all 4th classes are welcome to Next

Let go, give up, it is all the same discussion on what establishes the core of the game,



let go? When there's many interesting viewpoints to debate?? NEVVAAAARRR!!!


The problem is we all want different games. But I agree specialities, or sub-classes are not the answer if there is a unique class concept. Subclasses will just make more of the same thing. 



Agree. As I said to Diffan, if an adventurer 'type' has dto drop most of an existing classes abilities and needs a unique mechanic to work then it probably is a candidate for a class. let's look first at the broad similarities before assuming anything is a new class build.



 But 5E overall is going to find it hard to be all things to all editions 



Again, totally agree. But do you know what? I don't think they're doing a half bad job of that. My group has proved you can get Next to operate like a 1E, 2E and Essentials game already. I'm sure we're not far off a 3E playstlye supported within the core rules either.

Next won't ever be 1e, 2e, 3e or 4e, but if it supports that feel and style, that's close enough for me. I love that flexibility. 

"They call me Wraith for I hate the living..."

"Play the game, not the ruleset"  
 

 


Again, totally agree. But do you know what? I don't think they're doing a half bad job of that. My group has proved you can get Next to operate like a 1E, 2E and Essentials game already. I'm sure we're not far off a 3E playstlye supported within the core rules either.






I am amused that nothing about 4E came about from that proving. Smile

Though I'd like to hope that modules do work, it's just not showing very well if they give us nothing that could help alleviate our fears that we'll be left forgotten.

Again, totally agree. But do you know what? I don't think they're doing a half bad job of that. My group has proved you can get Next to operate like a 1E, 2E and Essentials game already. I'm sure we're not far off a 3E playstlye supported within the core rules either.






I am amused that nothing about 4E came about from that proving.

Though I'd like to hope that modules do work, it's just not showing very well if they give us nothing that could help alleviate our fears that we'll be left forgotten.



its called homebrew classes and homebrew modules. if you want x and you cant find x make x. things like alchemist should be a skill not a class. things like swordmage should be a subclass or at worst a multiclass option. if people want specific 4th things they can play 4th, just like if i want true classic magic i can play 2nd or 1st.


I am amused that nothing about 4E came about from that proving. Smile

Though I'd like to hope that modules do work, it's just not showing very well if they give us nothing that could help alleviate our fears that we'll be left forgotten.



It sort of did - my players got a sense of 4E Essentials. Where it seems to fall down is in the tactical skirmish aspect of 4E. 4E's combat can feel very much like a tabletop wargame and Next doesn't offer the wealth of tactical options hat 4E provides when you factor in a battlegrid. Next can be tactical, sure, but not in the 4E way - Next's tactics in combat seem to lean towards earlier edition styles of play.

I'm pretty sure 4E would make a playable skirmish wargame. Next would not (at this point). My opinion is that this is probably a good thing. 

"They call me Wraith for I hate the living..."

"Play the game, not the ruleset"  
 

 


Again, totally agree. But do you know what? I don't think they're doing a half bad job of that. My group has proved you can get Next to operate like a 1E, 2E and Essentials game already. I'm sure we're not far off a 3E playstlye supported within the core rules either.






I am amused that nothing about 4E came about from that proving.

Though I'd like to hope that modules do work, it's just not showing very well if they give us nothing that could help alleviate our fears that we'll be left forgotten.



its called homebrew classes and homebrew modules. if you want x and you cant find x make x. things like alchemist should be a skill not a class. things like swordmage should be a subclass or at worst a multiclass option. if people want specific 4th things they can play 4th, just like if i want true classic magic i can play 2nd or 1st.



I've never honestly been good at homebrewing, just not something I've been good at. Usually I scan around for homebrewed classes/changes online that would work well with what is being incorperated.

But if I have to use Homebrew in order to fix an entire Edition to make it fit the playstyle I want, that's just far too much effort on my part for something they said would be included, and I would indeed stick with 4th.

I do have hopes for Next however, I want it to succeed, to fulfill it's goals of incorperating all the DnD editions. I just don't want to see them 'regress' to either catering to a specific edition, or rehashing mistakes that were fixed in later editions. (The current Wizard for example, while the Fighter and Monk are proving to be Tier 5 yet again in comparison with the rest)



I am amused that nothing about 4E came about from that proving. Smile

Though I'd like to hope that modules do work, it's just not showing very well if they give us nothing that could help alleviate our fears that we'll be left forgotten.



