Each class should have it's own mecanics/powers

I am of the opinion that each class should have it's own mechanics/powers with as little overlap as possible. 
Ofcourse there might be some recourses that you see in multiple classes spell slots, maneuver dice, skill dice. 
But each class should use them in different ways. 
 
A example of what i don't want might be a paladin that casts spells as a cleric. 
The paladin class should stand on it's own with abilities like auras. divine grace, lay on hands, smite evil and so on. 
If you do want a paladin that can cast a few spells as a cleric you go dual class taking a few cleric levels.
I agree actually.

I can't stand overlap, it just causes too many problems in terms of multi-classing and doesn't really help in terms of class identity.

Idealy, I would prefer rogues, fighters and monks have their own set of maneuvers... and for the paladin/ranger not to have spells at all but abilities that reflect their role.

It would be nice for there to be the option of completely martial rangers and paladins as well where a character can choose abilities that arn't supernatural in nature. So you can have a Game of Thrones type ranger, a Middle Earth type ranger and a more supernatural ranger like in Forgotten Realms. Either way, all those abilities should be entirely seperate of divine spells — that is the clerics deal.
I'm much more concerned that classes be distinct conceptually then they be distinct mechanically. Though obviously no two classes should have exactly the same mechanics, if only for purpose of saving space, I don't mind clerics and paladins both getting divine spells if they have some other feature that makes them distinct. Trying to force every class to be unique mechanically forces unnecessary mechanics into the game and eventually forces you to invent mechanics just to bulk up classes so they are mechanically distinct enough.

I am of the opinion that each class should have it's own mechanics/powers with as little overlap as possible. 
Ofcourse there might be some recourses that you see in multiple classes spell slots, maneuver dice, skill dice. 
But each class should use them in different ways. 
 
A example of what i don't want might be a paladin that casts spells as a cleric. 
The paladin class should stand on it's own with abilities like auras. divine grace, lay on hands, smite evil and so on. 
If you do want a paladin that can cast a few spells as a cleric you go dual class taking a few cleric levels.



This would be awesome, and I fully support it, but unfortunately when people saw that approach to 4e they got upset because it "bloated" the class sections and there's this push to simpler/smaller classes. Nevermind that the spells and maneuvers section will of course be large (3rd's spell section was HUGE and annoying to navigate), and that classes with different build structure but using the same spells/abilities are easily just as same-y as those built around the same core structure but with different abilities, perhaps even more same-y, but this is the path DDN is taking for the basic and perhaps even standard books, so we may have to wait until 'Advanced.'
I am of the opinion that each class should have it's own mechanics/powers with as little overlap as possible. 
Ofcourse there might be some recourses that you see in multiple classes spell slots, maneuver dice, skill dice. 
But each class should use them in different ways. 
 
A example of what i don't want might be a paladin that casts spells as a cleric. 
The paladin class should stand on it's own with abilities like auras. divine grace, lay on hands, smite evil and so on. 
If you do want a paladin that can cast a few spells as a cleric you go dual class taking a few cleric levels.



Completely agreed.

I don't like that Barbarians, Monks, and Rogues all have Martial Damage Dice.

I don't like that Clerics have Vancian Spellcasting.

Wizards should have Vancian Spellcasting and no at will spells. (renewable per day)

Sorcerors and Warlocks should have Spellcasting that is per encounter and per turn (at will)

Fighters should have maneuvers and martial damage dice (renewable per turn)

Monks should have ki powers associated with mechanics for a renewable ki pool by encounter.

Barbarians should have rage based abilities based on a per day and per encounter mechanic.

Rogues should have skill tricks, skill-based abilities, and situation based combat abilities (when hidden, when opponent is prone, when opponent is blinded, when opponent is stunned, etc.)

Clerics should have abilities and spell mechanics based on divine intervention that involve a per day mechanic but is not as predictable as the Vancian spellcasting.  Spells cast that further the will of their deity might not cost them.

Rangers should be based on favored enemies, favored weapons, and teamwork with animal companion.

Paladins should have smite evil, holy powers, and leadership qualities.





