Character building and the look on Iconic classes

The iconic classes are nice indeed but 4E taught us to appreciate more. So how about starting with role? So lets destroy the iconic classes and get to business!


Before I start I must totally downgrade the cleric (or any other Leader role really) in its healing role. No class should be this. Its simply boring.
 I dont mean clerics are boring. I mean the healing role is.

I would argue that the healing template is something u add at another stage, not class wise.
Make healing an option u can take for any class. Sure it will gimp your primary function but you will still be able to function as it. And for GODs sake take out the religous part of it


I would like iconic classes in each of the different spectrums. Like this:

Primal - Tank - Striker - Healer - Controller
Divine - Tank - Striker - Healer - Controller
Martial - Tank - Striker - Healer - Controller
Arcane - Tank - Striker - Healer - Controller
No psionics sorry.


So no more I am a rogue I get more skills or crap like that. Any class can opt for that, it's just not class specific! (maybe in the sriker role?) No more I can HEAL! Sure anyone can opt for that. 4E failed horrendiously with the fighter (tank). No skills no damage and nothing to do. DUH!? Just an example.


Inconsistency with my template examples?
Alot! I am trying to spring an idea here not re-write your brain! Thing is. Give me an option for every power basis in the basic game!

You want to add flavour and addons? Sure just make the basics  viable and yes, really, just expand the basic game.
Like I am making a martial character these are the basics!
I am making a primal charachter! These are the fundementals!

Not make me as a player or DM to get lost in WTF to do with all other addons.

This would never work! 
classes are not roles that was part of why the 4e failed with most people I know. Besides everyone can heal that is beyond every sane thing that not even fantasy, related to realism a fighter can heal anyone.

healer should be cleric, druid, shaman, or give a template to a mage ala Dragon Age, everything else is ridiculous 
@OP: Messing with the iconic classes was one of the biggest issues that turned many of us away from 4E in the first place (if not the biggest issue), and helped cause such a massive rift in the community.

And now you want to go even further and take away the Rogue, one of my favorite classes? And nullify the Cleric class completely? Trash our specialty priests whom we've had and LOVED for decades, and are dying to bring back for 5E?

Are you actually serious?

Your ideas might work for some other game, but leave D&D out of it. I and many others want D&D to actually resemble the D&D that we knew for decades.

And I never want to hear the words 'controller', 'leader', or 'striker' ever again.
Leadership and class choice should have NOTHING to do with each other, EVER. Conflating the two is simply horrendous game design.
@OP:

Your ideas might work for some other game, but leave D&D out of it. I and many others want D&D to actually resemble the D&D that we knew for decades.

And I never want to hear the words 'controller', 'leader', or 'striker' ever again.



Pure  Truth.  Imo.
DM: Products of MY Imagination ©. Since 1986.
In short, I felt roles being more hard pressed were extra baggage that took a while to ignore.  Please, keep these in a tactical module set.  In the core?  Not so much!  Hell, I still advocate a separate module set of the 4e centric content (including races) for many reasons.  These mechanics may have helped with combat, but they don't really expand a character that much beyond a very gamist interpretation.  5e is about multiple intrepretations, so this should be kept as an option as best.

Crazed undead horror posing as a noble and heroic forum poster!

 

 

Some good pointers for the fellow hobbyist!:

  • KEEP D&D ALIVE, END EDITION WARS!
  • RESPECT PEOPLES' PREFERENCES
  • JUST ENJOY THE GAME!
Intersting replies!

I feel missunderstood (who isnt).  My point is not to destroy the iconic classes. It's simply to make choices.

 I love the cleric and the rogue no doubt about it. But what I want is a choice of what type of rogue I want to be.

If I want to be the avenger who is close to divinity, cool. I get the extra skills anyways, Not cause I failed to pick the base class of rogue. I am a rogue, just in another notion, another base view. I am an asssassin of the church.

Clerics healing ability. Well, I dunno how to reply on that one. I did'nt say everybody would be able to heal. I said it would be a template you choose.

So yes a fighter could be great at healing, but he wouldnt be great at fighting as his m8, who didnt choose it.

A cleric is more than a healing machine to me. To actually be able to throw of that stigma and go all out in offensive spells and damage. Hell yeah! A warrior of God! Not being stuped into; this is how a cleric is played... get used to it.

