Depending on what time period you're playing in, most traditions might be working with the Jedi, and thus have their talents available to any jedi trained force user.
That is totally false. SW SAGA core rulebook, page 106: "like the Force talents presented earlier in this chapter, these talents are available only to characters with the Force Sensitivity feat (page 85), and even then only if the character is a member of that tradition." So, you were totally wrong about that, you were wrong about the BAB difference calculation, and you were wrong in the paragraph in which you said that you can "literally ignore class talent lists", making no mention in that paragraph (or the one prior) of this being for taking Force talents only. I can bring up some more things that I have prepared, but maybe it's time you bow out of this discussion gracefully, don't you think? We should probably get back on topic.
Seriously, bud, I did not edit a single post in this thread. You're making things up, and/or trying to cover for a mistake on your part. Just accept it.
But I didn't make any mistakes. You did, and I pointed them out with clear objective truths. So you went back and edited a few things, and even after that you were still wrong.
Didn't edit my post, buddy.
give it up.
I made one mistake, which I admitted as soon as it was pointed out. The rest, you're just wrong about.
Further, learn more star wars. Many force traditions were folded into the New Jedi Order, making it reasonable to be both a Jedi, and a "member" of another tradition. Further, a person could start as a member of, say, the Kilian Rangers, and then join the Jedi Order. He'd probably have to turn in his Kilian Ranger gear, and recreate it or have it recreated for him, but that's not a big deal. Even more importantly, those requirements are up to the DM, so anything from "My character trained with [tradition x] for years alongside his Jedi training, and was named a member [because of reasons]" to "My character was born into this tradition, and it's his primary focus" can be acceptable, depending on the DM. The New Jedi Order era is the one in which this sort of multi-tradition character is most reasonable, but it's possible in other times as well.
You keep amending your arguments every time I point out one of your errors. You made the claim about being able to take those tradition talents just because the Jedi are in contact with those traditions, and that claim was completely false.
Besides, even you are a member of the Killian Rangers, you are not ALSO going to be a member of the Dathomiri Witches, so you are still not going to have access to all those Force talents regardless.
lol and now you can't even tell the difference between the words "amend" and "clarify". Fantastic.
That was never my claim, so when you made it clear that you at least were taking it that way, I clarified. Because I debate like an adult.
And after a certain point in the universe, one could actually train under, and thus reasonably be considered one of, both traditions. Also, I never said you could have access to all the traditions (only "probably most" of them), nor did I ever say that you'd have access to all Jedi affiliated traditions at once. One person can obviously only train in so many specialties at once, no matter how many are available to them. As GM, I'd require roleplaying admittance into one or the other non jedi tradition, but depending on the traditions, it might be easy enough that I'd not even require that involved a backstory.
None of which even touches the fact that the simple statement "you can completely ignore the class talent list" would be true even with only one tradition, and probably even without them. That statement doesn't require doing so to be a great idea to be true, it only requires that there be enough force talents to make up all your non PrC talent levels.
But if you want to continue pedantically splitting hairs about an entirely off topic system, you'll need to find someone else to oblige you. I won't even be reading you posts from now on, unless I can quickly see that they're on topic while scrolling down the page. And maybe not then.
last post on this horribly inane tangential debate
Show
It's 'ridiculous', not 'rediculous'.No worries. You can always go back and edit it.;)[/quote] Really? Spelling corrections? That's pretty sad, bro. You're clearly just trolling now. T
I think 2e had difficulty being accepted because they chose not to include the monk as a class. It is fairly distinct (mechanically), and has plenty of room to grow in the way of styles, just like rogue schemes. The same goes for druid. A druid isn't a cleric/priest of nature. They certainly share some similarities, but that could be said for the 5e cleric and 3e sorcerer (both use spontaneous casting and limited spell list). IMO, both Monk and Druid need to appear as base classes in the initial set of books. FWIW, I am not a huge fan or either, although I played both. I just feel it's the right decision.
Also, I really want 5e to follow a similar model as Pathfinders class archetype system. You won't need a gazillion core classes that way, and allows for new material to be released with less chance of breaking the entire existing system.
If WotC published (instead of a single PHB) a book of classes, a book of backgrounds, and a book of themes, would that be so bad? If a group only wanted classes and backgrounds, then they won't need to purchase the theme book. Since backgrounds and themes are completely independant and optional, why not keep them separate? It seems that many are stuck with the "must have a PHB, DMG, and MM" mentality, but that breakdown is not a "must have" to keep DDN still feeling like "D&D" to me. While we are at it, a book of races would fit into that model as well.
Campaign setting books could be released containing any new races/classes/backgrounds/themes unique to that setting, or could simply reference the main books and essentially assemble the mechanical elements that way (keeping the campaign setting books more narrative in purpose).
I can see your point on Monk. While I don't think it was as big as a Druid and Bard exclusion, it would raise eyebrows. Does anyone else agree/disagree with that?
I don't necessarily agree with a book of xxx and a book of yyyy and so on as a good model. WotC as spent a good part of the last decade burning bridges. It might seem more of a money grab. In addition, requiring more books to be bought for startup will limit its appeal. It would effectively take it off the market for new players that have never played a RPG before. While it could represent a solution to one problem, it would create a set of other problems in my opinion.
I can see your point on Monk. While I don't think it was as big as a Druid and Bard exclusion, it would raise eyebrows. Does anyone else agree/disagree with that? I don't necessarily agree with a book of xxx and a book of yyyy and so on as a good
I don't necessarily agree with a book of xxx and a book of yyyy and so on as a good model. WotC as spent a good part of the last decade burning bridges. It might seem more of a money grab. In addition, requiring more books to be bought for startup will limit its appeal. It would effectively take it off the market for new players that have never played a RPG before. While it could represent a solution to one problem, it would create a set of other problems in my opinion.
Since the current angle is that backgrounds and themes are optional, excluding them from the "core" is fairly reasonable, and would also make less of the core book "wasted" for those that don't want to use them. What would turn me off is another version of the two 4e essentials "core" books, where the amount of duplicated information was truly mind-boggling. IMO, WotC would have been better off merging those books together.
For 5e, I would prefer minimal duplicate information between resources. If WotC wants to later publish new options for classes (or new classes), I would expect it would be based on campaign setting. I'd rather not see an ever-growing list of new classes, as it really just messes with overall edition balance (4e did that exactly wrong IMO, although I still like the game overall).
Since the current angle is that backgrounds and themes are optional, excluding them from the "core" is fairly reasonable, and would also make less of the core book "wasted" for those that don't want to use them. What would turn me off is another vers
Further, learn more star wars. Many force traditions were folded into the New Jedi Order, making it reasonable to be both a Jedi, and a "member" of another tradition. Further, a person could start as a member of, say, the Kilian Rangers, and then join the Jedi Order. He'd probably have to turn in his Kilian Ranger gear, and recreate it or have it recreated for him, but that's not a big deal. Even more importantly, those requirements are up to the DM, so anything from "My character trained with [tradition x] for years alongside his Jedi training, and was named a member [because of reasons]" to "My character was born into this tradition, and it's his primary focus" can be acceptable, depending on the DM. The New Jedi Order era is the one in which this sort of multi-tradition character is most reasonable, but it's possible in other times as well.
You keep amending your arguments every time I point out one of your errors. You made the claim about being able to take those tradition talents just because the Jedi are in contact with those traditions, and that claim was completely false.
Besides, even you are a member of the Killian Rangers, you are not ALSO going to be a member of the Dathomiri Witches, so you are still not going to have access to all those Force talents regardless.
lol and now you can't even tell the difference between the words "amend" and "clarify". Fantastic.
You added parts to your arguments in attempt to correct for the errors resulting from their omission. Pretty straightforward.
And after a certain point in the universe, one could actually train under, and thus reasonably be considered one of, both traditions. Also, I never said you could have access to all the traditions (only "probably most" of them), nor did I ever say that you'd have access to all Jedi affiliated traditions at once.
So you are going to such great lengths to get a few measly Force talents that you have to join all of these esoteric traditions? No offense, but it sounds pretty extreme to me, to say the least. Do you ask your GM ahead of time if you can do all of this stuff in the name of optimization? It doesn't sound like it would be much fun for the other players...
And I really doubt that you will find many GMs that would allow you access to "probably most" of the Force traditions presented in the rulebooks, especially if you are intentionally doing it just to rack up Force talents. That kind of ruthless optimization seems to completely violate the spirit of the Force tradition mechanics in the first place.
You keep amending your arguments every time I point out one of your errors. You made the claim about being able to take those tradition talents just because the Jedi are in contact with those traditions, and that claim was completely false.Besides, e
There are only 6 attributes affected by class. Too many classes, and they start duplicating their effect on attributes. Beyond that point, classes become superfluous. If you have a rogue that has the same attribute modifiers as a palladin, then there's no point in differentiating the classes. They only assuage the player who wants to play a really, really, specirfic type of character. For all intents and purposes during the game, a "spanish inquisitor" class is the same as a "german Untersucher" class. Their effect on attributes would be the same. Let players class themselves however they want, but keep it simple and give them the attribute modifiers most closely associated with that type of character. Same thing applies for weapons, spells, etc. If a player comes up with a character with a special spell only that specific player can use, it still does x damage, like any other weapon, or has a unique effect that you couldn't anticipate when you created your adventure anyway. "Exceptional" classes only complicate the dynamic. Keep it simple.
There are only 6 attributes affected by class. Too many classes, and they start duplicating their effect on attributes. Beyond that point, classes become superfluous. If you have a rogue that has the same attribute modifiers as a palladin, then there
I dislike lots of classes because it forces each one to specialize in a manner that never pleases anyone. The result is the inevitable release of alternative class options that transform the class into something different... which defeats the wntire purpose of making the class so specialized in the first place.
Why have a Fighter and a Barbarian class- both of which favor melee weapons, medium to heavy armor, high HP, etc- and then create a "Berserker Fighter" and "Non Magical Barbarian" as optional class features? You just made each class more like the one it was created to be distinct from.
Why create the Wizard as the generalist caster, the Sorcerer as a blasty caster, and the Bard as an illusionist caster and then introduce abilites that make the Wizard more blasty, the Sorcerer more of an illusionist, and the Bard more of a generalist? All the while restricting them to no or light armor, limited weapon selection, the same handful of implements, and reliance on arcane spells?
Why not make the classes more generic in the first place?
I think one of the reasons why the Fighter and Rogue were so popular in 3E was because each one only provided a framework. The Fighter's bonus feats and the Rogue's large number of skill points allowed players to create varied characters within the same class.
Aside from its obvious power, one of the reasons why the Cleric was the most popular divine class was because its Domains allowed for greater customization. You could play a heavy armor wearing, warhammer wielding smiting Templar or a hide armor wearing, staff wielding, plant/animal magic themed nature shaman.
The Bard was often a trap for players who thought they were getting a Rogue/Sorcerer, while the Paladin had a lot of baggage that people who wanted a Fighter/Cleric didn't need.
Four Core Classes: Offensive Caster (usually arcane casters), Defensive Caster (usually divine casters), Skilled Warrior (usually rogues), Brute Warrior (usually fighters). On top of their basic options you can just add the more specific sublcass options, which come with an extra armor or weapon proficiency, and a handful of class features (spellbook, turn undead, sneak attack, weapon specialization) and access to specific spells or maneuvers.
You'd fit a lot more total classes in there too, since you don't have to reprint the progression table, spells, and maneuvers for every single class in every single entry.
I dislike lots of classes because it forces each one to specialize in a manner that never pleases anyone. The result is the inevitable release of alternative class options that transform the class into something different... which defeats the wntire
I dislike lots of classes because it forces each one to specialize in a manner that never pleases anyone. The result is the inevitable release of alternative class options that transform the class into something different... which defeats the wntire purpose of making the class so specialized in the first place.
Why have a Fighter and a Barbarian class- both of which favor melee weapons, medium to heavy armor, high HP, etc- and then create a "Berserker Fighter" and "Non Magical Barbarian" as optional class features? You just made each class more like the one it was created to be distinct from.