This would be awesome, and I fully support it, but unfortunately when people saw that approach to 4e they got upset because it "bloated" the class sections and there's this push to simpler/smaller classes. Nevermind that the spells and maneuvers section will of course be large (3rd's spell section was HUGE and annoying to navigate), and that classes with different build structure but using the same spells/abilities are easily just as same-y as those built around the same core structure but with different abilities, perhaps even more same-y, but this is the path DDN is taking for the basic and perhaps even standard books, so we may have to wait until 'Advanced.'


4E Mechanics actually seemed too similar between classes despite the bloat.  Every class had per day, per encounter, at will, and utility abilities.  Most abilities were combat centric as well.

My choice would be to have much more variation in the actual mechanisms for abilities as well as abilities that are much less combat focused and more theme focused.

I agree.


And it appears as if the design team does as well.



From the article on Cleric Design goals - their overall goal for all classes was summed up in three bullet points.


Bullet point #2 was:  The class should have an element that makes it unique. Playing one class should feel different from playing another one.       


This is why I am concerned for (but anxiously awaiting the details of) the ranger and the paladin.  It would be easy to make them not unique and too similar to a multiclass fighter/caster.


That said - some overlap is going to happen and is only natural.  You object to the Paladin casting spells and call it overlap.  How is that different from someone objecting because the Paladin fights?


Spellcasting is not the 'unique' thing of the cleric.  The cleric's unique things are the channel divinity powers and the deity powers.  Casting spells, like fighting, is a basic action which will exist as an overlap between many classes.


How they get their spells, what spells they can cast and how they prepare their spells may vary.  But the ability to cast spells is a basic ability - not a unique class function.     


Carl
do any of you DM? the more specific special minutae rules you create sure makes it tough on the DM. one thing I liked about 4e is all the powers were constructed the same way. Some didn't like the sameyness, but when you are directing a story it sure helps to streamline the rules.

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of any failed saving throw, including but not limited to petrification, poison, death magic, dragon breath, spells, or vorpal sword-related decapitations.

do any of you DM? the more specific special minutae rules you create sure makes it tough on the DM. one thing I liked about 4e is all the powers were constructed the same way. Some didn't like the sameyness, but when you are directing a story it sure helps to streamline the rules.



If you only have 2 real classes ... And only one is important
like for instance...  "Caster" and "Not A Caster" its kind of OK
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

do any of you DM? the more specific special minutae rules you create sure makes it tough on the DM. one thing I liked about 4e is all the powers were constructed the same way. Some didn't like the sameyness, but when you are directing a story it sure helps to streamline the rules.



The flip side of that was that because of 4E's exception based design, 4E had twenty-bazillion different powers and no DM could reasonably know every power in the book.  And that, combined with the already long and drawn out combats, meant that any attempt to make sure that the players actually were interpreting their powers correctly (and I often found players mis-using powers, not out of any intent to deceive, but just because they were misreading them)-- or anticipate what the players are capable of - pretty much went out the window.


As compared to (for example) AD&D1st (and 5E at present) where it is relatively easy to know what each and every character is capable of.


Regardless - no one is suggesting lots of specific minutiae rules.  They are suggesting rules that are unique to the class - not unique to each character (as was the case in 4E due to the vast numbers of different powers (despite the fact that their were structurally very similar).  So I find that it is easier on the DM, not harder.


Carl
I'm much more concerned that classes be distinct conceptually then they be distinct mechanically.

This is my perspective. I honestly don't even know where this call for distinct mechanics originated, since no previous edition has ever supported that (with the possible exception of late 3.5).

I think it's more important that the wizard/warlock/cleric/druid/psion cast different spells than that they have different rules governing their casting methods. If one character has a daily pool of points, and another character has Vancian preparation, and a third character is using a random-recovery method (like one of the Tome of Battle) classes, then it doesn't even feel like we're playing the same game.

The difference between classes should be what they do, and not how they do it.

Bullet point #2 was:  The class should have an element that makes it unique. Playing one class should feel different from playing another one.

I would prefer that the unique element is a conceptual one, rather than a mechanical one. If a paladin is a fighter who can also cast healing spells, then that is already conceptually unique from any other class.

