Rule of Twelve

[Gnorman]

Eleven standard base classes in D&D 3.5 just isn't enough. In fact, I find it an annoyingly weird number. If you had to pick a twelfth to add to that list, what would it be? What design gap would you fill?

[Amphetryon]

Eleven standard base classes in D&D 3.5 just isn't enough. In fact, I find it an annoyingly weird number. If you had to pick a twelfth to add to that list, what would it be? What design gap would you fill?

I'd take the Dread Necromancer or the Beguiler, filling a "list caster" role that the original 3.X designers didn't consider. I probably wouldn't choose the other list caster - the Warmage - because its function is often replicated more closely by other arcane types, in my experience.

Alternately, the Wilder would dip into the Psionic systems and provide a more self-contained gish option than most of the base Classes in core D&D.

[Boci]

Eleven standard base classes in D&D 3.5 just isn't enough. In fact, I find it an annoyingly weird number. If you had to pick a twelfth to add to that list, what would it be? What design gap would you fill it with?

Full divine caster: 2 (cleric and druid)
Full arcane caster: 2 (sorcerer and wizard)
Melee half divine caster: 2 (ranger and paladin)
Melee non-caster: 2 (fighter and barbarian)
Skill monkey: 2 (bard and rogue)
Misc: 1 (monk)

Everything seems evenly balanced, but I think I would add the factotum. Warlock is nice, but the fluff is rather specific (although I guess the same argument could be made for the sorcerer), ToB is good but they need to introduced as the three of them, maybe duskblade but we have prestige classes for gishes, so yeah, factotum, since skill monkey should have the most varied options.

[Darrin]

Warlock. Ranged blaster that never runs out of ammo. The default role I'd probably call a "Gunslinger" or "Archer", which you could say can be done by one of the other base classes, but Warlock does it *better*. It's also flexible enough that, depending on which invocations you take, can fill several roles that are more common in Superhero games, but get a little limelight in the fantasy genre.

Duskblade is also tempting... it's a hybrid role, but it does it so well out-of-the-box, it saves a lot of headaches when someone wants to do melee+arcane.

[Palanan]

I'd go for beguiler...mainly because I've just discovered beguilers, and I'm wondering where they've been all my life.

:smalltongue:

[GenghisDon]

4e went with cleric, fighter, paladin, ranger, rogue, warlock, wizard, warlord

If stuck to existing 3.5e classes, I'd add the binder, scout, swashbuckler, knight or the warlock

[Telonius]

Warlock, with Artificer and Duskblade running close behind.

[Eldan]

I'd probably go into another direction entirely. Kick the Monk, the wizard and the bard, maybe also the Paladin. Split the Wizard into Warmage or Warlock, Beguiler and Dread Necromancer instead.


Though if I could say just any twelve core classes, my list would be:

Primarily Melee:
Warblade
Swordsage
Barbarian or ranger. Maybe some kind of hybrid of the two.

Primarily Arcane:
Dread Necromancer
Warlock
Wilder

Primarily Skilled:
Rogue
Factotum
Beguiler

Primarily Divine:
Crusader
Druid
Cleric

The last two would need fixing. And I'd also like to have the Binder somewhere.

[Salanmander]

Adding a single other class to the core ones is tricky. You can't add a large alternate system class (no ToB, no incarnum), and you can't really add something that was designed to tone-up or tone-down other classes.

Duskblade fits a good role as the last half-caster (with paladin and rager), but it would give the paladin and ranger GIANT FITS OF JEALOUSY because it's so much better.

I might go with Factotum...which actually turns the rogue into a hybrid skill monkey/combat role, because sneak attack is the one thing rogue does better than factotum.

Actually, now that I think about it, probably the best thing to add is something like a party-buffing class that plays nicely with bards...say, dragon shaman or marshal. Sure, they're not the best classes or my favorites, but neither is much of core. They fit in well, fill a role that is only lightly touched on, and don't step on anyone else's toes by making them obsolete.

So, my choice: Marshal.

[Eldariel]

Core lacks two things; an arcane warrior/mage and a frontline leader type (Paladin kinda covers this but doesn't, really). If I had to add one class I'd probably pick Duskblade. Crusader is the other option.

[Eldan]

Can I use this thread for a more general question?

