|
9 months ago ::
Sep 11, 2012 - 8:29PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2006
|
So a problem that myself and my players were having while reading over the D&D Next docs is that there seem to be too many options that take the classes from their archetype. For example:
Look at the Cleric. He is pretty much a Paladin in most of the pregens. Then they are talking about Sorcerers having a "Favored Soul" option to make them Divine casters... etc etc etc.
Basically my group prefers there to be more variation between the classes. We'd almost prefer a core four (Fighter (named Warrior), Rogue, Cleric, Mage) and then have them "Prestige" into others (such as Ranger, Paladin, Assassin, etc).
The reason my group has dwindled over the years and stopped playing is two fold: sourcebook bloat (seriously WotC, stop flooding the lines with book after book... when you have to consult 20 books to make a character it is frustrating) and class overlap.
We'd prefer to see the Cleric be a medium armor (scale?) wearing, mace and shield using, character that alternates heals and bolsters/buffs while attacking. They can't "tank" like a Warrior or Paladin, but they are competent. As it is there is little reason to be a Paladin (its just one example).
Anyone else have issues like this or do you prefer to have the class lines blurred?
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 11, 2012 - 8:46PM
#2
|
|
|
We'd prefer to see the Cleric be a medium armor (scale?) wearing, mace and shield using, character that alternates heals and bolsters/buffs while attacking. They can't "tank" like a Warrior or Paladin, but they are competent.
Ok, be a Cleric with the Sun domain. Done. They get medium armor, simple weapons, heals, and buffs, and can fight respectably both in melee and at range.
Although I'm a little confused why you picture the Cleric that way, as the original Cleric could, and often did, wear Plate.
As it is there is little reason to be a Paladin (its just one example).
How could you possibly know that? They haven't released the Paladin yet.
Anyone else have issues like this or do you prefer to have the class lines blurred?
I like there to be as many classes as possible. I want lots and lots of choice--choice overwhelming.
Maybe you find the War Cleric encapsulates the Paladin concept really well. But what if the Paladin has a really cool Smite system? They both feel like a Paladin in play, but maybe you like the mechanics of the Cleric class while I prefer the true Paladin mechanics. Now, we can both play the same concept, while also playing with the mechanics we prefer.
How is having more choice bad?
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 11, 2012 - 8:55PM
#3
|
|
|
How is having more choice bad?
There is such a thing as too many choices.
However, that being said, give me some more options on how I can play/build/make my character.
I personally love the way they are headed with the Backgrounds, Specialties mixed with the Classes. I want to be a holy warrior of my church there are 2 real easy ways to explain that, Acolyte background with Fighter or War Cleric. Probably other ways but those are the first two ways that come to mind.
Options are good, but there are limits. Lets see what we can do to find the sweet spot for options with Next.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 11, 2012 - 10:38PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Jan 23, 2012
|
I find that the options are perfect. And I'm sure with more specialties, backgrounds, etc, every body will be able to build the character of their liking (within reason). If you want to have your leather wearing cleric, go for it. Nothings stopping you. But nothings stopping someone from getting their more heavy, combat esque cleric either. Every body wins.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 12, 2012 - 2:13PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Aug 17, 2007
|
I like having this many options (or the promise of how many options we will eventually have. It means that I can make my character exactly as I want it, but if someone wants to roll up super quick they can use the suggested options, and pretend there aren't a ton.
'That's just, like, your opinion, man.'
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 12, 2012 - 2:49PM
#6
|
|
|
I really like where they are going, but I will say I would rather have a few quality options than a ton of useless ones. Quality of quantity. With all the feat bloat in 3e and 4e, eventually up to 70% of the feats were hardly taken :P the same 30% saw use time and time again because their benefits outweighed the others. I am totally down for a bunch of options to make my character however I want it. But I would rather them spend their time perfecting a few options than giving a slew of hastily made ones.
As far as the OPs statement goes. A Fighter or War Cleric acting like a Paladin? This is EXACTLY what they want. Each class is going to have a unique mechanic for you to enjoy, and then you get to build your character how you want on top of that. So say when Ranger comes out that you really don't enjoy their mechanic. Instead you could play a rogue with a scout scheme and the Archer Specialty.
People who want to play the class get to play the class, people who don't want to don't have to. Everybody wins.
My two copper.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 12, 2012 - 4:39PM
#7
|
|
|
I really like the options presented for each class, and hope all the classes have several options so that my players can match whatever flavor and mechanics they want with their character concept. This is probably what I am most excited for with Next.
To OP: The beauty of the current class system is that you can take away whatever options you don't like for your campaign, and you don't have to worry about breaking the game. If you and your players think that all clerics should be scale wearing healers/buffers, then disallow the domain options that don't fit that theme. The current system allows you to play that way, and for my game to also have dwarven warpriests who are as much soldier as healer. Everyone wins!
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 12, 2012 - 10:38PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Feb 10, 2007
|
Yo know I'd rather see a lot of options to diversify the core classes than to have 75 with different names but virtually nothig setting them apart.
As for prestige classes I think they need exorcism, crucifiction and excommunication, not to mention burning at the stake.
