|
12 months ago ::
Jun 18, 2012 - 9:20PM
#301
|
Date Joined:
Feb 19, 2012
|
I think this thread may've gotten a bit away from its goal. I'm not a fan of telling people how their favorite classes are not... well... worthy of a new edition. EDIT: Or, as soon as I say this people get on topic...  For me, I'm excited by the idea of making a (4e) Avenger-like class from a cleric/slayer w/ a BG in spy... or something. I want to be able to add a shadow theme to many classes to get a sweet necromancer fighter or a blackguard-ish... clericadin. That's just me. I like doing this type of thing, and building out characters who are mechanically and narratively satisfiying due to fulfilling a character concept is fun for me (even if they're not well supported in the system). I'll also say I'm not big into warlords. But, I know some people really dig them. For those people, having a class called warlord embodies more than could be resolved w/ fighter+warlord theme. I wouldn't want to argue that away (even though I do like the idea of having to create a warlord from whatever ends up available). I don't see the appeal in trying to convince people that the things they like are somehow unworthy of being a full class. That it isn't iconic enough or whatever. I also don't see the appeal in trying to persuade people whose minds are already decided against certain classes. Both seem futile and fruitless. More fully on topic, I think my list would be Crazy Monkey's early list of every PHBI class. It sounds awesome with various level of complexity for different classes and playstyles. I'd like to see themes used to really customize those classes. I'd also like to see few actual classes added in the future. Maybe one of two per setting (such as Artificer or Swordmage where appropriate), but mostly themes. I especially look forward to the possibility of party themes. I'm gonna' level with you guys and gals. The most fun I ever had as a PC in 4e (a rare treat!) was as a changeling assassin (Malis, man, we should play some time... Changeling: The Lost, I mean. That book sat on my shelf for like... ever). I know... it's not anywhere near standard races/classes. I'm super hopeful that it'll somehow make it into the PHB. Even though I do like the shadow assassin from 4e, if I ever played one I'd ask the DM if I could do something similar to the shrouds instead of sneak attack damage. Also... I do hope the Dread Necromancer comes back. One of my favorite classes (although... when I did play I convinced DMs to let me play a warlock or a swordsage).
"What's stupid is when people decide that X is true - even when it is demonstrable untrue or 100% against what we've said - and run around complaining about that. That's just a breakdown of basic human reasoning."
-Mike Mearls
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 18, 2012 - 9:22PM
#302
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
The only thing missing is the Monk. How can we re-create it without a base class?
Some sort of "Falcon Puuuuuuuuuunch!" theme, probably
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 18, 2012 - 9:22PM
#303
|
Date Joined:
Feb 24, 2008
|
I think there will be a second non-vancian arcane caster (maybe even a non-vancian cleric , and I think the bard has been in enough iterations of DnD to warrant inclusion. So, my recommend list is:
Fighter
Ranger
Paladin
Cleric
Druid
Rogue
Wizard (Vancian),
Mage (Non-Vancian)
Bard
One more than eight; one less than ten...
That seems pretty close to perfect. And I could see the Sorcerer/Warlock being non-Vancian, now that you mention it.
The only thing missing is the Monk. How can we re-create it without a base class?
My class distribution fits my preferences because I have a clear view of what I want for a class structure (or clearer than most people including some developers). Personally, I would want each class sharing a basic structure with each component providing a varied mechanic.
For a basic structure, I would want a subclass function (similar to the one presented by the playtest rogue for each class). That means a fighter can take barbarian, a wizard (or fighter) can take a swordmage and fighter can take monk as a subclass (and so on). Subclassing would be a module (or maybe a series of interrelated submodules - i.e. a DM can make certain subclasses available - not necessarily all or none).
Each subclass would provide mechanics normally associated with the excluded classes. These mechanics can vary from class to class and subclass to subclass (to provide variety in hopefully balanced manner). On top of subclassing, the character can pick themes and backgrounds since they are separate modules.
The essential simplicity of the core rules are preserved (due to the modular design) and further customization is provided for those fans that really, really like to customize their characters at the DM's discretion.
That's just my opinion after trying to look at the big picture...
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 19, 2012 - 1:24AM
#304
|
Date Joined:
Feb 11, 2011
|
I am happy with the 3.5 and 4e classes, however I think it would be nice to allow classes to specialise, gaining some small ability or abilities as they progress for the sake of role-play and extra game flavour.
Perhaps along the lines of weaker archetypes as seen here:
www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t...
Or some subclass feature as mentioned above by abanathie, as it allows players to more easily specialise for neat character designs without sacrificing the versatility of the base class.
