|
1 year ago ::
Apr 10, 2012 - 6:20PM
#51
|
Date Joined:
Mar 31, 2012
|
Psionics was originally an option, and anyone had a (tiny) chance to be psionic.
Just like the fighter had a 'tiny' chance of having an 18/00 strength, yet you saw a lot of 18/00 strength fighters and a lot of characters with psionics.
Have I mentioned what a great idea 4e's standard array and customizing scores were? Because they are.
I agree, but there is something to be said of having a character with a really crippling weakness, and making it work. Well, this only works if each player roll in public, in front of the DM and the other players, since otherwise, no one would own up to rolling a 3 Dex, for example. Which is why I feel Rolling stats should be an option, but not the primary option. And it should probably be religated to the DMG, so that it becomes more campaign dependent, than the power gamer arguing "No, I get to roll my stats, because it says so in the PHB."
I am currently raising funds to run for President in 2016. Too many administrations have overlooked the international menace, that is Carmen Sandiego. I shall devote any and all necessary military resources to bring her to justice.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 10, 2012 - 7:06PM
#52
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
Just like the fighter had a 'tiny' chance of having an 18/00 strength, yet you saw a lot of 18/00 strength fighters and a lot of characters with psionics.
Bob 37 finally hit the jackpot!
Why not take the Force Powers from SWSE, strip out anything Lucas's lawyers would pounce on, and call that "Psionics"?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 10, 2012 - 7:32PM
#53
|
|
|
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />I agree, but there is something to be said of having a character with a really crippling weakness, and making it work.
Especially since the player can just choose to have that weakness without it being inflicted on him by the random whims of the dice.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 10, 2012 - 8:01PM
#54
|
|
|
In general, Iìd like to see as a class those archetypes that support a wide variety of concepts; as build single class-specific concepts; and as themes those concepts that are unrelated to class.
Agreed.
In addition, there will be overlap with classes. Monks, rangers, rogues, assassins, warlocks, and gishes (and prolly some others) all have overlap in either theme or mechanics. That doesn't mean they should be shoehorned into the same class. 
With those things in mind:
Wizard Class
Illusionist Build
Necromancer Class
Pyromancer Build
Cryromancer Build
Summoner Theme (This concept, to me, is broad but shallow. Perfect for a theme)
Artificer Class
Paladin Class
Avenger undecided. Either a build of Assassin, or a class.
Cleric Class
Medic Theme
Invoker eh, I got nothin
Ranger Class
Druid Class
Beastmaster Theme, but also should be doable as a druid or ranger without the theme
Barbarian Class
Warden Build of Barbarian
Seeker Maybe theme, otherwise just allow magical archery in a couple classes. POssibly ranged barbarian build.
Assassin Class
Rogue Class
Thief Theme
Ruffian Build
Executioner Build
Shadow Dancer Class (if not, could go two ways, build of assassin or build of warlock)
Fighter Class
Archer none. Archer should just be a thing that many classes can do via feats and just using a bow. Maybe Theme
Knight Build or theme
Slayer
Tempest Theme
Monk Class
Warlord Class
Tactical Warlord Build
Marshal ?
Inspiring Warlord ? how are these different from eachother?
Bard Class.
Psion
Telekinetic
Ardent
Battlemind
I've no real thoughts on the psionic classes.
So, are those groups supposed to be connected? Because I don't see how the bard belongs with the warlords?
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 10, 2012 - 8:04PM
#55
|
|
|
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I think the concept of a 'build' is dead. If something is a choice, then build a theme around it (or maybe a couple of choices).
There are a few things that are definitely on the borderline. Paladin, monk, warlock, basically could all be themes. I suspect 'priests' in general will have some other mechanism for tying into the domain of their deity, it would suck for that to take up their theme slot for sure, and it isn't like it is really optional. Depending on how that works 'druid' could simply be a nature priest and neither a class nor a theme. I think most of the things on the more doubtfull side from paladin are pretty much definitely in the theme category, and I'd include the whole 'gish' concept here. I think 6 or so classes is probably quite enough.
How in the name of the hells could monk or warlock (especially the warlock) be a theme?
No, they aren't borderline. They're classes.
And the idea of class "bloat" as a bad thing needs to die. From being tortured to death. And healed, and then tortured more. And the cremated and thrown into the sun, and all record of it erased from the universe. Forever.
