|
13 months ago ::
May 30, 2012 - 10:32AM
#31
|
Date Joined:
Aug 26, 2007
|
I think swasbuckler would make a good theme. I am thinking alot of the sub classes can be turned into themes. Ranger, barbarian, sorcere, bard, asassin, and maybe even paladin and warlord. Basically, once a class is just a variation on one of the 4 base classes (rogue, fighter, wizard, cleric), it becomes a theme. Monk would probably still have to be its own class, and maybe psion. Druid maybe be its own class?
That sounds terrible but I am getting the feeling that in DnDN each class will be such a composition of the class/theme/background that every character will pretty much be a kind of multi class. I keep thinking of the elf fighter I made with the play test materials. I chose fighter, knight, magic user, and looking at the caracter as a whole, I am inclined to call it a mage knight more than 'fighter.' The background, and espicially theme, seem to be pretty important for customizing the character. It is almost like the class=what the character does and theme=how they do it.
What does fighter do? it fights
how does the fighter fight? If its guardian theme it controls the battle by blocking movment and defelcting eney blows against allies. If it is slayer, it fights with pure aggression with killing being its top priority, if its magic user its using a combination of spells and martial ability. If it is a swashbuckler, then it fights by parrying, dodging, and fienting to keep its enemy off balance, and by out pacing/manovering opponents. healter theme, you cut your way though the frey looking for wounded companions to administer aid too.
how does the wizard cast spells? If it is magic user it has access to a varity of spells. If it is a slayer theme, it does so by casting aggressivly and dangeriosly, lurker, it does so by skulking in the shadows, and casting spells at people before they even know the wizard is there...
This I think might be the most exciting part about DnDN
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 30, 2012 - 10:42AM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Jun 28, 2010
|
Defenders are not tanks, and old fighters were not tanks. All referring to either of those as "tanks" does is betray a fundamental ignorance of at least one of the terms involved.
Pardon, but fundamental ignorance by whom?
Perhaps you might enlighten us and define these terms.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 30, 2012 - 10:50AM
#33
|
Date Joined:
May 29, 2012
|
I think that they should maintain 3x's 11 base classes and develop more prestige classes, there should be a wide variety of Backgrounds and Themes to adjust your character in a 3D way: Class, Background & theme. When you add race, age and gender each layer becomes more unique.
Themes and backgrounds should be unlocked, that is available to all. Who knows your Fighter may have "magical apprentice" as a background or theme, if it is a background he/she probably dispised all of the theoretical magic ideas and wanted to kill things with more brute force, as a theme the Fighter could have been trying to learn a few spells to better compensate for his/her weaknesses.
For Sashbuckler you could be an "ex"sailor or "ex"pirate for a background, or for a theme you could have "Duelist".
I think a theme with "Duelist" should have a favored martial or exotic weapon as to allow players to determine what their duelist's combat capability is, I mean "Ronin" or "Samurai" could be "Duelists", if you disagree you need to watch more anime and Asian cinema as it is a reoccuring theme of the genre.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 30, 2012 - 10:52AM
#34
|
Date Joined:
Jun 28, 2010
|
If you ask me, eleven "base" classes is patently absurd when you only have four or five actual different functions. 3(.5)'s greatest flaw was piling options upon options... 4E has been making that mistake over the last year or two as well.
I get that you need to sell more books, but having several classes that are essentially identical but for flavor is nothing more then redundant and confusing.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 30, 2012 - 11:01AM
#35
|
Date Joined:
Oct 24, 2004
|
Why can't you have a Dex based tank? Swashbuckler is just a name.
Because "tanks" are not a thing in DnD and never have been.
If 5e has tanks, it'll be the first, and the OMGMMO complaints can begin for real this time.
Again its just a name.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 30, 2012 - 11:26AM
#36
|
Date Joined:
May 29, 2012
|
Strengths of the "4" & "11" basics:
1a Fighter a capable combatant in any regard as long as it is physical.
2a Rogue picking locks and sneak attacking, finding traps.
3a Cleric with domains it is already a vastly extended class compared to the 3 others.
4a Wizard their spell knowledge will evetually make others useless, hurling high powered spells defeats fighter, magically getting rid of locks/traps & polymorphing into shadow makes rogues useless, but not until a high level of power and specialization is reached.
5 Monk with ki and the ability to perfect their bodies, become immune to disease and poisons... if it is enlightment you seek look no further.
6 Barbarian they are what they are, their rage guides them they might not be able to read but in the wilderness they can be effective survivalists and hunters.
7 Ranger he isn't a "fighter" he is a stalker but not a rogue he has his trusty animal companion and minor spell casting abilities.
8 Sorceror unlike "wizards" they have a natural talent for magic, they don't get the more powerful spells but they do get more low level spells. (they have to do a better job at defining this from a wizard).
