All of these are different enough both in mechanics and flavor that can be own classes, and have a great amount of fans. I would like more classes of their own, but these ones are the most important. This make up for 13 core classes (or 13 classes that are in the core rulebooks).
I do not have played Vancian extensively but I know lots of magic systems that don't have at-will magic and they do it fine. I think that the LoF needs to get nerfed. But I think that the entire Cleric class needs a rework for balance purposes, especially the Arcanist deity. The more I think about the Cleric class, the more I think that it needs a rework. They have many spells and good Hit dice and armor and weapons and Expertise. They have too many uses of Channel Divinity, without talking about broken things like some Channel Divinity options, the Arcanist deity and Battlefield Concentration. Right now, I think that Clerics should be nerfed. And Wizards now are underpowered, so they need a buff. Also I suggested a module/dial that removes at-will magic and still maintains balance. Some people would like that. Right now I think that every damage dealer cantrip should be nerfed. Their big thing is not the at-wills, they shouldn't rely on them too much. The at-will cantrips should not overshadow their others spells. Personally, if I would make the magic system of D&D, I would make classic Vancian the standard for most classes (including Wizard and Cleric) and then the expected modules. If some class existed in one edition in the PHB their concept should be playable. If some class existed in one edition in the PHB as a own class, then it's a strong candidate to appear as a own class. I personally don't like folding classes into another ones. Basically when two or more classes are similar, you can do three things: Leave as it is, Fold then into one class, or Differentiate them. Of Course, this have very much to do with preferences. I would prefer a game with lots of flavorful and unique classes than few bland classes with no identity. There is one advantage in class design that it’s not mentioned very often. The short version is: being a Wizard actually means something. I will try to explain this. A class is formed by several parts: It has the mechanics, which is obvious. But it also has fluff, flavor, description and legacy. Basically there are the stories about characters of that class, the class’s identity and all of such. To better represent my opinion, I shall bring to the discussion another commercial franchise: Final Fantasy. In many FFs there exists the Job system, which is really just a class system. Many times the Final Fantasy’s games uses a system different from that, but usually it’s a system unique to the game, and even so references to the Job system exist, so the Job system wins as most common system used by FF. Thing is, many people recognize FF Jobs, from classical Jobs such as Black Mage, White Mage, Warrior, Ninja, Paladin, Dragoon to less iconic Jobs such as, I don’t know, Jobs that only appeared in one to three games. Thing is, with considered time, these Jobs have all sort of Fluff and Legacy with then. Many characters not only use one Job, but also marked the series. When people talk about the Black Mage, for instance, not only they will remember the concept itself, but they will also remember all the appearances made in Job based games (which, in that specific case, are many) and also many characters like Palom from FFIV or Vivi from FFIX or Lulu from FFX. Things is, these Jobs marked the series and being one of them actually has meaning, because this Jobs have strong identities attached to them. The problem with classless systems is that, they are classless. What is a Wizard in a classless system? This really matter? In a classless system, is there some meaning in being a Wizard? The problem with classless systems is that these identities are kinda of lost, because being a Wizard is not so important, because being a Wizard does not have any mechanical marks and basically in a classless system, there is no Wizard by default, this doesn’t have meaning in a practical way. With class bases D&D, however, that is different. Being a Wizard in D&D has meaning, an when people talk about Wizards in D&D they will not only remember the current version of the Wizard, they will also remember all versions of the Wizard, and all characters and NPCs that are Wizards, and now, they will also remember the mechanical difference and the flavor, identity difference between the Wizard and the other spellcasting classes. This is something really hard to put in words, there is my best shot.
I don't think that Essentials was a smart move, but, in my opinion, one thing that Essentials and post-Essentials 4e do good are character concepts. I don't like the idea of folding classes into another class in the first place. Yes, I don't like the idea of folding the Warlord into the Fighter. Right now, I would make Vancian the standard magic system for most classes in D&D (including Wizard and Cleric). What people complained is the fact that the Wizard was Vancian-Only. If it was Vancian-Default, that would be different.
