..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />To each their own, right?
To quote the great Mark Rosewater: "Restrictions breed creativity."
I enjoy looking at a list of multiple classes and figuring out what character concepts I can create within the confines of the system.
I sort of see Race, Class, Background, and Theme as Lego blocks. By swapping them around, I can make all kinds of stuff. Sure, I don't have as much freedom as I would with, say, clay. But part of the fun is the challenge of making meaningful things with just the basic blocks handed to me. And for stuff like that, I'd rather have more blocks than just a few to use over and over again.
Yup.
If you give 9 people their own bucket of legos and instructions to create a form and 1 person a bag of clay and the same instructions you will probably see 9 forms with maybe some slight variation but with the clay form you scratch your head and wonder, how the heck did they build a lego with clay?
As DM, I wish to create a unit of Rangers that patrol an area on the map. I divide my unit into two patrols of 4 characters. They look like this:
Rangers of Iskandaria Unit one: Ranger/Soldier/Commander (Commander theme technically doppelgangs a Warlord) Ranger/Commoner/Slayer Ranger/Sage/Guardian Ranger/Priest/Shifter (think, non-spellcasting druid type)
Unit two: Fighter/Ranger(background)/Commander and Healer (giving fighters two themes) Rogue(Scheme:Scout)/Ranger/Magic User Cleric(Domain: Nature)/Ranger/Guardian Wizard(School: Enchantment)/Ranger/Lurker
Background provides you with 3-4 non combat skill boosts and a feature. For this example, Ranger is: Perception +3 Survival+ Ride+3 Handle Animal +3
Background feature: Track
Class provides you with you base of concept.
Theme guides role play of concept
Effectively I have created two units of Rangers. If your style of play includes options and diversity, which one do you choose?
Avenger. I don't like the idea of it as a Paladin theme. It's too thematically different. Besides holy guy with sword, they're completely different concepts. The Avenger is more of a paladin/assassin/rogue/ranger hybrid.
Just as an historical note, the original Avenger really was a Paladin equivilent.
A very long time ago in the days of Basic D&D, Fighters got minions and land at level 9. If you didn't want those things, you could instead become one of three classes of "Wandering Fighter" who got extra abilites to make up for the lack of land and lackeys. Those classes were:
In those days, "Good" and "Evil" were not alignment options.
So the name "Avenger" has been used for more than one distinct style of class over the years. The avenger in those days was an armoured fighter with clerical powers.
I'm specifically referring to the 4e Avenger. The lightly armored divine assassin that almost never misses and has absolutely insane mobility. Almost no class has ever been better at getting to the enemy's rear lines and wreaking havoc on the enemy ranged strikers. They're close to my favorite 4e class. It's always a tossup between them, the rogue, and the fighter.
Class bloat is harmful for several reasons: 1.) increased printing costs. 2.) harder time finding the material you actually wanted amongst all the dross 3.) confusion for new players
For reason 3 alone, the core should be very limited in class selection.
Class bloat is harmful for several reasons: 1.) increased printing costs. 2.) harder time finding the material you actually wanted amongst all the dross 3.) confusion for new players For reason 3 alone, the core should be very limited in class selection.
None of which are actually significantly negative, compared to the positive benefits to people who don't think they way you do.
The third one is a common misconception, people grossly underestimate new players. Especially people who have been playing for decades.
Throw me in with the "many classes" lot, please. More classes allow for a wider range of playstyles through more diverse mechanics. They tend to be less broken then shoving more archetypes into the same classes (since then you end up with more options, and more potential for abusable combinations, within a given class), and they can better represent esoteric archetypes via targeted mechanics then you can by simply trying to staple those mechanics onto the side of a class that was designed to function without them (this is most apparent for pet classes).
Now, the class/background/theme distinction does allow for more concepts to be covered by individual classes naturally, so there are some archetypes that I would have wanted as classes in the past that I don't think would need to be extra classes now, but there are others that still don't fit so well that way.
Anyway, take assassins as an example. In 4e, there were two assassins, the ossassin, a magical shadow warrior, and the executioner, a more mundane character with poison use and a touch of dark magic flair.
The executioner could work well as a rogue (provided martial types in general get a bit more attack style variety than has been seen so far) with a sneaky skills background, a poison use theme, and a 'shadow magic' advanced theme taken later.
But the Ossassin, I'd want his magic use much more tied into what he does from the beginning, and as such I'd much prefer a class for it. Though I'd rather it weren't named "assassin", since people think more mundaney roguey when they hear that (part of why ossassin didn't get the love - along with its low power level). Maybe "shadowblade".
In any event I wouldn't mind more classes anyway, since I'm likely to, say, become bored of the fighter's core mechanics long before I'm bored of the warrior archetype, and a varient module or whatever system for martial arts or different fighting styles with attendant classes to utilize it would be welcome in my book.