Independent of existing classes, what types of classes would you like to see in the game?

I'm thinking:

A melee class that can effectively defend and lead others.
A melee class that is highly aggressive.
A melee class that has a variety of abilities for different situations.
A trickster/skill monkey class.
A scholar/arcane caster class, with sub-classes.
A healer/wise man/divine caster class.
A spontaneous, innate spellcasting class.
A class that gains magic from pacts or trades with powerful beings.
A wilderness class.
A hybrid magic/melee class, probably, since that is very much a favourite.

That gives me nine.

[Amphetryon]

Can I use this thread for a more general question?

Independent of existing classes, what types of classes would you like to see in the game?

I'm thinking:

A melee class that can effectively defend and lead others.
A melee class that is highly aggressive.
A melee class that has a variety of abilities for different situations.
A trickster/skill monkey class.
A scholar/arcane caster class, with sub-classes.
A healer/wise man/divine caster class.
A spontaneous, innate spellcasting class.
A class that gains magic from pacts or trades with powerful beings.
A wilderness class.
A hybrid magic/melee class, probably, since that is very much a favourite.

That gives me nine.I would add a "mundane ranged class," a "debuffing focused caster class" and a "buffing focused caster class," which are not explicitly included in your list (though may be implicit) and which round it out to an even dozen.

[Eldan]

Yeah, the buff-debuff casters would probably go into caster subclasses. The basic idea there would be to make a general wizard/sorcerer class that then would have to specialize in a certain kind of spells, and get class features accordingly.

In fact, I'd like that for all classes. Sub-specializations they can choose. Give the skill-monkey the choice between combat maneuvers and illusion spells. Give the aggressive fighter a choice of ragelike features or more combat maneuvers. Let the divine class specialize into buffing others, self-buffing or debuffing enemies.

[TopCheese]

Binder (no online vestige)
Warblade (more bonus feats... Expand the retraining ability)
Crusader (boost certain class features)
Swordsage ( fix recovery)
Cleric (no change)
Dread N (some minor changes... Also point out they actually become a Lich)
Beguiler
Sorcerer
Wildshape Ranger
Totemist
Incarnate
Arcdhivist

Essentially the only tier 1 classes would be the Cleric/Archivist...Mainly to offset the fact that someone got shafted into healbot/primary support role. Most of these classes are flexible, powerful, or fills a good role. Or a combination of the three. I would also allow the feats from the Unearthed Arcana generic classes... This way it would give each class a bit of flavor if wanted (add in abilities like pounce and bardic knowledge/music to be feats)

Also I would give core the deep halfling just because they are awesome.

**** Edit****

I know what my first homebrew will be... Expanding on the class feats from the generic characters... Hmmmm

[Psyren]

Factotum would just put the rogue out of a job (again, only now in core-only games too.)

Core needs a proper gish-in-a-can, so I would bring in PF's Magus as #11. But if restricted to 3.5, I'd do the next best thing and bring in Binder.

(I thought about Duskblade, but being full-BAB they would dethrone Fighters and Rangers pretty handily.)

[Wonton]

I've always wondered, fluff-wise, why it took them so long to come out with a Shaman class. It seems like a staple of fantasy that largely just got rolled into Druid in 3.5

[TopCheese]

I've always wondered, fluff-wise, why it took them so long to come out with a Shaman class. It seems like a staple of fantasy that largely just got rolled into Druid in 3.5

Because Druids are Shamans (or shamans are druids?). Or at least can be.. You know old guy/woman who communes with nature...

[Gnome Alone]

Because Druids are Shamans (or shamans are druids?). Or at least can be.. You know old guy/woman who communes with nature...

Indeed, you can represent a shaman with the Druid class pretty well, but he said "fluff-wise." WOTC doesn't seem to operate under the common assumption that classes are metagame constructs ("Hi, I'm Violenthobolandpiraticus, the Barbarian/Fighter/Ranger/Horizon Walker!") and so one would think that they'd have gone, "hey, here's a Shaman class!" sooner, since Druid has sort of an ecoterrorist warpriest of nature thing going on in the official fluff.

