Archetypes, built, subclasses and themes character

I would like about the no-core classes and themes+subclass.

I´m sure we will see a future PH2 and PH3 of 5th Edition, and it may new "the complete.." without classes but theme or subclasses.

I think some archetypes like knight or samurai can´t be only a theme or subclass character, but a complete independient class, and a good class isn´t a different list of powers but a unique identity and a different gameplay.

Templar from Dark Sun can be a subclass of cleric.

Necromancer or elementalist could be a built for wizards, but complete class too could be posible.

I like knigth and gladiator (from Dark Sun) like complete class.

Ninja is too cool to be only a subclass of rogue. I say equal for samurai and sohei.

Beguiler and spellthief coud be subclass, like hexblade, and swashbuckler, warmage, (a warrior of light armour would be better for small size PCs).

Binder (from Tome of Magic) could be a subclass of warlock. Different "vestige" would be like a temporal and flexible "built".

Dragonfire adept (from dragon magic) would a subclass of monk.

Lurk (complete psionic) would be a sub-class of rogue.

Soulknife a subclass of physic warrior or the monk.

Assasin would be a complete class, not a subclass of rogue.

Invoker and Avenger would be subclass of inquisitor/witch hunter.

 

"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)

 

Book 13 Anaclet 23 Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"

 

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius 

I agree with having a necromancer. In fact I felt summons outside of control purposes for Shaman's were pretty much useless. I think summons should be brought back in the form of the clasic Summon Monster spell load out but of course tweaked to the playstyle of this current edition. 

That said, I still think the best type of character classes was in 3.5 or Pathfinder, in which you were given your archetypes but enough options were given that you can make a viable build for virtually any situation with that class. So like if you wanted to be a ninja, yes you'd take a rogue but you could add a whole bunch of things to it to function exactly like a ninja and there you go.

To me, experimenting with something and finally nailing the perfect class was what D+D character builds were all about because it was a character that grew with you.

Hopefully they can bring some of this back and deal with the whole 'balance' game that 4e has given rise to.  That way all of your ideas will be viable but still leave room for other things.
The reason that people don't like to split up so many classes unnecessarily is that it splits up abilities that should thematicaly be available to the same character. Why should Samurai be a separate class? What does it have that the Fighter shouldn't have, and why shouldn't it have the things that the Fighter has? Why should Assassin not have Sneak Attack, and why should Rogue not have the same kinds of stealth options as the Assassin? Too much splitting up. Fewer classes is better so that there's greater potential for customizing with the mixing and matching of abilities.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
I think consideration should be given to having different *kinds* of wizard - the necromancer is one good possibility.  Why does every wizard have to be able to do virtually everything?  If you want to be the jack of all trades, magically speaking, it should take effort!  Maybe not as extreme as multiclassing, but paying some sort of cost to get access to another classes' list of spells.

I am not a huge fan of 1e.  But one thing I think Gygax got very, very right was the Illusionist class.  It had tons of flavor (and wasn't just about the illusions).

2e school specialization opened up some options, but it was a big step backward IMO for illusion and enchantment specialists.
Thanks for your words. I would like the return of specialist wizards, and the old schools of magic like built or subclass would be good.


But the summoner.... I like the idea of summoner class from pathfinder (I hope WotC don´t feel offended if I mention the rival) but the summoming of magic creatures can be.... why do you thing the summoming was changed for 4th Ed? It isn´t only the PC but the monster with powers of summoning. It´s like a MMO game, for a PvP fight. A player summon a lot of pets to defeat the other PC. Is it just? 

My suggestion is the distribution of reward of XPs had to be like the special help (mounts, animal companion, familiars, pets, sidesicks, hired mercenaries.. and summoned creatures) are considerated like extra PC in the game. When the PC have got more powerful item and weapons, the "special help steals" part of the XPs reward.    

And I imagine the ninja with special techniques and tricks, power of "ki" like from "Book of nine swords". Samurai and sohei would use ki power too. 