EDIT: @thread: The assassin isn't just a concept that involves payment. Also, every time someone says it should be a build for rogue, I hurt a little from the pure wronginess.
Also, I really don't understand the idea of trying to put everything into 4 classes. Likelyhood of that happening aside, it feels like an attempt to make dnd like classless systems. There are already systems like that. I don't want DnD to be something I could easily replace with GURPS Fantasy or warhammer RPG.
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 10, 2012 - 10:07PM
#56
|
Date Joined:
Feb 16, 2012
|
This is what I mean by Subclasses and Elite Classes: 
Options are Liberating
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 10, 2012 - 11:40PM
#57
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2001
|
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I think the concept of a 'build' is dead.
Maybe as an official game term, but if any capacity for customization exists, there /will/ be 'builds.'
If something is a choice, then build a theme around it (or maybe a couple of choices).
There are a few things that are definitely on the borderline. Paladin, monk, warlock, basically could all be themes.
How in the name of the hells could monk or warlock (especially the warlock) be a theme?
A monk is just a reclusive ascetic living among other reclusive ascetics. A monk could be of a divine class, if his order is dedicated to a deity. A monk could be a psionic class if his order is into delving into the potentials of the mind. A monk could belong to a martial class if his order is all about perfecting the body and mastering arts and skills. A monk could even be an arcanist if his order was dedicated to preserving arcane secrets.
A warlock is someone who makes a perilous pact in exchange for arcane power. Couldn't anyone do that? You don't need to study /that/ much arcana - if you did, you could become a wizard, instead without owing your student loans to the devil. A Warlock theme that let you swap in a variety of arcane powers - and carried a certain 'price' - could be quite workable.
EDIT: @thread: The assassin isn't just a concept that involves payment.
It is one legitimate meaning of the word. Though any murderer killing for a cause or organization could also be an assassin, even he was working out of loyalty rather than avarice. The point is you can stealthily murder people as easily with spells and curses as daggers and poison.
Also, I really don't understand the idea of trying to put everything into 4 classes.
That's strictly nostalgia talking, I think. It doesn't even map to one class per source.
Likelyhood of that happening aside, it feels like an attempt to make dnd like classless systems. There are already systems like that. I don't want DnD to be something I could easily replace with GURPS Fantasy or warhammer RPG.
Don't worry, D&D will never be as sophisticated as GURPS.
(disclaimer: I can't stand GURPS)
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
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 11, 2012 - 12:39AM
#58
|
|
|
How in the name of the hells could monk or warlock (especially the warlock) be a theme?
When the core class contains the abilities and features within it to encapsulate the class. It's very simple. Break down the abilities that constitutes a monk and warlock and place those abilities in the appropriate class. Now, you can construct the monk and warlock with those pieces. Even further, you can construct completely unique builds with pieces of the monk and warlock, respectively.
Also, I really don't understand the idea of trying to put everything into 4 classes. Likelyhood of that happening aside, it feels like an attempt to make dnd like classless systems. There are already systems like that. I don't want DnD to be something I could easily replace with GURPS Fantasy or warhammer RPG.
Obviously you don't understand it. Otherwise, you would not incorrectly equate it to GURPS.
All of your other classes would exist within the context of the 4 core classes. Every single one. They can all be represented in the PHB as builds and as perfect examples of how to construct those builds. The major difference is that this system would actually provide the ability to create more classes than all of your classes.
In summary, in my proposed 4 class system, you get everything you want. All those classes are present and accounted for, they are simply not called classes. The bonus is that you get so much more to tinker with, and it costs you nothing outside the price of admission!
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.
Default module =/= Core mechanic.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 11, 2012 - 12:40AM
#59
|
Date Joined:
Jan 21, 2004
|
I agree that warlock does not need to be a class. Many warlocks from literature and movies are just wizards using spell books who have a patron who provides them with power. Other classes could also make a pact that granted them some magical powers. The D&D class warlock was really just designed to give an alternative to vancian casting. If the sorcerer is an optional non-cancian wizard build (like the channeler from 2e), warlock could be lain over either class with ease.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 11, 2012 - 12:42AM
#60
|
|
|
Also, I really don't understand the idea of trying to put everything into 4 classes.
That's strictly nostalgia talking, I think. It doesn't even map to one class per source.
Not at all. I've explained the concept behind it, none of which has to do with nostalgia. The only thing that has to do with nostalgia is the 4 names chosen to represent the classes.
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.
Default module =/= Core mechanic.
|
|
|