The metagame is not the game.

I agree.

And it appears as if the design team does as well.


From the article on Cleric Design goals - their overall goal for all classes was summed up in three bullet points.

Bullet point #2 was:  The class should have an element that makes it unique. Playing one class should feel different from playing another one.       


Carl



And i think this is also the bullet that hit the warlord.

The designer trying to come up with unique elements for the warlord class, and what they ended up with was just a mix of the fighter and the bard abilities they where working on.
Basicly concluding if you want to be a warlord play a fighter/bard dual class.
I'm much more concerned that classes be distinct conceptually then they be distinct mechanically.

This is my perspective. I honestly don't even know where this call for distinct mechanics originated, since no previous edition has ever supported that (with the possible exception of late 3.5).

I think it's more important that the wizard/warlock/cleric/druid/psion cast different spells than that they have different rules governing their casting methods. If one character has a daily pool of points, and another character has Vancian preparation, and a third character is using a random-recovery method (like one of the Tome of Battle) classes, then it doesn't even feel like we're playing the same game.

The difference between classes should be what they do, and not how they do it.

Bullet point #2 was:  The class should have an element that makes it unique. Playing one class should feel different from playing another one.

I would prefer that the unique element is a conceptual one, rather than a mechanical one. If a paladin is a fighter who can also cast healing spells, then that is already conceptually unique from any other class.




I disagree because that makes every multiclass character concept into a new class.


There should also be a conceptual difference.  But the conceptual difference is where you start - and it leads to the quest for a mechanical difference.   If you can't then find that mechanical difference, the class misses the cut.


But you definately need both (which is why the 3.x sorcerer doesn't deserve a class - although a more interesting and unique sorcerer might).  It is not conceptually different enough.

     
Carl   

I am of the opinion that each class should have it's own mechanics/powers with as little overlap as possible. 
Ofcourse there might be some recourses that you see in multiple classes spell slots, maneuver dice, skill dice. 
But each class should use them in different ways. 
 
A example of what i don't want might be a paladin that casts spells as a cleric. 
The paladin class should stand on it's own with abilities like auras. divine grace, lay on hands, smite evil and so on. 
If you do want a paladin that can cast a few spells as a cleric you go dual class taking a few cleric levels.

I agree, for the most part. However, the paladin casting spells doesn't necessarily have to be described as 'casting spells as a cleric' -- the archetype and concepts are the important differentiator (given that the mechanics are not present 'in game').

The only exception to the effort of differentiation could be the bard. I'd be quite happy with bard traditions/schemes/virtues offering a maneuver, a skill trick, spellcasting, and an inspiration feature that functions much like channel divinity. The mechanical heart and soul of the D&D bard (in my opinion) is the 'able hero' who toys with everyone else's things.

Danny

Specificity in classes kills concepts cold. Unique mechanics, while great for setting a class apart, also can severely limit the concepts that can be built from that unique chassis.

I get that people want classes to stand apart from each other, but isn't more imporant that a CHARACTER can be built using the available parts? Why not let every character choose thier "one authentic feature" from the list of unqiue features? Otherwise, if you want the unique feature, you have to stick with the rest of the package.

I like cookies, but do they all have to use the same mold? Eating gingerbread gets a bit old, even if you keep changing the sprinkles.

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
There should also be a conceptual difference.  But the conceptual difference is where you start - and it leads to the quest for a mechanical difference.   If you can't then find that mechanical difference, the class misses the cut.

I dislike that because it means there are multiple mechanics with which to implement a single concept. That means both system mastery (after you know what you want the character to do, you then have to examine the game mechanics in-depth to figure out how you want the character to do it), and significant power discrepancies within a single concept (Necromancer Wizard vs. Cleric of Death vs. Dread Necromancer).

By keeping all classes distinct at a concept level, it avoids system mastery and prevents direct comparison between classes.

The metagame is not the game.