[Wonton]

Indeed, you can represent a shaman with the Druid class pretty well, but he said "fluff-wise." WOTC doesn't seem to operate under the common assumption that classes are metagame constructs ("Hi, I'm Violenthobolandpiraticus, the Barbarian/Fighter/Ranger/Horizon Walker!") and so one would think that they'd have gone, "hey, here's a Shaman class!" sooner, since Druid has sort of an ecoterrorist warpriest of nature thing going on in the official fluff.

Exactly, otherwise why didn't they just release a couple of "Rage" feats and allow you to build a Barbarian using the Fighter class?

[Essence_of_War]

If I had to add JUST one non-core class to the PHB core classes (rather than re-pick/re-build the core classes for my game) I'd probably lean towards the binder or the warlock.

They fill the flavor spot of "my magic comes from dark trades", and both of them are flexible enough to round out parties nicely.

[Psyren]

Exactly, otherwise why didn't they just release a couple of "Rage" feats and allow you to build a Barbarian using the Fighter class?

Fighter/Barbarian represent the same dichotomy as Wizard/Sorcerer, i.e. disciplined study vs. innate skill. Or at least they should - the Fighter, with its poor skills and lack of useful feats, doesn't do too good a job of modelling that.

But I'm not seeing much differentiating a Druid and a Shaman. "Primal spellcaster" sums it up, and they don't even have the WoW demarcation of needing to shapeshift to excel at role X.

[nedz]

Can I use this thread for a more general question?

Independent of existing classes, what types of classes would you like to see in the game?


A melee class which gets things which stop casters stealing its thunder.
(only they get lots of HP, multiple attacks, etc.)
An arcane class which is limited in its spell choice and where spells can have unforeseen consequences.
A divine class whose powers and spells relate directly to their power source rather than special powers plus the kitchen sink.

Oh wait, that's kind of like AD&D

[Wonton]

Fighter/Barbarian represent the same dichotomy as Wizard/Sorcerer, i.e. disciplined study vs. innate skill. Or at least they should - the Fighter, with its poor skills and lack of useful feats, doesn't do too good a job of modelling that.

But I'm not seeing much differentiating a Druid and a Shaman. "Primal spellcaster" sums it up, and they don't even have the WoW demarcation of needing to shapeshift to excel at role X.

Fair enough. Then, maybe it would have been better for fluff and balance if the Druid had a Bard-like 2/3 spell progression with Wild Shape and Animal Companions, and the Shaman was the nature full caster.

[MukkTB]

Duskblade

Then you wouldn't have to go outside of core to find a melee character with a bit of arcane magic.

[pyromanser244]

I kind of like the more party buffing idea, though I'd sooner say dragon shaman than crusader (pro-dragon bias may have something to do with it).

or if you could upgrade the hexblade to not suck completely that could get paired with duskblade.

[Eldan]

Isn't the party buffing already pretty much the Bard's thing, though?

[Gnorman]

Hmmm, definitely like throwing out wizard/sorcerer, because that's a very, very arbitrary distinction.

Eldan, I like your list of types of classes. Here's what I see missing from standard D&D:

A hybrid arcane magic / combat class.
A defensive, protective combat class.
A skill-based divine class.

After some thought, I broke it down like this:

Overarching Role

Combative (has full BAB): Fighter - Paladin - Ranger - Barbarian

Skilled (has 6+ skills per level): Rogue - Bard - Ranger

Magical (has full spellcasting): Wizard - Sorcerer - Cleric - Druid

Miscellaneous (sucks): Monk

Primary Attribute Used
Strength: Fighter, paladin, barbarian
Dexterity: Rogue, ranger
Constitution: All
Intelligence: Wizard
Wisdom: Cleric, druid, monk
Charisma: Bard, sorcerer

Power Source (to borrow 4E parlance)

Arcane: Bard, sorcerer, wizard
Divine: Cleric, monk (arguable), paladin
Primal: Barbarian, druid, ranger
None: Fighter, rogue, monk (arguable)

Based on these cross-sections, I think the best fit would be a highly-skilled class, based on Intelligence, that represents either a mundane or divine source of power. One could play up the monk's divine connections and give it more of an emphasis on skills, leaving the other role to be filled by... hmmm.

Screams Factotum to me, or possibly some form of alchemist/engineer class.

Of course, if we toss out the normal casters in favor of spontaneous fixed-list casters, then we can move some things around...

What if we made the sorcerer more of a gish-in-a-can? Or threw it out in favor of a warlock class?