It sort of did - my players got a sense of 4E Essentials. Where it seems to fall down is in the tactical skirmish aspect of 4E. 4E's combat can feel very much like a tabletop wargame and Next doesn't offer the wealth of tactical options hat 4E provides when you factor in a battlegrid. Next can be tactical, sure, but not in the 4E way - Next's tactics in combat seem to lean towards earlier edition styles of play.

I'm pretty sure 4E would make a playable skirmish wargame. Next would not (at this point). My opinion is that this is probably a good thing. 



I don't actually consider Essentials as apart of the main 4E myself. I'd still use it, I just consider it as some strange splatbooks that were designed for 3.5 but updated for 4E. Tongue Out

But I suppose so long as it's actually tactical I might be able to stand it.
I don't see a need for making all the 4e classes thier own class, not with the new, broader definition of sub-class. Avenger can fit under paladin. runepriest can fit under cleric. slayer, knight and weaponmaster can all fit under fighter. warden can fit under barbarian. battlemind and ardent can fit under psion. assassin needs it's own class, but there's other shadow stuff that can join it such as shadow dancer. Executioner can go under rogue. Warlord... well there's already many dedicated threads over that.


I have to agree with most, and the following comment about the battlemind being needed. Or at least a psionic Gish, as the battlemind is pretty lame (it's fluff and mechanics don't mesh well). 

Except the assassin doesn't need it's own class. It's a profession. Like mercenary or gladiator. I'm sure there could be a shadow magic class, but that could stand alone in a shadow magic sourcebook. We never saw many in 4e, just shadow-touched other classes.


I think *most* 4e classes should have some implementation, either as a class or subclass or background. But arbitrarily saying every class from Edition X is a pretty heavy demand. I'd be hesitant to say that even for an edition like 1e which only had a single book of expanded classes.

5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

The compilation of my Worldbuilding blog series is now available: 

Jester David's How-To Guide to Fantasy Worldbuilding.

I'm perfectly fine with fewer but better designed classes. I'm even fine with the idea of "superclasses" - things like rolling the ranger and barbarian into the fighter class, the paladin into the cleric class, the sorcerer and warlock into the wizard class - as long as these "superclasses" have several ways of making interesting characters, I don't think you're really losing anything.

I'm okay with a large number of classes with limited multiclassing, so that I can easily realize a character concept. I'm okay with a smaller number of classes with a large degree of multiclassing to easily realize a character concept.

I'm not okay with tons of untested and poorly designed classes. I'm not okay with a point-buy multiclass system that rewards things like "taking a two level dip in fighter for extra feats".

But mostly, I want everybody that likes D&D to be able to play 5e, not just a certain subset. That means that there will need to be methods and ways to fashion characters that are evokative of some earlier edition classes.

It also means that some people need to realize that there will be things in the game that they won't like, won't have to deal with, and can easily ignore.

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

Subclasses can possibly work, if done it right.

Except the assassin doesn't need it's own class. It's a profession. Like mercenary or gladiator. 
.....
I think *most* 4e classes should have some implementation, either as a class or subclass or background. But arbitrarily saying every class from Edition X is a pretty heavy demand. I'd be hesitant to say that even for an edition like 1e which only had a single book of expanded classes.



Totally agree, Jester, I felt the same way about Acrobat and to a lesser degree, Cavalier from 1E.

As for 4e classes having some sort of implimentation, I'd go one further. Although I'm on record here as not wanting too much class sprawl, I'd love to see an article after launch showing how to get D&D classes from all editions using the Next ruleset. I'm sure there will be a lot of extra Specialties and backgrounds to help make that a reality but even a community based document where the brightest ideas from us all can be presented as "Here's how you could have X, Y or Z" may help anyone who has their favourite class left out of DDN.

Just a thought.
 

I'm not okay with tons of untested and poorly designed classes.
.....
But mostly, I want everybody that likes D&D to be able to play 5e, not just a certain subset. That means that there will need to be methods and ways to fashion characters that are evokative of some earlier edition classes.

It also means that some people need to realize that there will be things in the game that they won't like, won't have to deal with, and can easily ignore.