Likewise, while 'wizard' and 'cleric' (or even just 'wizard') could theoretically cover any and all spellcasting archetype, I'd like some non-vancian variants for a more streamlined magic user experience. Likewise, I don't want clerics to be obligatory, and would like alternate healing options in a bard or the like. And while 'beguiler' might conceptually be very close to 'wizard/rogue', it's about as far from the mechanical results of that blend (a guy who deals sneak attack damage with lazer beams) as you can get.
So my ideal list of PHBI classes in 5e looks like this:
Assassin - part of a martial arts module using discrete named maneuvers and attacks and an encounter based resource management system similar to tombe of battle and a semi-mystical flair. Some shadowy abilities. Focus on disorienting/isolating/taking down single targts, supplementing small weapon dice with extra damage and effects from maneuvers. Poison use not built in, but part of its own theme available to rogues & others as well.
Barbarian - raging as a resource limited mechanic, maybe even different rages with different attacks or abilities they grant. Bring in some of the 4e flair of not just getting angry, but being possessed by angry spirits (though maybe introduce some fluff of wizards who are skeptical that these 'spirits' are real).
Bard - focused on buffing, with some healing magic. Weapon using, but weapon abilities left primarily to theme choice. Non-vancian.
Cleric - part of the vancian magic module, included in the PHB, spells focus on healing and buffs with a minor in blowing **** up
Druid - Non-vancian, abilities focus on summoning (temporary duration & requires concentration actions to preserve action economy) and shape changing with a minor in healing
Fighter - Slightly more complex than what we've seen, maybe supplementing the default basic attack with a few weaker but situationally usefull weapon-based special attacks, similar to the executioner assassin in 4e, along with an expanded fighter's surge mechanic to provide some resource management.
Illusionist - renamed "Beguiler" and focuses on more subtle casting, illusion and enchantment effects via general magic abilities. Non-Vancian version of a wizard with more subtle spells.
Monk - part of a semi-mystical martial arts / maneuvers module along with the assassin. Like the assassin, supplements small weapon / unarmed fighting with extra damage and effects from maneuvers. light/enlightenment themed (as opposed to the assasin's darkness theme). Emphasize turning enemy's strength against them. Many maneuvers are "counters" that react to an enemy attack, but cost the monk either an action to prepare, or the use of their next action to preserve action economy.
Paladin - Must dedicate to a deity or to a code, but doesn't have to be Lawful Good. Spiritual companion (special steed or helper spirit) provides aid and guidance. Physical warrior with buffing and healing abilities, like a cleric, but not vancian. Basically, the version of the cleric archetype for games not employing the vancian magic module.
Ranger - see the favored enemy thread for some cool ideas here. Combat styles left more to themes (rather than baking in "you must choose two weapon fighting or archery", you can pick a related theme if you want), class features focus on favored enemy and animal companion.
Rogue - slightly more complex than current - as with the fighter, maybe add executioner-style situational special attacks to varry things up while still leaving just plain old attack as their default option.
Sorcerer - specializes in blowing stuff up, but some utility abilities handled by ad-libbing general magic abilities. Non-vancian, basically the alternative wizard archetype for games not employing the vancian magic module.
Warlock - goes through another significant re-imagining, becoming a dedicated pet class. The warlock's pact involves sharing its soul with a foreign spirit. Depending on the nature of their pact, the warlock manifests the daemonic, undead, or fey spirit's physical form, through which the majority of their attacks and abilities are channeled. Their remaining abilities take the form of curses, some more nebulous and narrative and DM determined, some specifically deliniated for in combat use. Rather than direct attacks or hard control conditions, curses are minor effects involving no dice rolling that the warlock applies in addition to their pet attacking.
Warlord - emphasizes the "help" action, able to apply it in addition to taking his normal action a scaling number of times per (day? encounter?), and can trade the 'advantage' offered by helping for other benefits (such as 'make an attack right now' or 'spend/restore hit dice'). Can also give up actions to grant them at will (if the warlord doesn't move, he can direct an ally to move, if the warlord doesn't attack, he can direct an ally to attack).
Wizard - part of the vancian spellcasting module, specializes in blowing **** up and battleflield control, and utility effects.
The PHB would include two major system modules for characters - vancian casting and martial arts, both of which would be considerably more complicated but not intentionally more powerful than the classes that don't use those system. In comparison the other classes would be streamlined, and rely more on ad-libbed adjudication by the DM for odd actions, but would still be more involved than the current fighter. Also, no archetype playable via module class wouldn't also by workable without - ie, with a high dex and an unarmed combat theme a fighter or rogue could still work the monk or assassin concepts without the martial arts module, while a sorcerer or paladin could work the wizard or cleric concepts without vancian casting.
Throw me in with the "many classes" lot, please. More classes allow for a wider range of playstyles through more diverse mechanics. They tend to be less broken then shoving more archetypes into the same classes (since then you end up with more options, and more potential for abusable combinations, within a given class), and they can better represent esoteric archetypes via targeted mechanics then you can by simply trying to staple those mechanics onto the side of a class that was designed to function without them (this is most apparent for pet classes).
