Community

NGH wrote:

Perhaps you'd like to move along now, going to the incarnum thread saying you don't like incarnum, over and over.

Hey, where is that incarnum thread?!

I love incarnum!

I love incarnum!

I love incarnum!

...I really do.

I would really dig it if incarnum were to be a future power source, but considering how niche it was and the apparent sales, I doubt it.

Subedei wrote:

This whole thread is backwards.

You're saying "We've got this slot in the matrix at the intersection of controller and martial, what cool stuff can we think up to put in there?" when how classes should be conceived is "We've got this cool idea for a class, so where does it fit best on the role matrix?"

The impetus for creating these proposed characters is mechanical, you were inspired by the game system, the way it works, and the way it is organized.  I suppose I can only argue from my own bias on the issue but I just don't think this is a good idea.

Classes should be inspired by pop culture, then translated into game mechanics in a way that represents the spirit of how they work in movies/books/mythology/reality.

This is a game, true, but it's at it's best when we pretend it isn't.

Best post of this thread – exactly, forced/contrived concepts usually don't pan out.

Organic, baby!

Steely_Dan wrote:

Hey, where is that incarnum thread?!

I love incarnum!

I love incarnum!

I love incarnum!

...I really do.

I would really dig it if incarnum were to be a future power source, but considering how niche it was and the apparent sales, I doubt it.

Actually I thought the mechanics involved way to much book keeping, but I really liked the fluff. It's vaguely indian, but also had some other influences, african, anime etc.

The best thing I liked about it was as a class it allowed me all the effects other classes could do, but without needing to have intelligence as a main stat, carrying around a book etc.

Harrier for the win!:P

Steely_Dan wrote:

1.) Yeah, the allocation of Issentia could be a little tedious, especially for a DM.

2.) Totally, it was the first class to have Con as its main attribute.

3.) Well, they are an innovative aircraft, I'll give you that!

When you dm do you rule out lots of classes/ races etc?
When you play do you enjoy it when the dm does so?

"Subedei"]You're saying "We've got this slot in the matrix at the intersection of controller and martial, what cool stuff can we think up to put in there?" when how classes should be conceived is "We've got this cool idea for a class, so where does it fit best on the role matrix?"

No. For a few reasons.

1. There exists a desire to play low/no-magic campaigns while still having all the game's tactical roles available.

2. Most of the classes have already either been shoehorned into roles that defy concept or were "D&D-isms" in the first place.

Let me elaborate on #2, because that's the big one.

Consider the Wizard. Before D&D, the Wizard in fiction filled the role of advisor, tutor, mentor, or crazy overlord with an army. Wizards worked with charms, illusions, and pacts with strange or evil creatures.

Wizards were not controllers of the battlefield, by and large. One of the few fiction sources for this was when Gandalf threw some light at a charging orc army. That's about the extent of it.

D&D (and fantasy wargaming in general) developed the role for the Wizard over time (and boy has it taken some time). And it isn't even consistent with it. Many fantasy games (including incarnations of D&D) instead present the Wizard as a Striker.

In fact, it could be argued that, in 3E, everyone was a Striker. The Wizard's battlefield control powers weren't even recognized by optimizers on this board for quite awhile after the game's release, long considered a distant second in importance to blasting. Fighters didn't protect, they killed stuff as fast as possible -- just like everyone else.

4E's roles don't come from organic design. They come from tactical wargames and other games inspired by them. The "tank," which inspired the Defender, is an MMO construct inspired by the same tactical wargames as D&D (but adding functionality D&D missed). Sure, there's fiction of the valiant knight protecting his charge, but his primary mechanism for protection is killing the enemy. In 4E, that is now secondary.

And the rogue? Don't even get me started on the rogue. The rogue's fictional base is a noncombatant, an elusive trickster that deals with traps and secrets and rumors, hiding and running away when real trouble comes around (the fighters are supposed to handle that). Now, rogues have the highest damage output in the game. Why? Mechanical balance. Tactical intrigue. Ga wrote: