|
1 year ago ::
Apr 13, 2012 - 5:48PM
#71
|
Date Joined:
Jan 21, 2004
|
Maybe themes will grant at-will abilities for martial characters like Essentials stances that will enhance their attacks in certain ways as well as open up a list of powers that are purchable with feats. This way the classes will have their class flavour and their theme flavour. Most of your attacks will be modified by your theme stance with a few extra tricks up your sleeve. Magical themes can grant power riders, an encounter attack spell, and a utility spell plus a list of purchasble things.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 13, 2012 - 6:23PM
#72
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
One mechanical question that i think they didn't cleared out:
All this feat/skill package that would consist the theme/background would be done in expanse to the regular lvl advancement?
It was very strongly implied that themes and backgrounds are just pre-packaged collections of feats and skills, to facilitate quick/easy character creation.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 13, 2012 - 7:24PM
#73
|
|
|
Eh, I think classes should be kept to a minimum. 8 or 10 should be more than enough. Leave the rest to themes. You want 3 or 4 different options for 2-weapon fighting characters, well, there can be a theme for that, slap it on whatever class you feel like. Let the underlying class mechanics give each one a bit of a different feel. If there are REALLY a couple different ways it can work that are worthy of being distinct, then have 2 or 3 themes. Class bloat kills games faster than anything else. 1e got by with a handfull of classes for YEARS, there's just not that much need to bloat up the system like that.
I'm not sure how to feel about this. I think people are too quick to complain about class-bloat, when looking at 4e, since there are several classes which function similarly, on a very basic level: For example, a Barbarian, A ranger and a Fighter could all be a two blade fighter, in light armor, with a Strength primary, and Dex secondary. However, what I've noticed is that people don't seem to actually look at how the classes play: A TWF Barbarian plays very differently from a TWF Fighter, who also plays very differently from a TWF Ranger. I've seen some of the same with this on casters, but again, I don't see that either. I say, if the classes play differently from one another, and none are too out of bounds, power wise, it's not bloat, it's bredth. And nothing prevents people from saying: "Ok, I'm not going to allow Anything not in PHB 1. You can reskin a class to meet your character (i.e. Wizard -> Invoker; loses Auto arcana training, gains auto Religion Training)"
The one thing I will concede to this, however, is that if Themes do really work the way that they're supposed to, this may actually work, to provide each combination a different feel to them. I'm not as optimistic, but I'll wait to see how it plays out.
I think it gets into a much bigger question, especially about how combat works, but somewhat with other parts of the game too. The differences between say a 4e Tempest fighter and a 4e Whirling barbarian are entirely in the low level details of how they fight. Outside of combat you could interchange the two PCs and nobody could say for sure which one was which based on what they can do.
Now, 4e is a system that has highly detailed combat rules, so when you're playing 4e you may well notice the difference a fair amount. Now, go play 1e and it would be almost pointless to have the 2 as separate things. In fact 1e didn't even acquire a barbarian class until late in its history and frankly it wasn't used that much IME (and even then was a subclass of fighter).
So, can I say what would make sense as distinct classes in 5e? No, not really. I don't know what the rules will look like. Oddly enough nobody does, and nobody ever will if 'modular D&D' is the result. The end result may well be that there simply is no satisfactory breakdown into classes/themes/whatever that makes sense for every play style. However I would think that sticking to a few classes and then letting people who want a lot of detailed mechanics on how they fight, etc pick from lots of themes and whatnot that tweak their fighting styles would potentially make sense. Then you could stick to a fairly AD&D-like setup with a few iconic classes with few mechanical distinctions or you could play something more like 3e or 4e where it is all about how you twist the dagger.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 13, 2012 - 7:44PM
#74
|
|
|
Can't say for sure, of course, but a 1e Fighter/Magic-user was better than a 1e Fighter (or 1e Magic-user, at 1st level, for that matter), and the only thing that kept the lid on them was slow advancement and level limits. ...
Right at first level you are right. But everyone was really weak so it didn't really matter all that much. By 3rd or 4th level the fighter/magic user was sufficiently behind to be balanced. It was a great combo don't get me wrong and very iconic for the elf. I envisioned the multiclass being the favored class of elves. It was also nice to have a class that could fulfill both roles.