I would like the return of favored soul like the "divine" cousin of socerer, the idea of people with outsider ancestor. 

Bloodline had to be optional built for socerer (dragon ancestor is cool, but why not other origins too?).

Crusader is a good name, it has to be used by a complete class, no only a paracon/prestige class. 
 
* I like the creation of different PCs, and I like soucerbooks with new classes, but a true complete no-core class can´t be only a different list of powers but a special identity and gameplay(+roleplaying), a different style.

If ninja is only a rogue sub-class.. why would I wanted to play the yakuza rogue sub-class?   

Why swordmage is a complete class of 4th edition and not only a warrior-socerer multiclass built/theme?

"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)

 

Book 13 Anaclet 23 Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"

 

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius 

I think class themes and archetypes are a good way to get the benefits of 4e's many classes without the acommpanying bloat. Give each class a default "theme" that fits into one of the traditional classes, with branching themes that accomodate the desire for other classes.


If you think about it, is there any real reason that wizard, sorcerer, or warlock shouldn't just be a sub-class of mage? Or assassins a sub-class of rogues? Or druids a sub-class of clerics? Ideally, I'd see a maximum of maybe a dozen classes or so (probably less) with various optional sub-classes provided to enable those who want more specific character archetypes the ability to emulate those. It also fits with D&D Next's overall goal of "modularity."


And for classes that can't be adequately covered with sub-classes you always have multiclassing. Swordmage? Mage/Fighter multiclass. (4e-style) paladin? Cleric/Fighter multiclass. To a certain extent even 4e-style rangers fall under this (Rogue/Fighter multiclass).

The reason that people don't like to split up so many classes unnecessarily is that it splits up abilities that should thematicaly be available to the same character. Why should Samurai be a separate class? What does it have that the Fighter shouldn't have, and why shouldn't it have the things that the Fighter has? Why should Assassin not have Sneak Attack, and why should Rogue not have the same kinds of stealth options as the Assassin? Too much splitting up. Fewer classes is better so that there's greater potential for customizing with the mixing and matching of abilities.



I like this idea too. Fewer classes but with greater customizability. I like the idea that class features gained at different levels are not set in stone, but instead can be swaped out for different features in order to customize your character. In 4th ed you essential chose a class feature at character creation to set the over all tone of your fighter, then further developed it with the kind of powers you selected. I think they should do away with encounter and daily type powers, but allow for a varity of class feature options to be selected over several levels.
I think they should do away with encounter and daily type powers, but allow for a varity of class feature options to be selected over several levels.

Having class features at higher levels and having encounter/daily powers are not mutually exclusive. Why not have both?

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
Thinking about a bit more, maybe the 2e/3e version of school specialization can work, if it's made much more sweeping.  This way we can avoid having huge spell lists for every class.

Suppose while the bog-standard wizard is 'average' with every school of magic, the GM or player can design an Illusionist wizard by saying, "He 'excels' at Illusion and Enchantment, is 'terrible' at Evocation and Conjuration, 'poor' at Transmutation, and 'average' with everything else.

'Excels' here would mean more than just an extra spell slot and a +1 to save DC's.  It would mean the Illusionist gets illusion and enchantment spells earlier.  It would mean the bulk of his powers would come from those schools.  And it would mean that there would be a least a few powers he would get access to that 'average' people wouldn't.  Perhaps they would even come with something like 3e domain abilities - an Illusionist gets an automatic chance to detect illusions, or something.

'Poor' would mean that while he can do that school's magic, he masters it later and doesn't take too many of them.

'Terrible' means fugeddaboudit.  Like banned schools.

Naturally,  the Illusionist is 'paying' for his two 'excels' with his two 'terribles' and one 'poor'.

It would be a challenge to set this up so that every combination would be reasonably well balanced.  But I think it would be possible, and I think it would be very flavorful.  No more, "I'm a *little* better in this area than others," it really becomes thematic.  You might even have campaigns where the GM says, "There are no standard wizards.  You can be an Illusionist, a Necromancer, or X or Y or Z."