I actually prefer classes have unique hows instead of whats. Even though 4e classes have similar power structures (psions & E exceptions), how they did those things varied greatly from class to class (and even between characters of the same class).
what I want from classes seems to oppose what Saelorn wants. However,I would like to see power-source oriented mechanics. Martial characters getting mdd fits there. I don't want PCs to have to learn something completely new every time they play a new class. Again, this means I am comfortable w/ overlap as long as there is some difference in how those things are done. I also worry about how easy it was for PCs to accidentally do the wrong things with their powers. I don't want mechanics so widely diverse that it's difficult to help new players.
"What's stupid is when people decide that X is true - even when it is demonstrable untrue or 100% against what we've said - and run around complaining about that. That's just a breakdown of basic human reasoning." -Mike Mearls
I am of the opinion that each class should have it's own mechanics/powers with as little overlap as possible. 
Ofcourse there might be some recourses that you see in multiple classes spell slots, maneuver dice, skill dice. 
But each class should use them in different ways. 
 
A example of what i don't want might be a paladin that casts spells as a cleric. 
The paladin class should stand on it's own with abilities like auras. divine grace, lay on hands, smite evil and so on. 
If you do want a paladin that can cast a few spells as a cleric you go dual class taking a few cleric levels.



Completely agreed.

I don't like that Barbarians, Monks, and Rogues all have Martial Damage Dice.

I don't like that Clerics have Vancian Spellcasting.

Wizards should have Vancian Spellcasting and no at will spells. (renewable per day)

Sorcerors and Warlocks should have Spellcasting that is per encounter and per turn (at will)

Fighters should have maneuvers and martial damage dice (renewable per turn)

Monks should have ki powers associated with mechanics for a renewable ki pool by encounter.

Barbarians should have rage based abilities based on a per day and per encounter mechanic.

Rogues should have skill tricks, skill-based abilities, and situation based combat abilities (when hidden, when opponent is prone, when opponent is blinded, when opponent is stunned, etc.)

Clerics should have abilities and spell mechanics based on divine intervention that involve a per day mechanic but is not as predictable as the Vancian spellcasting.  Spells cast that further the will of their deity might not cost them.

Rangers should be based on favored enemies, favored weapons, and teamwork with animal companion.

Paladins should have smite evil, holy powers, and leadership qualities.








First, I must admit this time I didn't followed the whole thread, but I just have to say that this... actually sounds really cool.

I am going to read the whole thing now.
But hybrid classes like ranger or paladin almost all classes should have got some exclusive mechanic. A class isn´t only a archetype and a list of class features and powers, but it should be a different gameplay.

For example the wu jen, in the third edition was only a wizard with a different list of spells and class features. It was a wasted great potential. 
 

"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 

Proliferation of mechanical subsystems results in far too much bloat and fiddliness and a feeling that you have to make something different just because and then you wind up with a lot of crappy classes.


Proliferation of mechanical subsystems results in far too much bloat and fiddliness and a feeling that you have to make something different just because and then you wind up with a lot of crappy classes.


I would actually prefer fewer classes that are actually mechanically different rather than a proliferation of mechanically similar classes with slightly varied themes.  Class should be the foundational mechanism of a character and not just a theme.

I thought 4E had basically 1 class and dozens of subclasses.  This single class (I'd call it the Adventurer class) had various daily powers, encounter powers, at will powers, and utility powers.  The powers varied depending on the subclass chosen but the underlying mechanism was nearly identical.

Likewise, 3E had dozens of classes which were basically identical except for some minor difference.  The DMG actually explains this by showing that you can make a new class by slightly modifying an old class (Changing the spell list for example).  In my opinion, a new spell list is not a new class.  It is a new theme or a new subclass.
 

Overlaping is also good.
A good balance between specific abilities and general ones is what I hope for. Tha latter could be handled by Feats in a way similar (or equal) to 3e: combat feats for anyone who wants to take it, but each class having its own unique abilities to use in and out of combat as well.
Proliferation of mechanical subsystems results in far too much bloat and fiddliness and a feeling that you have to make something different just because and then you wind up with a lot of crappy classes.

+1. Thank you, took me a lot more words to try to say the same thing.