[Wonton]

Based on these cross-sections, I think the best fit would be a highly-skilled class, based on Intelligence, that represents either a mundane or divine source of power. One could play up the monk's divine connections and give it more of an emphasis on skills, leaving the other role to be filled by... hmmm.

Screams Factotum to me, or possibly some form of alchemist/engineer class.

Hmm... what about some sort of Artificer/Alchemist hybrid? Preferably emphasizing the technology over the magic.

[ericgrau]

fighter-wizard
barbarian-sorcerer
paladin-cleric
ranger-druid
rogue-bard
monk-_______

Maybe some kind of holy hermit that studies a lot. Probably a 2/3 caster like the bard but divine.

[Eldan]

If we can include homebrew, I'd lobby for the Gramarist here.

[ericgrau]

If we can include homebrew, I'd lobby for the Gramarist here.

http://gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs3/2236736_o.gif?

[Gnorman]

If we can include homebrew, I'd lobby for the Gramarist here.

Love the idea, but a little too much for the intended comprehension level of this exercise.

[LeshLush]

fighter-wizard
barbarian-sorcerer
paladin-cleric
ranger-druid
rogue-bard
monk-_______

Maybe some kind of holy hermit that studies a lot. Probably a 2/3 caster like the bard but divine.
I would argue that the Shaman class from Oriental Adventures fills the blank in this analogy. It's not a two-thirds caster, but he is a holy hermit who has Unarmed Strike and a bunch of bonus feats related to unarmed combat. The analogy is somewhat weakened by the presence of an Animal Companion, but what are you going to do? Unfortunately, the Shaman's spell list isn't appreciably different than the Cleric's, but this list includes both wizard and sorcerer, so I'm not sure that's a valid criticism if we're following this class break-down paradigm.

[animewatcha]

What about 'Drunken Improvisor' where pelor flees from you if you are armed with a table leg. Basically a 'funny' class.

[Lonely Tylenol]

For the purpose of increasing diversity, I would include a system essentially self-contained within one class (ruling out psionics, incarnum, and initiators), that doesn't subsume existing roles (ruling out Factotum, which subsumes the Rogue), does not operate under a subset of existing rules (ruling out the Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Warmage and Healer, as these are all essentially "subset" casters), does not represent only a slight diversion from, or reversal of, existing mechanics (ruling out the Spellthief, Hexblade, Swashbuckler, OA Samurai and Shaman, Rokugan Ninja, CA Ninja, Favored Soul and Spirit Shaman: the Spellthief being a slight diversion from the Rogue and 1/2 caster mechanic; the Hexblade, which is a slight reversal of the Paladin with no real unique mechanic; the Swashbuckler OA Samurai being analogues for a specific Fighter types; the Shaman being a skip and a hop from Cleric; the Rokugan Ninja and CA Ninja are analogues for the Rogue; and Favored Soul and Spirit Shaman are spontaneous analogues for the Cleric and Druid, respectively), and aren't complete failures of mechanics (ruling out the Truenamer, Marshal and CW Samurai, none of which are even remotely usable beyond dips or extreme optimization/abuse).

Unless I've missed anything, that leaves the Wu Jen and Shugenja (both of which are somewhat different interpretations of the spontaneous caster mechanic), Duskblade (which somewhat subsumes, but also doesn't quite fit the role of, the Paladin), Knight (which is a variant of the Fighter, but has a unique range of abilities), Dragon Shaman (which has a different type of attack form and an aura mechanic, neither of which are seen in playable core classes), Binder and Shadowcaster (which represent their own subsystems), and the Warlock and Dragonfire Adept (each of which represents the invocation mechanic, which is technically a self-contained mechanic, as both were printed singly, meaning one had to represent the mechanic first).

If I had to add one, it would probably be the Warlock, with the Dragon Shaman pulling close behind. The Binder would follow that, then the Duskblade and Knight, then Shadowcaster, and finally, pulling up the rear, the Dragonfire Adept, Wu Jen and Shugenja. The invocation mechanic is a noteworthy subsystem that had continued support outside of core, but didn't actually have a core mechanic; that makes invocation-users (and in particular the Warlock) unique among non-core classes (which are typically never supported). It's practically already the twelfth core class--it just wasn't printed in core. The Dragon Shaman represents the aura mechanic, as well as the "scaling primary attack" mechanic. The Dragonfire Adept, in my opinion, represents an elaboration on the invocation and scaling attack mechanics, and thus makes sense as splat support. The Wu Jen and Shugenja don't make as much sense independently of each other; they are, in essence, counterparts.

