|
1 year ago ::
Apr 19, 2012 - 8:33PM
#121
|
Date Joined:
Apr 28, 2009
|
Wizard CLASS Arcane Magic NOT Covered by Summoner and Artificer
Illusionist BUILD
Necromancer THEME
Pyromancer THEME
Cryromancer THEME
Summoner CLASS Monster Summoning, Control
Artificer CLASS Magic Items, Buffs
Paladin CLASS
Avenger THEME
Cleric CLASS
Medic THEME
Invoker CLASS Or Priest
Ranger THEME
Druid CLASS Weather/Nature Control
Beastmaster CLASS Summoner/Companion Druid
Barbarian CLASS
Warden CLASS
Seeker THEME
Assassin CLASS Or Ninja Theme(?)
Rogue CLASS
Thief THEME
Ruffian BUILD
Executioner THEME
Shadow Dancer THEME
Fighter CLASS
Archer THEME
Knight THEME
Slayer THEME
Tempest THEME
Monk CLASS
Warlord CLASS
Tactical Warlord BUILD
Marshal THEME
Inspiring Warlord BUILD
Bard CLASS And Minstrel Theme
Psion CLASS
Telekinetic THEME
Ardent CLASS
Battlemind CLASS
Other:
Wildshaping "Druid" Class
Non-mystical Martial Artist/Wrestler/Pugilist Class or Themes
Other "-mancer" Themes (Geo, Hydro)
Warlock Class AND Theme
Swordmage/Hexblade Theme
Sorcerer Themes!
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 19, 2012 - 10:52PM
#122
|
|
|
I'm not going to copy and paste or type out all of the powers. I've done my part.
Kinda why I stopped coming around. It's like people don't even feel like talking about this. It's gotten to the point where talking about D&D here is like talking to people about religion or politics. 
Yeah. I know someone that doesn't like 4e probably doesn't have the compendium or character builder, but if you've built a warlock, you've seen a decent number of the powers I listed, and I only flipped through a couple levels worth of powers for my examples.
I'd say that the Warlock is one of the most unique classes in the game, actually. The way curses interact with other features/powers/items, the powers themselves, the boons...at every level the warlock is doing things in a wildly different manner, yet using the same framework and layout. It's a gorram masterpiece.
Moderated by
ORC_Ragnar
on Apr 21, 2012 - 03:48AM
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 20, 2012 - 6:40AM
#123
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2009
|
@ DoctorBadWolf, Kalnaur I've been missing you Kalnaur  I agree that 4e has different flavor for it's powers. I didn't play anything PHB2 on. I played all the classes in PHB1 and the power series. I do think 4e powers mechanically felt very similar to me. Part of that is AEDU being the only mechanism. I suppose the variation was the classes shtick. The marking, the cursing, the sneak attack, etc... I agree these particular things were different but it seemed like that wasn't enough to vary them that much. Now I like the Warlock as a thematic concept in 4e. I never liked any Warlock class prior to 4e thematically.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 20, 2012 - 12:22PM
#124
|
|
|
@DoctorBadWolf, Kalnaur
I've been missing you Kalnaur
I agree that 4e has different flavor for it's powers. I didn't play anything PHB2 on. I played all the classes in PHB1 and the power series. I do think 4e powers mechanically felt very similar to me. Part of that is AEDU being the only mechanism. I suppose the variation was the classes shtick. The marking, the cursing, the sneak attack, etc... I agree these particular things were different but it seemed like that wasn't enough to vary them that much.
Now I like the Warlock as a thematic concept in 4e. I never liked any Warlock class prior to 4e thematically.
All those points are fair, I just don't see how the warlock's powers are the same (same format/layout or not) as other classes' powers.
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 20, 2012 - 10:45PM
#125
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
I'm not going to copy and paste or type out all of the powers. I've done my part.
Kinda why I stopped coming around. It's like people don't even feel like talking about this. It's gotten to the point where talking about D&D here is like talking to people about religion or politics.
People that care about politics or religion will react strongly to it. However, the main intention of political and religious debates is not to convince the one you are talking with. It is convincing those who are listening to you both. When you talk to someone with a different political view, or someone with a religion, then you aren't exactly expecting to convince him: you already know both you and him will walk away with virtually the same ideas as before. True changes through that sort of debate are very very rare. However, you do that anyway, in the hope of influencing those undecided people who are just walking along the sidelines and casually listening to your arguments. You debate with someone that represents a different position and showcase your own. Most of the times there is a clash, sort of like a war.