I'm also an advocate of multiclassing at first level only, but too many people would have apoplectic fits if they had to actually make a choice and stick to it.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 13, 2012 - 1:30AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2012
|
How is having more choice bad?
This is strictly my personal opinion about the subject, but isn't that why we're all here? To discuss opinions?
I think that more choices are bad. If a paladin can be equally represented with an actual paladin class, or a cleric with the war domain, or a fighter with the acolyte specialty, then which one is right? (In my view, the game world is treated as a real place, with the rules of the game reflecting that reality rather than the other way around.)
I mean, in terms of the narrative, I can easily presume a temple where paladins gather to learn and train, so why would divine magic represent itself differently for each? Is Pelor micro-managing his gifts to tailor them to the strengths of the recipient? It just raises a lot more questions than it answers. Magic A should always be Magic A, so when you have Magic B and Magic C that are trying to pass themselves off as the same narrative as Magic A, then it feels weird. Introducing more than one way to do the same thing only hurts the narrative.
(I get that this might not be the case in every setting, but it seems like most people are happy enough to just ignore the issue entirely. The mere existence of the codified races, monsters, and spells is a strong case for assumed flavor throughout varied settings, so it doesn't bother me nearly as much as it seems to bother some other people.)
The other issue, which I mentioned in another thread, is that multiple ways of building the same character causes a shift in focus (of the product and the players) away from presenting opportunities to play a character and toward exploring different mechanical options for representing that character. I'd much rather there be no question of which one single way to represent your paladin, and then we can move on with the game and see what your paladin actually does when the various situations present themselves. The choice of mechanics to represent the character is not an interesting aspect of that character. (IMHO)
The metagame is not the game.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 13, 2012 - 7:44AM
#10
|
|
|
How is having more choice bad?
This is strictly my personal opinion about the subject, but isn't that why we're all here? To discuss opinions?
I think that more choices are bad. If a paladin can be equally represented with an actual paladin class, or a cleric with the war domain, or a fighter with the acolyte specialty, then which one is right? (In my view, the game world is treated as a real place, with the rules of the game reflecting that reality rather than the other way around.)
I mean, in terms of the narrative, I can easily presume a temple where paladins gather to learn and train, so why would divine magic represent itself differently for each? Is Pelor micro-managing his gifts to tailor them to the strengths of the recipient? It just raises a lot more questions than it answers. Magic A should always be Magic A, so when you have Magic B and Magic C that are trying to pass themselves off as the same narrative as Magic A, then it feels weird. Introducing more than one way to do the same thing only hurts the narrative.
(I get that this might not be the case in every setting, but it seems like most people are happy enough to just ignore the issue entirely. The mere existence of the codified races, monsters, and spells is a strong case for assumed flavor throughout varied settings, so it doesn't bother me nearly as much as it seems to bother some other people.)
The other issue, which I mentioned in another thread, is that multiple ways of building the same character causes a shift in focus (of the product and the players) away from presenting opportunities to play a character and toward exploring different mechanical options for representing that character. I'd much rather there be no question of which one single way to represent your paladin, and then we can move on with the game and see what your paladin actually does when the various situations present themselves. The choice of mechanics to represent the character is not an interesting aspect of that character. (IMHO)
Saelorn, I completely disagree with you on this, hehe.
I feel that having only one way to represent a paladin in game mechanics pigeonholes players into playing a specific character.
In 4e, for example, I had a player who wanted to play a Paladin, but was very unhappy with the mechanics that were dictated to him as what a "Paladin" was. It was this kid's first D&D experience, and he was coming from WoW, and he wanted to play a Paladin who focused on smiting evil, wielding a big weapon and dishing out tons of hurt on his enemies. Of course in 4e, paladins are supposed to fill the defender role, and so his damage was never on par with the strikers of the party. We tried to simply build him how he wanted to play his character, focusing on damage dealing and smitery, but then his party became upset because the "tank" wasn't doing his job.
Of course, for this wow kid, mechanics played a huge part for him, but to be honest, I thought he made some good efforts at actually roleplaying and developing his character as well. When it came down to it though, the rules were dictating to him a completely different style of play than what he was looking for, and telling him his character did different things than what he wanted to be doing and that really hurt his ability to get involved in the story aspects of his character.
From what I've seen of Next it looks like the options available will give me better tools as a DM to help my players play the characters they want to. I think that having mechanics that match the player's expectations of their class is important in having a player get involved in the story, especially for a new player or someone with a heavy MMO background. For my player, I could have allowed him to play a slayer fighter with the acolyte background, given him a background that made him part of an order of paladins, called him a paladin, and not had to think about it again.
I don't feel like having multiple rules interpretations of one class hurts the narrative at all, and if my players are more invested in their characters because they can do exactly what they want, then the narrative will probably be better for it.
I'm certainly not advocating this as the only way. The way I see it, in it's current form, I can play Next how I want to, and Saelorn should be able to play the way he wants to with some simple class/spec restrictions. Next is an attempt to accomodate a majority of players and playstyles through moduality, and I think the current class system nails that goal.
|
|
|