Yep. Totally agree here. Kudos to you for clearly wanting DDN to be inclusive. I think a key line in your post is the last sentence I quoted - DDN won't be designed with the intent that everyone is using everything (not that any edition has been) so lose the bits you don't like and game on!

"They call me Wraith for I hate the living..."

"Play the game, not the ruleset"  
 

 

I cannot reveal that which you refuse to see. Only after removing all bias and opening your mind to endless possibilities can you find the "truth".



Come on, Diffan, you're just being antaginistic there. How about you also open your mind to the truth that Dan and Rasta are talking about here.

The truth in question is that most D&D games follow what we now call a 'traditiona;' fantasy trope. I suppose it's fair to say that it's a Tolkienesque fantasy where Elves, Dwarves, Humans and Hobbi....sorr, Halflings are the common races and that Orcs, Goblins and the like are the 'evil' races



What's your point?  LET THAT BE AN OPTION, NOT A REQUIREMENT.  So, those who like that can play that, and those who don't, don't.

I don't think anybody has said the whole class lineup has to be in the initial rulebook.  That would, in fact, make for a too-expensive, too-heavy book.  But, frankly, I have no interest in Tolkien Fantasy anymore, and until they print other stuff that I do like, I won't be playing 5e, and I'm sure I'm not alone there.

Remember, 'core' does not, and never did, mean 'obligated to be used in every game'.  If something is printed in the initial PHB you don't like, then you don't have to include it in your game.
Because FOxFire if there is to much weid stuff in the core books people will likely pass on it. For the most part fantasy is more or less tolekeinesque on a medieval world. The further you go from that the weirder your game is going to look. I like DarkSun for example I would not put DS stuff in the core books so its an option I can buy into. Weird stuff like Dragonborn, Kreen, Warforged, Tieflings etc really need to go in settings and splat books. If it isn't an elf/dwarf/halfling/gnome/half elf/half orc it probably doesn't belong in the core rules. The basic version of the game is gogin to be 4 races. 

 Popular fantasy like Tolkein, Game of Thrones and works by David Eddings, Feist, Jordan etc often do not go to far from a humanocentric world. These authors are popular for a  reason. Some fantasy authors do very different worlds of course but most of them do not have the mass appeal of these authors either. Niche stuff goes in splats/modules. 

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Or it might draw people because it's not the same old boring Tolkien crap.  I can assure you, I will never play a human, dwarf, elf, or halfling again in my life.  Dull, boring, trite since 1976.

You don't know.  I don't know.

All I do know is the designation 'core' is meaningless, so using that as the crux of your argument is meaningless.  Besides, like I just said, and as usual you don't comprehend, nobody's saying put it all in core.  We're just saying PUT IT ALL SOMEWHERE.
 Have a look at how popular Game of Thrones and the LoTR and Hobbit movies have been. If you are going to make a D&D movie are you going to use random weird race 101 or use humans and elves in it? Loomk at major IP properties like Star Wars they use humans and lightsabres on the posters not random weird alien race from the cantina on the promotional posters.

 Things like steam punk and weird human bloodlines, post apocalyptic stuff etc is still niche compared ot the "boring old Tolkein crap" in terms of mass market appeal. A D&D movie is likely to be something like FR or Dragonlance not Eberron or Darksun. I think they got the message a few years back. 

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Twilight and Justin Bieber are popular too.  Should we have Twi-pires in the Monster Manual and bards with bowl haircuts and high voices?

And the popularity of those things could work against them, because they might have no interest in the game, when they can just read the boring books.

And, AGAIN, NOBODY IS SAYING IN THE INITIAL BOOKS.  Say that sentence until it sinks into your brain.  NOBODY IS SAYING 'IN THE INITIAL BOOKS'.

So long as the non-traditional stuff gets printed, SOMEWHERE, we will be happy.   You can have Bore Core if you want it, just give the rest of us our options.
Calm down FireFox there will be options outside the core just like there always has been. They seem to want to rerelease the old TSR settings and expand the game in different ways than just mechanic bloat so the niche stuff will be there somewhere. There is always a races type book and settings, PHB2s and class books etc that they will want to resell you all over again.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Calm down FireFox there will be options ouotside the core just like there always has been. They seem to want to rerelease the old TSR settings and expand the game in different ways than just mechanic bloat so the niche stuff will be there somewhere. There is always a races type book and settings, PHB2s and class books etc that they will want to resell you all over again. 