Were I allowed to change two, I would remove the Sorcerer and add the Wu Jen and Shugenja. This would result in five primary arcane classes (Cleric, Druid, Shugenja, Wizard, and Wu Jen), one 2/3 caster (Bard) and two 1/2 casters (Paladin and Ranger)--all with unique spell lists, fitting different themes. It would also allow the spontaneous caster mechanic to flourish, albeit with a particular niche.

Were I allowed to change three to five, I would remove the Wizard and Sorcerer (three), Druid (four) and Cleric (five) and add the Beguiler, Dread Necromancer and Warmage (three), Spirit Shaman (four), and Favored Soul (five) to the core roster. Again, the number of primary casters increases, but each represents an entirely different, unique spell lists that fulfills different roles, and makes spellcasting entirely spontaneous (with the divine casters, with their broader lists, able to only draw from small subsets of that list at a time). The Cleric and Spirit Shaman, being the two spontaneous divine casters, also have mechanics that are somewhat different from each other, as well as the three "fixed list" arcane casters. This would also be, in my opinion, a satisfactory balance fix given the limitations (although the monk remains an odd duck).

Of course, the original spirit of this was to find one class to add, so Warlock or Dragon Shaman.

[pyromanser244]

Isn't the party buffing already pretty much the Bard's thing, though?

we have 2 full casters for arcane, 2 for divine, 2 full combat classes. why not have 2 party buffer classes?

[Gnorman]

Because party buffer is a narrower role than "combat" or "magic"

[rgrekejin]

No question, the Warlock. The mechanics behind him are super easy, making him a cinch to pick up for the starting player who owns only the PHB and wants to play a magic-user, but is intimidated by some of the intricacies of the more traditional casters. Plus, he's stylish as hell and has really interesting fluff. It's not like the material in the original PHB was super-balanced to begin with, so that's really not much of a concern.

[TopCheese]

Can I change my answer to...

Burn PHB 1

Save some of the class features (turn them into feats I guess) like trap finding, rage, bardic music/knowledge...

Might actually make a feat worth taking.

You want wildshape? Totemist
Paladin? Crusader
Mage: DN, Beguiler, Warmage
Fighter? Warblade

Yeah after reading this thread I've come to hate core classes for the most part. PHB 1 should die a violent death :smallfurious: . Sure the Bard.shall be saved but the rest... The rest are just targets for my wrath...

:)

[Gnorman]

The PHB may not be perfect but it does have the handy advantage of being OGL material.

[TopCheese]

The PHB may not be perfect but it does have the handy advantage of being OGL material.

Yup though my rage carries on in spite of the OGL.

Blast you core *shakes fist*

:)

[Endarire]

My Class List:

THE ARCANE: Artificer, Bard, Warlock, Wizard
THE DIVINE: Cleric, Druid
THE MARTIAL: Crusader, Marshal, Ranger, Swordsage, Warblade
THE MENTAL: Psion, Psychic Warrior
THE OTHER: Binder, Factotum

That's 15 classes with some specializations within classes. That feels like a good number.

[sonofzeal]

I'd use, in no particular order...


Factotum - Skill, Generalist
Swordsage - Skill, Martial
Crusader - Martial, Divine
Warblade - Martial
Evangelist (DM #311) - Magical, Divine
Wild Shape Ranger - Divine, Generalist
Wu Jen - Arcane
Psion - Psionic
Psychic Warrior - Martial, Psionic
Beguiler - Skill, Arcane
Warlock - Arcane, Generalist
Duskblade - Martial, Arcane

[Eldan]

I forgot Spirit Shaman. Kicking Druid for Spirit Shaman and Ranger for Wildshape Ranger (probably with the druid ACF from PHB II) is a good idea.

If we give roles as Arcane, Divine, Melee, Skills, Social and Wilderness (just to make six), there should be 15 class combinations with that, if a class can have two roles. Plus six pure classes.

Let's see.

