Just liek the title says, can D&D Next function solely based on 5 classes?
I'm talking about the Fighter/Warrior, Rogue/Thief, Wizard/Mage, Cleric/Priest, and Bard/Freelancer classes. Can the game revolve around five basic classes that differentiate with modular class features?
All suites of Class Features, like Rage and Smite Evil, would be Specialties. Unlike other Specialties, which are just groups of feats, these Specialties can't be segmented - if you want Rage, you have to take ALL the Rage abilities. Other things, like sets of Domain Spells/abilities, and Wizard Traditions, could also be Specialties.
The Fighter gets d10 hit dice, martial weapon proficiency, heavy armor proficiency, heavy shield proficiency, and two Specializations.
The Rogue gets d8 hit dice, martial weapon proficiency, light armor proficiency, light shield proficiency, three extra Skills trained, and two Specializations.
The Cleric gets d8 hit dice, simple weapon proficiency, medium armor proficiency, heavy shield proficiency, and two Specializations.
The Wizard gets d6 hit dice, no weapon proficiency, no armor proficiency, and two Specializations.
The Bard gets d8 hit dice, martial weapon proficiency, light armor proficiency, light shield proficiency, and three Specializations.
All classes would have two options - Power Slots or Expertise Dice.
Power Slots are like Vancian Casting - you assign a level 1 Power into a level 1 Slot, and you can use it once that day. Power Slot abilities are very strong, but are gone once used. You get level 1 Powers at level 1, level 2 at level 3, level 3 at level 5, etc.
Expertise Dice grants you Powers at the same rate as Power Slots, but they're Known. Youc an use them as much as you want, but their effectiveness is determined by your available Expertise Dice.
Each Class gains access to their own personal suite of Powers - only Clerics get the best Healing, only Wizards get the best crowd control, only Rogues get the best stealthy and sneak attack powers, only Fighters get the heavy damage dealing powers. Bards don't get their own Suite, but they get an extra Specialization. Bards would also get fewer Expertise Dice / Power Slots, and only access to lower level versions (level 7 by 20th level).
What do you think? Could they do it? Would it fix the debate about AEDU versus Vancian? Would it stop WotC from needing to make a dozen different classes every year, instead making specializations? Or is it doomed to failure?
Well, first off, if there were only 5 classes, I'd make the 5th Druid instead of Bard. Then make a series of multi-class classes based on a fusion of the 5. Bard would be a combo of Rogue and Wizard, Rangers are Druidic Rogues, Paladin = Fighter + Cleric, etc.
I personally have no problem with a system with a limited number of classes. However, I don't see the difference in making a dozen different classes with 1 build vs. a dozen different builds for 5 classes.
'I have had players complain about having extra rares in a pack. I’ve had players complain about getting free things. I have had players complain because they liked something “too much”.' - Mark Rosewater's Twitter, May 7th, 2013
Well, first off, if there were only 5 classes, I'd make the 5th Druid instead of Bard. Then make a series of multi-class classes based on a fusion of the 5. Bard would be a combo of Rogue and Wizard, Rangers are Druidic Rogues, Paladin = Fighter + Cleric, etc.
I personally have no problem with a system with a limited number of classes. However, I don't see the difference in making a dozen different classes with 1 build vs. a dozen different builds for 5 classes.
Druid, to me, is a subset of Priest/Cleric. You worship a divine source, which grants you divne spells and assocaited abilities. Plus, they both have the same hit points, armor and weapon use (with metal weapons a minor difference), and, well, the Bard NEEDS to exist. It's a huge staple of D&D, and it's a great catch-all class for players who want to do lots of different things, and don't fit within the bounds of the other classes.