Finally, you bought a clue.  THANK YOU.
I hate your guts less now.
Hem...maybe I'm wrong but...it seems to me that you, Fox, and all the others are saying the same thing....

Zard talked about a Core with the basic races and Splat books with other options....

and you, Fox, screamed that nobody says that your options have to be put in the initial book....

where's the difference in that?

sorry if I seemed rude, it was not not my intentions only that your exchange of posts with Zand seems, to me, when 2 people, both deaf, speaks to each other witout reading one the lips of the other....its obvious it comes to misunderstandings.... :D

Back to the topic:

I'd like as express by dlwraith and others that 5e would be omnicomprensive...with stuff ranging from Tolkenianesque fantasy to the GOT's fantasy, to the FR fantasy, to Eberron fantasy, to the Ravenloft horror-fantasy, to the weirdest sci-fi (why not?)
 I don't care what they putin splats They can have techno powered dinosaur golems flying around in giant hamster powered spaceships for all I care. There are certain things I do not want in core books though such as 20+ classes, to much weird stuff, powers etc.  

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

The 4e assassin had alot going for it.

Sure the name wasn't great (call it shadow assassin), but no name is. And the shroud mechanic had some fundimental issues. But it was a great class. There are other shadow classes that could join in too. Like shadow dancer.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

 I don't care what they putin splats They can have techno powered dinosaur golems flying around in giant hamster powered spaceships for all I care. There are certain things I do not want in core books though such as 20+ classes, to much weird stuff, powers etc.  


 I'm on your side in that..I too don't like to see a bloated Core...I'd like to have a base Core with the standard (want to exxagerate) 5 classes (Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard, Psion), and options to customize them...

Then if WOTC want to put on sales Splat Books, PHB2s......etc.....everything with tons of other options/classes/powers/treasures/creatures they are welcome...They will give to other who likes different kinds of fantasy, more choice.....


I understand but I don't necessarily agree. The idea that ALL of these concepts can be fit under the roof of a few archtypes defeats the purpose of a Class-based RPG. For one, we'd need FAR more options at each level to cover the differences in features and abiliites.....And if the Rogue is giving up SO MUCH of their base class to facilitate a specific feel, isn't it better just to create a full class that hits the design goals without the run-around?



Believe it or not, we're probably on the same page here, Diffan.

All of the concepts definately won't fit under a small set of classes. Not even I'm that nieve. Any character type that ends up giving up most of a classes actual abilities would need to be looked at as a potentially new class - totally with you there.

I for one wouldn't mind more choices within the class power set-up to help facilitate the 'archetype' class from serving many different sub-class types. In fact, I did exactly that with my 2E game using a modified version of the Skills and Powers rules. I guess what I'm saying is lets not immediately jump to the 'this needs to be a new class!' approach as quite a lot of fantasy adventurer types actually come from the same core idea with a twist or two applied. Look for the similarities and build appropriately and if an adventurer type demands a unique mechanic and the loss of most of the traditional 'archetypal' abilities to fit then, well, that probably IS a new class niche right there.



The question is, how much difference is enough to justify a new class? A lot of people think Assassin needs to fall under the Rogue or a Specialty or a background but, c'mon we know that none of those would come close to accurately protraying the Assassin as we saw it in 4E. And no, I'm not asking for a 100% carbon copy of the 4E assassin in D&D:Next, but some familiar features and names of things would go a LONG way to establishing some connection between D&D:Next and 4E. And really, I'm not even asking it to be in the PHB. In a supplemental book or Dragon magazine would be fine with me.

I do agree that not ALL 4E classes need to be included as their own class. Slayer and Knight, to me, easily fall under the umbrella of specialties and sub-classes of the Fighter. The Blackguard and Cavalier fall under sub-classes from the Paladin. I can sorta see Invokers fall under a Cleric sub-class and the Warden fall under the Barbarian or Druid sub-classs. Actually, making the Warden a sub of the Druid makes far more sense to me than the Paladin. Give him better Weapon attack progression, reduce his spells to only 5th or 6th level and throw on some Warden specific spells/wildshapes and you come close or at least, have the style down as a 4E Warden. THAT is stuff I can go with but it does change the core of the class from it's original and I'm just not sure the developement team wants to do that.