The list of schools might need to be rethought to make things like Elementalist specialists more practical.

Oh, and Abjuration might need to be rethought a bit.  You ought to be *really* good at getting rid of magics you excel at.  While a regular wizard would be able to do illusions, going up against an Illusionist with them ought to be profoundly stupid.
More classes is like more fashin dress. You don´t want always the same clothes with only different fashion accesories. I want PCs I create had got special identity.

I can dare myself to say the suggestion of theme character I could be mine (I create a thread lot of time with the title "the return of kits", it was forum of house rules..). Theme character is a good idea, because PCs since first lelvel can get a special identity withou wait to get prestige class/paragon path.

But a low number of complete classes isn´t good. We need variety. The most popular archetypes deserves being a complete class.

"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)

 

Book 13 Anaclet 23 Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"

 

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius 

Crimson_Concerto i like the idea. 
Keeping the modular and expansability (sp.?) of the 5th ed in mind I think the return to the 4 base classes : fighter, Thief, Wizard and cleric (maybe 5 monk/psionist). These classes will be basically plug and play: stats, race pick class, buy gear and play. The rest can be subclasses were things are added and restricted from the base class.

Take Fighter: proficient with all martial weapons, all armor except plate, maybe some basic skills.
Then:
-Calavier: add plate armor prof., remove ranged weapon prof, add diplomacy and ride skill/feat (maybe at the exense of basic skills)
-Barbarian: restrict armour prof. add charge/berzerk power, swap some skills for others
-ranger: restrict armour prof., add skills and maybe minor ranged attack power

Make it simple for those that want to make a character in 5 minutes and play but also allow others to customise more. Hey, why not allow people to choose subclasses later in their career (level)?

I like choice but I also like the choice to avoid too many choices and make a character like I would for the original basic D&D.
The reason that people don't like to split up so many classes unnecessarily is that it splits up abilities that should thematicaly be available to the same character. Why should Samurai be a separate class? What does it have that the Fighter shouldn't have, and why shouldn't it have the things that the Fighter has? Why should Assassin not have Sneak Attack, and why should Rogue not have the same kinds of stealth options as the Assassin? Too much splitting up. Fewer classes is better so that there's greater potential for customizing with the mixing and matching of abilities.



Honestly, the only thing I can think that would be different between a Samarui and a Fighter is the name of powers or abilities or features feeling more oriental-influenced.
ArjenL

I think that is very fair. New players can have the 'fill in the blank' type archetype and the more experienced lot should be provided with the advanced options. Sort of like how D+D and AD+D was back with 1 and 2 but in one book.
I would like about the no-core classes and themes+subclass.

I´m sure we will see a future PH2 and PH3 of 5th Edition, and it may new "the complete.." without classes but theme or subclasses.

Since 5e is aparently slated to be a swirling galaxy-like mass of something-for-everyone options, I suspect we'll see a lot of classes, sub-classes, multi-classes, hybrid classes, gestalt classes, remedial classes, builds, prestige classes, advanced classes, kits, themes, backgrounds, professions, offices, masteries, destinies, alliegances, domains, demesnes, degrees, citations, boons, pacts, spheres, schools, traditions, orders, philosophies, sciences, disciplines, talents, styles, agencies, clans, tribes, nations, races, sub-races, bloodlines, heritages, familiars, mounts, companions, fetches, pets, guardians, symbionts, undead grafts, construct prothetics, marks, tatoos, scars, locks, and scrunchies. 

/*lie

I'm quite looking forward to it! ;)

lie*/

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

I would like about the no-core classes and themes+subclass.

I´m sure we will see a future PH2 and PH3 of 5th Edition, and it may new "the complete.." without classes but theme or subclasses.