Why create the Wizard as the generalist caster, the Sorcerer as a blasty caster, and the Bard as an illusionist caster and then introduce abilites that make the Wizard more blasty, the Sorcerer more of an illusionist, and the Bard more of a generalist? All the while restricting them to no or light armor, limited weapon selection, the same handful of implements, and reliance on arcane spells?
Why not make the classes more generic in the first place?
I think one of the reasons why the Fighter and Rogue were so popular in 3E was because each one only provided a framework. The Fighter's bonus feats and the Rogue's large number of skill points allowed players to create varied characters within the same class.
Aside from its obvious power, one of the reasons why the Cleric was the most popular divine class was because its Domains allowed for greater customization. You could play a heavy armor wearing, warhammer wielding smiting Templar or a hide armor wearing, staff wielding, plant/animal magic themed nature shaman.
The Bard was often a trap for players who thought they were getting a Rogue/Sorcerer, while the Paladin had a lot of baggage that people who wanted a Fighter/Cleric didn't need.
Four Core Classes: Offensive Caster (usually arcane casters), Defensive Caster (usually divine casters), Skilled Warrior (usually rogues), Brute Warrior (usually fighters). On top of their basic options you can just add the more specific sublcass options, which come with an extra armor or weapon proficiency, and a handful of class features (spellbook, turn undead, sneak attack, weapon specialization) and access to specific spells or maneuvers.
You'd fit a lot more total classes in there too, since you don't have to reprint the progression table, spells, and maneuvers for every single class in every single entry.
4e did this, it was called Roles. Everyone used the same advancement table.
People hated it apparently.
Personally I consider 4 classes with tweaks much too samey.
4e did this, it was called Roles. Everyone used the same advancement table.People hated it apparently.Personally I consider 4 classes with tweaks much too samey.
I dislike lots of classes because it forces each one to specialize in a manner that never pleases anyone. The result is the inevitable release of alternative class options that transform the class into something different... which defeats the wntire purpose of making the class so specialized in the first place.
4e botched up it's classes with overlapping "builds" and sub-classes that didn't work properly. However, I wonder why you think this is *forced* to happen? It seems to me that if you keep the classes more distinct than they were, and resist the urge to add overlapping, pointless subclasses and replace them with *properly* designed classes and sub-classes to fill the gaps, you could end up with a great system.
4e botched up it's classes with overlapping "builds" and sub-classes that didn't work properly. However, I wonder why you think this is *forced* to happen? It seems to me that if you keep the classes more distinct than they were, and resist the urge
Hey, maybe not in the world of modular rules. I could totally see a class-construction module where they lift the veil on the underlying math of constructing a class from scratch and let you do-it-yourself.
Hey, maybe not in the world of modular rules. I could totally see a class-construction module where they lift the veil on the underlying math of constructing a class from scratch and let you do-it-yourself.
Hey, maybe not in the world of modular rules. I could totally see a class-construction module where they lift the veil on the underlying math of constructing a class from scratch and let you do-it-yourself.
Be very, very careful about wishing the horrors of Skills and Powers on yourself. I can't stress that enough. You will have more munchkins coming out of the woodwork than you'll know what to do with, all with perfectly reasonable arguments on a case-by-case basis that, when taken in aggregate, will make Pun Pun look like a fun, balanced character.
Once upon a time I thought that'd be pretty neat too.
Hey, maybe not in the world of modular rules. I could totally see a class-construction module where they lift the veil on the underlying math of constructing a class from scratch and let you do-it-yourself. [/quote]Be very, very careful about wishing
Yeah, wasn't there a build-your-own class module for 1 and/or 2e? I wasn't a serious player that early, but my friends told me amusing stories of custom classes hitting level 20 before the normal wizard hit level 2, thanks to manipulations of the relation between class features and the experience table...
Yeah, wasn't there a build-your-own class module for 1 and/or 2e? I wasn't a serious player that early, but my friends told me amusing stories of custom classes hitting level 20 before the normal wizard hit level 2, thanks to manipulations of the rel
There was one in 2e DMG. It was both intentionally crippled and hilariously abusable, to the point where it was possible to make a class with negative XP tables.
There was one in 2e DMG. It was both intentionally crippled and hilariously abusable, to the point where it was possible to make a class with negative XP tables.
Hey, maybe not in the world of modular rules. I could totally see a class-construction module where they lift the veil on the underlying math of constructing a class from scratch and let you do-it-yourself.
Be very, very careful about wishing the horrors of Skills and Powers on yourself. I can't stress that enough. You will have more munchkins coming out of the woodwork than you'll know what to do with, all with perfectly reasonable arguments on a case-by-case basis that, when taken in aggregate, will make Pun Pun look like a fun, balanced character.
Once upon a time I thought that'd be pretty neat too.
Someone wants to create a character they have to clear it with me as the DM first. I have the same 5-6 players every campaign. They know I can smell BS builds, and honestly they prefer a character that has background to their abilities.
Hey, maybe not in the world of modular rules. I could totally see a class-construction module where they lift the veil on the underlying math of constructing a class from scratch and let you do-it-yourself. [/quote]Be very, very careful about wishing
I think one of the reasons why the Fighter and Rogue were so popular in 3E.
Your whole post sounded like bizzaro speak to me, but this line in particular really encapulates how utterly and completely alien your experience of the game is to my own. I'm sure your opinion is perfectly rational and valid from whatever strange perspective it is that you view it from, but that frame of reference is so different from my own as to be functionally inconcievable.
Your whole post sounded like bizzaro speak to me, but this line in particular really encapulates how utterly and completely alien your experience of the game is to my own. I'm sure your opinion is perfectly rational and valid from whatever strange p
Yeah, wasn't there a build-your-own class module for 1 and/or 2e? I wasn't a serious player that early, but my friends told me amusing stories of custom classes hitting level 20 before the normal wizard hit level 2, thanks to manipulations of the relation between class features and the experience table...
That's the one. Skills and Powers. Among the worst things it did was break every attribute into 2 pieces -- then made it so only one piece of each attribute would really -ever- come up in game, and you could adjust each 'part' by +-2. So every fighter went straight for the 20 'Power' (to hit and damage) and the 16 on...whatever the other was. Con was 20 for hp, and 16 for holding your breath or whatever -- something really silly that never really saw use. Then there was a chock-full list of casting variants that put Vancian to shame in terms of raw brokenness, plus a list of 'powers' you could pick and choose from with 'flaws' that would make a Mary Sue seem like the hunchback of Notre Dame in comparison. Then they printed another whole section of them for Planeswalkers (any character who had been to the Planes and adventured there) in Dragon.
In one of my more embarrassing moments, I threw together a disgustingly overpowered (and it only took me like 15 minutes for the -whole character-, its not like I spent hours mincing every detail) Abyssal Warrioress who singlehandedly killed two adult blue dragons in two rounds because our party wanted an invincible warrioress. She took not one single point of damage from them, either. Did I mention she was level 6?
That's the one. Skills and Powers. Among the worst things it did was break every attribute into 2 pieces -- then made it so only one piece of each attribute would really -ever- come up in game, and you could adjust each 'part' by +-2. So every fig
Someone wants to create a character they have to clear it with me as the DM first. I have the same 5-6 players every campaign. They know I can smell BS builds, and honestly they prefer a character that has background to their abilities.
Oh I'm the same way, AH. But a lot of people/DM's aren't, and they're the ones who would suffer from something like this.
Oh I'm the same way, AH. But a lot of people/DM's aren't, and they're the ones who would suffer from something like this.
If they remade the S&P for 5e, I would be shocked if they got the balance right, but I would also not dismiss it outright. D&D really wasn't meant to be classless, but I really disliked the rigidity of certain classes (for much of D&D's history). Alignment restrictions are a personal pet peeve, but the lack of customization outside of feats is also bothersome. This is why I want all classes to allow for subclasses like the rogue schemes appear to be. Keep the core fixed mechanics to a minimum, and allow for some variety for each class. I'd rather make sure each core class had a distinct fixed core mechanic or two, and another few from an ever growing list.
Fighters would get the attack and damage bonus, but can opt not to get heavy armor prof (if they are going finesse/dex) for other options.
Rogues keep light armor and finesse weapons prof, but can pick X number of skill trainings, or a different feature (a thug might not care so much for sneak attack, but maybe a dirty fighting feature instead).
Clerics have domains.
Wizards should have schools/specializations.
Sorcerers should have bloodlines.
The hybrid classes can follow this model as well. Rangers keep their favored species/terrain, and probably preferred combat style (not a huge fan of this, but it has been around forever). Barbarians always have their rage schtick, and pick how their rage affects them (may be +4 to any two physical stats, not just str/con). Monks should get no armor, but dex+wis to AC, and improved unarmed strike as default, plus a bonus on a choice of combat maneuvers. I'm not sure what the core mechanic for druids are, to be honest. Some love the shapechanging, some love the pets, and some love the summons. Paladins are the one class I got no idea how to break down, mostly because they are my least favorite/understood class.
If they remade the S&P for 5e, I would be shocked if they got the balance right, but I would also not dismiss it outright. D&D really wasn't meant to be classless, but I really disliked the rigidity of certain classes (for much of D&D's history). Ali
Keep the core fixed mechanics to a minimum, and allow for some variety for each class.
This seems to be the current scheme of things. Look at the two clerics in the playtest. The Pelor cleric has twice the dexterity and half the strength has his Moradin fellow-traveller. With such a wide disparity between two characters in the same class, why would there be any need at all to create a new class? You can already customize a class to the point where you would be hard pressed to identify them as the same class.
This seems to be the current scheme of things. Look at the two clerics in the playtest. The Pelor cleric has twice the dexterity and half the strength has his Moradin fellow-traveller. With such a wide disparity between two characters in the same cl
Someone wants to create a character they have to clear it with me as the DM first. I have the same 5-6 players every campaign. They know I can smell BS builds, and honestly they prefer a character that has background to their abilities.
Oh I'm the same way, AH. But a lot of people/DM's aren't, and they're the ones who would suffer from something like this.
Are there that many DMs out there with low Will saves?
Oh I'm the same way, AH. But a lot of people/DM's aren't, and they're the ones who would suffer from something like this.[/quote]Are there that many DMs out there with low Will saves?
Are there that many DMs out there with low Will saves?
There are a lot of DMs who don't have the patience and expertise to also do the designer's job of putting together a playable game for them.
Miladoon: the 3.5 fighter wasn't a class, it was the option to delay class features a level to take a feat instead. I'd hardly call something that was occasionally dipped one to two levels to qualify earlier for a PRC a 'popular class'.
Then again, clearly there are others here who have had very different experiences so... whatev's.
There are a lot of DMs who don't have the patience and expertise to also do the designer's job of putting together a playable game for them.Miladoon: the 3.5 fighter wasn't a class, it was the option to delay class features a level to take a feat ins
Someone wants to create a character they have to clear it with me as the DM first. I have the same 5-6 players every campaign. They know I can smell BS builds, and honestly they prefer a character that has background to their abilities.
Oh I'm the same way, AH. But a lot of people/DM's aren't, and they're the ones who would suffer from something like this.
Are there that many DMs out there with low Will saves?
The bigger problem isn't low Will save, but rather not spending skill points in the Game Balance Skill. "You're multiclassing Fighter, Rogue, Barbarian, and Ranger? Munchkin! Joe is fine with two classes, Cleric and Dwoemerkeeper. And Bob made a two class character, Illusionist and Shadowcraft Mage. What do you think you're trying to pull with four classes? You're obviously trying to twink out your character and abuse multiclassing, stop being a munchkin!"
Oh I'm the same way, AH. But a lot of people/DM's aren't, and they're the ones who would suffer from something like this.[/quote]Are there that many DMs out there with low Will saves?[/quote]The bigger problem isn't low Will save, but rather not spe
Someone wants to create a character they have to clear it with me as the DM first. I have the same 5-6 players every campaign. They know I can smell BS builds, and honestly they prefer a character that has background to their abilities.