I had some thought on one spellcasting system. Spoiler:Show
It is basically composed of three parts: 1. The Standard System: The standard system would be classic Vancian. Wizard: classic Vancian, have to learn spells first, and then prepare them. All the 9 spells levels. Cleric: It would be Vancian, but with some differences, The Cleric would carry on the tradition of choosing spells directly from the class’s spell list, but it would have some old school disadvantages to compensate, such as 7 spell-levels for Clerics and Druids (and even less for Paladins and Rangers), and most divine’s spells would be about healing and support (the Druid and the Ranger can have more offensive spells), and, in general, they would have less spells, perhaps even having divine spells (Cleric, Druid, Paladin and Ranger) be worse than arcane spells, as I’ve told that it was like this in pre-3rd Edition. 2. The Flagships The Flagships are classes that represent one alternative magic system in the standard system. They, by default, are not Vancian, they use another system (with the possibility of using Vancian or other systems). Sorcerer: This Sorcerer would be a little different than the other casters. They would have the same spell list as the Wizard (a la 3.X) and they will use, by default, flexible spell-slots spellcasting (the current system. Very like 3.X Sorcerer, but with class benefits that make then different, a la 4th Edition. With regards to other classes, I would make Bards Vancian, but the Warlock is also a good candidate to some different spellcasting mechanics. Possibly the Witch (4e post-Essentials subclass) somewhere? 3. Modular Magic Systems And there would be a module that changes the way that the spellcasting works. This would be a module that has guidelines about altering the default spellcasting mechanics. The guidelines would consist of how the quantity of spells cast can be ported over, and from which spells they prepare, etc... Let’s give a proper example: The Wizard would be classic Vancian. Thing is, for alternative casting systems, the Wizard would have guidelines that would be something on these lines: “They always prepare spells from the list of know spells. In alternative spellcasting modules, he can prepare a number of spells equal to 1+ Wizard’s level, and the number of spells slots or equivalent is equal to the number of spells per level per day.” This is not something that will have problems of text space. All that you need is some short guidelines about which spells they can chose to cast and how much spells they cast. The rest of these mechanics would be stated only once, in the module of alternative magic system. The good points: • Not only every Vancian class would have an option to be non-Vancian, but also the non-Vancian classes would have the options to be Vancian. Why some classes in default would be Vancian while others not? Add some variety for the new players and players of things like RPGA and Encounter. That and many of the editions of D&D had it like that. • It manages to both being classic with classic Vancian and satisfy the non-Vancian fans with flagships and modules. The bad points: • Using alternative magic systems do not raise your raw power but make casters more flexible. The classes that are already flexible (such as Sorcerer) would need some more flexibility to keep up. No idea how to handle martial characters, although.
We should get rid of at-will cantrips. Spoiler:Show
Okay, now that you’ve got the first panic reaction, let me explain it. Yes, many people like at-will cantrips and they are popular. They have everything that it takes to be popular. However, I think we should remove them from the game, at least as an assumption to all caster classes.
First: At-will cantrips blur up the distinction between casters and martial characters, and makes being a gish useless.
Basically in non at-will cantrips systems there is an advantage in martial characters: the fact that they have abilities that they can always use. But if we give every caster at-will cantrips this blurs up the difference between classes, take out a huge advantage of martial classes. There is also the gish issue. Basically in non at-will cantrips systems, there is a huge advantage of being a gish over being a full caster. The advantage of have some reliable action when out of spells. At-will cantrips weakens that advantage. Just for you to have some idea I was talking previously about the possibility of the Wizard being weaker than the Cleric (some time ago), and when I quoted the fact that the Cleric is a gish, people talked that this is not important, that it doesn’t have such impact because it will use its at-will cantrips. Being a gish should matter. Of course when being a gish actually matters, we can rebalance the classes but it should matter.
Second: At-will cantrips go into the opposite direction of trying to balance casters.
Really when we are trying to balance classic or neo Vancian casters, why give to all of them at-will cantrips? Why we cannot use the absence of at-will cantrips to provide a drawback to balance casters?
Third: At-will cantrips weaken the challenge of resource management.
Really when you always have magic a great part of the challenge goes away. The possibility in being out of magic is not a bug, it is a feature It is part of the system, and this challenge don’t have to go away because it is fun. The challenge of running out of magic is part of the system, and fun.
Fourth: At-will cantrips do not fit properly under every system.
Really is not that I don’t like at-will magic, but I don’t think we should bake in every spellcasting system. In 4e it worked because it was part of AEDU, but now, they don’t feel part of anything. They seem to be an arbitrary addition to the game. The 3.5 Warlock was special because it was a class with at-will magic in a game where it doesn’t exist, otherwise, at-will magic. We can have at-will cantrips but it should be done it right, and not being a default assumption for every caster class. I’m worried if they are going to launch a mana spell-point based magic system for spellcasters. This system should not have at-will, no mana cost magic as default for every caster class, because running out of mana is part of the mana system. In Final Fantasy they even have no MP cost magic, but they do it right, and when they use no MP cost magic, it is special because it is in a game that is otherwise MP based.
Sokka, Lui Bei, Captain America of the avengers, King Freaking Arthur!
What do these people have in common?
They are far from the best fighters in their respective organizations but lead through superior tactical and social capabilities, they join their allies on the front and contribute directly to the war effort but their real value is tactical and emotional in nature.
