Template talk:D&D character classes

Which classes get listed here?

What's the standard for this template?:

• All classes from all editions?
• Core classes from all editions?
• All classes from the most recent edition?
• Core classes from the most recent edition?

What constitutes a core class? e.g. for 4th Edition, are they just the classes in Player's HandBook 1 or all classes from all three PHB's? And what about the campaign setting class additions (Artificer, Swordmage, etc.)?

After someone reverted my including all-classes-with-their-own-article, I set the classes listed to just the 4E PHB1 classes. Fixblor (talk) 14:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It's probably not all that important which is on the template and which isn't. It's best not to approach Wikipedia articles with a "the current edition trumps all others, because that is what is in print" sort of approach. I know there is a lot of that still in various D&D articles, but those will be weeded out over time as we approach a better balance of coverage-by-edition. People come to Wikipedia to read D&D-related articles on various editions for different reasons - maybe nostalgia, maybe to get a sense of history, maybe because they never stopped playing a certain edition - so we need to try to put things into perspective for all people. Of the choices you've presented, option #2 seems the best. Option #1 would lead to a gigantic table with possibly hundreds of entries. Option #3 would be a lot smaller, but over time would grow to be unwieldy as well. Option #4 would be restrictive for the reasons I mention above. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 14:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, so what about PHB2 and PHB3 from 4E? Do they count as core classes or not? Cause as the list stood before this endeavor, it was inconsistent on that point (including Shaman, excluding Ardent). And still the question of campaign setting specific classes (re: Artificer)? Fixblor (talk) 14:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that "core class" means "Whatever is in the Player's Handbook (or in an edition with no PHB, then whatever classes are in the main set)". So for 1E, if memory serves me that would be Fighter, Thief, Cleric, Magic-User, Assassin, Paladin, Ranger, Monk, Druid, Illusionist; in 2E the list would be the same except subsitute Bard instead of Assassin and Monk; 3E would be Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard, Paladin, Ranger, Sorcerer, Monk, Barbarian, Druid, Sorcerer. OD&D (1974) would be just Fighting-Man, Cleric, and Magic-User, but I'm not sure what the Basic Set involved. Anything that has only ever been in an expansion book (incliding the 4E PHB2 and PHB3) and never in the "main" book, should probably not be featured on the list, which includes the Ardent, Shaman, and Artificer. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 14:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing, I'd just like to see a consistent standard developed here. What about Assassin? It was only ever a sub-class of thief in 1st edition. And according to Character class (Dungeons & Dragons) "Basic" edition had the additional classes of Mystic, Dwarf, Elf, and Halfling (races as classes), do they qualify? Fixblor (talk) 14:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

You can nix assassin if you think that would help with consistency. Mystic was just the Monk renamed (and wasn't in the Basic set anyway, I believe); I think including Dwarf, Elf, and Halfling would be repetitive since they are already listed under the Races section. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

So, is the standard of the template that the list includes all core classes from all main editions of D&D? Excluding race-as-class, sub-classes, kits, themes, paths, and any supplemental/expansion only classes? Fixblor (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't really know; I was just trying to offer my opinion. But that sounds like a reasonable standard for the list. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll wait a few days for others to comment here before I change the template to reflect that concept (which I just put in bold). Fixblor (talk) 15:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments

The list of classes for this template should include all core classes from all main editions of D&D; excluding race-as-class, sub-classes, kits, themes, paths, and any supplemental or expansion only classes.

All comments are welcome. Fixblor (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess go with what 204 says above in the para that starts "I'd say that "core class" means "Whatever is...". I played mostly 1E, and I don't remember a core Illusionist or assassin. It's been a while, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Memory doesn't always serve me well. :) 204.153.84.10 (talk) 18:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Without objection, I'm revising the template here to follow the agreed upon criteria. At this point I'd like to point out that Template:D&D navbox has apparently been using this same list of thirteen (although without alternate names) for about two years now. Should the alternate names be dropped? I'm removing the mention for "Marshal" (while leaving Warlord) since "Marshal" never appeared as a core class. Should "Mystic" be added for the same link to the Monk class? (i.e. Monk/Mystic) Fixblor (talk) 05:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think "Mystic" was used a lot either, but then I really don't know. I'd say No. 108.69.80.49 (talk) 05:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Alternates

There is a new D&D navbox that has a list of classes, but it is a bit different than for this article. I suggest using the bigger navbox on the class pages. If you search for D&D navbox or type '{{D&D navbox}}' in a page editor, you can find it. I do not edit Wikipedia much, but maybe there should not be these two lists of classes used in different articles and someone should fix that. (unsigned comment from 71.93.19.34 (talk) 09:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC))

Deadlink, no such navbox found. 70.15.11.44 (talk) 17:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)