Oh I'm the same way, AH. But a lot of people/DM's aren't, and they're the ones who would suffer from something like this.
Are there that many DMs out there with low Will saves?
The bigger problem isn't low Will save, but rather not spending skill points in the Game Balance Skill. "You're multiclassing Fighter, Rogue, Barbarian, and Ranger? Munchkin! Joe is fine with two classes, Cleric and Dwoemerkeeper. And Bob made a two class character, Illusionist and Shadowcraft Mage. What do you think you're trying to pull with four classes? You're obviously trying to twink out your character and abuse multiclassing, stop being a munchkin!"
Ok.
I don't think you have to be a genius or spend a lot of time reading optimizer posts to be able to sniff out ridiculous builds. I have my players build their character out from the designated starting level to level 20. If I don't understand what they are trying to do, I ask them "Why the one level dip into Dweomerkeeper?".
I also don't see how that DM that has problems sniffing out those builds affects other people they don't interact or play with. I think most players that would play with that DM would get the picture that they are in over their heads and move on to find another.
Basically, why do we the community here have to be big brother for the rest of the hobby? Some people unknowingly play a munchkin campaign and have fun. Is it because you could have munchkins A through C partying with the Straight Fighter gimp?
I have trouble understanding why everything has to be perfectly balanced across the board out of the box.
Oh I'm the same way, AH. But a lot of people/DM's aren't, and they're the ones who would suffer from something like this.[/quote]Are there that many DMs out there with low Will saves?[/quote]The bigger problem isn't low Will save, but rather not spe
lol and now you can't even tell the difference between the words "amend" and "clarify". Fantastic.
You added parts to your arguments in attempt to correct for the errors resulting from their omission. Pretty straightforward.
Thanks for proving my point, as that's specifically not what I did.
Which of course ignore the fact that there's absolutely nothing wrong with amending one's argument as a debate developes, and that refusing to do so when there is reason to do so is a sign of argumentative weakness.
But in this case, I had no reason to, so I didn't. I did, however clarify my position, by providing more detailed information.
Nice try, though.
the rest of your post is pointless even to the off topic debate it relates to, so I'd not respond to it even if I hadn't already decided to stop engaging in the off topic debate.
In other words, just stop.
You added parts to your arguments in attempt to correct for the errors resulting from their omission. Pretty straightforward.[/quote]Thanks for proving my point, as that's specifically not what I did. Which of course ignore the fact that there's abso
Basically, why do we the community here have to be big brother for the rest of the hobby? Some people unknowingly play a munchkin campaign and have fun. Is it because you could have munchkins A through C partying with the Straight Fighter gimp?
Personally I consider 4 classes with tweaks much too samey.
Seriously. At that point, you're literally not gaining anything by keeping the classes at all. Alternity does it alright, by having class intentionally not that meaningful, only providing some small traits and then determining how cheap skill ranks are for you, but with the whole game otherwise being contained within the skill system. Basically, classes are just some minor bonuses. So, only having a small amount works.
In an anti-skill system like next wants to be, that just doens't work. You'd have to try doing it with interchangable class features within each class, which creates a more unweildy sort of option bloat than class bloat, but without the benefits of distinct classes or the benefits of a classless system.
Someone wants to create a character they have to clear it with me as the DM first. I have the same 5-6 players every campaign. They know I can smell BS builds, and honestly they prefer a character that has background to their abilities.
Oh I'm the same way, AH. But a lot of people/DM's aren't, and they're the ones who would suffer from something like this.
Are there that many DMs out there with low Will saves?
it's not about a will save, actually. Low or high.
I don't think you have to be a genius or spend a lot of time reading optimizer posts to be able to sniff out ridiculous builds. I have my players build their character out from the designated starting level to level 20. If I don't understand what they are trying to do, I ask them "Why the one level dip into Dweomerkeeper?".
I also don't see how that DM that has problems sniffing out those builds affects other people they don't interact or play with. I think most players that would play with that DM would get the picture that they are in over their heads and move on to find another.
Basically, why do we the community here have to be big brother for the rest of the hobby? Some people unknowingly play a munchkin campaign and have fun. Is it because you could have munchkins A through C partying with the Straight Fighter gimp?
I have trouble understanding why everything has to be perfectly balanced across the board out of the box.
Most DMs I've ever met would rather not a) force their players to build their character all the way to lvl 20 right from the start, and 2) inspect every single option every player ever takes.
further, very few of the players I've met would put up with it.
That whole thing may work for your group, but my experience tells me that your group is the exception.
The game needs to be balanced, out of the box. It's not about being anyone's big brother, and it's not even about avoiding munchkins. You can munchkin all day in 4e, and you've never going to get a Codzilla or punpun. The worst thing in the game is the twin striking ranger, and the damage stacking issue that makes that bad needs to be errata'd.
The game should work in the hands of inexperienced DMs, lazy DMs, DMs that don't really "get" system math and the like, etc. In order to do that, it needs to be balanced. Not perfectly balanced. 4e isn't, and no one on these forums has ever, or probably will ever, call for perfect balance in any RPG. It just needs to be at least as balanced as 4e, including essentials.
Seriously. At that point, you're literally not gaining anything by keeping the classes at all. Alternity does it alright, by having class intentionally not that meaningful, only providing some small traits and then determining how cheap skill ranks a
You are the one who has said more than once that you won't respond to this stuff anymore, and yet you keep responding. I find that very interesting.
Me? I have no such qualms about continuing to respond.
And yes, you definitely amended your argument about getting talents from Force traditions. First you claimed that you could just take from those tradition trees just because the Jedi were in contact with those traditions (which is false). Then you said that you could somehow join "probably most" of these traditions. And oh yeah, you simply ignored this part of my last post on the subject:
So you are going to such great lengths to get a few measly Force talents that you have to join all of these esoteric traditions? No offense, but it sounds pretty extreme to me, to say the least. Do you ask your GM ahead of time if you can do all of this stuff in the name of optimization? It doesn't sound like it would be much fun for the other players...
And I really doubt that you will find many GMs that would allow you access to "probably most" of the Force traditions presented in the rulebooks, especially if you are intentionally doing it just to rack up Force talents. That kind of ruthless optimization seems to completely violate the spirit of the Force tradition mechanics in the first place.
Also, you seem to be having a problem with the quote function, since in your last post on the subject you put your quote under my name, and my response ("You added parts to your arguments in attempt to correct for the errors resulting from their omission. Pretty straightforward.") appearing to be the first sentence in your post. Was this intentional? If so, then I am flattered that you liked my sentence so much that you tried to make it appear like yours.
You are the one who has said more than once that you won't respond to this stuff anymore, and yet you keep responding. I find that very interesting.Me? I have no such qualms about continuing to respond.And yes, you definitely amended your argument ab
And yes, you definitely amended your argument about getting talents from Force traditions. First you claimed that you could just take from those tradition trees just because the Jedi were in contact with those traditions (which is false). Then you said that you could somehow join "probably most" of these traditions. And oh yeah, you simply ignored this part of my last post on the subject:
Complete mischaracterization.
You misunderstood one of my posts, so I corrected your misunderstanding.
And I ignored that part of your post because there was no reason to respond to it. It was a bunch of nonsense that displayed a clear lack of understanding of what you were responding to. Again.
Also, when someone points out an exploitable feature of a system, and you try to accuse them of "ruthless optimization" and the like, you're using dishonest debate tactics. Not to mention making logical leaps.
But, since you clearly won't stop trying to further derail this thread, and won't even be polite about doing so (do you refuse to use sblocks, or do you not know how?), I'm just going to put you on my ignore list now.
Goodbye.
Ponies
Show
Complete mischaracterization. You misunderstood one of my posts, so I corrected your misunderstanding. And I ignored that part of your post because there was no reason to respond to it. It was a bunch of nonsense that displayed a c
And yes, you definitely amended your argument about getting talents from Force traditions. First you claimed that you could just take from those tradition trees just because the Jedi were in contact with those traditions (which is false). Then you said that you could somehow join "probably most" of these traditions. And oh yeah, you simply ignored this part of my last post on the subject:
Complete mischaracterization.
You misunderstood one of my posts, so I corrected your misunderstanding.
That is simply not true. You added parts your argument in attempt to correct for a previous error, and since then you have yet to justify the latest iteration of your argument.
You are actually suggesting joining "probably most" Force traditions, in a bizarre and extremely blatant attempt to optimize. And now you just won't address it, and instead you are simply making unsubstantiated accusations that I'm mischaracterizing or misunderstanding something, when we both know that this is not the case.
Complete mischaracterization.You misunderstood one of my posts, so I corrected your misunderstanding.[/quote]That is simply not true. You added parts your argument in attempt to correct for a previous error, and since then you have yet to justify the
As so many have said, classes are only as useful as they are distinct from other classes. Each class should have a primary schtick, but I would rather not see each class be so rigid as to create a need for a lot of core classes. It would be best IMO for WotC to pick out the top 1-2 unique features for each class ever published (all editions), and leave a few options for customization within the same class. Any set of classes that share the same unique features should be melded into a single class.
OT: Since at this point there are more than enough posts to warrent it's own thread, could we have the side discussion between DBW and JS moved to a new thread? I don't feel it's really adding anything to this one.
As so many have said, classes are only as useful as they are distinct from other classes. Each class should have a primary schtick, but I would rather not see each class be so rigid as to create a need for a lot of core classes. It would be best IMO
Basically, why do we the community here have to be big brother for the rest of the hobby? Some people unknowingly play a munchkin campaign and have fun. Is it because you could have munchkins A through C partying with the Straight Fighter gimp?
Yes.
That isn't a good enough reason for me. Straight Fighter gimp will learn from Munchkins if he likes their playstyle and the DM does too. If not, find another group.
Yes.[/quote]That isn't a good enough reason for me. Straight Fighter gimp will learn from Munchkins if he likes their playstyle and the DM does too. If not, find another group.
As so many have said, classes are only as useful as they are distinct from other classes. Each class should have a primary schtick, but I would rather not see each class be so rigid as to create a need for a lot of core classes. It would be best IMO for WotC to pick out the top 1-2 unique features for each class ever published (all editions), and leave a few options for customization within the same class. Any set of classes that share the same unique features should be melded into a single class.
OT: Since at this point there are more than enough posts to warrent it's own thread, could we have the side discussion between DBW and JS moved to a new thread? I don't feel it's really adding anything to this one.
Basically, why do we the community here have to be big brother for the rest of the hobby? Some people unknowingly play a munchkin campaign and have fun. Is it because you could have munchkins A through C partying with the Straight Fighter gimp?
Yes.
That isn't a good enough reason for me. Straight Fighter gimp will learn from Munchkins if he likes their playstyle and the DM does too. If not, find another group.
The problem with the unbalanced game is that it doesn't take a munchkin to invalidate someone else's character.
The problem with your argument is that most people play with their friends, and so "find another group" isn't really a satisfactory answer.
Discussion over. I blocked the other user.Yes.[/quote]That isn't a good enough reason for me. Straight Fighter gimp will learn from Munchkins if he likes their playstyle and the DM does too. If not, find another group.[/quote] The problem with the un
Basically, why do we the community here have to be big brother for the rest of the hobby? Some people unknowingly play a munchkin campaign and have fun. Is it because you could have munchkins A through C partying with the Straight Fighter gimp?
Yes.
That isn't a good enough reason for me. Straight Fighter gimp will learn from Munchkins if he likes their playstyle and the DM does too. If not, find another group.
I hate to bring up "rollplay/roleplay," but...what if, after 4-5 sessions of growing very attached to your noble swordsman's character, you realize that he's completely incapable of participating on the level of the casters? Do you scrap your character development to bring in a wizard, or keep roleplaying your character and bring a book to read for whenever the wizards start winning combat themselves?
Yes.[/quote]That isn't a good enough reason for me. Straight Fighter gimp will learn from Munchkins if he likes their playstyle and the DM does too. If not, find another group.[/quote]I hate to bring up "rollplay/roleplay," but...what if, after 4-5 s
Keep the core fixed mechanics to a minimum, and allow for some variety for each class.