AD&D MCing was a weird beast. In a sense it was both overpowered and underpowered at the same time. Demi-humans also got thrown a lot of bones that make things a bit harder to compare too. Being an elf and having infravision was worth a lot if you were sneaking around dark caves and back alleys a lot.
The splitting XP wasn't a BIG deal. In fact objectively it probably wasn't much of a disadvantage at all. It did tend to make fighter/mu players jealous though when their single class MU cousins got a spell level before they did.
The thing was, you actually lost a good bit of your fighter utility at 1st level by MCing. AVG of d4 and d10 is basically a 'd7', while the d10 (and possibly CON bonus) of the straight fighter gave him a good chance of being at or above 8 hit points, a magic number, the F/MU has almost no chance of that, and even starting with maxed level 1 hit points falls short at 7. Of course you got a spell to make up for it, but casting from the front lines was impossible so it was a sort of weird awkward concept and actually PLAYING as a low level gish in AD&D didn't work that well in practice.
OTOH you were great at mid levels. You just basically ignored that you were a fighter and were a magic user with lots of hit points, until and unless you ran out of spells. Plus you got to wear nice armor. At 6th level its not a big deal that your buddies are level 7, you're only 10% behind them basically.
It might seem you lose out at high levels, but that's a mixed bag too. You get higher residual hit points etc, but you do fall behind more due to flat XP after name level (roughly). Then you top out. That would seem horrible, but OTOH by that point items are worth more than a few really high level spells most of the time anyway. You might be jealous of some 18th level human MU, but at the same time chances are you're just about as good, or better, in a fight.
Seems to me the upshot was for the levels that people MOSTLY care about (3-9) an F/MU was a bit on the strong side, and had 'elf' (or something) goodness thrown on top. The other MC choices though were more marginal. They worked but mostly kind of faded at higher levels. Thieves were pretty much rubbish at most levels anyway, so really just MU/CL and F/CL (or the druid variants) were relevant. You could graft thievery onto your character to make it more viable and fill a party niche, or play 'backup caster' but none of them were really compelling.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 13, 2012 - 8:19PM
#75
|
|
|
One mechanical question that i think they didn't cleared out:
All this feat/skill package that would consist the theme/background would be done in expanse to the regular lvl advancement?
It was very strongly implied that themes and backgrounds are just pre-packaged collections of feats and skills, to facilitate quick/easy character creation.
Which means, if true, that themes might as well not even be a feature of the system.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
I could say anything in D&D is silly though, because it's a silly game and we are silly people.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 14, 2012 - 12:19AM
#76
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2006
|
I would like the most number of core classes but I wish different classes with different and special mechanic/gameplay. Not only a different list of powers.
Core classes.
Knight, Monk, Sohei, Gladiator, Monk (no psi but ki powers), shadow assasin (rogue with powers of shadow), Samurai, ninja, shaman.
Knight ougth have got special adeventages by order of cavalry and vows and using exclusive inherited weapons from family or order. (I like the idea of knight from Pathfinder rpg).
A divine spell-caster without heavy armour, like the archivist of Tome of Horror.
Avenger could be the "politically correct" version of inquisitor and witch hunter.
The specialist of classic schools of magic could be theme of wizard.
I wish the warlock with piece of mechanic of Binder class (from Tome of Magic: Pact..)
Dread Necromancer could be a complete classes, not only a subclass of wizard.
Marshall/warlord/caudillo isn´t a bad idea, but I would rather a background like nobility from high society most of times.
Swashbuckler could be a subclass of fighter. I wonder if little races like haflings and gnomes could be good no-rogues heroes.
Beguiler (PH 2 3rd Ed) and Spellthief (complete adventure) could be theme or subclass of rogue.
Lurker like the psionic rogue could be a subclass.
Seeker and scout like subclass of ranger
I don´t dislike the idea of a "primal defender" like totem champion, shapesifter warrior or theriantrope, some like skin-walker (why not a exotic name but not "berserker", it´s too seen)
I would like the return of crusader like a ki-cousin of paladin.
Soccerer could have got subclasses about bloodlines (dragon, fay, elemental genies, creatures from Heaven and Hell...and far realm?).
I like the idea of "favored soul", mystic from Dragonlance or oracle (yes, I´m talkin about Pathfinder, what the matter), like the divine "brother" of socerer.