Since 5e is aparently slated to be a swirling galaxy-like mass of something-for-everyone options, I suspect we'll see a lot of classes, sub-classes, multi-classes, hybrid classes, gestalt classes, remedial classes, builds, prestige classes, advanced classes, kits, themes, backgrounds, professions, offices, masteries, destinies, alliegances, domains, demesnes, degrees, citations, boons, pacts, spheres, schools, traditions, orders, philosophies, sciences, disciplines, talents, styles, agencies, clans, tribes, nations, races, sub-races, bloodlines, heritages, familiars, mounts, companions, fetches, pets, guardians, symbionts, undead grafts, construct prothetics, marks, tatoos, scars, locks, and scrunchies. 

/*lie

I'm quite looking forward to it! ;)

lie*/



Lord I hope not, let a rose be a rose be a rose. To many of these; kits, arcetype, sub-classes, prestige thingy's get confussing. Either it's a class or it's not. With only one sub-system, a combination between feats and skills, representing individual modifications. I never liked 10 different sub-systems when one would do. If someone only wants four classes and no more, call it bare bones game play and add in a optional book for it, if someone wants 50 make that part of the modular aspect as well. Done and done.
Classes should have actual, honest talent trees (think Star Wars Saga) that steer the direction of the build, and extend all the way to the highest level (which would preferably be 30). Each class should contain the talent trees necessary to fulfill any roles (plural) the class would naturally be geared toward, but the structure of the system would prohibit a character from being top-flight at every single preferred role of the class. (Ex: The Fighter would have trees that boost his ability as a Defender, others as a Striker, but that Fighter has to focus on being only one or the other if he wants to be an optimal character.)

Talent trees would pretty much eliminate the need for the Essentials-style subclasses and the clutter that brought.

Themes, as in 4e, expand the character's abilities and flavor beyond what the class itself should be allowed to define by default. As in 4e, they should be selectable from the start. That's where you'd have your Samurai, Ninja, Knight, etc. Even campaign-specific variations of those if you prefer could be themes. The Forgotten Realms' Red Wizard would be another example of something that should be a theme. Or the Knights of Solamnia from Dragonlance. The PHB ones should be generic themes, while the campaign player guides can introduce the more specific ones.

Beyond that, paragon paths and epic destinies work pretty well as they are.

Talent tree isn´t a bad idea, but some "archetypes" (If you allow me I talk about archetypes like ones from "champions online") is too cool to be only a subclass. They could be complete classes with exclusive subclasses. 

Talent tree would be good for build.

And my opinion is soucerbooks with complete new classes are sold better. We can forget the only core-classes.  


I miss the urban druid from Dragon Magazine. It could be a subclass.


I like the idea of prestige class but 3rd ended full of prestige classes and it losed its charm.

* Assasin must be a complete class, no only a rogue subclass.  


 


 

"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)

 

Book 13 Anaclet 23 Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"

 

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius 

Um feats are talent trees.

Maybe a return of class kits?

I'm all for more class variants, sign me up!
I like a class hierarchy that is focused on the classic archetypes and not 4e roles.  The theme or Kit should apply to a number of different classes.   

Warrior Group
   - Fighter
   - Paladin
   - Ranger
Rogue Group
  - Thief
  - Bard
Priest
   - Cleric
   - Druid
Mage
  - Wizard

  
etc..

Themes / Kits (we can have hundreds of these)

Knight - Pre Req Fighter or Paladin
Swashbuckler - Pre Req Fighter, Bard, or Thief
Assassin - Pre Req  Fighter or Thief
Necromancer - Pre Req Wizard, Cleric
Summoner - Pre Req Wizard, Cleric

We shouldn't have to wait years for wizards to publish missing classes.    With 4e it was very difficult to make a new class because the powers were cupled with it.   You had to write out hundreds of powers just to make the class you created a viable option for the players.  

This is why I want to see spell/power lists that all the classes buy into.   That way making a new class is easy.    

I really don't want to see the return of the prestiege class.   I would be happy with a simple class design that uses themes.        The number of base classes should remain small for the life of the system.     Everything else should be a theme that can fit on top of on one or more base classes.    

One thing I do what to keep is how 4e hybrids work - I hope that stays.   