This seems to be the current scheme of things. Look at the two clerics in the playtest. The Pelor cleric has twice the dexterity and half the strength has his Moradin fellow-traveller. With such a wide disparity between two characters in the same class, why would there be any need at all to create a new class? You can already customize a class to the point where you would be hard pressed to identify them as the same class.
Actually, there seems to be some confusion from the developers. For example, wizards and fighters are not getting a scheme mechanism at this time according the some developers. All wizards will be differentiated from spell selection; not by any class feature. Fighters might end up with two themes. Both of these will create problems for the playerbase in my opinion.
I think the wizard is suffering from an overpower complex inherent in MMO design. Basically, the developers create a class that is unbalanced; however, they underpower the class drastically for release instead of actually balancing it. Wizards were overpowered in 3e, and it looks like the developers are taking a page out of MMO design. It looks like they are trying to neuter the class for being badly designed in the past.
For figher, they seem to want to recreate the 3e feel of the fighter; however, they didn't learn the 4e lesson that classes do need some unique features to be fun and fair for the majority of playerbase.
So, they are doing it; however, the distribution of the feature is unequal and could lead to resentment down the road.
This seems to be the current scheme of things. Look at the two clerics in the playtest. The Pelor cleric has twice the dexterity and half the strength has his Moradin fellow-traveller. With such a wide disparity between two characters in the same cl
Basically, why do we the community here have to be big brother for the rest of the hobby? Some people unknowingly play a munchkin campaign and have fun. Is it because you could have munchkins A through C partying with the Straight Fighter gimp?
Yes.
That isn't a good enough reason for me. Straight Fighter gimp will learn from Munchkins if he likes their playstyle and the DM does too. If not, find another group.
I hate to bring up "rollplay/roleplay," but...what if, after 4-5 sessions of growing very attached to your noble swordsman's character, you realize that he's completely incapable of participating on the level of the casters? Do you scrap your character development to bring in a wizard, or keep roleplaying your character and bring a book to read for whenever the wizards start winning combat themselves?
I will basically say my previous answer another way, ask for help from the munchkins on character design to make a munchkin fighter, or leave the group and go back to the FLGS and find a new one.
Yes.[/quote]That isn't a good enough reason for me. Straight Fighter gimp will learn from Munchkins if he likes their playstyle and the DM does too. If not, find another group.[/quote]I hate to bring up "rollplay/roleplay," but...what if, after 4-5 s
From the postings I've seen, the resentment is already here. I agree with you that classes need some unique features to be fun, but combat in D&D is more about number crunching than fun. A DM who chooses to take advantage of a dungeon party by using tactics like ignoring the fighter and rushing the wizard is conflicted. What does the DM want? Dead PCs? Cripple the party so badly that it cannot possibly finish the adventure? If I pulled a stunt like that in my dungeon, I doubt that anybody would come back for more punishment. But I digress. A powerful wizard that needs to be protected has always been a part of D&D. The dynamic creates heroic actions and is actually good for the game.
From the postings I've seen, the resentment is already here. I agree with you that classes need some unique features to be fun, but combat in D&D is more about number crunching than fun. A DM who chooses to take advantage of a dungeon party by using
I will basically say my previous answer another way, ask for help from the munchkins on character design to make a munchkin fighter, or leave the group and go back to the FLGS and find a new one.
In 3e, "Munchkin Fighter" requires me to multiclass barbarian and use either a spiked chain or a two-handed lance. Neither of this fit my noble knight with sword-and-board, even though that was an iconic archetype, and neither of those are actually competitive with an optimized caster.
So again: do I completely sacrifice my character development to play a character that can contribute? Or do I keep "roleplaying" with a character incapable of meaningful "rollplay?"
The Stormwind Fallacy points out that players don't have to chose between character optimization and storytelling--the two are orthogonal, and players can do both or neither. But when the theory is, "you'll learn to make good characters eventually," the two modes of play are diametrically opposed. And that's not good.
In 3e, "Munchkin Fighter" requires me to multiclass barbarian and use either a spiked chain or a two-handed lance. Neither of this fit my noble knight with sword-and-board, even though that was an iconic archetype, and neither of those are actually c
Please remember to keep your comments positve, productive, and on topic. Remember we are trying to create a mutually beneficial and productive community for everyone to take part in. If you have any questions or would like to read the CoC you can find it here:
Please remember to keep your comments positve, productive, and on topic. Remember we are trying to create a mutually beneficial and productive community for everyone to take part in. If you have any questions or wouldlike to read the CoC you can find
The term is used correctly. Character optimization and story-telling are independent of each other.
It's kind of odd seeing the word used outside a mathmatics lecture...... but hey, it brings back memories :p
The term is used correctly. Character optimization and story-telling are independent of each other.It's kind of odd seeing the word used outside a mathmatics lecture...... but hey, it brings back memories :p
The term is used correctly. Character optimization and story-telling are independent of each other.
It's kind of odd seeing the word used outside a mathmatics lecture...... but hey, it brings back memories :p
I'm a math teacher.
The term is used correctly. Character optimization and story-telling are independent of each other.It's kind of odd seeing the word used outside a mathmatics lecture...... but hey, it brings back memories :p [/quote]I'm a math teacher.
What would someone think about putting the power point system and changing it to magic points and then applying it to the sorceror class in this 5e.
I'm not clear why "sorcerer" needs to be another class. Bear in mind that the designerd have explicitly stated that Wizards won't be limited exclusively to Vancian. I suspect that Vance, 3e Sorcerer, and Power Points will all be Wizard casting modules--if not core, then released shortly thereafter.
I'm not clear why "sorcerer" needs to be another class. Bear in mind that the designerd have explicitly stated that Wizards won't be limited exclusively to Vancian. I suspect that Vance, 3e Sorcerer, and Power Points will all be Wizard casting module
What would someone think about putting the power point system and changing it to magic points and then applying it to the sorceror class in this 5e.
I'm not clear why "sorcerer" needs to be another class. Bear in mind that the designerd have explicitly stated that Wizards won't be limited exclusively to Vancian. I suspect that Vance, 3e Sorcerer, and Power Points will all be Wizard casting modules--if not core, then released shortly thereafter.
Because the Sorcerer has unique fluff. He controls magic with fluidity, but it`s still the arcane magic of the planes instead of psionics.
But, most importantly, casting fireball with charisma is awesome. Not for everyone, but casting wizard (-ish, but not bard) spells with charisma is something difficult to imagine in any other class.
I'm not clear why "sorcerer" needs to be another class. Bear in mind that the designerd have explicitly stated that Wizards won't be limited exclusively to Vancian. I suspect that Vance, 3e Sorcerer, and Power Points will all be Wizard casting module
I'm not clear why "sorcerer" needs to be another class. Bear in mind that the designerd have explicitly stated that Wizards won't be limited exclusively to Vancian. I suspect that Vance, 3e Sorcerer, and Power Points will all be Wizard casting modules--if not core, then released shortly thereafter.
I guess they could do it that way, but isn't having separate classes a less confusing way of going about that then having a dozen mechanically distinct and even contradictory versions of the wizard? Isn't it easier to call them different things? Both in general, and in terms of having more than one version opperating in the same campaign?
Is there anything really gained by having two classes that are, mechanically, entirely different both share the same name?
I guess they could do it that way, but isn't having separate classes a less confusing way of going about that then having a dozen mechanically distinct and even contradictory versions of the wizard? Isn't it easier to call them different things? Bo
What would someone think about putting the power point system and changing it to magic points and then applying it to the sorceror class in this 5e.
I'm not clear why "sorcerer" needs to be another class. Bear in mind that the designerd have explicitly stated that Wizards won't be limited exclusively to Vancian. I suspect that Vance, 3e Sorcerer, and Power Points will all be Wizard casting modules--if not core, then released shortly thereafter.
The fluff, the fluff is everithing! A sorcerer, beside mechanics, is terribly different from a wizard, a warlock, a bard, a rogue-mage, or whatever comes into your mind. Is a standalone concept. Can it be a theme of a wizard? Yes, but I belive it deserves it's own merit as a class given the wide different concept it has from a wizard!
I'm not clear why "sorcerer" needs to be another class. Bear in mind that the designerd have explicitly stated that Wizards won't be limited exclusively to Vancian. I suspect that Vance, 3e Sorcerer, and Power Points will all be Wizard casting module
I'm not clear why "sorcerer" needs to be another class. Bear in mind that the designerd have explicitly stated that Wizards won't be limited exclusively to Vancian. I suspect that Vance, 3e Sorcerer, and Power Points will all be Wizard casting modules--if not core, then released shortly thereafter.
I guess they could do it that way, but isn't having separate classes a less confusing way of going about that then having a dozen mechanically distinct and even contradictory versions of the wizard? Isn't it easier to call them different things? Both in general, and in terms of having more than one version opperating in the same campaign?
Is there anything really gained by having two classes that are, mechanically, entirely different both share the same name?
Some people hate the idea of having any more than a half dozen or so classes, and will find any reason to try to fold classes together for no good reason.
Personally, I'd rather see three classes than one class with three classes worth of stuff I have to sift through to find the moving parts to build the concept I want. If I'm going to do that much sifting, I don't want to have to look through class lists, just give a classless, alphabatized list of options, organized by type, and let me pick individual moving parts without class restrictions.
Otherwise, I should be able to look at a class very quickly and know whether it fits what I want or not.
I guess they could do it that way, but isn't having separate classes a less confusing way of going about that then having a dozen mechanically distinct and even contradictory versions of the wizard? Isn't it easier to call them different things? Bo
Wizard = Magical Engineer. One who studies and applies the science of magic to their craft. They learn formulae and spells to cause effects. They design new spells using principles they have learned through years of study and inherent genius for systems.
Sorceror = Magical Artist. They produce unique, stylized effects using magical energy as their paint, themselves as the brush, and the world as their canvas. Alternatively, magic is a thing to be sculpted or composed. They rely upon inuition, will power, and an inherent sense of timing and flow to guide their innate power.
Just as a Wizard is slave to his or her studies, so to is the Sorceror beholden to their style and innate vis.
I personally would feel very sad if Wizards and Sorcerors are kept as distinct classes, yet used the same spell list. In fact, the idea of someone who composes with their natural talent using something so contrived as "spells" seems counter intuitive. However, I do not have high hopes that these classes will have such distinction. More likely, I anticipate a generalized Arcane spell list that the Sorceror and Wizard (and in all possibility Warlock) will share. With a generalized Arcane Spell List, I see no real reason that Sorceror/Wizard/Warlock should be distinct classes. Instead, these would be different themes/backgrounds/options for a Generalized Arcane Caster, Magic User, or Mage.
If, however, there is some strange way that these classes are distinct on an appreciable level (read: more than just how they access the same spell list), I hope for their inclusion and development. Bloodlines and Pact Sponsors are excellent directions for customization, and leave the door open for home design, or new development over later supplements/campaigns. Drawing the line at how much minutae to include in initial offerings would be tricky.
As I understand it...Wizard = Magical Engineer. One who studies and applies the science of magic to their craft. They learn formulae and spells to cause effects. They design new spells using principles they have learned through years of study and inh
I'm not clear why "sorcerer" needs to be another class. Bear in mind that the designerd have explicitly stated that Wizards won't be limited exclusively to Vancian. I suspect that Vance, 3e Sorcerer, and Power Points will all be Wizard casting modules--if not core, then released shortly thereafter.
I guess they could do it that way, but isn't having separate classes a less confusing way of going about that then having a dozen mechanically distinct and even contradictory versions of the wizard? Isn't it easier to call them different things? Both in general, and in terms of having more than one version opperating in the same campaign?
Is there anything really gained by having two classes that are, mechanically, entirely different both share the same name?
Some people hate the idea of having any more than a half dozen or so classes, and will find any reason to try to fold classes together for no good reason.