Don't you see any similarity in the situation? We're not arguing to convince anyone here on these boards. We are arguing so that the developers see the arguments and can take them into consideration when building D&D Next. I want an edition that manages to cater to me and my group, therefore I make my position known. I'm not alone here, there's plenty who like my gaming style. I just want to make sure we're not left out in the cold. That's why most of us argue: to make sure we're seen. To make sure we're not forgotten or left by.
Moderated by
ORC_Ragnar
on Apr 21, 2012 - 03:50AM
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 ::
Apr 21, 2012 - 3:52AM
#126
|
|
|
I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting and harassment are a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively. If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 21, 2012 - 4:46AM
#127
|
|
|
Themormegil and I agree on that. We will absolutely never convince the other side in the argument that they should change positions, however, people not making the case can decide for themselves.
"If it's not a conjuration, how did the wizard
con·jure/ˈkänjər/Verb
1. Make (something) appear unexpectedly or seemingly from nowhere as if by magic.
it?" -anon
"Why don't you read fire·ball / fī(-ə)r-ˌbȯl/ and see if you can find the key word con.jure /'kən-ˈju̇r/ anywhere in it."
-Maxperson
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 21, 2012 - 2:56PM
#128
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2007
|
My votes is to have four classes: Warrior, Rogue, Wizard, Priest - corresponding roughly to the class groups of 2nd edition, and have all the flavours thereof taken care of with themes, prestige classes, feat/skill/background/power choices. I wouldn't have liked to see this in 3rd or 4th edition, but IMO, if themes end up being quite central to a character's mechanics, having very broad classes could work quite well.
I think perhaps there would be a good reason to bifurcate the cleric and druid as a nod to the divine/primal distinction in 4th edition, and then maybe adding a psionic one when the psionic rules are inevitably released. So that's 6 broad classes: Warrior, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric/Priest, Druid/Naturist (lol?).
One example of how this might work is that if you wanted to play a paladin, then you could easily take a cleric, give it heavy armor and a longsword/shield or greatsword or whatever, and then choose skills/powers oriented towards melee combat, a theme oriented towards having a strict code of honor, and you've got yourself a paladin-in-training.
At level X, you might qualify for "paladin" as a prestige class. I don't really like the idea of level 1 paladins anyway.
Alternatively, you could choose to build a "paladin" more as a warrior without any divine magic at level 1, and then pick up a smattering of divine magic through multiclassing (or maybe a theme) and then take that same prestige class at later levels. There are multiple ways of building a paladin, IMO, and rather than sequestering away those options in their own discrete class, I think it's better to identify the rich concept of a paladin with a confluence of multiple build options taken together.
Rangers, on the other hand, might be built as warriors or rogues with a wilderness-oriented theme (or druids with a martial theme). I don't think the concept of "hunter's quarry" or "favoured companion" really has ANYTHING to do with the ranger. Why restrict those options (and ranger powers) from the rogue or fighter classes? A fighter that fights as a skirmisher is still a fighter, IMO. It's just a different flavour of fighter. And given that themes will allow you to make tree-hugging fighters, is the ranger class really necessary?
I think if we're going to have three (class, race, theme) dimensions of basic character definition rather than two (race, class) then each dimension doesn't need so many fine-grained distinctions. Those distinctions can be made up by combinations of class+theme choices.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 21, 2012 - 3:10PM
#129
|
|
|
People arguing with eachother often have small shifts in their perspective as a result of those arguments. As your views are challenged, you have to focus on those views in order to defend them, resulting (often times) in introspection.
I've seen it play out a number of times on the forums, and it's part of why I bother continuing to post.
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 22, 2012 - 6:37PM
#130
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2009
|
I've really learned a lot in these debates. Even if it just clarifies your position and helps you identify games where you will be happy then good has happened.
I've also noticed that people do change over time. I've seen a person make my own argument back to me five years later and not even realize it. Thats when you realize that sometimes it just takes time. Also, sometimes they become stronger in their own views. With a game, there really is no right or wrong answer.
I think 5e catering to different styles is wonderful. We all had styles before 5e. We just banged into each other and after a lot of friction found out who we liked playing with. Now hopefully we can expose the different playstyles better and get groups where we will be happy right from the start.
Also I think theMormegil is a nice guy. Just don't prefer his flavor of gaming. I'm shocked the orc got him. He always seems so mild mannered. I am insanely curious what he said.
|
|
|