Or lets go with Swordmage. This guy teleports a lot and fights extreamly well with his blade and spells. What class does he fall under or does he fall into the "Specialties" tree? And in doing that, what levels do you determine he gets things like his Aegis or Swordbond? Are there going to be separate spells that work in favor of such a style or is he relegated to the old Gish where you either fought with a sword like a Fighter or cast spells like a wizard? Becuase that does NOT represent what a Swordmage did well, at all.



One word - Bladesinger.

Yep, Fighter/Elf kit in a 2E splatbook. Really was a multiclass Fighter/Wizards with some flavouring. What's to stop that sort of thing in Next? Adding the Aegis mechanic? Simple - bolt it into the Swordmage Specialty. Doesn't matter if it's a Wizard or Fighter Speciality really.



Yes, Bladesinger was a gish but there are quite a few problems culturally with that class and I have this funny feeling that if they do make a Bladesinger it'll revert to "Elves Only". Further, a Bladesinger isn't what a Swordmage is or function similiar in anyway. What we used to have is at any given option on their turn a pre-4E gish could either A). Cast a spell like a wizard OR B). Attack using a weapon like a Fighter. A Swordmage, OTOH, attacks with sword and spell together. I guess it could be modeled a bit after the Pathfinder Magus but that really doen't do it justice either. But I think with the limitations the designers put on the game it's the best we can come up with.
 
We can do this a thousand different ways. My preference is to keep the core classes broad in appeal but limited in number with specialties filling the gaps. That's all I'm really saying here.



I get that, but from the look of things so far (really, what else are we supposed to judge by?) I'm not sure there are enough options provided to cover the amount of change necessary. Also, and my biggest problem with turning class-styles into Feats, is that it takes a character 3, 6, or 9 levels of play to cover what an original character could cover in 1 or 2. Sure, I could play at a higher level but then what's the point?  


Take a look at the current Warden path for Paladins. ... It's weak and hollow and this is why I think sub-classes aren't the way to go. They'll be weak, former versions of their once interesting selves.



I see your point and appreciate what you're saying. I actually agree with you in principle (it would be easy to make sub-classes shadows of their former selves if we're trying to carbon copy from 3E or 4E some of the 'additional' classes) but not in execution. I think the modular nature of Next can make this work and make it work in an intersting way, but as I said above this is all down to my preference in a potential execution.


I can see we're both after the same thing and that's cool. We probably only are disagreing on the fundimental method by which to provide all the options and choices.



Well if we got meaningful choices that allowed us to replace features that make no sense for a specific Archtype (like Wardens getting Aura of Courage or Divine sense??!) then perhaps we can come close to building a character that we envision or 'port over from 4E. I just hope it can be fully realized with relative simplicity instead of being required to homebrew it from scratch.
I hated the 4E class structure, mostly because the classes were just way too specialized. If you wanted to be a swordsman versus an archer, it took a different class. Hell, even if you wanted the difference between a defending swordsman and an attacking swordsman, it was a different class.

And then each class got its own powers to up the page count.

When 4E would have in my opinion, done a lot better by just having you select a role (which gave you role abilities), select a power source, then picking any power you wanted with that power source.
I've really enjoyed this exchange of views, Diffan - thanks for sticking with me and sharing. 

I'll wrap my thoughts up here by saying it seems that we agree that not all 4e classes need import into ddn as full classes so in that regard we've at least answered the ops original statement. We also both agree that many options and choices need to be made available even if we differ slightly (and it is slightly) in the way we'd approach it. I totally get what you're driving at and will likely still get along with next either way. I think I'll have to muse over exactly what circumstances a class build would be neccessary.

Thoughtful and entertaining - thanks.

Fox - We're with you on having diversity and unusual/exciting race/class/setting options to play with in the ddn system. To be clear, I never thought you were insisting that such 'fringe' (if you'll excuse that descriptor) options should definately be in the initial rulebooks. I would love to have more outlandish or unusual options at my disposal but for me they would definately belong in additional suppliments. On the other hand I hope you understood why I chose to highlight tolkienesque fantasy as being of potentially broader appeal. I respect your preference and understand that a tolkien based fantasy setting wouldn't suit you well - there's nothing wrong with that view at all (but there's also nothing wrong with preferring that sort of fantasy setting). Preferences are a wonderfully diverse thing and I hope ddn can cater for most of our needs. For everything else, there's homebrewing

Dwarfslayer - you aren't alone in your view. I've heard the same thing said on the forums recently by others. I think you're right and as a system it would work. The counter to that point is the question, "would it be d&d?" as many see the class system as a fundamental defining feature of d&d itself. 