Personally, I'd rather see three classes than one class with three classes worth of stuff I have to sift through to find the moving parts to build the concept I want. If I'm going to do that much sifting, I don't want to have to look through class lists, just give a classless, alphabatized list of options, organized by type, and let me pick individual moving parts without class restrictions.
Otherwise, I should be able to look at a class very quickly and know whether it fits what I want or not.
Well, in 4e, the Wizard and the Sorcerer were incredibly distinct.
In 3e...well, they weren't. Wizards used a different stat, a slightly different (and basically better) casting system, and got a few extra feats.
If classes are going to have unique features in the 4e vein, then yes, the two are disctinct. But the 5e wizard seems to be as bare bones as any wizard in the past; it has no class features except for spells. If the only difference between 5e sorcerers and wizards is casting stat and spells known, then making them separate classes is a waste of page count.
Of course, I hope that the sorcerer will have features that make it mechnically unique and worthy of it's own progression. But...well, we'll see if that happens.
I guess they could do it that way, but isn't having separate classes a less confusing way of going about that then having a dozen mechanically distinct and even contradictory versions of the wizard? Isn't it easier to call them different things? Bo
I'm not clear why "sorcerer" needs to be another class. Bear in mind that the designerd have explicitly stated that Wizards won't be limited exclusively to Vancian. I suspect that Vance, 3e Sorcerer, and Power Points will all be Wizard casting modules--if not core, then released shortly thereafter.
I guess they could do it that way, but isn't having separate classes a less confusing way of going about that then having a dozen mechanically distinct and even contradictory versions of the wizard? Isn't it easier to call them different things? Both in general, and in terms of having more than one version opperating in the same campaign?
Is there anything really gained by having two classes that are, mechanically, entirely different both share the same name?
Some people hate the idea of having any more than a half dozen or so classes, and will find any reason to try to fold classes together for no good reason.
Personally, I'd rather see three classes than one class with three classes worth of stuff I have to sift through to find the moving parts to build the concept I want. If I'm going to do that much sifting, I don't want to have to look through class lists, just give a classless, alphabatized list of options, organized by type, and let me pick individual moving parts without class restrictions.
Otherwise, I should be able to look at a class very quickly and know whether it fits what I want or not.
Well, in 4e, the Wizard and the Sorcerer were incredibly distinct.
In 3e...well, they weren't. Wizards used a different stat, a slightly different (and basically better) casting system, and got a few extra feats.
If classes are going to have unique features in the 4e vein, then yes, the two are disctinct. But the 5e wizard seems to be as bare bones as any wizard in the past; it has no class features except for spells. If the only difference between 5e sorcerers and wizards is casting stat and spells known, then making them separate classes is a waste of page count.
Of course, I hope that the sorcerer will have features that make it mechnically unique and worthy of it's own progression. But...well, we'll see if that happens.
Sure. My whole thing is that the sorc and wizard are not the same thing, from a thematic standpoint, in DnD, and thus, since meaningful mechanical distinction can be made, it should. Therefor, using the criteria I've laid out, they should be two different classes.
Who knows if the devs understand the concept, though.
I guess they could do it that way, but isn't having separate classes a less confusing way of going about that then having a dozen mechanically distinct and even contradictory versions of the wizard? Isn't it easier to call them different things? Bo
Sure. My whole thing is that the sorc and wizard are not the same thing, from a thematic standpoint, in DnD, and thus, since meaningful mechanical distinction can be made, it should. Therefor, using the criteria I've laid out, they should be two different classes.
Who knows if the devs understand the concept, though.
The crux of the question is whether they try to harken to the 3X version (marginally different way to access the same spell list), the 4e way (completely seperate spell and feature list) or some other degree of variance (such as Pathfinder's Bloodlines).
I am concerned that they will embrace the most former of those options. Especially if the Wizard spell list is instead the Arcane spell list. My personal preference irregardless.
The crux of the question is whether they try to harken to the 3X version (marginally different way to access the same spell list), the 4e way (completely seperate spell and feature list) or some other degree of variance (such as Pathfinder's Bloodlin
Sure. My whole thing is that the sorc and wizard are not the same thing, from a thematic standpoint, in DnD, and thus, since meaningful mechanical distinction can be made, it should. Therefor, using the criteria I've laid out, they should be two different classes.
Who knows if the devs understand the concept, though.
The crux of the question is whether they try to harken to the 3X version (marginally different way to access the same spell list), the 4e way (completely seperate spell and feature list) or some other degree of variance (such as Pathfinder's Bloodlines).
I am concerned that they will embrace the most former of those options. Especially if the Wizard spell list is instead the Arcane spell list. My personal preference irregardless.
I despise the idea of arbitrarily combining and sharing spell lists between classes, honestly. Can the cleric and paladin share some spells? Sure. But mostly, the Paladin's magical abillities should be particular to the Paladin.
Likewise, the Sorcerer should have some class features that are magical in nature, and honestly shouldn't cast spells, IMO, as such. They should shoot magic at peoples' faces, along a theme determined by class features.
The crux of the question is whether they try to harken to the 3X version (marginally different way to access the same spell list), the 4e way (completely seperate spell and feature list) or some other degree of variance (such as Pathfinder's Bloodlin
I despise the idea of arbitrarily combining and sharing spell lists between classes, honestly. Can the cleric and paladin share some spells? Sure. But mostly, the Paladin's magical abillities should be particular to the Paladin.
Likewise, the Sorcerer should have some class features that are magical in nature, and honestly shouldn't cast spells, IMO, as such. They should shoot magic at peoples' faces, along a theme determined by class features.
I gave my feelings on the matter above (on the previous page in my engineer vs artist)), which are similar.
As to Paladins. The mere fact that religious classes are having spells(by that name) again does not sit well with me. But that is somantics. To the meat. I feel that the only "spells" that should be shared between the Cleric and Paladin are those that are in the Domain of their mutual divinity. A Cleric of Pelor and a Paladin of Moradin (for example) I feel should not have any "spells" in common.
I gave my feelings on the matter above (on the previous page in my engineer vs artist)), which are similar.As to Paladins. The mere fact that religious classes are having spells(by that name) again does not sit well with me. But that is somantics. To
I have often stated my opinion that if the wizard is going to be the Arcane Vancian caster, than the Sorcerer needs to instead have a variety of at-will "spells" that he uses. He gets a lot fewer spells than the wizard, and most of his spells can be blasty in nature. Basically, the Sorcerer needs to be the simple, bare-bones caster that contrasts with the more complex Wizard, a concept that several people have demanded.
I also agree that the Paladin should not be getting spells like the Cleric. I'm liking the idea of the only spell-like abilities the Paladin gets are via Channel Divinity and his domain, plus classic stuff like Lay on Hands and some kind of Smite ability and that's it.
I have often stated my opinion that if the wizard is going to be the Arcane Vancian caster, than the Sorcerer needs to instead have a variety of at-will "spells" that he uses. He gets a lot fewer spells than the wizard, and most of his spells can be
I have often stated my opinion that if the wizard is going to be the Arcane Vancian caster, than the Sorcerer needs to instead have a variety of at-will "spells" that he uses. He gets a lot fewer spells than the wizard, and most of his spells can be blasty in nature. Basically, the Sorcerer needs to be the simple, bare-bones caster that contrasts with the more complex Wizard, a concept that several people have demanded.
Why in name of Mystara should sorcerer be more blasty? I so hope no.
Anyway I belive many spells should be in common with both classes. Things like invisibility, fly, charme, are just magic tricks every spellcaster can think about. So as much as I like variety and would like to see some unique spell or different versions of the same spell, some magical effects are just too iconic or too simple as a concept of spell to make them different.
Why in name of Mystara should sorcerer be more blasty? I so hope no.Anyway I belive many spells should be in common with both classes. Things like invisibility, fly, charme, are just magic tricks every spellcaster can think about. So as much as I lik
What if an arcane list of spells exists, but each class interacts w/ it differently. For example... the sorc uses cha mod for attack and adds it fully to single target damage spells. He doesn't prepare spells, but has a very high number per day (perhaps fully at will?). As such, the spells he casts last for half the time. But, certain spells manifest in unique ways. Should a dragon bloodline sorc cast fly, he grows wings and gains scales (+AC). If he uses a melee touch to deliver an attack' he also claws the enemy for +1D4. So... depending on the origin of power he gets different kicker bonuses for casting certain spells. This doesn't preclude him from learning to cast other spells, but encourages a select few spells. If he's too mechanically similar... put him on a form of AEDU.
But... even with all of these ideas, is he still too wizardlike? I don't know.
What if an arcane list of spells exists, but each class interacts w/ it differently. For example... the sorc uses cha mod for attack and adds it fully to single target damage spells. He doesn't prepare spells, but has a very high number per day (perh
I dislike lots of classes because it forces each one to specialize in a manner that never pleases anyone. The result is the inevitable release of alternative class options that transform the class into something different... which defeats the wntire purpose of making the class so specialized in the first place....
Why have a Fighter and a Barbarian class- both of which favor melee weapons, medium to heavy armor, high HP, etc- and then create a "Berserker Fighter" and "Non Magical Barbarian" as optional class features? You just made each class more like the one it was created to be distinct from....
Four Core Classes: Offensive Caster (usually arcane casters), Defensive Caster (usually divine casters), Skilled Warrior (usually rogues), Brute Warrior (usually fighters). On top of their basic options you can just add the more specific sublcass options, which come with an extra armor or weapon proficiency, and a handful of class features (spellbook, turn undead, sneak attack, weapon specialization) and access to specific spells or maneuvers.....
4e did this, it was called Roles. Everyone used the same advancement table.
People hated it apparently.
Personally I consider 4 classes with tweaks much too samey.
The issue here was the similarity between the fundamentally different character archetypes. The complaint was that the Fighter and the Wizard felt too much alike, not that the Wizard and Warlock or the Fighter and the Warlord were too much alike.
Furthermore, the basic Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, and Rogue classes became even more specialied in 4E. Fighters were pretty much melee only. Wizard concentrated more on evocation and transmutation type spells while Clerics focused even more than before on conjuration and abjuration. This necessitated the invention of new classes to fill the "illusionist", "necromancer", "seer" and other arcane/divine caster concepts.
Not that this kind of stuff didn't occur in 3E either. Every book featured new 20 level classes, which were fundamentally drawn from the Wizard/Cleric/FIghter/Rogue idea with a new twist. Plenty of books provided alternate class options, which allowed the Wizard/Cleric/Fighter/Rogue to overlap with a lot of the classes those books themselves introduced.
I think one of the reasons why the Fighter and Rogue were so popular in 3E.
Your whole post sounded like bizzaro speak to me, but this line in particular really encapulates how utterly and completely alien your experience of the game is to my own. I'm sure your opinion is perfectly rational and valid from whatever strange perspective it is that you view it from, but that frame of reference is so different from my own as to be functionally inconcievable.
Not the most powerful, but yes, very popular. All those skill points and feats allowed for a greater level of customization, even if was for a couple of levels. They also didn't come with much built in flavor, so the DM wouldn't ask why your character had taken a couple of levels of Fighter the same way he might if your character had levels in the Monk, Barbarian, Ranger, or Paladin classes. He knew why. You were after the feats. Why did you take levels in Rogue? You were likely after the skill points.
4e did this, it was called Roles. Everyone used the same advancement table.People hated it apparently.Personally I consider 4 classes with tweaks much too samey. [/quote] The issue here was the similarity between the fundamentally different charac
I despise the idea of arbitrarily combining and sharing spell lists between classes, honestly. Can the cleric and paladin share some spells? Sure. But mostly, the Paladin's magical abillities should be particular to the Paladin.
Likewise, the Sorcerer should have some class features that are magical in nature, and honestly shouldn't cast spells, IMO, as such. They should shoot magic at peoples' faces, along a theme determined by class features.
I gave my feelings on the matter above (on the previous page in my engineer vs artist)), which are similar.
