|
13 months ago ::
May 23, 2012 - 1:44PM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Jun 29, 2010
|
I'm torn, and always have been. On the one hand I can dig the idea of just the four main classes. However I'd fear the growth of builditis from that, but I'd miss a lot of the flavor without it. Then there's the fact that the main four really don't cover things logically or evenly. On the other I've really come to embrace class based games as being rigidly class defined, and allowing mods/builds/themes really takes away from that. I really LIKE the uniqueness of classes in 3rd and 4th, rather than the subclasses, kits, and so on of 2nd. I think it goes back to my class discussion: community.wizards.com/phoenix182/blog/20...
DISCLAIMER - Everything said by anyone is absolute subjective opinion. There are no objective claims being made by me, or anyone else, unless they overtly state 'The following is an objective claim'. At this point if you choose to be offended by anything I (or anyone else) say the problem is ENTIRELY your own.
WotC won't let us give them money because they won't produce a game we want to play.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 23, 2012 - 1:47PM
#12
|
|
|
However, I disagree with some that think the Paladin, the Warlord and the Ranger are just different flavors of fighter so perhaps I am missing something about the class that makes it special and unique. I always think that people that suggest that about the Paladin, the Warlord and the Ranger when someone says they should just be a different kind of fighter.
The paladin is a fighter/cleric. Toughy guy in heavy armor with healing/protecting options.
The ranger is a rogue/druid. Lot's of damage with nature spellcasting.
The warlord is actually something different. The closest thing to it is a bard, but more fighter and less wizard.
guides
Show
my builds
Show
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.
Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.
Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.
King Fisher Does an excellent job at keeping an enemy disabled in a few ways. Strong.
Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.
Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.
Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.
Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.
Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.
Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.
Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.
Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.
Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.
Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.
Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.
Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.
Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.
Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.
The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.
Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power
Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken
Unnamed Avenger|Runepriest/Hammer of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.
Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.
Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.
Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight, only far more broken.
Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.
Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 23, 2012 - 1:53PM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
However, I disagree with some that think the Paladin, the Warlord and the Ranger are just different flavors of fighter so perhaps I am missing something about the class that makes it special and unique. I always think that people that suggest that about the Paladin, the Warlord and the Ranger when someone says they should just be a different kind of fighter.
I wouldn't lump rangers with fighters; they are skirmishers and more accurately grouped with rogues IMO. Fighters wear heavy armor. Paladins and Warlords could both be themes, with maybe the warlord sacrificing heavy armor for medium, and gaining another ability.
Magic Dual Color Test
Show
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 23, 2012 - 1:56PM
#14
|
|
|
However, I disagree with some that think the Paladin, the Warlord and the Ranger are just different flavors of fighter so perhaps I am missing something about the class that makes it special and unique. I always think that people that suggest that about the Paladin, the Warlord and the Ranger when someone says they should just be a different kind of fighter.
I wouldn't lump rangers with fighters; they are skirmishers and more accurately grouped with rogues IMO. Fighters wear heavy armor. Paladins and Warlords could both be themes, with maybe the warlord sacrificing heavy armor for medium, and gaining another ability.
Fighters could be a theme as easily as Paladins or Warlords could.
Rangers wore heavy armor before 3rd edition, IIRC.
EDIT: I also wasn't the one lumping them, I've seen people say it before and it makes me cringe (just as I cringed when I read you saying Paladins and Warlords could bea theme).
I actually am a proponent of most classes being a theme as well as a class.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 23, 2012 - 2:56PM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
My only issue with class as themes is that everyone has different ideas of what certain classes are and there are many variations within many classes.
My favorite ranger doesn't wield two melee weapons or a bow. He doesn't dance around the battlefield in light infantry skirmish style.
He sneaks around with his greataxe as close as possible using terrain and magic as cover and leaps at his enemies like a lion with a heavy blow. If they somehow don't die, he stabs them with indigenous poisons and venoms and slinks away to wait.
Now if you make Ranger a two weapon fighting, opportunity attack dodging, blender; I can't make Rick the Poisonous Lion as a ranger theme as your ranger has no terrain bonuses or nature spells because those were cut out to fir in the scheme of the theme. I'll have to make some ugly fighter/rogue/cleric mix and have to wait until level 10 to actually play the Rick I want.
Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds.
Constitution Based Class for Next!
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 23, 2012 - 3:06PM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Jul 11, 2008
|
Yeah, I didn't think it through but I guess barbarian doesn't need to be a class either.