Pure Arcane: Wizard
Arcane - Divine: Theurge. This one, I'd probably leave out.
Arcane Melee: Duskblade
Arcane Skills: Spellthief?
Arcane Social: Beguiler
Arcane Wilderness: ?
Pure Divine: Cloistered Cleric
Divine Melee: Crusader
Divine Skills: ?
Divine Social: Favoured Soul?
Divine Wilderness: Druid
Pure Melee: Warblade
Melee Skills: Rogue
Melee Social: Marshal? No idea, really.
Melee Wilderness: Ranger
Pure skills: Factotum
Skills and Social: Bard?
Skills and Wilderness: Scout
Pure social: who knows.
Social and Wilderness: I don't have the faintest idea.
Pure wilderness: Spirit shaman.

[rgrekejin]

I'd like to point out a consideration for PHB classes that most people seem to have forgotten about: as the PHB will be the first and often only book that new players own, it's kind of important that the classes contained in it be relatively simple mechanistically, so that they can easily be picked up by rookie players.

[Gnorman]

Social seems kind of an awkward fit, but I otherwise like what you've put together there.

Combat/Skilled/Arcane/Divine/Nature

Five pure classes. Ten hybrids. Assuming core classes (albeit with a few tweaks), it could easily break down into:

Combat - Fighter
Skilled - Rogue
Arcane - Wizard
Divine - Cleric
Nature - Druid
Combat/Skilled - ???
Combat/Arcane - Sorcerer
Combat/Divine - Paladin
Combat/Nature - Barbarian
Skilled/Arcane - Bard
Skilled/Divine - Monk
Skilled/Nature - Ranger
Arcane/Divine - ???
Arcane/Nature - ???
Divine/Nature - ???

Now it's just fill in the blanks. Combat/skilled... marshal, swashbuckler, maybe assassin? Arcane/Divine screams Warlock to me, or possibly Necromancer. Arcane/Primal, perhaps some kind of alchemist. Divine/Nature... Shaman... or something.

Thoughts?

[Eldan]

You're right. Social can go under skilled. In that case, I'd say (And I'm not using all core classes):

Combat - Warblade
Skilled - Factotum
Arcane - Wizard
Divine - Cleric*
Nature - Druid
Combat/Skilled - Rogue
Combat/Arcane - Duskblade
Combat/Divine - Crusader
Combat/Nature - Ranger
Skilled/Arcane - Bard
Skilled/Divine - Monk*
Skilled/Nature - Scout
Arcane/Divine - ???
Arcane/Nature - ???
Divine/Nature - ???

*Alternatively: Favoured soul for pure divine, and a kind of cloistered cleric with less spell power as the skilled/divine class. The divine scholar monk, who sits in a monastery all day, studying ancient scripture. Mix with the archivist, a bit.

There are no official classes that I know that combine two spell sources in them. I'm not sure they should exist. But I propose the names Geomancer for Arcane/Nature, Thaumaturge for Arcane/Divine and Shaman for Nature/Divine. The sorcerer could alternatively work for Arcane/Nature with some reflavouring and spell list tweaking.

That still leaves out a few of my favourite classes, which is sad. The beguiler is Arcane/skilled, the swordsage is probably combat/skilled or pure combat, the barbarian is another fit for combat/nature, or pure combat, depending on how it goes. The Binder is, hm. He is weird, here. Arcane/skilled, probably, or Arcane/combat.
Looking into later books, we also get Psionic as a power source. The psion is clearly pure psionic, the psychic warrior is combat/psionics, the soulknife sucks and the Wilder sounds like it could be Psionics/nature, with that name.
Incarnum... Totemist is Incarnum/nature. I don't know the other classes much, really.

Edit: or the number of classes could be expanded to 20, with a trained/natural dichotomy for every "pure" archetype. Warblade/Barbarian, Factotum/Rogue, Wizard/Sorcerer, Cleric/Favoured Soul, Druid/?.

[Gnorman]

Psionic kind of throws a wrench into the works, but hmmmm.

This goes beyond my original aim of the question, but one could cross-reference them by "role" and "power source".