As to Paladins. The mere fact that religious classes are having spells(by that name) again does not sit well with me. But that is somantics. To the meat. I feel that the only "spells" that should be shared between the Cleric and Paladin are those that are in the Domain of their mutual divinity. A Cleric of Pelor and a Paladin of Moradin (for example) I feel should not have any "spells" in common.
I pretty much agree. I also agree with zeldafan, below. I think between your post and his/hers, the nail has been squarely hit.
I gave my feelings on the matter above (on the previous page in my engineer vs artist)), which are similar.As to Paladins. The mere fact that religious classes are having spells(by that name) again does not sit well with me. But that is somantics. To
I would love to see the sorcerer look more like the 3.5 warlock or dragon disciple. A default magical attack, plus a selection of cool at-will magical powers or abilities that either enhance that default attack in some way or let the sorcerer do cool other things. Throw in a sort of prestidigitation by default to allow for improvised magical actions, and some sort of ritualistic system to cover the annoying plot couponds expected of the arcane caster in a more retro game (the 3.5 warlock could craft arcane scrolls without knowing the spells, for instance), and you've got a fast, fun arcane caster alternative to the entire hasslesome spellcasting system, better embodying the 'internal magic' concept with its selection of abilities it can just do rather than piles of discrete 'spells', capable of serving alongside wizards in the same party as a discrete conceptual and mechanical entity, or of replacing wizards altogether for DDN campaigns that wish to stay focused on the game's fast & simple core gameplay without mucking it up with a cumbersome and complicated ability system.
I would also love to see the paladin as a more 'warlock/d.disciple'esque alternative to the cleric, albeit one that wears more armor and uses weapon attacks as their default attack. Existing somewhere between the paladin, favored soul, crusader, and warlock of 3.5.
I would love to see the sorcerer look more like the 3.5 warlock or dragon disciple. A default magical attack, plus a selection of cool at-will magical powers or abilities that either enhance that default attack in some way or let the sorcerer do coo
Look, I`m fine with the Sorcerer having a different (maybe overlapping) spell list than the Wizard, just don`t force the class to be a pure blaster. Invisibility, grease, teleport and the like are spells the Sorcerer should also have, please.
Look, I`m fine with the Sorcerer having a different (maybe overlapping) spell list than the Wizard, just don`t force the class to be a pure blaster. Invisibility, grease, teleport and the like are spells the Sorcerer should also have, please.
The main reason I suggest the Sorcerer focus on blasty magic as opposed to the Wizard is because I'm drawing inspiration from 4E's Striker Sorcerer. I like how the 4E Sorcerer felt like a really distinctly different concept than the wizard, a barely contained font of magical power versus the studious master of arcane magic, rather than the main difference between the 3.5 Sorcerer and Wizard being "spontaneous casting vs prepared casting."
But I'll agree to this compromise: the Sorcerer should have access to some utility abilities, perhaps based on his bloodline, perhaps not. As long as they don't just give the Sorcerer a variation of the Wizard casting system and a variation of Wizard spells, I'm fine. Since the Cleric has taken over the Sorcerer's gimmick of "spontaneous Vancian-like casting", I'd like to see the Sorcerer instead getting a totally different casting system, something perhaps rooted in at-will arcane abilities. After all, if the Sorcerer draws his or her power from the arcane energy running through his or her veins, he should be able to draw on that power as easily as a Fighter swings a sword.
The main reason I suggest the Sorcerer focus on blasty magic as opposed to the Wizard is because I'm drawing inspiration from 4E's Striker Sorcerer. I like how the 4E Sorcerer felt like a really distinctly different concept than the wizard, a barely
Two of the failings I'd like to see corrected from 3e was the nigh-featureless fighter and wizard/sorcerer. Fighters were defined by their feats, and the wizards/sorcerers by their spells (and metamagic feats). Both should have other core features that make them unique. Please do not just take the easy route and give fighters multiple themes. Please don't only use spells known to distinguish wizards/sorcerers apart. I liked PF's giving fighters armor and weapon training, as well as the wizard schools/specializations features, and sorcerer bloodline features. Now in addition to just feats/spells, each school/specialization and bloodline gave much more needed flavor to an otherwise vanilla class.
Two of the failings I'd like to see corrected from 3e was the nigh-featureless fighter and wizard/sorcerer. Fighters were defined by their feats, and the wizards/sorcerers by their spells (and metamagic feats). Both should have other core features th
Two of the failings I'd like to see corrected from 3e was the nigh-featureless fighter and wizard/sorcerer. Fighters were defined by their feats, and the wizards/sorcerers by their spells (and metamagic feats). Both should have other core features that make them unique. Please do not just take the easy route and give fighters multiple themes. Please don't only use spells known to distinguish wizards/sorcerers apart. I liked PF's giving fighters armor and weapon training, as well as the wizard schools/specializations features, and sorcerer bloodline features. Now in addition to just feats/spells, each school/specialization and bloodline gave much more needed flavor to an otherwise vanilla class.
I would love to see the sorcerer look more like the 3.5 warlock or dragon disciple. A default magical attack, plus a selection of cool at-will magical powers or abilities that either enhance that default attack in some way or let the sorcerer do cool other things. Throw in a sort of prestidigitation by default to allow for improvised magical actions, and some sort of ritualistic system to cover the annoying plot couponds expected of the arcane caster in a more retro game (the 3.5 warlock could craft arcane scrolls without knowing the spells, for instance), and you've got a fast, fun arcane caster alternative to the entire hasslesome spellcasting system, better embodying the 'internal magic' concept with its selection of abilities it can just do rather than piles of discrete 'spells', capable of serving alongside wizards in the same party as a discrete conceptual and mechanical entity, or of replacing wizards altogether for DDN campaigns that wish to stay focused on the game's fast & simple core gameplay without mucking it up with a cumbersome and complicated ability system.
I would also love to see the paladin as a more 'warlock/d.disciple'esque alternative to the cleric, albeit one that wears more armor and uses weapon attacks as their default attack. Existing somewhere between the paladin, favored soul, crusader, and warlock of 3.5.
Hm. I've been thinking I wouldn't mind the warlock being a combination of traits from it's 3.5 and 4e incarnations. I suppose some overlap between the two wouldn't hurt anything, though.
Hm. I've been thinking I wouldn't mind the warlock being a combination of traits from it's 3.5 and 4e incarnations. I suppose some overlap between the two wouldn't hurt anything, though.
Two of the failings I'd like to see corrected from 3e was the nigh-featureless fighter and wizard/sorcerer. Fighters were defined by their feats, and the wizards/sorcerers by their spells (and metamagic feats). Both should have other core features that make them unique. Please do not just take the easy route and give fighters multiple themes. Please don't only use spells known to distinguish wizards/sorcerers apart. I liked PF's giving fighters armor and weapon training, as well as the wizard schools/specializations features, and sorcerer bloodline features. Now in addition to just feats/spells, each school/specialization and bloodline gave much more needed flavor to an otherwise vanilla class.
I do not know pathfinder so I fail to see the point, isn't school specialization just "Most of my spells are from that school, cannot cast that other schools' spells"? I mean just strictly to mechanics.
I do not know pathfinder so I fail to see the point, isn't school specialization just "Most of my spells are from that school, cannot cast that other schools' spells"? I mean just strictly to mechanics.
It’s still early to say for sure, but if a class or race has appeared in the first Player’s Handbook for the game you can expect to see it in Next.
So it seems right now that the current design goals right now seem to lean towards the "more classes" side of the argument. I'm looking forward to this, as long as they can make each class feel distinct from each other.
Ah! Look at this little line I found in a recent interview:So it seems right now that the current design goals right now seem to lean towards the "more classes" side of the argument. I'm looking forward to this, as long as they can make each class fe
It’s still early to say for sure, but if a class or race has appeared in the first Player’s Handbook for the game you can expect to see it in Next.
So it seems right now that the current design goals right now seem to lean towards the "more classes" side of the argument. I'm looking forward to this, as long as they can make each class feel distinct from each other.
I really hope that ends up being the case.
The 3.5 Assassin was completely unsatisfying to me, and I don't want the experience continued.
So it seems right now that the current design goals right now seem to lean towards the "more classes" side of the argument. I'm looking forward to this, as long as they can make each class feel distinct from each other.[/quote]I really hope that ends
I do not know pathfinder so I fail to see the point, isn't school specialization just "Most of my spells are from that school, cannot cast that other schools' spells"? I mean just strictly to mechanics.
Evokers revel in the raw power of magic, and can use it to create and destroy with shocking ease. Intense Spells (Su) - Whenever you cast an evocation spell that deals hit point damage, add 1/2 your wizard level to the damage (minimum +1). This bonus only applies once to a spell, not once per missile or ray, and cannot be split between multiple missiles or rays. This bonus damage is not increased by Empower Spell or similar effects. This damage is of the same type as the spell. At 20th level, whenever you cast an evocation spell you can roll twice to penetrate a creature's spell resistance and take the better result. Force Missile (Sp) - As a standard action you can unleash a force missile that automatically strikes a foe, as magic missile. The force missile deals 1d4 points of damage plus the damage from your intense spells evocation power. This is a force effect. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Intelligence modifier. Elemental Wall (Sp) - At 8th level, you can create a wall of energy that lasts for a number of rounds per day equal to your wizard level. These rounds do not need to be consecutive. This wall deals acid, cold, electricity, or fire damage, determined when you create it. The elemental wall otherwise functions like wall of fire.
It's not a ton of unique features, but it does give each school a little different flare.
For reference: www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/wi...www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/wi...evocation
Show
Evocation Arcane SchoolEvokers revel in the raw power of magic, and can use it to create and destroy with shocking ease.Intense
It’s still early to say for sure, but if a class or race has appeared in the first Player’s Handbook for the game you can expect to see it in Next.
So it seems right now that the current design goals right now seem to lean towards the "more classes" side of the argument. I'm looking forward to this, as long as they can make each class feel distinct from each other.
I really hope that ends up being the case.
The 3.5 Assassin was completely unsatisfying to me, and I don't want the experience continued.
I'm not familiar with the 3.5 Assassin....what was it like?
I think if there is going to be an "Assassin" class, it should be like the 4E Assassin, a stealthy killer who uses dark shadow magic. Then the more mundane poison using assassin can be either a Rogue scheme or a theme, or maybe even both.
So it seems right now that the current design goals right now seem to lean towards the "more classes" side of the argument. I'm looking forward to this, as long as they can make each class feel distinct from each other.[/quote]I really hope that ends
I love multiple class options, it helps create a varied group of characters and playstyles. As long as your not 'forced' into class choices to cover required 'roles'.
It gives players an options of playing like X class but with a different ability score priority, one that may better mesh with the character's player's playstyle.
The most important aspect of our character so far in Next is class choice. If classes are highly distinguishable, we'll see only a few more added in somewhat long intervals. If, after the first PHB, Next is willing to allow for more 'flavor' variations, or cross mechanic polination, then we'd likely have a lot more fun and flavorful variations on our base classes.
I love multiple class options, it helps create a varied group of characters and playstyles. As long as your not 'forced' into class choices to cover required 'roles'.It gives players an options of playing like X class but with a different ability sc
I'm not familiar with the 3.5 Assassin....what was it like?
I think if there is going to be an "Assassin" class, it should be like the 4E Assassin, a stealthy killer who uses dark shadow magic. Then the more mundane poison using assassin can be either a Rogue scheme or a theme, or maybe even both.
It was a prestiege class. It was only open to evil characters, but was open to pretty much any type of character, although the skill requirements made it easiest for rogues to get in, and the fact that it didn't advance casting made it a horrible idea for any caster. It got sneak attack like a rogue (stacking with the rogue's sneak attack). It got its own set of spells, which it cast like a sorcerer (spontaneously from a list known), but its casting stat was Int. The list of spells it could choose from contained basically what you'd expect - some disguise stuff, darkness, etc.
Its marquee ability is probably death attack, which allowed the assassin to study a target for three rounds and then launch a devastating attack against it that might kill it instantly. This promoted a style not really represented among the base classes.