The kits character are the theme character of 4th idea. And don´t forget the optional level, when the power of a level is replaced by other one (have you seen Unearthed Arcana 3rd Ed?).



 

 

"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)

 

Book 13 Anaclet 23 Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"

 

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius 

I'm vaguely ambivilent towards how the core classes work, but I'm adamantly opposed to prestige classes.  You should not be required to "build" your character many levels in advance to meet whatever bizarro requirements they have.
I'm vaguely ambivilent towards how the core classes work, but I'm adamantly opposed to prestige classes.  You should not be required to "build" your character many levels in advance to meet whatever bizarro requirements they have.



Yeah I hope with 5e we don't see any more level 1-30 build posts on the forums.    That's the kind of thing we see in the WoW forums.   

 


I'm vaguely ambivilent towards how the core classes work, but I'm adamantly opposed to prestige classes.  You should not be required to "build" your character many levels in advance to meet whatever bizarro requirements they have.

This only happens because the requirements were "bizarro".

If the prerequisites for a prestige class was simply something like "seven levels of Fighter" instead of "BAB 7, [obscure feat], [obscure feat], [number] of ranks in [obscure skill], [alignment]", then the build-tables would not have happened.

A thing I didn´t like of prestige classes was I had to "wait" to get the five level (or more) to get one...(and for 4th ed was 10 level, a lot of PCs don´t reach or get a level so high because die before). 

Some "prestige class" can be only a exclusive talent tree but I like the idea a PC with "exclusive" power and a different background. Alienist, elemental savant or geometer from "complete arcane" are good examples of "unique" character.  

"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)

 

Book 13 Anaclet 23 Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"

 

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius 

I like the theme architecture and would like to see it used a lot more.

A suggestion I made a while back (for an indefinite-future 5E) was that themes be categorized and a bunch of things be moved into various categories. The categories would include: multiclassing; exotic weapons; holy orders and associations; class (or subclass) build options; some more I can't think of at the moment; whatever else makes sense. Then a character would be allowed to take some number of themes at character creation, and have opportunities to take more later (maybe via feats), but not two themes from the same category. And then maybe there'd be some restricted or extra-cost ways to take more than one theme from some categories.
"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
I think they should do away with encounter and daily type powers, but allow for a varity of class feature options to be selected over several levels.

Having class features at higher levels and having encounter/daily powers are not mutually exclusive. Why not have both?




You are correct, even though I don't like the powers featur, there are plenty of gamers that do, and so they should be incorporated. Then, those that like them can use them, and those that don't, don't have to use them. I belive strongly that the game should allow for players to enjoy their different styles and prefrences, and I had a moment of slipping into my personal prefrence bias. Thanks for keeping me stright and true!
The 3rd Character creation mechanic should be built in from the begining (the first two are class and race). I like it at first level, I could even see it's power replacing the 1st level encounter power (so your class selects two at wills and a daily while your theme/kit selects your encounter power). But I agree it should be seperate from class since some great themes/kits like pirate or knight of the realm could cover multiple classes. It's also a much more stripped down mechanic for fluff concept so new campaign settings can make new themes without generating huge class builds complete with powers and feats. 
Are  you suggestin the kits/theme character had to offer optional level power since beggining?
 

"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)

 

Book 13 Anaclet 23 Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"

 

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius 

possibly,

but really my point is that Wizards needs to bake a third character mechanic into their design of the next system. Their belief that feats would work for this was naieve, It will be demanded, and instead of background, theme, kit, heritage feat, etc. day one there needs to be a place for it and a developed idea of how it will work with the whole character system and not be jammed in as an afterthought with multiple ad hoc things that led to the power creep in skills, Character builder bloat of weird feats, and the strange Animal master versus Fey Beast Tamer levels of power gap.