The mechanim of incarnum powers (3rd Editon) could be used by ki-powers.
Dragonfire adept (dragon magic) could be a subclass of monk.
Dragon shaman like subclass of shaman.
"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"
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 14, 2012 - 1:43AM
#77
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2007
|
However I would think that sticking to a few classes and then letting people who want a lot of detailed mechanics on how they fight, etc pick from lots of themes and whatnot that tweak their fighting styles would potentially make sense. Then you could stick to a fairly AD&D-like setup with a few iconic classes with few mechanical distinctions or you could play something more like 3e or 4e where it is all about how you twist the dagger.
I could go several ways with classes (that sounds a bit pervy), on one hand I like my Assassin/Binder/Incarnate/Savant/Warden etc, but at some point it gets messy, I also like the Priest/Rogue/Warrior/Wizard (and that's it) deal.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 14, 2012 - 1:53AM
#78
|
Date Joined:
Oct 27, 2007
|
One mechanical question that i think they didn't cleared out:
All this feat/skill package that would consist the theme/background would be done in expanse to the regular lvl advancement?
It was very strongly implied that themes and backgrounds are just pre-packaged collections of feats and skills, to facilitate quick/easy character creation.
True, but when they stress that they are looking at including four key elements for character design, I think it’s probably a mistake to think a theme (or a background) will be “just” anything. A theme will probably lay out a complete advancement table for a character. I suspect that rather that you be able to completely customise a theme, and also that they will lay out the chart for creating a custom theme, but given how early they are in the design I think one needs to assume that anything they are discussing now is going to play a fairly crucial role in 5e. This probably also means that feats will have a different affect and be more important to your character. Maybe themes will grant at-will abilities for martial characters like Essentials stances that will enhance their attacks in certain ways as well as open up a list of powers that are purchable with feats. This way the classes will have their class flavour and their theme flavour. Most of your attacks will be modified by your theme stance with a few extra tricks up your sleeve. Magical themes can grant power riders, an encounter attack spell, and a utility spell plus a list of purchasble things.
It’s an interesting idea, but I’m wondering how well it would apply to the possible themes they’ve already mentioned. I still think Slayer and Sharpshooter sound like Fighter-specific themes (or Martial-specific themes?); if Sharpshooter put you in a stance that improved your ranged attacks, at the very least this would have odd flavour implications for a magic user. It would also be hard to see how a sharpshooter’s daily attack-type ability would be able to work cross-class.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 14, 2012 - 2:28AM
#79
|
Date Joined:
Jan 21, 2004
|
Whatever optional powers the tactical module of the game produces will be compatible with the themes. In a Vancian world, if wizards have to spend a feat to buy an at-will wizard attack, a sharpshooter theme could be as useful to them as any other class that needs to use at will weapon attacks regularly. I don't think that they've said every theme will be optimised for every class, just that they won't be class specific. Themes are in because of their popularity in 4e and they were popular because they let you customise your class with bonuses, thematic powers, and optional powers that you could buy. If they change the concept too much, they may find a lot of people are really disappointed. Personally I think they will keep some sort of general modifiers (whether by named feats or otherwise) plus one power similar to the ones you can buy tactically (which will be purchasable with feats so that could be what they mean by package of feats - you can buy a power if you pick that feat off the list of options?) plus the option to buy more if using the tactical version of the game. If it aint broke, don't fix it.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 14, 2012 - 2:32AM
#80
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2001
|
To look at the 'Gish' issue from a completely different angle:
Characters in the fantasy genre often could use magic in some sense (an innate power, magic item, spell, etc) and also weild weapons competently. D&D was at first very draconian about separating magic-use and weapon-use (and particularly use of armor, something the genre was all over the map on). So when it groped around for a way to explain Gandalf able to use a sword or the like, it hit upon multi-classing.
In 3e and 4e, though, nothing stops a wizard from being able to don armor or use a weapon of any sort - beyond the resource-allocation of feats, anyway. In 4e, a fighter could even master and cast rituals, doing overt, if not combat-aplicable, magic. So, even though we still had multiclassing, some of the need for it was already gone as the classes became less arbitrary, more a matter of focus than proscription.
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? Join the Old Guard of 4e"You want The Tooth? You can't handle The Tooth!" - Dahlver-Nar. "If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly" - E. Gary Gygax
|
|
|