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
You must be clear on what it means to be mechanically distinct, because there are only so many ways to represent dice rolling in the game, and other resource management systems like daily, encounter, ritual or at-will is also hard coded into the game, so what is left? The amount of choices each class is able to make and making each choice interesting.  With that in mind you could change 4E to meet that goal by removing AEDU. Yet at the same time the rest of 4E is still simple and easy to manage. So I would prefer varied choices over mechanical distinction, the only difference between 4e and 5e, is 4e made it obvious how rules interact, whether 5E masks it into the language of the game. There will be consequences later on for 5E, because they are following the path of 3e and system mastery. The person that will suffer the most is the DM.

Unique mechanics are a tool that can be used to get to unique gameplay, but they're neither completely necessary for it, nor automatically sufficient. Two classes can have very similar resource management mechanics and feel quite different, even while performing similar party functions, and you can also have two classes that use pretty complicated different mechanical subsystems that don't really affect decision making all that much. Unique mechanical setups (specifically resource management, which is what the thread seems to mostly be about) should be deployed as useful, but aren't a free ticket to feeling distinct, nor are they totally necessary.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
I think it's very possible to build a caster using a MDD-like mechanic, as others had suggested a vancian-like martial character. The mechanics are simply a tool to build a character concept. Pre-attaching fluff to the mechanics is fine to help get the ideas flowing, but must be easily set down as needed to make the concept "work". I shouldn't have to fight the system to make the character I want to play, and forcing each class to have unique mechanics practically ensures an uprising.

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.

I would actually prefer fewer classes that are actually mechanically different rather than a proliferation of mechanically similar classes with slightly varied themes.  Class should be the foundational mechanism of a character and not just a theme.

I thought 4E had basically 1 class and dozens of subclasses.  This single class (I'd call it the Adventurer class) had various daily powers, encounter powers, at will powers, and utility powers.  The powers varied depending on the subclass chosen but the underlying mechanism was nearly identical.

Likewise, 3E had dozens of classes which were basically identical except for some minor difference.  The DMG actually explains this by showing that you can make a new class by slightly modifying an old class (Changing the spell list for example).  In my opinion, a new spell list is not a new class.  It is a new theme or a new subclass.
 



Agree with pretty much all of this.

4E = 1 class + 3 dozen subclasses with minor differences in presentation
3.X = Umpteen dozen classes + minor differences
2E = 4 classes (warrior, wizard, priest, rogue) + umpteen dozen subclasses with minor differences
1E (core) = 5 classes (cleric, fighter, magic-user, thief, monk) + a few subclasses w/differences
BECMI = 8 classes (cleric, fighter, magic-user, thief, dwarf, elf, halfling, mystic) + 4 subclasses (3 of which were fighter subclasses - paladin, knight, avenger - and the last was the druid, a cleric subclass)

I, personally, would rather have a lower number of classes with fully distinct mechanics than eleventy-hundred classes that highly overlap or become completely redundant (or worse, outshadow and nullify other classes).

When I say I would like a lower number, I certainly don't mean like BECMI. That's not nearly enough options for a class-based game. However, when you hit the 100+ mark for classes, you've pretty much invalidated half of them and made scores of others redundant.

My preferred delivery method of classes? 2E, but with changes. I like having the main class "groups", with each class falling under a group, but I feel it should be expanded a bit:

Warrior - fighter, paladin, ranger, barbarian, warlord, monk
Wizard - mage, illusionist, necromancer, other specialty mages
Priest - cleric, druid, sphere-specialty clerics
Rogue - thief, bard, assassin, etc.
Psion - psionicist, specialty psion (psychokinetic, psychometabolic, telepath, etc.)

From this, multiclassing wouldn't really be multi-"classing" so much as multi-"grouping". A fighter who wants to pick up some cleric goodness would be a Warrior/Priest multiclass, not a fighter/cleric multiclass, as the classes are not individually unique enough as they are...they would use the powers, abilities, and options granted under their Group. This would not only make multiclassing far easier (and a Hell of a lot less swingy and easily broken), it would make pure Hybrids easier to do as well.
"The world is indeed comic, but the joke is on mankind." - H.P. Lovecraft
I am of the opinion that each class should have it's own mechanics/powers with as little overlap as possible. 
Ofcourse there might be some recourses that you see in multiple classes spell slots, maneuver dice, skill dice. 
But each class should use them in different ways. 
 