{table=head]Role
{table=head]Source | Beat Stick | Skill Monkey | Heal Bot | Blaster
Mundane|Fighter|Rogue|Warlord|Alchemist
Arcane|Duskblade|Bard|Artificer|Wizard
Divine|Paladin|Monk|Cleric|Archivist
Nature|Barbarian|Ranger|Shaman|Druid
Psionic|Psychic Warrior|Psychic Rogue|Ardent|Psion
Eldritch|Hexblade|Assassin|Necromancer|Warlock[/table][/table]

EDIT: this is basically just 4E, isn't it

[Lonely Tylenol]

Crusader is your mundane healbot (or at least it is as close as it's going to get), and Dragon Shaman or Bard are your arcane healbots.

I honestly think you will not be able to fill the table, however, as some roles are mutually exclusive: mundane are, by their definition, never blasters (although I guess glass cannons do exist). Nor do I think you should; trying to structure the entire class system around fitting the same four roles reeks of 4E. Opt for diversity, not similarity.

EDIT: Ninja'd. :smallamused:

[Gnorman]

In any case, I like the other-side-of-the-coin approach that the Eldritch source stirred up within me as an idea to fill in some of the blanks of other list I posted. They may require some expansion and tweaking to fit, but I like the idea of the Assassin as a Combat/Skilled class, the Warlock as Arcane/Divine, a fixed Hexblade as the "default" flavor of the Combat/Arcane class (if only to provide a counterpart to the paladin)

Alternate idea, Eldan: let's bring Social back into the mix, but completely remove "pure" classes. Now everything's a hybrid, there's a little consistency, and we please the multiverse with our respect for the Rule of Three (and its lesser-known corollary, the Rough Guideline of Five).

[Eldan]

Fair enough.

{table=head]x|Arcane|Divine|Skilled|Social|Wilderness
Combat|Hexblade|Paladin/Crusader|Assassin|Marshall?|Barbarian
Arcane|X|Warlock|Beguiler|Bard|Sorcerer?
Divine|X|X|Cleric/Monk?|Favoured Soul?|Druid
Skilled|X|X|X|?|Ranger
Social|X|X|X|X|?
[/table]



Core classes that seem to be out now: Wizard, Rogue, Fighter

Though I don't really see the Warlock as Arcane/Divine. How does that reasoning work?

Not sure about teh social role, either. It seems to have too many gaps, I'd rather put in something else.

As for, "This is 4E"? So? We are only using the terminology. Doesn't mean we have to change anything in the mechanics. It's purely descriptive.


Alternative:

{table=head]x|Arcane|Divine|Skilled|Pact|Wilderness
Combat|Duskblade|Paladin/Crusader|Assassin|Hexblade|Barbarian
Arcane|X|?|Beguiler|Warlock|Sorcerer?
Divine|X|X|Cleric/Monk?|Urpriest?|Druid
Skilled|X|X|X|Binder|Ranger
Pact|X|X|X|X|Totemist
[/table]

The pact source are those who make trades with supernatural beings for power without being necessarily believers, like clerics are. That's 6 power sources.
Number seven could be psionics or something like Science, or Expertise. Those who study their "thing" scientifically.
Expertise-Arcane: Artificer
Expertise-Divine: Archivist
Expertise-Skilled: Factotum
Expertise-Pact: Binder, probably. With something else
Expertise-Wilderness: Ranger or Scout, with the other one going into Wilderness-Skilled.
Expertise-Combat: Warblade, or a Marshall-y leader type.

[Amphetryon]

I'd like to point out a consideration for PHB classes that most people seem to have forgotten about: as the PHB will be the first and often only book that new players own, it's kind of important that the classes contained in it be relatively simple mechanistically, so that they can easily be picked up by rookie players.

The other thing to remember about the PHB classes is that optimizer-types who've expressed opinions on such things on the interwebz generally call out only the Bard and the Ranger* as being neither game-breaking nor grossly underpowered. That seems to indicate a reasonable point of comparison for other classes.

*Those who prefer a slightly higher-powered game frequently specify "Wildshape-variant Ranger" in this matter.

[Eldan]

Barbarian and Rogue aren't too bad either, especially once you throw things like ACFs into the mix.

[LeshLush]

To the handful of people who have expressed the opinion that the new class list should include wild shape ranger instead of the regular ranger, I have played a ranger a few times, and never once have I wanted that character to turn into a wolf. Wild shape variant may be more powerful, but to me it doesn't match the feel of what I think the ranger should be, and I would think that would be a fairly common criticism if a player's handbook got rid of the regular ranger in favor of his shapechanging cousin. Maybe not quite as much on optimization-focused boards like this, but amongst players of D&D in general.