It doesn't have to be in the first PHB, but they should already have a good idea of what it will look like for their second players reference. 
my idea would be 

chose power source ( arcane,martial,devine,psionic)

chose role ( defender, leader,striker,controler this would also detirmin base HP)

chose a kit/template/theme. ( some are be things we now are calling classes tief,paladin)

some feats would have pre requests like: arcane,striker
but a specific kit/template/theme would never be a pre request.
 
That's kind of cool, I would add some sort of Gish mechanic for Martial being combined with other power sources, for primal martial barbarians and rangers, arcane martial bladesingers, and divine martial avengers and paladins.

In regard to pre req's, I think they are normally to strait jacket a character the developer has in mind, but most options should just be opened up to everyone. Ex. Arcane archer could have been a paragon path that only has ranged weapons keying off dex or int and the arcane keyword, let the Elf Warden just avoid due to his common sense not give a list of pre-reqs.
I'm definitely for less classes, so as long as the Big 4 are covered, the rest could be kits/subclasses/variants or what have you (the word "build" for a character has never sat right with me).
Absolutely, "build" is paternalistic, the "here's how to make your character" developer, the Developers job should  be building us sandboxes, not sand castles. 
each power source would work with a sligtly difrent mecanic.

arcane: would have a high number of daily powers/spells and 2 at wills you have to manage your daly powers/spells

martial: work of basic atacks and options/riders( many of the riders might be encounter powers) that can be chosen from to add to the attack.

devine: not sure what we can come up with.

psionic: well the good old power points.
The reason that people don't like to split up so many classes unnecessarily is that it splits up abilities that should thematicaly be available to the same character. Why should Samurai be a separate class? What does it have that the Fighter shouldn't have, and why shouldn't it have the things that the Fighter has?



Samurai must be another class. Samurai isn't a fighter with oriental armor and katana. Classic samurai has to do with honor that must be implemented in a way. If i would be a designer i would make a samurai a fighter subclass with honor to comprise a subsystem. 
see I think a kit would be better so that paladins, warlords, and battleminds could get a shot at playing Samurai. I can even see Rangers as Ronin.
see I think a kit would be better so that paladins, warlords, and battleminds could get a shot at playing Samurai. I can even see Rangers as Ronin.



Yep, there are many ways to interpret the Samurai; Archer (archer-ranger?), Battle field commander type (warlord?), no armour wearing Lone Wolf and Cub type and so on.

I think Battleminds make a decent Sohei. 
I think they should do away with encounter and daily type powers, but allow for a varity of class feature options to be selected over several levels.

Having class features at higher levels and having encounter/daily powers are not mutually exclusive. Why not have both?


Pathfinder does it well. You can choose daily powers for Rogue, or go for the power point using alternate, the Ninja.


Samurai


Make it a THEME. Have everyone choose a THEME. Themes are like Race and Class, they aer part of what defines you but while Race determines genetics and Class what you trained in, Theme is more like the Culture and Environment, or a vague archetype.

Samurai is a social class. It is about honor and duty and such. Not all Samurai sling swords.
A Wizard Samurai, a Warlord Samurai, A Rogue Samurai, that would be cool. Some kind of honor/duty mechanic that can support those classes would be cool.

 
The reason that people don't like to split up so many classes unnecessarily is that it splits up abilities that should thematicaly be available to the same character. Why should Samurai be a separate class? What does it have that the Fighter shouldn't have, and why shouldn't it have the things that the Fighter has?



Samurai must be another class. Samurai isn't a fighter with oriental armor and katana. Classic samurai has to do with honor that must be implemented in a way. If i would be a designer i would make a samurai a fighter subclass with honor to comprise a subsystem. 



so the common choice for samurai might be:
matrial,defender,samurai

martial : gives you a power much like power strike that the essentials knight and slayer  have.
Defender : would give you a defender aura like the knight and cavalier in essentials.
samurai: would give you the honer mecanic.

and the player who wants to be a person raised a Samurai but ran off against his father's wishes to study with a Shugen-Ja and now quests to redeem his worth in his father's eyes might be:

Arcane, Striker, Samurai 


I like it. 
Sign In to post comments