A example of what i don't want might be a paladin that casts spells as a cleric. 
The paladin class should stand on it's own with abilities like auras. divine grace, lay on hands, smite evil and so on. 
If you do want a paladin that can cast a few spells as a cleric you go dual class taking a few cleric levels.


The problem with this is that a sorcerer, a wizard, and a cleric of Thor all blasting someone with lightning should be pretty mechanically identical. Why call it three different things? Why print the same spell or a variation of that spell three different times? Especially when books are not infinitely long and if you print lightning bolt, sorcerer's lightning, and thor's lightning then you need to sacrafice two other unique spells.
Especially as the fewer iconic spells there are in the game the easier it is for the DM to know all the powers and adjidicate. They eventually learn the go-to spells and every time a character casts a spell you don't need to explain what it is and what it does. Ditto for the players, as it's easier for the players to imagine the action if the DM can just say "the orc shaman casts lightning bolt".

Overlap is a very good thing. 

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 much more concerned that classes be distinct conceptually then they be distinct mechanically.

This is my perspective. I honestly don't even know where this call for distinct mechanics originated, since no previous edition has ever supported that (with the possible exception of late 3.5).

I think it's more important that the wizard/warlock/cleric/druid/psion cast different spells than that they have different rules governing their casting methods. If one character has a daily pool of points, and another character has Vancian preparation, and a third character is using a random-recovery method (like one of the Tome of Battle) classes, then it doesn't even feel like we're playing the same game.

The difference between classes should be what they do, and not how they do it.

Bullet point #2 was:  The class should have an element that makes it unique. Playing one class should feel different from playing another one.

I would prefer that the unique element is a conceptual one, rather than a mechanical one. If a paladin is a fighter who can also cast healing spells, then that is already conceptually unique from any other class.



I disagree.  If you have a unique conceptual element, but no new mechanical element, why not just reflavor an old class?  If druid is just wizard with a different spell list, why not just add druid spells to the wizard list, throw on a druid school along side evoker and illusionist, and let people play naturey wizards that way?  I like mechanical options, classes that play differently because of their mechanical differences.  I am of the opinion that conceptual differences benefit from mechanical support.

If two classes are mechanically distinct but conceptually identical, I can't fathom what problem that could create at the table.  If I want to play a character of that concept, I have two mechanical representations to choose from.  Choices are good.  I only need to be familiar with one of them, so I don't see how the existence of another makes the game more difficult for me to pick up.  Even if the DM needs to be familiar with all the rules for all the characters in his game, it doesn't matter to him whether he nee to be familiar with the rules for the ore four or a different set, and honestly it's the spell/maneuver/power lists he really needs to keep track of which are going to be different anyway.  

If two classes are conceptually distinct but mechanically identical, why have two classes?  A swashbuckler fighter is more conceptually distinct from a knight than it is from a rogue, yet it shares a class with a knight without causing any problems.  If you're really against the kind of rules bloat mechanical distinctions create, surely you should only have the one class?  And even classes like the paladin, that have some distinct concept to them, if they aren't going to have any distinct mechanics to them then that distinct concept can be filled quite handily by a working multiclass system.  Provided there's nothing mechanically new about it, there is literally no concept that can't be filled by reflavoring an existing class or combining elements from two existing classes.  By definition, the only time you can't create your concept using the mechanical tools of existing classes is when you need new mechanical tools to do it.  So the only classes that should exist are the ones providing new mechanical tools.

