|
8 months ago ::
Oct 07, 2012 - 12:57PM
#111
|
|
|
How do you guys differentiate swordmage, duskblade, and warmage?
I agree with edwin_su that they're pretty much the same thing (a gish class). I like his idea of making a singular class and having the specialities named after older versions.
Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say? Spoiler:
Show
My Webcomic
Updated Tuesday and Thursday
Read my blog on the WotC Community Site (updated irregularly to avoid spamming the "Featured Blogger" list).
You can follow me on Twitter: "@DnDJester"
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 07, 2012 - 1:01PM
#112
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
How do you guys differentiate swordmage, duskblade, and warmage?
I could be muddling things 'cause I still mostly play 3e but the warmage was very different from a bladesinger or a duskblade. Swordmage? That's like a spellsword? *shrug* basically the warmage was a blaster mage in 3e that was sorta naff, but the bladesinger/spellsword/duskblade were fighter/mage characters when it became clear that an actual multiclass fighter/mage in 3e was sort of out of the question. Bladesinger in 2e was a kit, right? Or something like that. It was an option. anyway they're fighter/mages. My preference is to actually just make the fighter/mage multi combo work.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 07, 2012 - 1:24PM
#113
|
|
|
Fighter
Wizard
Cleric
Rogue
These are givens, it's not even up to debate.
I like classes, so I'd like to see unique mechanics (or close to it) for each of the following
Barbarian
Bard
Druid
Monk
Paladin
Ranger
Sorcerer
Warlock
Warlord
It's more than just different mechanics. It's options. So I don't always have to play the same party. Truthfully I'd like a Specialty for each class too.
I also see the need for an Assassin class, but I don't see enough to justify a seperate class. But I'd welcome one that did. I'd love to see it as least as a Specialty, PrC and Rogue Scheme (so I guess background too).
Other classes I don't expect but think should be part of core
Psion
Swordmage (name changed but I like these mechanics more than the Warmage)
Although, I could see the Sorcerer or Warlock being somewhat Gish, especially the sorcerer. Also I think a Wizard tradition for "War Magic" could be cool. But Ultimately it seems nitch enough to deserve its own class.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 07, 2012 - 2:35PM
#114
|
|
|
Fighter
Wizard
Cleric
Rogue
These are givens, it's not even up to debate.
I like classes, so I'd like to see unique mechanics (or close to it) for each of the following
Barbarian
Bard
Druid
Monk
Paladin
Ranger
Sorcerer
Warlock
Warlord
It's more than just different mechanics. It's options. So I don't always have to play the same party. Truthfully I'd like a Specialty for each class too.
I also see the need for an Assassin class, but I don't see enough to justify a seperate class. But I'd welcome one that did. I'd love to see it as least as a Specialty, PrC and Rogue Scheme (so I guess background too).
Other classes I don't expect but think should be part of core
Psion
Swordmage (name changed but I like these mechanics more than the Warmage)
Although, I could see the Sorcerer or Warlock being somewhat Gish, especially the sorcerer. Also I think a Wizard tradition for "War Magic" could be cool. But Ultimately it seems nitch enough to deserve its own class.
look up the "A Justified Assassin Class" for a discussion of how a full Assassin class could look. By the end, we came up with enough design and conceptual space that some argued for two distinct classes.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
I could say anything in D&D is silly though, because it's a silly game and we are silly people.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 07, 2012 - 2:54PM
#115
|
Date Joined:
Aug 10, 2010
|
Swordmage/Duskblade/Songblade - The gish class, swordfighting and magic.
.
This is important, and I don't think it can be done to full satisfaction as a multiclass option. It needs to have class features and abilities that combine magic and martial skill so that you're using both in one action. Magical weapon attacks, in other words. It could not use armor, and have a minor spell that reduces incoming damage with a chance to deflect blows, and another(or a few) that queues off attacking with a weapon, for instance.
Action economy was always the problem with the gish. Were it not built really well it was an inferior fighter or inferior wizard and each turn you could choose which.
I think it was done well with Pathfinder - they could cast a lot of wizard spells - and they could fight. But the cool thing was using spell points or spell slots (I've forgotten which) to give their weapon an enhancement or flaming, or chill burst, or enervating.
It was really cool - with some great flavour.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 07, 2012 - 2:55PM
#116
|
|
|
Fighter
Wizard
Cleric
Rogue
These are givens, it's not even up to debate.
I like classes, so I'd like to see unique mechanics (or close to it) for each of the following
Barbarian
Bard
Druid
Monk
Paladin
Ranger
Sorcerer
Warlock
Warlord
It's more than just different mechanics. It's options. So I don't always have to play the same party. Truthfully I'd like a Specialty for each class too.
I also see the need for an Assassin class, but I don't see enough to justify a seperate class. But I'd welcome one that did. I'd love to see it as least as a Specialty, PrC and Rogue Scheme (so I guess background too).
