|
1 year ago ::
Mar 02, 2012 - 2:37AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Aug 10, 2008
|
Let's keep it simple but cover all the bases from the very beginning:
- Cleric
- Fighter
- Psionicist
- Rogue
- Wizard
Everything else (bard, druid, paladin, et cetera) is a Sub-Class. Focus the PH on having all the rules necessary fo the standard types of characters and the supernatural powers Big Three --- Arcane, Sacred, and Psionic. Part of the reason psionics hasn't done well is because it has always been a tacked on "addendum". Make it part of the core rules and put it right next to magic. If you have enough room in the PH, add one or two sub-classes to each of these core ones. If not, put the sub-classes in supplemental books. Put more development into each core class and the basic races with the extra page space...
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 02, 2012 - 2:44AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
Why shouldn't rogue be a fighter subclass? What about the druid? What about shadow magic? What about elemental magic? What about the sorcerer? What about the monk? And the barbarian? Would you be able to mix different subclasses together with multiclassing to create concepts such as the warden? To which degree?
I agree a limited number of classes + some subclasses would be cool, but some things really need to be separated.
Are you interested in an online 4E game on Sunday? Contact me with a PM! Spoiler:
Show
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept.
Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new.
Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept.
Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept. Ideas for 5ESpoiler:
Show
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 02, 2012 - 3:25AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Dec 20, 2011
|
Im sorry but I would rather see my favourite classes appear later than appear half baked in the first book.
I agree keep PHB1 simple with such classes but after that open up a world of classes so people can make their own or choose from a plethora (I like what they are doing with the 4e classes, lots of updates).
If you were going to tie classes into eachother like that I would ignore your list entirely and just start with a random glob of martial / arcane / divine... and mould your classes from that rather than starting with the fighter archetype, even if you can change it any way you want people get percieved notions of what a fighter is from the start. Martial is a bit more open to interpretation.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 02, 2012 - 3:25AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Feb 17, 2010
|
Either go classless or produce a bunch of classes. If there is a class/subclass system in the game is should be reserved for the classes that are actually in the same thematic grouping, ya know like the warlord and the fighter, or the Ranger and the seeker or the Invoker and the Cleric.
Seriously you want to shove the druid and the cleric in the same power source? This is one of the most ridiculous things from the old editions of the game. The cleric gets their powers from the will of a god, the Druid gets his power from channeling nature, I fail to see how this is the same thing. At this point you might as well just have Magic-man cover divine/arcane/primal/ect. And this isn't just restricted to the Druid, the Bard is as thematicaly different to the wizard as the rogue is to the fighter, if not more so. The paladin might be a bit more like the cleric than some would like but the intent is entierly different, let it be its own class.
Also there are a great number of people who simply don't like the psyonic source because it doesn't fit with their campaigns (you know, the fantasy ones). Making psyonic part of the basic assumption is a bad idea if your intent is to streamline.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 02, 2012 - 3:33AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Aug 25, 2007
|
Seriously you want to shove the druid and the cleric in the same power source? This is one of the most ridiculous things from the old editions of the game. The cleric gets their powers from the will of a god, the Druid gets his power from channeling nature, I fail to see how this is the same thing.
they both channel power that is not their own, for this reason i probebly put the warlock in the same group.
all re dependent on power granted to them by another entity ideal or force.
your right the druid is the odd one out as nature would probebly be uncaring about what the character does.
although i have seen DM's who say a druid loses acces to spells if they intentionaly harm and upset the balance of nature.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 02, 2012 - 3:39AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Feb 17, 2010
|
And all entities, ideals and forces are the same? Even though many of them have massive thematic and mechanical differences that make them irreconsilable? I find the idea silly. Much better to split them up into portions that make sense based on thematic realities.
Otherwise you might as well just split it into two catigories. Personal (Martial, Arcane, Psyonic) and Granted (Divine, Primal, Warlocks).
Edited: Thanks for catching that Rothe :P
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 02, 2012 - 3:49AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Jun 19, 2008
|
And all entities, ideals and forces are the same? Even though many of them have massive thematic and mechanical differences that make them irreconsilable? I find the idea silly. Much better to split them up into portions that make sense based on thematic realities.
Otherwise you might as well just split it into two catigories. Personal (Marital, Arcane, Psyonic) and Granted (Divine, Primal, Warlocks).
Marital would be an interesting power source. Basically you get your powers from your wife or husband, or something?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 02, 2012 - 3:59AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Aug 25, 2007
|
Depending on exactly how "core" you want to get, I think there are four - but I get your point with psionics. I consider the whole concept of psionics optional.
Fighter
Cleric
Rogue
Wizard
A more expansive list would look like this...
Fighter
Ranger
Paladin
Barbarian
Cleric
Druid
Rogue
Bard
Wizard
Monk
I think you could include Sorcerer and Warlock as core. I am not crazy about the whole concept of 4e power sources. It was introduced to explain the powers mechanic for non-spell casters and is not a necessary component of the game. Without a long list of powers for each class, you can include more "core" classes in the PHB. No need to spread them over 3 books this time - I hope!
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 02, 2012 - 4:11AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Feb 18, 2012
|
Put more development into each core class and the basic races with the extra page space...
If you have a car, an oven, a small boat, a supercomputer, and a lumber saw, taking apart the oven is not going to help you make a better car. Neither will telling the people who build ovens to stop doing that and go help the people who make cars. At best for either case, you're going to end up with an oven built into a car, which is ridiculous.
Or in other words: eliminating classes won't make other classes better. "Page space" is not the delimiter of content quality. Granted, 4e had a massive amount of page inflation because each and every class had its own 30-level spell list, but that was in large part because of how the product was designed and marketed.
If you want to play D20 Modern, then do that instead.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 02, 2012 - 4:27AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
And all entities, ideals and forces are the same? Even though many of them have massive thematic and mechanical differences that make them irreconsilable? I find the idea silly. Much better to split them up into portions that make sense based on thematic realities.
Otherwise you might as well just split it into two catigories. Personal (Martial, Arcane, Psyonic) and Granted (Divine, Primal, Warlocks).
Edited: Thanks for catching that Rothe :P
I like 3
personal, environal and extra-planar.
and personal underpines the rest in almost all cases. A warrior who makes an incredibly precise pebble toss with perfect timing and brings down an avalanche is leveraging environment... but.
|
|
|