That said, I think power recharge structures are a terrible way to differentiate classes.  I can't fathom how anyone who actually played 4e for any length of time can think that classes were too samey because they all had the same recharge structure, and it makes e.  A sorcerer is not a wizard who recharges his spells more quickly, he's a hero who wields magic through innate talent.  One representation of that might be a different recharge structure, another might be a different spell-learning/preparation mechanism, another might be access to a different selection of spells.  But none of those are particularly compelling.  None of those scream "magic in the blood" at me, and I could imagine a schooled wizard using spells in the same way.  A warlock is not a wizard or sorcerer who recharges spells even more quickly, he's a hero who made a deal with a dangerous entity, trading something for some of its power.  That might or might not allow him to use spells at-will or encounter, it might or might not allow him to learn/prepare spells in a different way, and it might or might not give him access to a different set of spells.  Frankly I think it makes a heck of a lot more sense for warlocks to be limited to daily powers than wizards: the warlock's patron rations out the power he bought, while a wizard shouldn't need a good night's sleep immediately before memorizing something.  Those mechanics don't support different concepts very well at all, they support different playstyles, and I'd rather have all three power structures available to all three classes so everyone can have their favorite playstyle to go with their favorite concept.  I want mechanical distinctions that actually make me feel like I'm playing a different class, that provide mechanical representations of the different fluff and bring my character's in-game strengths, weaknesses, and choices in line with the rules and by extension the metagame choices.
Sure, but then we're back to "Why can't my fighter try to climb the wall?" and "Why can't my wizard carry a sword?" threads.

Show
Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best defined as the realism-simulation school and the other as the game school. AD&D is assuredly an adherent of the latter school. It does not stress any realism (in the author's opinon an absurd effort at best considering the topic!). It does little to attempt to simulate anything either. (AD&D) is first and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek the use of imagination and creativity.... In all cases, however, the reader should understand that AD&D is designed to be an amusing and diverting pastime, something which an fill a few hours or consume endless days, as the participants desire, but in no case something to be taken too seriously. For fun, excitement and captivating fantasy, AD&D is unsurpassed.As a realistic simulation of things from the realm of make-believe or even as a reflection of midieval or ancient warfare or culture or society, it can be deemed only a dismal failure. Readers who seek the later must search elsewhere. - Gary Gygax. 1e DMG.
The whole idea of having different mechanics for each class seems cool to some but it makes learning how to play this game daunting.

The idea of having per day powers just never works. Who's party doesn't try to take an extended rest as much as they can in order to get their daily powers back? All powers should be per encounter powers or at will.

My D&D5E JavaScript Roll Tracker http://dnd5.weebly.com/

The whole idea of having different mechanics for each class seems cool to some but it makes learning how to play this game daunting.

The idea of having per day powers just never works. Who's party doesn't try to take an extended rest as much as they can in order to get their daily powers back? All powers should be per encounter powers or at will.


Some classes could have all powers as at will powers (fighters). Some classes have all powers as per day (wizards).  Some classes could have per encounter powers (monks). Others could have powers only usable in certain conditions (rogues) or when achieving certain qualifications (clerics).

I see no reason to put all characters into one Adventurer class (with at will and encounter powers) and pretending they are different from each other.

if you wanted a module that stripped the variation in classes you could make houserules to create all abilities as at will and encounter abilities.  I see that as a simplified version of 4E which I doubt many others would be interested in.

Generally daily powered characters (such as wizards) want more frequent long rests.  They often burn their high powered spells early and then feel weaker.  They have to realize that if they want to burn brighter, they'll expend their powers more quickly.

I think players should have the options for many types of classes and not be stuck in the same mold.  They need to realize the consequences of their choices and ration spells and abilities accordingly.

I wouldn't say that daily powers never work. 
do any of you DM? the more specific special minutae rules you create sure makes it tough on the DM. one thing I liked about 4e is all the powers were constructed the same way.

Yes, I DM, and I have to admit that 4e made the DM's job /much/ easier.  No need to commit whole spell lists to memory, so you could be prepared for what PCs might do (or what NPCs should theoretically be able to do) all you need to have down is the actual rules, and how to decode the jargon of powers & keywords.  

Esception-based design was the fly in that ointment, though.  ;)  While it was easy enough to parse one of those beloved 'exceptions' and make the right ruling, it was impossible to keep on top of all of them proactively.  One of the areas where the quality of the material was paramont.  


 

 

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

We should do a list of possible game mechanic for powers.