 

"They call me Wraith for I hate the living..."

"Play the game, not the ruleset"  
 

 

I hated the 4E class structure, mostly because the classes were just way too specialized. If you wanted to be a swordsman versus an archer, it took a different class. Hell, even if you wanted the difference between a defending swordsman and an attacking swordsman, it was a different class.

And then each class got its own powers to up the page count.



From my understanding a Fighter got proficiency with Bows. If you wanted to be a specialized Archer then yea, you had to spend resources to become better at being an archer like Feats and powers. That's easy enougth to do however with Warrior of the Wild feat, Novice/Acolyte/Adept Power feats and a decent Dexterity score. Your still a Fighter though. You still have great AC because you can wear Scale and you still have LOTS of healing surges and decent HP AND you can still swing a sword pretty well.

This is a lot like in 3E where you had to spend your feats on Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Many Shot, Rapid Shot to be considered good with a Bow.


When 4E would have in my opinion, done a lot better by just having you select a role (which gave you role abilities), select a power source, then picking any power you wanted with that power source.



Yes, that actually is an awesome idea.
the problem is that when a new edition come out the fans of the past one lose things if they want to play the next edition in line. it seems 4vengers cant let go of anything and want 5th to be word for word. then they slam classic editons as all bad and terrible. welcome to the world of being a fan of an older edition. mearls has stated that to release books in the future with core changing rules was a mistake of 4th and it wont be repeated. so you may see some new builds of core classes as subclasses. but you wont see new mechanics with those as thats what caused rule bloat and ruined 3rd and 4th.



Wow, what a surprise hyperbole and edition warring. Keep it up Mike, I'm sure you can get this thread shut down like all the others you've participated in...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Let go, give up, it is all the same discussion on what establishes the core of the game, so a 1E avenger only wants certain classes, and the rest can be specialities or feats, which can be ignored by removing those options, where the 4E avenger sees no problem with builds, and numerous classes if they can do something unique. I am sure there are certain things 2E avengers and 3E avengers want as well.

The problem is we all want different games. But I agree specialities, or sub-classes are not the answer if there is a unique class concept. Subclasses will just make more of the same thing. Where sublclass may provide hope is present different styles of the same class, from 1E to 4E. But 5E overall is going to find it hard to be all things to all editions, and they appear to be dead set against making basic, standard and advanced take on different editions, where basic may cover 1E/2E and standard 3E/4E, and advanced will let you choose whatever you like. 



the goal was never to have basic cover classic dnd lol. the goal was to have advanced modules cover concepts from varying editions that could be plugged into change the flavor and gameplay.



They've stated over and over that the goal was to have the core/basic be like earlier editions with the newer editions layered on top with advanced rules. Not that their plan is possible...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
the problem is that when a new edition come out the fans of the past one lose things if they want to play the next edition in line. it seems 4vengers cant let go of anything and want 5th to be word for word. then they slam classic editons as all bad and terrible. welcome to the world of being a fan of an older edition. mearls has stated that to release books in the future with core changing rules was a mistake of 4th and it wont be repeated. so you may see some new builds of core classes as subclasses. but you wont see new mechanics with those as thats what caused rule bloat and ruined 3rd and 4th.



Wow, what a surprise hyperbole and edition warring. Keep it up Mike, I'm sure you can get this thread shut down like all the others you've participated in...




yes and you have the same reputation as well. i guess quoting mearls is edition warring lol
the problem is that when a new edition come out the fans of the past one lose things if they want to play the next edition in line. it seems 4vengers cant let go of anything and want 5th to be word for word. then they slam classic editons as all bad and terrible. welcome to the world of being a fan of an older edition. mearls has stated that to release books in the future with core changing rules was a mistake of 4th and it wont be repeated. so you may see some new builds of core classes as subclasses. but you wont see new mechanics with those as thats what caused rule bloat and ruined 3rd and 4th.