It eventually got the ability to hide even when observed (very cool), and also got some poisony stuff (not so exciting).
It didn't have any sort of shroud mechanic or assassin's strike (4e abilities tied to the assassin class in various incarnations), nor does it have the Executioner's ties to the weird weapons that class uses.
It was a prestiege class. It was only open to evil characters, but was open to pretty much any type of character, although the skill requirements made it easiest for rogues to get in, and the fact that it didn't advance casting made it a horrible ide
It’s still early to say for sure, but if a class or race has appeared in the first Player’s Handbook for the game you can expect to see it in Next.
So it seems right now that the current design goals right now seem to lean towards the "more classes" side of the argument. I'm looking forward to this, as long as they can make each class feel distinct from each other.
I really hope that ends up being the case.
The 3.5 Assassin was completely unsatisfying to me, and I don't want the experience continued.
I'm not familiar with the 3.5 Assassin....what was it like?
I think if there is going to be an "Assassin" class, it should be like the 4E Assassin, a stealthy killer who uses dark shadow magic. Then the more mundane poison using assassin can be either a Rogue scheme or a theme, or maybe even both.
it's basically just a rogue that uses poison. And forced to worry about guilds and has to be evil.
It's...barely worthy of a prestige class. It was obviously not built by someone that wanted to ever play one.
No enhanced mobillity or other ways to get past bodyguards to strike the target, and no way to engage/fight off multiple guards at once after having done so. And having to study a target for three rounds before doing anything? That's not intereseting playstyle, that's stupid design.
It was bad, and whoever wrote it should feel bad.
And I agree with you. Poison use isn't something that I think belongs in a class, btw. I think it's entirely in th realm of whatever non class structures we have, preferably just item use and maybe some feats. An herbalist or apothicary theme could have a choice of two traits, Poisons and Healing Arts, with the purpose of them being fairly obvious.
Assassins should focus on stealth, mobility, infiltration and coming out of nowhere to quickly "gank" a target. It makes sense for them to be able to fight off multiple enemies at once, as well, as in Assassin's Creed, and the 4e assassin (which has many controller powers). It should have some kind of ganking abillity that's best used as the first thing the assassin does in a battle, and which is much more powerful if the assassin started his or her turn with the target unaware of him or her, or unaware that they were a threat, etc.
And shadow magic. Although, I think the avenger can be made part of the assassin class without any problems whatsoever, just being a scheme like option that gives a mixed set of divine and shadow powers instead of just shadow powers. The avenger concept works outside the rules and heirarchy of the church, and IMO, the avenger should work outside the normal mechanics of divine classes.
Anyway, I just don't see themes being something where one can satisfyingly encapsulate even the overly narrow 3.5 assassin, much less the 4e style shadow assassin, or the avenger assassin, or the E Executioner assassin. But a class could contain all of them, cohesively and satisfyingly.
So it seems right now that the current design goals right now seem to lean towards the "more classes" side of the argument. I'm looking forward to this, as long as they can make each class feel distinct from each other.[/quote]I really hope that ends
I'm not familiar with the 3.5 Assassin....what was it like?
I think if there is going to be an "Assassin" class, it should be like the 4E Assassin, a stealthy killer who uses dark shadow magic. Then the more mundane poison using assassin can be either a Rogue scheme or a theme, or maybe even both.
It was a prestiege class. It was only open to evil characters, but was open to pretty much any type of character, although the skill requirements made it easiest for rogues to get in, and the fact that it didn't advance casting made it a horrible idea for any caster. It got sneak attack like a rogue (stacking with the rogue's sneak attack). It got its own set of spells, which it cast like a sorcerer (spontaneously from a list known), but its casting stat was Int. The list of spells it could choose from contained basically what you'd expect - some disguise stuff, darkness, etc.
Its marquee ability is probably death attack, which allowed the assassin to study a target for three rounds and then launch a devastating attack against it that might kill it instantly. This promoted a style not really represented among the base classes.
It eventually got the ability to hide even when observed (very cool), and also got some poisony stuff (not so exciting).
It didn't have any sort of shroud mechanic or assassin's strike (4e abilities tied to the assassin class in various incarnations), nor does it have the Executioner's ties to the weird weapons that class uses.
Hmmm....I have mixed feelings. I like some of the things it does, but other things are really stupid or lame.
I think if they take the coolest stuff from this Assassin and the 4E Assassin, then they might be on to something really cool.
It was a prestiege class. It was only open to evil characters, but was open to pretty much any type of character, although the skill requirements made it easiest for rogues to get in, and the fact that it didn't advance casting made it a horrible ide
It’s still early to say for sure, but if a class or race has appeared in the first Player’s Handbook for the game you can expect to see it in Next.
So it seems right now that the current design goals right now seem to lean towards the "more classes" side of the argument. I'm looking forward to this, as long as they can make each class feel distinct from each other.
I really hope that ends up being the case.
The 3.5 Assassin was completely unsatisfying to me, and I don't want the experience continued.
I'm not familiar with the 3.5 Assassin....what was it like?
I think if there is going to be an "Assassin" class, it should be like the 4E Assassin, a stealthy killer who uses dark shadow magic. Then the more mundane poison using assassin can be either a Rogue scheme or a theme, or maybe even both.
it's basically just a rogue that uses poison. And forced to worry about guilds and has to be evil.
It's...barely worthy of a prestige class. It was obviously not built by someone that wanted to ever play one.
No enhanced mobillity or other ways to get past bodyguards to strike the target, and no way to engage/fight off multiple guards at once after having done so. And having to study a target for three rounds before doing anything? That's not intereseting playstyle, that's stupid design.
It was bad, and whoever wrote it should feel bad.
Oh, wow.....the requirements were really stupid.
Beyond that....yeah, it's kind of overall dissapointing. It's like they started with a cool idea, but kind of dropped the ball big time when they tried to make it.
So it seems right now that the current design goals right now seem to lean towards the "more classes" side of the argument. I'm looking forward to this, as long as they can make each class feel distinct from each other.[/quote]I really hope that ends
I mean, I actually like playing SE, most of the time, and I don't want to look at PrC reqs.
Of course, I'm the sick bastard that likes flipping through hundreds of talents looking for the one that makes the most sense for my character, and often had characters with three different classes, and then PrCs.
My characters also tended to be very, very optimized, because of that attention to detail, but objectively I know that the option bloat(type, not size. GURPS is manageable, IMO, while Saga is less so) in SE combined with MC rules and PrC reqs were just a hot mess.
kill everything in the room without making an attack roll, which is good because nothing but CHA and WIS are above 14, or my noble/jedi/scout/FA/JK uses CHA to attack, pilot, and use the force, and defends from most attacks with block or deflect, then ignores what does get through via DR 10 and has absurd numbers of force powers because force talents are awesome, and there's one that gives a free move object every time you select a telekinetic power. Or ...ok, I'll stop. [short form: force monk. martials arts, convection, battle strike, Master of Teras Kasi talents, I outdamage your lightsaber.]
You should go look at the PrCs from Saga Edition.[/quote]Why would you do that? That's just mean. I mean, I actually like playing SE, most of the time, and I don't want to look at PrC reqs. Of course, I'm the sick bastard that likes flipping through
It’s still early to say for sure, but if a class or race has appeared in the first Player’s Handbook for the game you can expect to see it in Next.
So it seems right now that the current design goals right now seem to lean towards the "more classes" side of the argument. I'm looking forward to this, as long as they can make each class feel distinct from each other.
I really hope that ends up being the case.
The 3.5 Assassin was completely unsatisfying to me, and I don't want the experience continued.
I'm not familiar with the 3.5 Assassin....what was it like?
I think if there is going to be an "Assassin" class, it should be like the 4E Assassin, a stealthy killer who uses dark shadow magic. Then the more mundane poison using assassin can be either a Rogue scheme or a theme, or maybe even both.
it's basically just a rogue that uses poison. And forced to worry about guilds and has to be evil.
It's...barely worthy of a prestige class. It was obviously not built by someone that wanted to ever play one.
No enhanced mobillity or other ways to get past bodyguards to strike the target, and no way to engage/fight off multiple guards at once after having done so. And having to study a target for three rounds before doing anything? That's not intereseting playstyle, that's stupid design.
It was bad, and whoever wrote it should feel bad.
Oh, wow.....the requirements were really stupid.
Beyond that....yeah, it's kind of overall dissapointing. It's like they started with a cool idea, but kind of dropped the ball big time when they tried to make it.
Yeah. I think someone told someone else that it couldn't be a class, and the light in their eyes died, but they still had to make the thing, so they phoned it in. :P
Or, they had the idea for death attack, and kinda rigged up a prestige class around it, shrugged, and walked away.
So it seems right now that the current design goals right now seem to lean towards the "more classes" side of the argument. I'm looking forward to this, as long as they can make each class feel distinct from each other.[/quote]I really hope that ends
For me, with regards to Sorceror, I'm okay with blasting, if it makes sense for thier "art" style. If they paint with flame, or storm, or solid light, or emotions writ so large they cause the heart to race and the midn to break, sure. For me, I just want coherency in theme (not the mechanic theme, but actual thematics). Wizards are adaptable and general, unless specialists, but even then, the schools of magic are what they do. For Sorcerors, it's all about the how. A Fae-themed Sorceror may have some direct attack, but I would expect more beguilment and misdirection. A Storm Sorc, on the other hand, will be a direct damage beast with some powers that move them and others. Dragon-blooded will have some solid damage, especially AoE, impressive defense and self-mobility as well. A Swamp Sorc will have creature, poison and anoyance environment effects.
But that's just my take.
As to Assassins... as a core class, it needs to be more than just surprise attack focused Rogue. A little black magic, in the illusion, obtenebration, or necromantic vein may serve well. Whether as spells or class features is a good point of debate. The originals, the Hashshashin were a religio-mystical order, and adding some mysticism or fanaticism to just being a stealthy killer would be good. It also makes for fertile ground for 4E Avenger style themes as well as the 3X prestige class version themes.
For me, with regards to Sorceror, I'm okay with blasting, if it makes sense for thier "art" style.If they paint with flame, or storm, or solid light, or emotions writ so large they cause the heart to race and the midn to break, sure.For me, I just wa
As to Assassins... as a core class, it needs to be more than just surprise attack focused Rogue. A little black magic, in the illusion, obtenebration, or necromantic vein may serve well. Whether as spells or class features is a good point of debate. The originals, the Hashshashin were a religio-mystical order, and adding some mysticism or fanaticism to just being a stealthy killer would be good. It also makes for fertile ground for 4E Avenger style themes as well as the 3X prestige class version themes.
I like your brain.
I think we should pretty much look to the Hashshashin, the Ninja and the modern fantasy assassin in books like The Night Angel Trilogy's wetboys.
I like your brain. I think we should pretty much look to the Hashshashin, the Ninja and the modern fantasy assassin in books like The Night Angel Trilogy's wetboys.
Yeah. I think someone told someone else that it couldn't be a class, and the light in their eyes died, but they still had to make the thing, so they phoned it in. :P
Or, they had the idea for death attack, and kinda rigged up a prestige class around it, shrugged, and walked away.
To be fair, it was one of the original PrC's released in the core books. While some of that generation were playably decent, none were particularly interesting IMO.
They got much better at writing flavourful and acceptablely-powerful PrC's over time.
To be fair, it was one of the original PrC's released in the core books. While some of that generation were playably decent, none were particularly interesting IMO.They got much better at writing flavourful and acceptablely-powerful PrC's over time.
I think we should pretty much look to the Hashshashin, the Ninja and the modern fantasy assassin in books like The Night Angel Trilogy's wetboys.
Humorously enough, the Assassins with the highest recognition value, that being the line from the Assassin's Creed series, is almost exactly Rogue played with variable gadjeteering theme, rather than an Assassin stand alone class.
Also, the historical Ninja is far different from the fantastic, black pajama wearing, image we currently have in most media. Room for both in a class, with propper theme and scheme.
Not familiar with the Night Angel Trilogy, I take it I should rectify that?