Regarding what some of you have been discussing, I've always thought of most of the non-core-four classes as hybrids or reskins:
Paladin = Fighter/Cleric
Bard = Thief/Mage
Ranger = Fighter/Thief/Cleric
Druid = Mage who uses divine spells
Sorcerer = Mage with modified spellcasting
Warlock = Mage who learned his spells from a demon/devil/Cthulhu
Warlord = Agnostic Cleric
Barbarian = Fighter who wears fur and gets angry a lot
The monk stands out as its own thing, and the assassin is just a job title.
Out of all these, I think they should be implemented in 5E like so:
CLASSES
Paladin, Bard, Druid, Ranger, Monk, Warlock**
BUILDS
Sorcerer (Wizard)
THEMES
Warlord, Barbarian, Assassin
**I think the warlock should be redesigned to be the default goto class for the hybrid fighter/mage or gish concept. That seems to be what most people do with it anyway, and where they went with the concept for Essentials.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 23, 2012 - 3:11PM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Jan 19, 2010
|
What's the benefit of reducing classes to themes? All you will essentially do is reduce the amount of flavor and overall mechanics that can be used when building a class, unless your main worry is making sure any variation of abilities can be used by any class--At that point I wonder why you want classes at all.
http://i1003.photobucket.com/albums/af156/Tom_Shambles92/DrSeuss.jpg
http://www.last.fm/user/Pogo92
Endorsed by the C.C.A.A. Booty Patrol.
"If all the classes can compete on equal footing in a combat situation then it becomes less about "Which is the best" and more about "Which conveys the character I want to play"." - Areleth
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 23, 2012 - 6:50PM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Sep 23, 2011
|
Avengers I can see, but Warlock as theme would not be satisfying. Oh and it was Enworld that meantioned the Warlock as Theme, not WOTC so don't worry people, this horrible idea of Warlock being dropped as a class probably won't happen, the class is to popular and favourful.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 23, 2012 - 7:30PM
#19
|
|
|
Probably one hell of a balancing act on the matter.I have seen many opinions on both sides of the fence.If each class has its own completely unique feel and system for abilities that makes one side very happy and the other mad.Have a some what standard system for abilities and the same occurs.Everyone does have their own opinion on what they believe to be a stand alone class of just a subclass posing as a full class.
Also Wotc wants to try an please fans of all editions.The class and subclass versus theme and background could make or break what they are trying to do.Make a certain class or classes a theme/background based concept and leave some actual classes and their will be bitterness.Even if the theme/background thing works well there will still be those that feel short changed.
Is there a limit of 1 background and 1 theme per character?Has that been said anywhere?If not then you could do alot to create just about any class off of just the 4 cores and maybe a few others that do not very will fit the mechanic.
Ranger a base fighter with a nature background and a skirmisher theme.If more then 1 of each allowed then you could add a primal casting theme and a tracker background or a beastmaster theme or dual weapon theme etc.
Paladin as a base cleric with a crusader background and a exorcist theme.If more then 1 allowed then add in divine caster theme and a cavalry background.
I I always felt like some of the others on here that many of the classes felt more like subclasses and could have a similiar version done of them with the use of other means.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 23, 2012 - 9:52PM
#20
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2004
|
Wizards. Think about it. Wizards aren't defined by what they can do or how they fight - when it comes to abilities, wizards are just "guy who does magic", whether that be summoning monsters to fight for them, transforming into a monster themselves, buffing up and wading into melee with a sword, hurling elemental themed area effect death, manipulating the battlefield, raising the undead, crafting illusions and enchantments, sneaking around invisibly and magicking doors open, and so on and so fourth.
Wizards can do anything, which means there's nothing wizards can do as a class that defines them. No, what defines a wizard is fluff. Not what they do, but that they do it with magic. And that they learned said magic as a student or apprentice. And that they keep a list of said magic in a book. And that their magic was delivered alongside an academic education reflected in a set of intelligence based knowledge skills. These aren't class issues of what a character can or can't do, or how they do or don't contribute to combat or dungeon delving - these are issues of background and story. Thematic issues. Background issues.
So have a "scholar" background that grants those knowledge skills, a "wizard" theme for casters that teaches them basic divination cantrips regardless of their class and has them cast their daily spells from a spellbook, letting them learn more spells at the cost of preparing them in advance. And then have half a dozen spellcasting classes - one that focuses on summoning monsters and one that focuses on enchantment and illusion, and one that focuses on shadow and necromancy, and one that focuses on blowing guys up with energy spells, and so on. Heck, have one for each classical school of magic, or more! And they can all be "wizards" if that's how they learned their magic, or they can be "sorcerers" if they took the "magic in the blood" theme instead.
Necromancy: Friendship is MagicSpoiler:
Show
|
|
|