Wow, what a surprise hyperbole and edition warring. Keep it up Mike, I'm sure you can get this thread shut down like all the others you've participated in...




yes and you have the same reputation as well. i guess quoting mearls is edition warring lol



Yeah, sorry, Mearls never said "it seems 4vengers cant let go of anything and want 5th to be word for word. then they slam classic editions as all bad and terrible."

If he did I'd be calling for his resignation...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Even though I'm not a fan of a classical and generic Player's Handbook, I think they should phase out the monk class. Since WotC most likely will keep the first core book plain, they should then stick to just the basics and not muddy it up too much.
Here's hoping the OP is secretly Mike Mearls. SurprisedLaughing

Given my experience with the slow roll-out of all classic classes in 4ed, I would prefer that we have a lot of class ideas rolled out slowly, starting from most popular and iconic, to the fringe. IMO, getting a great Bard/Barbarian/Monk/Druid/Sorcerer was worth the extra months. Don't try and shove a Warden into the Paladin: I'm willing to wait 1-3 years for a really good version of the Warden that is its own class.  

 
When 4E would have in my opinion, done a lot better by just having you select a role (which gave you role abilities), select a power source, then picking any power you wanted with that power source.



But what about Rogues and Rangers? Warlocks and Sorcerers? Bards and Artificers? All of these pairs share a power source, but have different flavours and strengths. If there were just an Arcane Leader feature, would it be robust enough to model both a Bard and Artificer?

"Ah, the age-old conundrum. Defenders of a game are too blind to see it's broken, and critics are too idiotic to see that it isn't." - Brian McCormick

What they need to do is create a basic box for people like justmike and an Advanced box for people like me or those who want lots of options.
What they need to do is create a basic box for people like justmike and an Advanced box for people like me or those who want lots of options.



i think you have me totaly wrong. i play super heavy rule games all the time. i love them, i want a 5th that has a good core and since feats are an advaced module i wont use that also makes me happy. i just want a more classic spell system.
What they need to do is create a basic box for people like justmike and an Advanced box for people like me or those who want lots of options.



I support this.
Then who cares if there are 25+ base classes? No ones asking for them up front in the first PHB, just the possibility that we'll have them eventually sometime down the road.

While I agree with Fox in that the same classes reprinted time and time and time again in the same PHB gets boring and repetitive they also provide the biggest and broadest archtypes in your typical fantasy game which is good for continuity overall. I just dont want to wait long for a Swordmage or a Shadow Assassin or a Warden that plays like it should.

But what about Rogues and Rangers? Warlocks and Sorcerers? Bards and Artificers? All of these pairs share a power source, but have different flavours and strengths. If there were just an Arcane Leader feature, would it be robust enough to model both a Bard and Artificer?



Honestly, I don't consider rogues and rangers all that different. A ranger conceptually is just a wilderness rogue, with a tendency to use a bow. And given you have limited power slots, you can choose the ones that fit your style, maybe give an option between sneak attack or hunter's quarry for a martial striker.

Warlock and sorcerer is largely the same deal. I don't feel the need to particularly differentiate them. They have slightly different flavor, but beyond that they're both fairly similar, shooting elemental blasts and killing stuff. Most of 4E just let you flavor stuff however you wanted. So if you wanted to say your eldritch blast was dragon's fire or if you wanted it to be hellfire, it wouldn't really matter.

The artificer and the bard are the only real different ones. But you could mix and match powers anyway. All it really is is adding powers into one list instead of splitting them into many. So you'd have the same number of powers for the most part (minus the pointless overlap).

Basically how it would look would be a martial striker would get to choose powers from any martial class, and would get either hunter's quarry or sneak attack. So you could say create a two weapon fighting rogue by taking sneak attack and some ranger dual wield powers. You could take fighter marking as a martial defender, but take rogue powers for attack so be a really mobile defender type. 

Effectively it'd just open a whole new level of mixing and matching powers and allowing lots of new concepts. No concepts would be lost, you'd just gain the ability to do many new ones.
What they need to do is create a basic box for people like justmike and an Advanced box for people like me or those who want lots of options.



I support this.



I support this too, but its not going to happen. As I've said above they are aiming for a core/basic that is AD&D (whether 2E or 1E) and trying to layer 3E and 4E on top and it just doesn't work like that.

I'd be totally for them having a stripped down core and layering 1E, 2E, 3E, and 4E on top of that in successive layers. Then you really could play the game you wanted.