I feel this could satisfy those that want more classes or class options without actually adding new base classes, by supplying variants of each class.
I also think that if the archetypes/subclasses are handled properly, they could replace some prestige classes (like arcane trickster) altogether. Also encourage role-play and gameplay scenarios that more naturally progress the character towards becoming a prestige class from early levels, before the prestige classes requirements are meet.
EDIT: Monk could also be a variant of fighter in this system, loosing armour proficiencies and gaining unarmed abilities without becoming demigods at higher levels... Just a thought...
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 19, 2012 - 8:52AM
#305
|
Date Joined:
Jan 12, 2012
|
EDIT: Monk could also be a variant of fighter in this system, loosing armour proficiencies and gaining unarmed abilities without becoming demigods at higher levels... Just a thought...
Maybe, but when I think of a Monk, I don't think of an unarmed fighter. I think if the pseudo-spiritual/mystical/Eastern type stuff that makes it very different than a western spiritual-healer-type or fighter. I'd say fighting unarmed shouldn't even have to be a feature of any given Monk.
What do other people think about this? Can a Monk really be re-created without a Monk base class?
Leadership and class choice should have NOTHING to do with each other, EVER.
Conflating the two is simply horrendous game design.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 19, 2012 - 10:27AM
#306
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2004
|
Fighter
Ranger
Paladin
Cleric
Druid
Rogue
Wizard (Vancian),
Mage (Non-Vancian)
Bard
Why not make that non-vancian mage a sorcerer? Get's some legacy value in there, plus lines up with the sorcerer's origin as the "less hassle" version of the wizard.
Also, if there's any desire to bring the 4th edition people in, to show that wizards cares about the one portion of their fanbase they still actually have, then you've kind of got to get the warlord in there. It's the big new PHB class from the start of 4e, it was incredibly popular right from the start and remained popular all the way through that edition. for 4e players, it is every bit as "iconic" as fighter, rogue, cleric, and wizard.
Whether you like it or not, it's basically obligatory.
For similar reasons, including a warlock is probably also a good idea, though not quite as obligatory as the warlord.
I'd still lobby for a monk, and maybe an assassin, as an ideal place to include a powers-based tome of battle / 4e esque martial maneuvers system, and including such a system early on, something that could stand next to vancian casting in depth and complexity, would be a good idea.
In all, I don't think they're going to be able to get away with less then 10 base classes, maybe even as many as 12, in their initial PHB, though thankfully individual classes shouldn't take up anywhere near as much space as they did in 4e, even accounting for the spell (and maybe maneuver) lists they'd still have to work in. Of course, needing to fit space for themes and backgrounds might be an issue. I wonder if they'll go with the essentials-style rules compendium separate from the players books, so that they can have a separate book just for player options.
Necromancy: Friendship is MagicSpoiler:
Show
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 19, 2012 - 10:38AM
#307
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
Maybe, but when I think of a Monk, I don't think of an unarmed fighter. I think if the pseudo-spiritual/mystical/Eastern type stuff that makes it very different than a western spiritual-healer-type or fighter. I'd say fighting unarmed shouldn't even have to be a feature of any given Monk.
Let's look at this further.
- 1E's monk was essentialy a druid variant for some reason, with psionic resistance slapped on.
- OA's monk was mostly identical, but the "quivering palm" gimmick seems to have disappeared.
- 2E didn't seem to have a Monk class.
- 3E's Monk had all sorts of gimmicks, but wasn't really a viable class without going into Drunken Master as soon as possible.
- So did 4E's, but it's largely considered a "trap" option.