I aim to make a choice, not to disable any class or race choice as they are.

Does that makes sense?

 
In long, I felt roles being more hard pressed were extra baggage that took a while to ignore.  Please, keep these in a tactical module set.  In the core?  Not so much!  Hell, I still advocate a separate module set of the 4e centric content (including races) for many reasons.  These mechanics may have helped with combat, but they don't really expand a character that much beyond a very gamist interpretation.  5e is about multiple intrepretations, so this should be kept as an option as best.

In short,  



I disagree and agree. I am still interested of seeing D&D evolve not just make it a "whatever it was" content.

I think ( beyond that this is the forum to actually express whatever about the game), that the standard they set in a way, was good and bad with 4E.

I am strictly speaking character developing here.

I am just trying to emphasize choice.

 

 
Intersting replies!

I feel missunderstood (who isnt). 

 



Perhaps I misunderstood.  I'm all for choices, in fact these things will probably included in one way or another.  I wouldn't doubt that codified roles and what not will appear in the tactical set.  As for what they've rolled out, it looks like it'll be easy to customize your own classes.  For example, take the wizard's background and a dark magic theme and add to to the fighter... 3.5 Hexblade!  Or take unarmed focus and a theme for exotic weapons, tack them onto the rogue and get a ninja!  There's already quite a bit of level of creativity that can be dabbled with, so how would more options available hurt?  Your ideas are pretty good and would make great options for players to dabble with.  And I'm assuming that was the intent of your post.  My apologies for the previous post.

Crazed undead horror posing as a noble and heroic forum poster!

 

 

Some good pointers for the fellow hobbyist!:

  • KEEP D&D ALIVE, END EDITION WARS!
  • RESPECT PEOPLES' PREFERENCES
  • JUST ENJOY THE GAME!
This very thing was what I was hoping for when they said that much of your characters ability and focus was going to be based on background and theme. Now, from what little I've seen so far, the customizability offered by these things is significantly less than I'd hoped for, but it's going in the right direction.

I love the good old archetypes and I want them to continue to be available, but I'm with the OP in terms of overall goal of more flexibility of character design, if not in exactly how to achieve it.

The core archetypes of D&D are still the most popular in high fantasy settings, no doubt, but in the 30+ years since then, there have been a lot of iconic characters in film and literature that players might want to emulate, not to mention the infinite original character concepts folks will have.

I, personally, would love for them to make the options in the core books broad enough to create and play a wider variety without trying to shoehorn a rigid class into some idea that it doesn't quite fit. Yes, they may eventually come up with some new or prestige class to fill that role, but honestly I'd rather not wait months or years after edition release for it to come out. Just my personal preference on it.

That said, I don't think we should change the core classes available, I just think that many of what have (in the past) been class components, could be shifted over and attached to either themes or backgrounds.

If you do it that way, you can STILL build the archetype Fighter, Wizard or cleric etc, but you're still afforded the option to build the character you want if it doesn't fall into the 6 or 8 iconic builds they have in mind for you.
Before I start I must totally downgrade the cleric (or any other Leader role really) in its healing role. No class should be this. Its simply boring.

There are players who would totally disagree with this. As I mentioned on another thread, I personally know two people who play healer clerics by preference. Just because one person finds it boring doesn't mean everyone else does, nor should WotC eliminate the possibility of the character because of an opinion.

I happen to dislike the "controller, leader, striker" terms as much as Asterionasien does, but I'm not going to use that to demand that WotC get rid of them. Others like them, and I'm not on the design team, so it's not up to me to tell them they can't have them. I just won't use 'em.

I don't mind having the traditional classes. In fact, I proposed fairly early on that they keep the four basic classes (fighter, mage, cleric, rogue) and have LOTS of options to customise them as one wishes. I think this can be done with the Backgrounds and Themes WotC is looking at, but I'll know better when we get some character generation rules to playtest. I'm a huge fan of customisation. I've played rogues with widely different abilities and skills, no two of my mages are a like, and my fighters also run a broad spectrum. I've only played two clerics so far, but they're pretty different from each other, too. So I haven't seen too much constraint on what I want to do with a character. If others do, let's hope WotC puts in more capability to widen the choices! Including psionics.

In memory of wrecan and his Unearthed Wrecana.