powers). Warlords, however, are still in flux, but seem to have been carved up into one or more themes. (These were mentioned in the latest PA podcast.) Additionally, 3e-style multiclassing will be possible, and I can't imagine they'd let it be as finicky and broken as it was in 3e. (In other words, a fighter/monk SHOULD be a viable character build.)Personally, I fully expect bards, barbarians, monks, rangers, and paladins all to be separate classes, and that none of them will use the fighter's unique CS mechanic. I also fully expect that barbarians and monks will have unique mechanics. Rangers, paladins, and bards may or may not be 3e-style demi-spellcasters, but I for one hope at least rangers and paladins do not have Vancian spells.I also really hope that the monk class has built-in styles so that I could play a &quot;mystic swordsman&quot; with the class. <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=";)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="ZombieRoboNinja, post: 5990164, member: 54843"] Just to echo what some others here are saying - any debate here about only having 4 or fewer "base" classes is completely academic at this point, because that's not going to happen in Next. The original plan was to start with every class that has ever been a D&D base class, and carve it down from there where necessary. Fighters may or may not have built-in "styles" that subdivide the class (like wizard traditions, rogue schemes, and cleric domains do to varying degrees). Monks have already been written up as a 5e class, and Mearls said they were the "easiest" class to design. That was a few weeks ago in that big Redditt thread, but it seems unlikely they'd toss it out completely without a darn good reason. Warlocks have also been written up as a class, with unique spellcasting mechanics (something do do with at-will powers that can be powered up into encounter powers). Warlords, however, are still in flux, but seem to have been carved up into one or more themes. (These were mentioned in the latest PA podcast.) Additionally, 3e-style multiclassing will be possible, and I can't imagine they'd let it be as finicky and broken as it was in 3e. (In other words, a fighter/monk SHOULD be a viable character build.) Personally, I fully expect bards, barbarians, monks, rangers, and paladins all to be separate classes, and that none of them will use the fighter's unique CS mechanic. I also fully expect that barbarians and monks will have unique mechanics. Rangers, paladins, and bards may or may not be 3e-style demi-spellcasters, but I for one hope at least rangers and paladins do not have Vancian spells. I also really hope that the monk class has built-in styles so that I could play a "mystic swordsman" with the class. ;) [/QUOTE]

Verification