9 Druid with an animal companion these are like bararian, ranger clerics dedicated to nature, wether it means distroying civilization to maintain or not.
10 Paladin these are like cleric fighters but because of their strict lifestyles they have less options and are optimized for combating the forces of darkness.
11 Bard not everyone is cut out for combat and these are like sorceror rogues their ability to manipulate others is their strength, instead of prayers they offer songs of hope on the battlefield, they make excellent distractions for the party to do their thing.
Each class has an initial "theme" and "style" but ki isn't magic or psionic instead it is a vital part of the monk that only he with his training can tap into. Song Magic practiced by bards functions differently from psionics, sorcery and wizardry as you can hide it within spells as bards are known to do. Paladins gain fervor from their faith and zeal whereas fighters fight typically for money, not the most noble of causes. Druids answer to the plants, animals and a God, whereas a cleric views all below their God often as lowly and unworthy but in need of salvaton. Sorcerers are called witches misunderstood and outcasted, slain by paladins and clerics. Wizards are bothered by the ignorant village people to solve all of their problems. Barbarians just want to be left alone, the outsiders must leave their land or suffer a great wrath. Rogues are just trying to get by often at the expense of others. Rangers are often instinctive lonewolves and scouts they alert their parties to information they've gained, heavy armored tower sheilded fighters can't do what a ranger can!
This is the reason for more than 4 classes, each has it's own flavor that the basic of basics just don't cut.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 31, 2012 - 5:34AM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Jan 22, 2012
|
Jfriant, there are some decent swashbuckling archetypes for medieval settings. For Errol Flynn films, how about The Adventures of Robin Hood?
For my part, the inclusion of finess weapons gives me great hope that swashbuckler type characters from several different classes may be possible.
Z.
My comments about era were only to illustrate the need in a difference in approach to combat. Let's take that example of The Adventures of Robin Hood. Yeah, I will agree with you that he was a swashbuckler in a medieval setting. However... 1) They're technically still using longswords, not a finess blade like a rapier, despite the fancy cinematic fencing. 2) Robin duels with other lightly armored (unarmored) men, like Guy, so they're on a level playing field. When it comes to the more heavily armored villains he does things like attack them with the deer carcass, shove them away with a table, or use his long bow. He's not really able to go toe-to-toe with a heavily armored enemy.
So, can there be a swashbuckler in a medieval setting? Absolutely - they just have to be more creative with their approach to heavily armored more "traditional" medieval enemies than simply being able to duel another lightly armored swashbuckler on even ground.
Where I'm going with this is; I don't think that swashbucklers need to be beefed up in terms of combat as long as the game allows them to be effective in the other aspects of the game. Part of this is on the player to be creative in-game, but also on the DM and the ruleset to allow that creativity. I think simply making a lightly armored swashbuckler as good in basic combat ("I swing my weapon") as a heavily armored traditional fighter makes said fighter obsolete. From what I have seen, previous incarnations of the swashbuckler, generally, allow for that kind of "outside-the-box" approach to combat situations that can make them effective without having them be the same as an armored fighter.
What's the matter, you dissentious rogues,
That rubbing the poor itch of your opinion
Make yourselves scabs?
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 31, 2012 - 5:54AM
#38
|
Date Joined:
Aug 10, 2006
|
If we accept that a martial character can fight a dragon like this with ANY kind of weapon...  I don't have a problem thinking about a rapier armed guy against a plate armored warrior...
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 31, 2012 - 8:11AM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Jan 22, 2012
|
I don't accept that a single martial character could fight a dragon like that with any kind of weapon and have a high likelihood of success.
Could they beat that dragon? Yes. Would they have to do so in a manner other than simply attacking it head on? Probably. If they did just decide to attack it head on, is there a chance for them to survive? Yes, there is a chance.
Same with a lightly armored swashbuckler dueling a heavily armored warrior. It depends on the rules of engagement. You're already denying the swashbuckler one of the things that made them deadly in their historical context (gun powder, opponents not being heavily armored) so that even furthers the need for them to find things outside of direct combat to level the playing field.
I just feel like if you want to play a swashbuckler you need to accept that you're not going to be as martial-combat-effective as the more traditional medieval style fighter. But as I said before, you should still get some kind of perks to other things so that you have a balanced character -- and, in my opinion, previous incarnations of the swashbuckler did that fairly well.
What's the matter, you dissentious rogues,
That rubbing the poor itch of your opinion
Make yourselves scabs?
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 31, 2012 - 8:21AM
#40
|
Date Joined:
Sep 18, 2007
|
I hope they make a Swashbuckler theme... since I could see a dex-fighter or dex-rogue being a swashbuckler (or even a ranger).
Which is one of the reasons I love the concept of themes.
Because "tanks" are not a thing in DnD and never have been.
Just go buy a copy of World of Warcraft already. We all played MMO's. It is the same player base.
|
|
|