Humorously enough, the Assassins with the highest recognition value, that being the line from the Assassin's Creed series, is almost exactly Rogue played with variable gadjeteering theme, rather than an Assassin stand alone class.Also, the historical
I think we should pretty much look to the Hashshashin, the Ninja and the modern fantasy assassin in books like The Night Angel Trilogy's wetboys.
Humorously enough, the Assassins with the highest recognition value, that being the line from the Assassin's Creed series, is almost exactly Rogue played with variable gadjeteering theme, rather than an Assassin stand alone class.
Also, the historical Ninja is far different from the fantastic, black pajama wearing, image we currently have in most media. Room for both in a class, with propper theme and scheme.
Not familiar with the Night Angel Trilogy, I take it I should rectify that?
And the ninja of actual Japanese folklore is a lot more fantastic than the black pajama wearing image we have in most moedia. Described and protrayed many times as guys who lived in villages with families of known ninjas, wearing (sometimes) distinctive costumes, wielding (sometimes) ridiculous weapons, running across water, and using spells from the the illusion, conjuration, transmutation, and other schools. Naruto isn't too far off- although it certainly turns the dial to 11+
Humorously enough, the Assassins with the highest recognition value, that being the line from the Assassin's Creed series, is almost exactly Rogue played with variable gadjeteering theme, rather than an Assassin stand alone class.Also, the historical
And the ninja of actual Japanese folklore is a lot more fantastic than the black pajama wearing image we have in most moedia. Described and protrayed many times as guys who lived in villages with families of known ninjas, wearing (sometimes) distinctive costumes, wielding (sometimes) ridiculous weapons, running across water, and using spells from the the illusion, conjuration, transmutation, and other schools. Naruto isn't too far off- although it certainly turns the dial to 11+
Compare and contrast to Hanzo Hattori (1 or 2, but not 3... there were multiples so he could appear in two places at once.) who basically told his Lord Tokugawa Ieyasu that it was all a sham and the fine art of making people believe what you want them to. Both deserve representation. They are distinct and different, and either is an excellent rp opportunity.
Compare and contrast to Hanzo Hattori (1 or 2, but not 3... there were multiples so he could appear in two places at once.) who basically told his Lord Tokugawa Ieyasu that it was all a sham and the fine art of making people believe what you want the
I think we can have a couple of different options to potentially play a ninja.
Mundane historical ninja who were little more than spies and assassins? Rogue scheme. I've aways thought that the rogue is pretty much the perfect frame work for the mundane ninja, just refluff this and that, add a few thematic choices here, and ta-da! A ninja!
Mystical ninja of myth, legend, and modern pop-culture? Just play the proposed shadow magic using Assassin class, and call yourself a ninja.
Being a ninja has always felt to me to be more of a fluff/roleplaying thing. A ninja really wouldn't be that different from a rogue or an assassin, he's just called something different.
To join in the little ninja discussion:I think we can have a couple of different options to potentially play a ninja. Mundane historical ninja who were little more than spies and assassins? Rogue scheme. I've aways thought that the rogue is pretty mu
I'd like a range of options in the assassin/ninja category as well.
For instance:
Theme - shadowdancer: Shadow step teleportation, hide bonuses, maybe make items out of shadow?
Theme - poisoner: Learn to craft and use poisons, with abilities modeled after the 4e Executioner poisons (make a certain number a day from the ones you know, each poison has a combat effect for applying it to a weapon, or an alternative, more significant effect if you can sneak it into a targets food or cloathing or whatever encouraging creative use of non-combat abilities).
Class - Assassin: (maybe called something else to reduce nerd rage: shadow blade? dark blade?), drawing inspiration from the 4e Ossassin or a Shadow Hand focused Swordage from 3.5's Tome of Battle, maybe with a little swordmage or blackguard thrown in. A single target damage leaning light melee character focused on invisibility, semi-magical strikes, and manipulation of shadows.
Non-magical assassin? Rogue poisoner. Want to add magical flair? Take shadowdancer as second theme at level 6 or whenever. Magical shadow assassin? Go darkblade shadowdancer at level one. Dark Knight? Darkblade at level one, but go for heavy weapons, and a theme that opens up heavy armor, and emphasize strength over dex (if you're not using finesse weapons, then dex is primarily for stealth on the hypothetical assassin class, and you can emphasize other powers, like dark magic strikes, if you prefer). In class or theme options to prefer different fighting styles (two weapon, big weapon, ranged), mix in other concepts (divine power for an avenger type), etc.
No reason you can't have an assassin class, a hitman background, and a poisoner theme all in the same game. Let's you run a highly focused character, or mix and match with other options for a subtle blend of variations on the concept.
I'd like a range of options in the assassin/ninja category as well.For instance:Theme - shadowdancer: Shadow step teleportation, hide bonuses, maybe make items out of shadow?Theme - poisoner: Learn to craft and use poisons, with abilities modeled aft
I think we should pretty much look to the Hashshashin, the Ninja and the modern fantasy assassin in books like The Night Angel Trilogy's wetboys.
Humorously enough, the Assassins with the highest recognition value, that being the line from the Assassin's Creed series, is almost exactly Rogue played with variable gadjeteering theme, rather than an Assassin stand alone class.
Also, the historical Ninja is far different from the fantastic, black pajama wearing, image we currently have in most media. Room for both in a class, with propper theme and scheme.
Not familiar with the Night Angel Trilogy, I take it I should rectify that?
IDK, one of the key points of the Creed assassins is the abillity to fight off multiple opponents at once either when things go bad, or after a kill, etc. I've never really seen the rogue as being able to do that all that well, except in 4e, where you can pretty much build a controller rogue, if you want. (controller rogue is the only rogue I find at all interesting in 4e. Love that system, but the rogue just...meh.) The 4eE executioner got it down perfect, IMO. The rogue could do it if it wasn't so damned weapon restricted, though. But sneak attack is, IMO, a crappy stand in for a real assassin strike. :P
When I say ninja, I mean the mystical/mythical ninja, and the Night Angel Trilogy features assassins that are basically a mix of the poison use of many dnd assassins, and the 4e shadow assassin. Also, just really good books.
Yeah. I think someone told someone else that it couldn't be a class, and the light in their eyes died, but they still had to make the thing, so they phoned it in. :P
Or, they had the idea for death attack, and kinda rigged up a prestige class around it, shrugged, and walked away.
To be fair, it was one of the original PrC's released in the core books. While some of that generation were playably decent, none were particularly interesting IMO.
They got much better at writing flavourful and acceptablely-powerful PrC's over time.
I'd like a range of options in the assassin/ninja category as well.
For instance: [snip] No reason you can't have an assassin class, a hitman background, and a poisoner theme all in the same game. Let's you run a highly focused character, or mix and match with other options for a subtle blend of variations on the concept.
I can dig it. I'd rather suffer the nerd rage and name the class assassin, and for once I've got tradition on my side, as gross as that feels. :P
Anyway, I do think that most archetypes should be represented in the class, theme and background mechanics, for exactly the reasons you've laid out.
Humorously enough, the Assassins with the highest recognition value, that being the line from the Assassin's Creed series, is almost exactly Rogue played with variable gadjeteering theme, rather than an Assassin stand alone class.Also, the historical
I have told it in the past: Some archetypes are so popular they can´t be only themes or backgrounds but a complete class.
* Ninja can´t be a only mixture of monk and rogue. It may be if ki techniques/power like maneuvers from Tome of Battle: Book of nine swords.. A new Oriental Adventures where the ninja is a complete class with "FXs" or special powers... that book could be bought by otakus (fanboys who like anime & manga).
Ninja could be only a theme, but if shinobi is created like (oriental spellcaster) core class with great care by game designers, it could be a great success.
* About assassin...
If we talk about a sicarii or hired killer when the objetive is a true "big fish" (like the high priestess of Lolth) mundane ways isn´t enough. Magic or othe special power is totally necesary. Not only to kill the victim but to go out the city when all soldiers of region is looking for you (and wizards are searching you by crystal ball).
I think assasin like D&D class needs some link with some supernatural power or force. The assasin can´t be only a rogue with poisoned knifes but a member of a secret/forbidden cult, something like the sith from Star Wars.
And I´m afraid a true D&D assassin would like concentrated vacian system, all the daily power only for two actions, hit the target and run away. But I can´t imagine it like a PC who explore dungeons. I would rather a rogue-like with "secret" and dark powers with some spiritual motivation.
Other reason assassin like "spellcaster" class is we imagine fighting with knifes or short weapons (but spiked chain). I imagine spells can´t be casted using a sword or heavy weapon (somatic component and all it), but it does with knifes and other light arms.
* Could you imagine a D&D hassassin with a crossbow shooting a projectile that is a living being like a venomous/poisonous vernim?
I have told it in the past: Some archetypes are so popular they can´t be only themes or backgrounds but a complete class.* Ninja can´t be a only mixture of monk and rogue. It may be if ki techniques/power like maneuvers from Tome of Battl
I have about it and hitman could be a subclass for rogue but sicarii or assassin could be class with the right background.
Why a sicarii would be in a dungeons killing vermins? Because is a collector of gold and vitae (life force) for the guild/brotherhood.
Sicarii wouldn´t a true spellcaster, but a mixture of binder (tome of magic) and vampire (class for Heroes of shadow). His weapon would be a magic life-drainning spiked chain, like a (familiar) vampire serpent-like construct.
His power could be forbidden because magic about life-stealing could be used by secret lodges controlled by lord vampires or other undeads. (The original goal was feed, without killing humanoids, cursed or infected sentient undeads to help them to be redeemed, but something went wrong).
He would have got a special pool he would fill with stealen vitae (or donated by followers by magic marks or tatoos).
I have about it and hitman could be a subclass for rogue but sicarii or assassin could be class with the right background.Why a sicarii would be in a dungeons killing vermins? Because is a collector of gold and vitae (life force) for the guild/brothe
Not familiar with the Night Angel Trilogy, I take it I should rectify that?
Yes.
By far, one of the best fantasy portrayal of an Assassin type character
Wet Boys are totally the ultimate Mystic Assassins! and Brent Weeks is a wonderful writer that I'd recommend to anyone!
Yes.[/quote]By far, one of the best fantasy portrayal of an Assassin type characterWet Boys are totally the ultimate Mystic Assassins! and Brent Weeks is a wonderful writer that I'd recommend to anyone!
I'd like crazy_monkey's list from the first page, because that fits what they've said they're going to do, and because it provides access to all of the classics without allowing for ridiculous (in my opinion) bloat.
I'm generally in the camp that believes that a character's class in D&D has traditionally been his/her most defining element. As opposed to other games that are skill-based, D&D has always been class-based. Because of that, I believe that there should be a medium-sized list of traditional classes that covers all the classic D&D bases, with few if any additional classes created over the lifetime of the game.
I'm not a fan of what 3E did with classes, essentially trying to cobble together a make-shift skill system in the form of tons of base classes and prestige classe like they were going out of style. In that situation, class-identity is strongly compromised. Instead of being "a fighter" or "a wizard" or even a "fighter/cleric/wizard" (AD&D style multi-classing--which I approve of), you were a dash of fighter, a dollop of wizard, a braise of magic-smasher, a pinch of giant gollomper, and a quart of I winnanator, designed to create the character you imagined in your head. To me, that's poor D&D. D&D is about picking a class and sticking with it. Now, I don't object to 3E style additive levels, as long as the number of classes in the game is kept reasonable and prestige classes get the boot. I would also like to see AD&D style multi-classing (updated and fine-tuned) however, because it's the best way of making fighter/spellcaster hybrids work.
May I hasten to add that I'm a D&D traditionalist. I think D&D can only ever be good at being D&D and shouldn't try to be a different game (by converting to a skill-based game, or a build your own class game, or a 3-class game, or a game with hundreds of classes).
I'd like crazy_monkey's list from the first page, because that fits what they've said they're going to do, and because it provides access to all of the classics without allowing for ridiculous (in my opinion) bloat.I'm generally in the camp that beli
