|
1 year ago ::
Apr 21, 2012 - 7:19AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
April 20 D&DNext blog post:
"...without having to introduce new subclasses beyond the classic concepts (ranger, paladin, druid, and so on) or put unwanted pressure on multiclassing to deliver these same results."
D&D Next
Four core classes with classic subclasses? Everything else themes, etc.?
{FTR}
\
Rgr \ Pal
\
{ROG}--Avng--\-------{CLR}
Swdm
Brd / Drd
/
{WIZ}
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 21, 2012 - 7:42AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Jan 13, 2012
|
You really hit the nail on the head from orbit, everything class wise is just a theamed variation of the four basic classes and their classic subclasses. There is no need to have a hundred different classes if the players have a complex and robust character creation system with a lot of choices, skills feats spells ectera. I want my players to create complex characters that are their own entire not use off the shelf cookie cutter builds for weird classes that almost match what they want.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 21, 2012 - 7:51AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
Every time this suggestion comes out I'm like "bwuh?"
If you want only the core four, why not just two? Magic and non magic. Or just one really, with everything as an option. That's classless.
Maybe I am spoiled by years of 4E, where having a class has an actual meaning and is felt while playing. Maybe people who are still in tune with the previous editions feel differently. I can see this argument's roots in the terrible sameness of 3.5 classes, where everything ended up as being pretty much the same character mechanically, especially at higher levels. I don't know.
I just hope that playing a fighter or a barbarian in D&D Next still feels different.
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 - 8:02AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
Just to clarify, my original post is meant more as a question than an argument or suggestion. In other words, is the quoted text from the article implying what follows it in the post? Or am I taking it too far out of context? Having said that, feel free to debate. 
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 21, 2012 - 8:03AM
#5
|
|
|
This is true, but would require them to put a lot of work into abilities, spells and feats. This would work, but WotC would have to organize the options better than they do now. I can also see people complaining about going through all those options, I know this was a complaint about 3rd ed as well. Some people think the appeal of 4th ed is the ease of character creation...a four class system would likely make character creation longer and a bit more complicated, because it forces players to look through the options. I would assume they would create templates for specific builds for those players though.
To be honest, I would love a system like this and so would most of my players, but it would be difficult to balance. The more options you add to any class, the more balance becomes a problem. 3rd ed got so emcumbered with options, that some people were getting annoyed and most classes became unbalance pretty quickly (assuming you used all the optional material).
I think WotC needs to emphasize that the DM has final say on any ability more than they do, especially for new DM's. The players need to know that if an ability combination is making the game unfun for others that it needs to go away and that the DM has that power. I think new DM's want to try to open up all the options for their players, but don't realize that as hard as WotC works to balance them...it doesn't always work and some things get published that are broken.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 21, 2012 - 8:52AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
May 30, 2011
|
I believe that your Orginial post is a fairly accurate representation of the concept presented by Developers for D&D Next.
That being said, I for one am not a big fan of it to be honest. Where do classes like druid/psion/shaman really fit into that type of a wheel? I know that druids were depicted as divine casters in AD&D-3.5E but one of the things that I liked most about 4e was the concept of power sources and how they made so much sense with many of the classes in 4e.
I would prefer instead to build a character in one of the concepts below, in which a beings with either the role or power source your are interested in and then build a class from that.
{Martial}
|
Mix | Mix
|
{Primal}------|-------{Divine}
|
Mix | Mix
|
{Arcane}
or
{Defender}
|
Mix | Mix
|
{Striker}-----|------{Leader}
|
Mix | Mix
|
{Controller}
One of the problems I see with using Actual classes at the core of the character creation method, as indicated from the OP's post, is the flavor that has come to be commonly associated with certain classes. The first model allows a character to be created with flavor as the primary concept so that you don't run into questions like "wait... how does a wizard and cleric make druid?" and the second model would be choosing a Primary or Primary + secondary function and then filling in flavor from there but without some of the typical associations with classes like cleric/wizard/etc.
Any of the 3 would work but I would just rather not have things like primal and psionic classes falling back as funky offshoots of arcanes or divines.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 21, 2012 - 8:59AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2009
|
I would love that approach but that is not what they said or are doing. They are wed to the past and can't get rid of a class like the paladin even though it being a flavored fighter would be better. I do though think that they get the concept and that many things that might have become classes will instead be themes and backgrounds.
The Ranger is my classic kill it off example.
Class: Fighter (or Rogue if you want to play it light armored)
Theme: Two weapon or Sharpshooter or eventually both.
Background: Wilderness Guide/Survivalist. Skills: Survival, Nature, Stealth, Perception
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 21, 2012 - 9:12AM
#8
|
|
|
I would love that approach but that is not what they said or are doing. They are wed to the past and can't get rid of a class like the paladin even though it being a flavored fighter would be better. I do though think that they get the concept and that many things that might have become classes will instead be themes and backgrounds.
The Ranger is my classic kill it off example.
Class: Fighter (or Rogue if you want to play it light armored)
Theme: Two weapon or Sharpshooter or eventually both.
Background: Wilderness Guide/Survivalist. Skills: Survival, Nature, Stealth, Perception
And really, you could do a similar treatment to any of the other "blended" classes: paladin (fighter with a 'holy' kit or cleric with a 'martial' kit), bard (wizard with a 'charming magic and a dash of dashing' kit), druid (cleric with an 'outdoorsy' kit), etc.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 21, 2012 - 9:15AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2009
|
One aspect of this approach is that when balancing the game (and yes I do want some believe it or not) you have to balance each feature as it's own independent thing. So when I tell you I have a 3rd level X I know that it's pretty close if not equal in power to all the other 3rd level X's.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 21, 2012 - 9:46AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Aug 10, 2004
|
I think that the bear minimum we could go regarding to stripping down the classes before we get to something like TheMormegil's note of the just one really, with everything as an option. That's classless is the backbone of mechanic.
What I mean by that is (and I take the basis out of 3.5 and it's Unearthed Arcana) for each class (/class type) there is a mechanic, essentialy, that defines what you do on the field.
Example:
The wizard casts spells from spell slots.
The psion use points to cast and amplify powers.
The fighter swing, and swing once more by using a set bonus of to hit.
You could take those and build on it with feats, skills, manouvers, combos, themes, backgrounds and more.
I can't speak for WotC. But would that your mind at ease? I would sure hope to see something along those lines coming.
P.S.
Rogues are just fighters without armor. /QFT
|
|
|