Arcane.
Divine.
Primal (dragons like creatures of primal magic?).
Psionic
Ki(+incarnum+thoon?) (I suggest the idea of chakras like body slots fro magic item or ki techniques).
Shadow (+elemental, a common mechanic for both, like shadow was other element, the "taint" from Far Realm would be like a other element too).
Vestiges and Pacts (Binder class from Tome of Magic).
Truename 
Alchemy. (Like the artificier from Eberron and a little touch or piece from Prometheus: the created and the manga Full Metal Alchemist, but the pool of power would different, some powers only could use a special maná, like colors of maná from Magic: the gathering).

"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 

We should do a list of possible game mechanic for powers.

How about we start simple: Martial and Magical? Now, what goes under those, or are Mixed?

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
We should do a list of possible game mechanic for powers.

How about we start simple: Martial and Magical? Now, what goes under those, or are Mixed?

Martial and magical are all we need.

Even the divine/arcane split is unnecessary.

Danny

I am sorry, but only three, four or five classes is too boring. Maybe more classes aren´t necesary, but for me it is funnier. I would rather feel my PC is "exotic" different of the classic core classes. I don´t want simple system. I don´t want always a halfing rogue + human fighter + elf wizard + dwarf cleric. I want more stealth classes besides the rogue (and ranger), for example the assasin, the ninja and the factotum. 

If the next complete fighter is only cruch +new themes/kits/prestige classes I don´t want it, but if it has got new classes (+ crunch) I buy it. 

* The bard could use a special recitation with game mechanic like truename.

* The sughenja and the sha´ir could use the misteries, the powers of shadowcaster.

I don´t like the "shadow" like a power linked to necromancy... but more like "the void" or the "dark powers" from the demiplane of dread. The necromancer is a classic archetype of fantasy, but too limited to be a creator of armies of undead pokemons. The type of necromancy I would like is more a piece of defiler from Dark Sun and the vampire disciplines from "World of Darkness rpg". I don´t want more "Mr. Freeze" of necrotic/negative energy.

* I like the idea of "umthakithi" (=witch doctor, but I don´t like this name) like a "vudu priest + warlock" who can summon armies of "deathless" (like undeads, but healed by positive energy and hurt by necrotic power)..

"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 

If you are going to have separate classes for everything in the universe then I agree.  At least make them unique.  I'd prefer simpler fewer classes and then lots of background/speciality options.

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

If you are going to have separate classes for everything in the universe then I agree.  At least make them unique.  I'd prefer simpler fewer classes and then lots of background/speciality options.



You are saying better qualty that quantity. No problem, we may agree about it. 

* Swashbuclker may be only a figther subclass, but too it may be the name of the remake of Warblade+warsage from Tome of Magic: Book of Nine swords.  

"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 

Proliferation of mechanical subsystems results in far too much bloat and fiddliness and a feeling that you have to make something different just because and then you wind up with a lot of crappy classes.






Which is why I argue that if you can't find a clear and unique mechanic for a class - it shouldn't be a class. 



You don't make new mechanics just because you have a class and need a mechanic.  YOu make a new class because you have a good mechanic that is worthy of a new class.


If you can represent a class with existing mechanics - that means it is really just a variant of one or more existing classes.  


(i.e. if you can represent a warlord with fighter maneuvers and a specialty - you should do so (marketing considerations aside).   Only if you cannot do so without substantially rewriting the base class (and folding the barbarian into the fighter would require) should you then create a new class.


Ranger and Paladin remain to be seen since I don't know where they are going with them.


     

Carl       
You don't make new mechanics just because you have a class and need a mechanic.  YOu make a new class because you have a good mechanic that is worthy of a new class.


I think that's backwards of the 5e design philosophy.  In the podcast, Mr. Mearls said (rather stream-of-consciousness, but as best I could follow) that the warlord didn't deserve to be a class because it was originally concieved as a mechanic (martial healing, I suppose?) not as an archetype.  

He worked with Heinsoo, who came up with the class, so he should know - or maybe its sour grapes because he didn't like working for Heinsoo.  ::shrug::  

In any case, the Warlord certain /does/ represent a substantial archetype, and one that other classes consistently failed to model, and that the playtest has failed to model with the fighter.

 

 

 

If you can represent a class with existing mechanics - that means it is really just a variant of one or more existing classes.  


A nice argument for classless systems.  If your mechanics are good enough, you don't need classes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Sign In to post comments