The warlord is the archetype that DnD has long ignored, it's a major part of mythology and fiction that gets overlooked in favor of classes focused more on personal advancement. The fact that it has so little history in the game is one of the tragic flaws of DnD and needs to be corrected.
Finally until someone can come up with a reason that the warlord is so similar to the fighter that can't also be used to describe the cleric, please stop saying that the warlord is like a fighter.
Those are good examples (those I recognize, anyway). I especially like Lui Bei as he was indeed NOT a fighter of the prowess we expect from fighters.
All of these are different enough both in mechanics and flavor that can be own classes, and have a great amount of fans. I would like more classes of their own, but these ones are the most important. This make up for 13 core classes (or 13 classes that are in the core rulebooks).
I agree with most except for the Warlord. It is definitely separate enough from the Fighter to be its own class, as the thread dedicated to it has shown.
The fact that there's an entire thread for just the warlord suggests it's inclusion should not be automatc, that its inclusion is debatable. Unlike the swordmage or artificer, which don't have their own threads.
Personally, while I love me some support classes, and really like the warlord. But when I try and think of an offensive or defensive warlord all I see is a fighter. When I think of a leader-build of the fighter, the warlord pops up. And the CS mechanic lends itself very, very well to the warlord. Spending dice to grant extra actions or bonuses to hit or extra damage.
The problem is, if it isn't a class, it will not be a complete warlord. It will be a watered down shell of its former self. The Fighter doesn't need to be stretched that thin. It will also be sort of a middle finger to the 4e fans, as the Warlord is probably one of the most universall beloved classes from that edition. It defines everything we love about the game.
How so? It'll have all the same weapon and armour proficiencies. It will have the ability to buff and aid allies via build expansions of Combat Superiority. People will still want to play with the class. And, with the Healer speciality, it will still be able to provide needed albeit out of combat. And it will have the default fighter powers so it will be able to handle itself if seperated from its allies. So much of the Warlord was also tied into Action Points anyway, so regarless the class will be watered down unless it's an optional class tied to the AP rules module.
If they don't do anything with the warlord that will be a middle finger. But if they say "hey, warlord fans, play a fighter with this build and you should be happy" that's a nice consolation. It's not that different from the reimagining they asked 3e fans to do when adapting for that edition to 4e.
It will be stuff tacked on to the fighter, not unique class features designed specifically for it. They are 2 different archetypes. The Fighter is the foot soldier and should have class features that cater to that. The Warlord is more of the officer and has far different capabilities. It is watered down as a fighter because the class features aren't specifically dedicated to doing what the warlord does. You're stuck with a fighter with some warlord stuff sprinkled on.
Classes: Fighter,Wizard,Thief,Cleric (don't keep expanding this too much) Specialties: variety (maintain balance) Backgrounds: for skills + flavor Race: for ability score min/max + minor abilities
at 5th level : prestige tracks: (with very few entry requirements) added abilities at 10th level: elite tracks: (again very open entry requirements so most characters could join) more added abilities
People could custom build characters with this framework. Why do we need defined classes that put limits on character development?
I never understood the need for such rigid builds. In 3rd edition nobody played a 15th level paladin, cleric, fighter, or wizard. At least if they were smart.
The Fighter is the foot soldier and should have class features that cater to that. The Warlord is more of the officer and has far different capabilities. It is watered down as a fighter because the class features aren't specifically dedicated to doing what the warlord does. You're stuck with a fighter with some warlord stuff sprinkled on.
Most officers were footsoldiers before becoming officers, though.
Why do we need defined classes that put limits on character development?
Because specializations of classes to achieve the same concept a separate class would bring looks to be MORE limiting than a new class because this would expend a specialty (unless they make a sub-class system), which is a resource for customization, thus limiting character development.
The Fighter is the foot soldier and should have class features that cater to that. The Warlord is more of the officer and has far different capabilities. It is watered down as a fighter because the class features aren't specifically dedicated to doing what the warlord does. You're stuck with a fighter with some warlord stuff sprinkled on.
Most officers were footsoldiers before becoming officers, though.
An officer is generally trained to become one. I view the warlord as someone who is straight out of the academy. Make a warlord-like PrC or something for the Fighter to take on later to represent what you describe.
A non-com who breaks into the officer corps was actually fairly unusual back in the day, especially in the middle ages when command posts were handed out to nobles first and foremost. Many medieval officers would be better statted as aristocrats or rogues.
A non-com who breaks into the officer corps was actually fairly unusual back in the day, especially in the middle ages when command posts were handed out to nobles first and foremost. Many medieval officers would be better statted as aristocrats or rogues.
From that perspective, I suppose the name warlord makes sense as it's a pretentious title even before being earned