Monk is very likely mechanically unique enough to be a discrete class. It can be theoretically recreated with a "Martial Arts" theme (3E only got relevant abilities every other level anyway. A neat implementation, however, would be to generalize it as a class gaining inherent AC, and re-skin it as needed.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 19, 2012 - 11:00AM
#308
|
Date Joined:
Nov 16, 2009
|
While I really like the idea of having two types of Magic User, I don't necessarily think they need to be different classes. I think a lot of what defines characters is comparing them to other characters and tropes. I realize we don't have full character creation rules, but judging from the difference between the knight of moradin, and the priest of pelor- i could see there being a lot of wiggle room to introduce other class "subtypes" later on, and would prefer to see the breadth of class types to begin with. I also don't think that every players view of a class will ever be the same. And I don't think putting a small option group in a class and labeling it "paladin" makes it better than making a cleric sub-type that does all of those things and calling that "paladin" It doesn't diminsh what makes a paladin a paladin, in fact it gives room for a far wider array of options for such a characer since you've now said that the only thing that makes someone a cleric is the casting of divine spells and some ability called 'channel divinity' that could easily be vastly different between any two characters. I think giving both clerics turn undead was a downpoint since it made it too similar at level one- but thats a minor gripe. Really I think it gets down to "what makes a class a class" which I think was a great article on paladins- and the ranger one was good too. I think it showcased just how different people's views are of that very thing. I look forward to voicing my view of "what makes a bard a bard" since that's my favorite class, and I don't really like the overly magic user take he had in 3. Boiling down to what is unique in classes I prefer:
Fighter - manuevers
Rogue- skill expert
Wizard- arcane magic
Cleric- magic from a higher power
Psion- psionic power user
Academic- science power user (engineer/alchemist)
I could see a different set of spell options(nature domain), channel divinity(wild shapes) making a cleric into a druid. And having an alternative magic option(spontaneous) with the same spell set making wizard into a 'mage'. Give them a different spell set(sorceror spells) and you've made a sorcerer. Trade the rogues bonus damage from sneak attack(favored enemy) and skill speciallty tools of the trade (trapping) swap the two backgrounds to include tracking related things and you've got a ranger. I listed a few of these elsewhere.
I'd rather see more customization and less locked up abilities within a class. I really don't think one class that prevents a monk from being able to cast arcane / divine spells being a skill expert or a superior fighter is giving players more options- i think it's limiting them. Just like Knight was a background in the playtest, Monk could be applied to TONS of character types. If I want a psionic monk ala 4e and my friend wants a bare-fisted brawler I can't see why they shouldn't be able to play together in this new game.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 19, 2012 - 12:14PM
#309
|
Date Joined:
May 10, 2009
|
Boiling down to what is unique in classes I prefer:
Fighter - manuevers
Rogue- skill expert
Wizard- arcane magic
Cleric- magic from a higher power
Psion- psionic power user
Academic- science power user (engineer/alchemist)
Just asking, but is a Psionic-powered character really necessary? Psionics has always had a more science fiction feel than fantasy. Is it strictly necessary?
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 19, 2012 - 12:21PM
#310
|
Date Joined:
Feb 24, 2008
|
Fighter
Ranger
Paladin
Cleric
Druid
Rogue
Wizard (Vancian),
Mage (Non-Vancian)
Bard
Why not make that non-vancian mage a sorcerer? Get's some legacy value in there, plus lines up with the sorcerer's origin as the "less hassle" version of the wizard.
Also, if there's any desire to bring the 4th edition people in, to show that wizards cares about the one portion of their fanbase they still actually have, then you've kind of got to get the warlord in there. It's the big new PHB class from the start of 4e, it was incredibly popular right from the start and remained popular all the way through that edition. for 4e players, it is every bit as "iconic" as fighter, rogue, cleric, and wizard.
Whether you like it or not, it's basically obligatory.
For similar reasons, including a warlock is probably also a good idea, though not quite as obligatory as the warlord.
I'd still lobby for a monk, and maybe an assassin, as an ideal place to include a powers-based tome of battle / 4e esque martial maneuvers system, and including such a system early on, something that could stand next to vancian casting in depth and complexity, would be a good idea.
In all, I don't think they're going to be able to get away with less then 10 base classes, maybe even as many as 12, in their initial PHB, though thankfully individual classes shouldn't take up anywhere near as much space as they did in 4e, even accounting for the spell (and maybe maneuver) lists they'd still have to work in. Of course, needing to fit space for themes and backgrounds might be an issue. I wonder if they'll go with the essentials-style rules compendium separate from the players books, so that they can have a separate book just for player options.
For my personal choice of mage, it all boils down to perception. Basically, some people are going to get mad that they don't the wizard as their non-vancian (since they already plan on eliminating all vancian mechanics as possible). Mage has been used as an alternate term for wizard from time to time. Yes, sorcerer can be used; so can sorcerer, warlock or another term. However, using another class just gives a perspective that my non-vancian perferences are not as important as the vancian system. It's hard to avoid, and I would choose to address it with a relatively new class name that has been used to describe wizards...
In my opinion, warlord should be rolled in as a subclass of fighter. It's just a number of choices constraint in my opinion. You can have too many choices, and the goal is to break choices up into manageable chunks. However, monk, warlord and other "iconic" classes aren't elminated. They are just placed into different choice brackets to ensure a player doesn't get a choice overload.
Personally, I don't like breaking "core" up into different books beyond the traditional big three. I don't see a reason why a 4e player should be forced to buy another "core" book because of his or her edition preference. I don't advocate making a 3e, 2e or 1e player do a similar thing. That just promotes a feeling of alienation to certain editions.
|
|
|
