only the vestige part; the two classes worked very differently. But at the very least the new Binder would just use the name and be more like a Totemist
Ah. What you're looking for, then, is fluff.
These kind of comment don't have any place on this thread; the thread is about what new classes people want, and it's safe to say that people are not looking for a new class that's just a copy of another class with different fluff. I don't think it's that hard to make a class both thematically different and mechanically different from existing ones.
The man says he wants a Totemist class, not just a Totemist character; that means he's looking for something different and exciting, so telling him to play a reflavored Warden is not helping anyone.
Reminding people about fluff being mutable is unnecessary and somewhat inane in general when it comes to future releases, seeing how the game already has enough mechanics to do any concept you can think of.
As long as WotC is making new classes, there is no reason why one of them can't be like the Totemist.
only the vestige part; the two classes worked very differently. But at the very least the new Binder would just use the name and be more like a Totemist
Ah. What you're looking for, then, is fluff.
These kind of comment don't have any place on this thread; the thread is about what new classes people want, and it's safe to say that people are not looking for a new class that's just a copy of another class with different fluff. I don't think it's that hard to make a class both thematically different and mechanically different from existing ones.
The man says he wants a Totemist class, not just a Totemist character; that means he's looking for something different and exciting, so telling him to play a reflavored Warden is not helping anyone.
Reminding people about fluff being mutable is unnecessary and somewhat inane in general when it comes to future releases, seeing how the game already has enough mechanics to do any concept you can think of.
As long as WotC is making new classes, there is no reason why one of them can't be like the Totemist.
In order. The pacts system in general is what ate the 3.5 Binder. And thank you for wasting that Raise Dead ritual so that people could continue to beat the horse.
These kind of comment don't have any place on this thread
Well, actually, it kind of does.
If someone says "I want a cult leader that has self-sacrifice powers to deal horrific effects, and can cause great amounts of fear in his opponents or summon horrors from the beyond", we can say "refluff the invoker" because fear effects and damaging the self and summoning are all invoker schticks. If someone says "I want a Totemist who summons the essences of magical beasts into transforming effects", we can say "you know, that's kind of what the warden does, just use X to give him natural attacks". If someone says "I want a Heretic class", we can say "You know, there's nothing mechanically unique about being a heretic, so why not reimagine one of the existing classes in that fashion?"
New classes can be examined from both a thematic AND mechanical point of view. If a proposed class is mechanically just about the same as something that exists, we can point out how the flavor could be changed. If a proposed class, likewise, has identical flavor to something that exists but uses different mechanics, we can point out that there is significant overlap, and offer a critique on how the proposal might tweak its flavor, or muse as to whether the new mechanics are interesting or necessary.
Anyone can propose any class, certainly. But in turn, we can discuss the idea and talk about whether or not we think, in our own respective opinions, we share the belief that that would be a good idea or if we believe that idea can already be accomplished or is unnecessary. That's what discussion is all about.
These kind of comment don't have any place on this thread
Well, actually, it kind of does.
If someone says "I want a cult leader that has self-sacrifice powers to deal horrific effects, and can cause great amounts of fear in his opponents or summon horrors from the beyond", we can say "refluff the invoker" because fear effects and damaging the self and summoning are all invoker schticks. If someone says "I want a Totemist who summons the essences of magical beasts into transforming effects", we can say "you know, that's kind of what the warden does, just use X to give him natural attacks". If someone says "I want a Heretic class", we can say "You know, there's nothing mechanically unique about being a heretic, so why not reimagine one of the existing classes in that fashion?"
New classes can be examined from both a thematic AND mechanical point of view. If a proposed class is mechanically just about the same as something that exists, we can point out how the flavor could be changed. If a proposed class, likewise, has identical flavor to something that exists but uses different mechanics, we can point out that there is significant overlap, and offer a critique on how the proposal might tweak its flavor, or muse as to whether the new mechanics are interesting or necessary.
Anyone can propose any class, certainly. But in turn, we can discuss the idea and talk about whether or not we think, in our own respective opinions, we share the belief that that would be a good idea or if we believe that idea can already be accomplished or is unnecessary. That's what discussion is all about.
TRUTH!
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
I want a class with interesting ressource management option. Not sure what it would be thematically but some interesting mechanic where you can shift a ressource from buffing your attack, your AC or your nad or even giving you an iniative boost, etc...
Come to think of it there is no class with powers that can manipulate the iniative order much. The Warlord gives a bonus to his allies and thats pretty much it.
New classes should be able to do both mechanics and fluff, but give you only have an idea for part of a class, don't hesitate to post. So i guess the question is, what would the totemist do different?
Warlord has A power that let's him swap init with someone, i also think there's an item that does it too. Having a time mage would be pretty cool, caster as a leader is something we don't have much of.
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way. Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken. Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken. King Fisher Does an excellent job at keeping an enemy disabled in a few ways. Strong. Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading. Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered. Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square. Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong. Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked. Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic. Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation. Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses. Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat. Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent. Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof. Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it. Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways. Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful. The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken. Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken Unnamed Avenger|Runepriest/Hammer of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered. Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5. Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong. Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight, only far more broken. Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken. Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.
New classes should be able to do both mechanics and fluff, but give you only have an idea for part of a class, don't hesitate to post. So i guess the question is, what would the totemist do different?
Warlord has A power that let's him swap init with someone, i also think there's an item that does it too. Having a time mage would be pretty cool, caster as a leader is something we don't have much of.
–I summon the Time Wizard! Time Roulette!!
A hundred years pass, and my Baby Dragon grows into the Thousand Dragon!
–That's not all, Joey! The time lapse has caused her Harpy Ladies to age!
A great man once said "If WotC put out boxes full of free money there'd still be people complaining about how it's folded." – Boraxe
If a proposed class is mechanically just about the same as something that exists, we can point out how the flavor could be changed. If a proposed class, likewise, has identical flavor to something that exists but uses different mechanics, we can point out that there is significant overlap,
But the thing is, I don't think that either of those are really anyone's intention when they post a class concept on this thread.
If I say I want a Totemist class, why would you assume I want it to have similar mechanics to already existing class? Nobody even has said what the Totemist should do mechanically, yet people claim it's mechanically redundant; I think that's unfair.
and offer a critique on how the proposal might tweak its flavor, or muse as to whether the new mechanics are interesting or necessary.
Thats fine. Just don't assume that the flavor or the mechanics are the only thing they're looking for.
If I say I want a Totemist class, why would you assume I want it to have similar mechanics to already existing class? Nobody even has said what the Totemist should do mechanically, yet people claim it's mechanically redundant; I think that's unfair.
If you say "I want a Totemist", I'm going to assume you are talking about...the Totemist. Since it existed previously, I can look at its mechanics from Magic of Incarnum, read about its basic schtick, and then compare it to classes currently within the addition.
Now, if you said "I want a class with the same flavor as the Totemist, but did X", then X would be the mechanics I would compare to what we have currently.
If, however, you said you wanted a class that we currently don't have by name....let's go with Time Magus, then it's more reasonable to assume that the mechanics could be vague. At the same time, I would expect you to describe this fabled Time Magus, at which point we could discuss the mechanical implications.
We can't have a discussion if we're just listing off things willy-nilly without actually pondering each one, and sometimes offering criticism. Otherwise, we're just going "I want a factotum! I want a samurai! I want a pony!" which, while amusing, isn't condusive to analysis or examination of the trends that people are looking for and the elements that people think are lacking proper expression in this edition.