I'd like to focus on this for a second, particularly the bolded part.
One of the reasons I don't like a theoretical "four base classes only, everything else in a theme or a background or a result of multiclassing" is that a LOT of archetypes are going to be shoved into the fighter. After all, the fighter is already a fairly broad archetype of "weapon using guy."
Under the four class system, the wizard would probably be given access to a "sorcerer" theme, a "warlock" theme, maybe an "artificer" theme, the bard may be folded into the wizard or rogue, and the psion could even wind up folded into the wizard as a theme. Oh, and the swordmage theme, but that would probably either a Wizard/Fighter multiclass, or if its a theme, it would probably be usable by the fighter just as easily.
The cleric....well, the cleric would be the druid, even though I don't want the druid to be a divine caster again. And other than that....well, there's the paladin, but yeah, once again that archetype could be grabbed by the fighter. I suppose we could allow the archetype the Avenger covered, but that would probably also be usable by the fighter or the rogue.
And the rogue would be the hardest one to give exclusive archetypes to. I mean....sure, it could be an assassin, ranger, or swashbuckler, but so could the fighter. He could share the bard with the wizard...maybe get spellthief as well, but that would also probably have some overlap of some kind with the wizard. Ninja would want to be a rogue, but once again there's no reason a fighter can't make a more combat oriented ninja.
So when we reach the fighter, what archetypes can he fit? Well, there's the already discussed swordmage, paladin, assassin, ranger, and swashbuckler. On top of the, he would cover the Barbarian/Beserker, Knight, Archer, Samurai, Monk, etc.
See why I don't like the idea of only four classes? Because for about half the archetypes I would want to play, I'd probably have to go with a fighter.
D&D Experience Level: Relatively new First Edition: 4th Known Editions: 4th, 3.5 --- Magic Experience Level: Fairly skilled First Expansion: 7th Edition Play Style: Very Casual
The Rogue has an additional factor and I don't know all the particulars. But schemes could account for concept perpetuation. For an assassin, the set up is part of the thrill. And the Rogue should be king of the set up. Assasins are mechanics. No doubt, a ruthless one hit fighter could take that role.
A Cleric of Gaiea(sp), the mother earth domain, would/should be allowed in the druids grove.
Fighter archetypes have to be carefully considered because 5E fighters are the kings of battle actions. If an archetype can do that better, then who wants to role a king of war when you have the option to be the god of war.
Class bloat is harmful for several reasons: 1.) increased printing costs. 2.) harder time finding the material you actually wanted amongst all the dross 3.) confusion for new players
For reason 3 alone, the core should be very limited in class selection.
It doesn't really matter how many options there are for a class for new player. As long as you can describe each class in 1 sentence it's not a big deal.
What becomes a big deal is when you say, "ok you've chosen the assassin class, now, do you want to be part of the red hand guild, the black hand guild, the snake guild, or the fox guild... Ok you picked one, now, which of these 5 powers would you like to use for your default strike?... ok now... etc etc..
If you just say, "Ok, you've picked assassin... now tell me, where did your assassin come from? Was he a commoner, blackmisth, (30 more options).. Ok, now, What type of Fisherman assassin do you want to become, a guardian, shifter, etc.. (30 more options).
I think the second option is much simpler for a new player. As long as they don't have to learn what guilds mean in this game, or what a power is specifically... the choices aren't too bad.
The Rogue has an additional factor and I don't know all the particulars. But schemes could account for concept perpetuation. For an assassin, the set up is part of the thrill. And the Rogue should be king of the set up. Assasins are mechanics. No doubt, a ruthless one hit fighter could take that role.
A Cleric of Gaiea(sp), the mother earth domain, would/should be allowed in the druids grove.
Fighter archetypes have to be carefully considered because 5E fighters are the kings of battle actions. If an archetype can do that better, then who wants to role a king of war when you have the option to be the god of war.
Well, it's like what someone else and I both said: for a mundane assassin that relies entirely on weapon skills, you'd take an assassin theme that any class could take. For the mystical assassin that uses dark shadowy magic, there's an Assassin class. Perhaps the rogue also gets an assassin scheme to help encourage assassin rogues, but it shouldn't be exclusive to them.
I don't mind druids that work together with clerics of nature deities, but I do not want the druid itself to be divine.
*nods head* Fighter archetypes are going to be hard to do right....if for no other reason than the fact that the vague archetype of "weapon user guy" that the fighter already covers is so broad it can include dozens of archetypes.
D&D Experience Level: Relatively new First Edition: 4th Known Editions: 4th, 3.5 --- Magic Experience Level: Fairly skilled First Expansion: 7th Edition Play Style: Very Casual
Class bloat is harmful for several reasons: 1.) increased printing costs. 2.) harder time finding the material you actually wanted amongst all the dross 3.) confusion for new players
That's how they sell more books. It's also a decent barometer for gauging when any given edition is on its last days. Chronomancer, really?
They're close to my favorite 4e class. It's always a tossup between them, the rogue, and the fighter.