Other classes I don't expect but think should be part of core
Psion
Swordmage (name changed but I like these mechanics more than the Warmage)
Although, I could see the Sorcerer or Warlock being somewhat Gish, especially the sorcerer. Also I think a Wizard tradition for "War Magic" could be cool. But Ultimately it seems nitch enough to deserve its own class.
look up the "A Justified Assassin Class" for a discussion of how a full Assassin class could look. By the end, we came up with enough design and conceptual space that some argued for two distinct classes.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
I could say anything in D&D is silly though, because it's a silly game and we are silly people.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 07, 2012 - 4:42PM
#117
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2004
|
It would seem that the more classes you have would decrease the need for multiclassing and remove the desire for most prestige classes.
I would like to see the following classes.
Fighter -- who is an all around warrior that can pick up anything and go.
Archer -- who uses ranged weapons better than anyone else.
Cavalier -- who masters specific weapons and mounted combat.
Gladiator -- who masters all weapons but cannot fight in all armors or fight well in formation with others.
Pirate/Swashbuckler -- Lightly armored light weapons guy who doesn't have to worry about drowning unlike the fighter who might wear full plate and fall off a ship.
Ranger -- wilderness survival specialist, who learns to kill specific beings with extreme prejudice. He does not work well in large groups or massive formations like the fighter can. Nor does he have the ability to pick up anything and go.
Barbarian -- Rage invoking warrior who brings chaos and disorder to the fight
Vancian caster/s
Spell point varient of vancian caster/s
Warlock -- who has a special pact granted power and a very limited special spell list that affects the way the pact granted power works.
Sorceror -- the inate caster that does not have to study but has a limited list of spells based on his or her genealogy.
Bard -- uses the power of song and music to create magic
Theif -- Everyone's favorite pick pocket, lock picking scoundrel
Assassin -- the chap the specializes in making every attack a critical hit which may cause instant death.
Bandit -- wilderness thief with limited ranger abilities
Cleric -- devoted to a pantheon of god/dess/s
Priest -- devoted to a single deity
Paladin -- Holy warrior of a deity
Crusader -- Holy warrior of a pantheon
Druid -- a cleric or priest attuned to nature and elemental forces.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 07, 2012 - 5:23PM
#118
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
How do you guys differentiate swordmage, duskblade, and warmage?
I could be muddling things 'cause I still mostly play 3e but the warmage was very different from a bladesinger or a duskblade. Swordmage? That's like a spellsword? *shrug*
basically the warmage was a blaster mage in 3e that was sorta naff, but the bladesinger/spellsword/duskblade were fighter/mage characters when it became clear that an actual multiclass fighter/mage in 3e was sort of out of the question. Bladesinger in 2e was a kit, right? Or something like that. It was an option.
anyway they're fighter/mages. My preference is to actually just make the fighter/mage multi combo work.
In 4e Swordmage is an amalgam or an alloy of mage and swordsman its art is its own thing where magic is melded with the use of the sword not the two pasted together with some glue tricks (the Spellsinger is a poor fighter and a poor mage with a talent that allows him to do lesser but battle magics with one hand while doing 'meh' fighting with the other and make it work)
I dont see multiclassing at all making a Swordmage.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 07, 2012 - 5:30PM
#119
|
Date Joined:
Mar 31, 2012
|
Since the topic is, "What does D&D Next Need" my answer is:
Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Rogue. This Bare-bones approach is all that it needs to work.
However, if the question were to become "What would the optimal class list in the D&D Next PHB be?" I would put it as something like this:
Fighter
Wizard
Rogue
Cleric
Paladin
Ranger
Monk
Druid
Barbarian
Bard
Sorcerer
Warlock
Warlord
Assassin
Swordmage (or some other gish class)
Just because D&D can work with the base 4, doesn't mean it should.
I am currently raising funds to run for President in 2016. Too many administrations have overlooked the international menace, that is Carmen Sandiego. I shall devote any and all necessary military resources to bring her to justice.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 07, 2012 - 5:31PM
#120
|
Date Joined:
Sep 19, 2006
|
How do you guys differentiate swordmage, duskblade, and warmage?
I could be muddling things 'cause I still mostly play 3e but the warmage was very different from a bladesinger or a duskblade. Swordmage? That's like a spellsword? *shrug*
basically the warmage was a blaster mage in 3e that was sorta naff, but the bladesinger/spellsword/duskblade were fighter/mage characters when it became clear that an actual multiclass fighter/mage in 3e was sort of out of the question. Bladesinger in 2e was a kit, right? Or something like that. It was an option.
anyway they're fighter/mages. My preference is to actually just make the fighter/mage multi combo work.
In 4e Swordmage is an amalgam or an alloy of mage and swordsman its art is its own thing where magic is melded with the use of the sword not the two pasted together with some glue tricks (the Spellsinger is a poor fighter and a poor mage with a talent that allows him to do lesser but battle magics with one hand while doing 'meh' fighting with the other and make it work)
I dont see multiclassing at all making a Swordmage.
Agreed. A MC Fighter/Wizard is sorta "meh" on both fronts but can have lots of options. A Swordmage was a clearly defined class with direct and specific concepts. Basically using magic to make him a target and keep allies alive with his Aegis. A Fighter/Wizard can do some....fighter-y stuff and cast some wizardly stuff.
|
|
|