Instead they are putting superficial 4E parts onto the AD&D chassis. I have no problem if they include previous editions or have 4E in an advance set of modules, but that's not what they are doing...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
This idea that options and supplemented material is bad needs to stop. I'd love to see dozens of classes over time. There doesn't need to be 100 at the onset though over 6 or 7 years, yes that'd be nice.



Have no fear.  We're going to get the boring core books just like the old days of yore. So boring. I hate classic D&D.

Races- Human, Half-Orc, Half-Elf, Elf, Gnome, Dwarf and Halfling.
Classes- Barbarian, Monk, Cleric, Fighter, Ranger, Wizard, Paladin, Rogue, Driud and maybe the Sorcerer.

The monk needs to stop being a core, sacred cow. Might as well throw in the stupid 1st edition Assassin.




I'm rather amused that the Barbarian (one appearance in a PHB) is one you choose to keep over the Monk (two appearances in a PHB). And that no-one else seems to have noticed, even when appealing to the 'traditional' classes.

These, in the day when heaven was falling, The hour when earth's foundations fled, Followed their mercenary calling, And took their wages, and are dead. Playing: Legendof Five Rings, The One Ring, Fate Core. Planning: Lords in the Eastern Marches, Runequest in Glorantha. 

What they need to do is create a basic box for people like justmike and an Advanced box for people like me or those who want lots of options.



I support this.



I support this too, but its not going to happen. As I've said above they are aiming for a core/basic that is AD&D (whether 2E or 1E) and trying to layer 3E and 4E on top and it just doesn't work like that.

I'd be totally for them having a stripped down core and layering 1E, 2E, 3E, and 4E on top of that in successive layers. Then you really could play the game you wanted.

Instead they are putting superficial 4E parts onto the AD&D chassis. I have no problem if they include previous editions or have 4E in an advance set of modules, but that's not what they are doing...



 More of an essentials chasis IMHO. There is almost nothing of AD&D in D&DN except it is less complicated than 3rd ed.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 



 More of an essentials chasis IMHO. There is almost nothing of AD&D in D&DN except it is less complicated than 3rd ed.



True enough, but the Essentials 'chassis' was insterted into 4E to give 4E a more traditional feel. Bear in mind that the levelling and class based system is all borne from early D&D, so the foundation of it all is still technically AD&D.

Hell, there's practically nothing of 2E in Next (No NWPs, no multi-attack progression, no saving throw categories, no level caps, no followers, no kits, blah blah blah) but all my players still think it gives them a similar gameplay feel to that system. I believe that is because Next is taking the common elements that have shaped the game, keeping them in then attempting to layer in the gameplay improvements made by successive systems (to hit bonus going UP rather than THAC0, simplifying saves, easier access to nonmagical healing, AC going up rather than down, unified mechanic for checks and attacks, so on and on). If we want to run things 'old school' in Next, that seems easy enough to me.

Now, I confess I'm not a big AD&D player - those of you know know me around here know I'm a 2E steadfast playing 4E and Next. So if I've missed the mark here I'd love to see what part of AD&D you'd like to see catered for in Next. Perhaps we could discuss how to achieve that feel outside of this thread?
 

"They call me Wraith for I hate the living..."

"Play the game, not the ruleset"  
 

 

We ll to get the classic D&D feel all they have to do is not make 4th or 3rd ed and have a somehting vaguely resembling D&D in some way.

 If they really wanted to do a retro feel they owuld hire Easley or Elmore to do the art. D&DN spells for example have  no caster level and are really reskinned 4h ed powers than ye olde classic fireballz. Some of the retroclones have been doing it better IMHO and DCC has hired Esley and Elmore is working for Paizo last I looked.

 I hasd a lookat my etro clollectio. Easlyey for example was doing the 1st ED PHB art, the 2nd ed 1989 and 1995 PHBs and DMG and the D&D Rules Cyclopedia and the 4 players option books. If one is changing the rules TSR semed to have made the effort to have the books look similar. That was over an 8 year time frame as well.

 So the D&DN playstyle may emd up resembling TSR era D&D which may not be a bad move with modern mechanics as it makes it different in feel to Pathfinder and still has the D&D feel. How far they take it IDK. We're playing a d20 AD&D retroclone and it seems to be running fine with the AD&D books once you flip THAC into BAB, -ACs into AC 20+.
 

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Sign In to post comments