The difference is huge. Consider the Bewitching Arcana Speciality (A Speciality that gives you Illusion and Enchantment spells). What do you get when you give that specailty to a Fighter? You might get a warrior that tosses figments and galmours at opponents in order to throw them off guard. What if you give it to a Rogue? You get a thief who uses mind control and invilisbility to steal what he wants and bypass any guard. What do you get if you give it to a Cleric? You might get a cult leader who beguiles and decieves his flock in order to feed them to his Elder God. What if you give it to a Wizard? You might get a master Enchantress or Illusionist, a craftsman of their art, a master of misdirection and phantasms.
You just got 4 different classes, right there, with ONE option. But classes get TWO options, or THREE for Bards.
If you had, say, 20 of these Specialities, how many class combinations would that create?
Now, double that, because you can be Power Slots or Expertise Dice.
THAT is the point of this idea - allowing for cool flexibility while still restricting characters to a narrow suite of powers.
I'm going to have to echo Alter_Boy. If there were to be five classes, I don't see Bard taking that fifth spot; it's really just halfway between Rogue and Wizard, and can be met with a combination of those two. I wouldn't say the Bard *needs* to exist as its own class anymore than the Druid, Ranger, Paladin, etc, do, in this system.
Ultimately, I think the designers wouldn't take this five-classes route because it would probably rock the boat too much. Could it work? Sure. I just think a lot of people would make a stink and it wouldn't get far.
"I don't like X, they should remove it." "I like X, they should keep it." "They should replace X with Y." "Anybody that likes X is dumb. Y is better." "Why don't they include both X and Y." "Yeah, everybody can be happy then!" "But I don't like X, they should remove it." "X really needs to be replaced with Y." "But they can include both X and Y." "But I don't like X, they need to remove it." "Remove X, I don't like it."
Until you've had an in-law tell you your choice of game was stupid, and just Warcraft on paper, and dumbed down for dumber players who can't handle a real RPG, you haven't lived.
Lady and gentlemen.... I present to you the Edition War without Contrition, the War of the Web, the Mighty Match-up!
We're using standard edition war rules. No posts of substance. Do not read the other person's posts with comprehension. Make frequent comparison to video games, MMOs, and CCGs. Use the words "fallacy" and "straw man", incorrectly and often. Passive aggressiveness gets you extra points and asking misleading and inflammatory questions is mandatory. If you're getting tired, just declare victory and leave the thread. Wait for the buzzer... and....
One, two, three, four, I declare Edition War Five, six, seven eight, I use the web to
D&D should not return to the days of blindfolding the DM and players. No tips on encounter power? No mention of expected party roles? No true meaning of level due to different level charts or tiered classes? Please, let's not sacrifice clear, helpful rules guidelines in favour of catering to the delicate sensibilities of the few who have problems with the ascetics of anything other than what they are familiar with.
Just a quick note on the MMORPG as an insult comparison...
MMORPGs, raking in money by the dumptruck full. Many options, tons of fans across many audiences, massive resources allocated to development.
TTRPGs, dying product. Squeaking out an existence that relys on low cost. Fans fit primarily into a few small demographics. R&D budgets small, often rushed to market and patched after deployment.
You're not really making much of an argument when you compare something to a MMORPG and assume people think that means bad. Lets face it, they make the money, have the audience and the budget. We here on this board are fans of TTRPGs but lets not try to pretend none of us play MMORPGs.
Something like Tactical Shift is more magical than martial healing.
Telling someone to move over a few feet is magical now? :|
I weep for this generation.
Given the laziness and morbid obsesity amongst D&Ders, being able to convince someone to get on their feet, do some heavy exercise, and use their words to make them be healthier must seem magical.
It would not fix "AEDU versus Vancian" because those are two different problems… Actually, the number of problems associated with either of those is anywhere from 0 to "a lot" depending on who you ask. As someone who likes Vancian and only had a problem with ALL classes using AEDU, your idea doesn't help those at all.
Why would moving some of the classes into specialties help? All that does is puts more juice into specialties then creates bloat amongst those. A crap ton of options are going to be a crap ton of options no matter what.