[sonofzeal]

The other thing to remember about the PHB classes is that optimizer-types who've expressed opinions on such things on the interwebz generally call out only the Bard and the Ranger* as being neither game-breaking nor grossly underpowered. That seems to indicate a reasonable point of comparison for other classes.

*Those who prefer a slightly higher-powered game frequently specify "Wildshape-variant Ranger" in this matter.
...actually, I more often hear Barbarian there instead of Ranger.

Core-only, Ranger and Bard kind of suffer. Bard is anemic in combat, has too few spells to really do much, can't boost IC to truly relevant levels, and really kinda fails all around except at social skills. Ranger, similarly, gets a mixed bag that doesn't actually add up to anything. They're marginally better as a melee warrior, but still sub-Fighter (even Core Fighter) and that's not exactly something to be proud of.

Outside of Core, Paladins get Battle Blessing and SotAO, not to mention awesome spells like Rhino Rush, bringing them right up to par. So there's that too.

Barbarian, meanwhile, is in a pretty decent place either way. They can keep up to ToB in damage in combat, they've got some stuff outside of combat, and there's a whole host of useful ACFs too as well as a rather enviable array of class-specific PrCs that are largely solid - checking my PrC list, I can't find a single one below "Even" except Rage Mage which hardly counts. They're T4 because they don't have much tactical or day-to-day flexibility, but whatever. They're still an example of relatively good class design, and something worth paying attention to when talking about good points of comparison as far as core classes go.



To the handful of people who have expressed the opinion that the new class list should include wild shape ranger instead of the regular ranger, I have played a ranger a few times, and never once have I wanted that character to turn into a wolf. Wild shape variant may be more powerful, but to me it doesn't match the feel of what I think the ranger should be, and I would think that would be a fairly common criticism if a player's handbook got rid of the regular ranger in favor of his shapechanging cousin. Maybe not quite as much on optimization-focused boards like this, but amongst players of D&D in general.
The issue to me is simply that there's no real need for a Barbarian AND a Ranger AND a Druid. If you're talking about trying to cover bases in a more condensed list of classes, Wild-Shape Ranger as your catch-all "Nature's Wrath" guy makes a lot of sense. Give them a greatsword and call them a Barbarian, or give them a bunch of wands and scrolls and call them a Druid, or play them somewhere in the middle and be a more traditional Ranger. Whichever way, turning into a bear is not something they'll ever need to do, but it'd hardly be out of line with the archetype.

[Eldan]

They could be classes with a selection of class features to choose from. Path of the Hunter, Path of the Berserker, Path of the Shapeshifter, Path of the Shaman. Choose any two.

[LeshLush]

They could be classes with a selection of class features to choose from. Path of the Hunter, Path of the Berserker, Path of the Shapeshifter, Path of the Shaman. Choose any two.
So, Legend?

[Eldan]

Similar system, though I can't say I like Legend much.

[Gnorman]

Don't mind me, just playing around with more tables

{table=head]Breakdown by Primary Attributes Required
{table=head]Attribute | Strength | Dexterity | Constitution | Intelligence | Wisdom | Charisma
Strength|Fighter|Swashbuckler|Barbarian|Duskblade| Monk|Paladin
Dexterity|Swashbuckler|Rogue|?|Beguiler|Ranger|War lock
Constitution|Barbarian|?|Dragonfire Adept|Wizard|Cleric|Sorcerer
Intelligence|Duskblade|Beguiler|Wizard|Factotum|Ar chivist|Artificer
Wisdom|Monk|Ranger|Cleric|Archivist|Druid|Favored Soul
Charisma|Paladin|Warlock|Sorcerer|Artificer|Favore d Soul|Bard[/table][/table]

[Tvtyrant]

If I could remake the classes, I would probably make a wilderness class, a city class, an arcane class and a divine class.

Wilderness for instance would get either Rage or an animal companion, wildshape or wilderness casting, and either full BaB and moderate skills or medium BaB and good skills.

City would always get medium BaB and high skills, Bardic casting, either SA or a pumped up version of bardic music, etc.