Also, I like the class system because it organizes abilities in a very manageable way IMO. Even with tons of multiclassing avalable, it's still a great form of organization. I had no problems with Prc bloat in 3.5 because I knew basically what each Prc was about and could work from there in figuring out how to create the character I had in my head. That was books and books worth of stuff all archived, to a manageable point at least, in my head because orginizing it all with classes worked great for me. (Not saying that Prc bloat needs to come back. But to me, limiting the number of classes like this just feels like you would be happier with GURPS or something.)
Homebrew Psionics blog posts archive: Spoiler:Show
UPDATED Dec/18/2012: BAMN! Random update with a modest amount of hard rules for Animal Affinity, Telepathy, and Telekinesis. ADDED: Discipline Burn and more "soft" ideas. Dec/13/2012: Small Psionics Homebrew Update, now that I'm done with Finals.
Really old. Nov/02/2012: I'm working on a homebrew Wilder, and so a homebrew Psionics system. Here's a 3 part post with info on where I am in the design process. Part 1, Hard rules/example soulknife discipline: Link. Part 2, Basic ideas/goals on basic numbers and classes: Link. Part 3, Direction/ideas I want to take with specific disciplines: Link.
It all depends on how you want to define your classes / specialties / class choices. For example, the Legend of the Five Rings RPG (4th edition) has only three main "classes": Bushi, Courtier, and Shugenja, but each of the great clans has a number of variations of those classes, creating a whole bunch of things that could be called classes, but aren't.
The main question you have to ask yourself is what advantage does it give you to make a Druid, with the features you want to give it, a subset of a Cleric instead of its own class?
I'm going to have to echo Alter_Boy. If there were to be five classes, I don't see Bard taking that fifth spot; it's really just halfway between Rogue and Wizard, and can be met with a combination of those two. I wouldn't say the Bard *needs* to exist as its own class anymore than the Druid, Ranger, Paladin, etc, do, in this system.
Ultimately, I think the designers wouldn't take this five-classes route because it would probably rock the boat too much. Could it work? Sure. I just think a lot of people would make a stink and it wouldn't get far.
I don't know, I think the Rogue has a specific role in the group. It's not really the jack-of-all-trades class by default, it's more of a skirmisher, assassin, thief, trapfinder, acrobat.. something withing those veins. The Bard is the quintessential "I'm okay at everything" class. Look at the 3E Bard - decent fighting, decent stealth, okay arcane magic, and some pseudo-divine magic, augmented with Bardic Music for that extra boost. It sucked, yes, but it was still fun to play.
honestly i can live with 4 base classes and make the rest prestige classes.
prestige being hybrid and unique classes (not just better classes like in 3.5)
I'd personally rather avoid Prestige Classes. They don't usually add anything than a Feat or Mutli-Classing couldn't offer. I'd even restrict Multi-classing as well - I think the game would be stronger if characters went from 1 to 20 in a single class that was versatle enough to let them experiment and expand into other, cool options over time.
So what about Psionics? What about true Jack of All Trades classes that need access to divine, arcane, martial and skill properties? A D&D 3.5 Warlock (IMO the pinnacle of the class) is Arcane in name only. How would it fit into this narrow paradigm? What about Binders or Incarnum based classes? Where are you placing the Monk?
Once you look at all the various 3.X and 4E classes, you begin to realize pigeonholing them in this kind of way simply isn't going to work. If WotC were to do this, they'd lose a significant amount of their post-2E market.
3.5 alone has right around 50 base classes, all added up (not including the DMG generic classes or Alternate Class Feature variants from Unearthed Arcana). How are you going to mirror that that kind of variety in this system, even with "magic modularity"?
I fully support the 5 class paradigm of Fighter, Mage, Rogue, Priest, Bard.
However, I feel that we do need more than 5 classes, and I hope that everyone that loves a particular class from D&D's history will get their due in the new edition. (Especially if it's ever been presented in a PHB1 previously.)
