|
5 months ago ::
Jan 22, 2013 - 11:14PM
#1
|
|
|
To be clear, the classic 4 are: Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, and Wizard. The others are every other class in the game.
Based on information doled out over time, it is pretty clear the "basic" version of D&DN will only have the classic 4 classes as options. Other classes seem like they are/will be associated with, at least, the "standard" version of D&DN. This means iconic classes like the Paladin, Druid, Bard, Monk, etc will not be included in the "basic" rules.
I want to be clear that I am totally okay with this. This is not a complaint. I'm just setting the table before I serve my point, as it were.
A thought occured to me as I pondered this. Having these iconic-but-not-classic classes be limited to, at the bare minimum, the standard rules leaves them open to have more complex mechanics than the classic 4. This seems pretty self-evident. A class like the paladin, a martial-divine hybrid, is almost by definition more complex than the fighter and cleric (at least as presented in D&DN so far).
The classic classes are not terribly complex. Fairly straightforward. They epitomize the core archetypes of the game. The other classes are defined in part by how they compare to the classic 4. No one describes a fighter as being a less divine paladin, right? As such, they are perfectly suited for being the ones available in the basic version of the game.
Still with me? Good. I think I'm just stating things that are self-evident. Rambling a bit. The point? Yes, yes, I'm getting to it.
If the classic 4 are being designed to work for the basic game, and are simple, straightforwar, and direct; and the other classes are being designed around the standard game, with more complex mechanics to suit both a) the increased complexity of the concept and b) the demands of players more interested in complexity...
...then what about the classic 4 classes in the standard game? Do you think there should be a "standard version" of the 4 classic classes to stand alongside the other standard classes, one that is (at least somewhat) more complex than the "basic version"? Do you think a more complex version is necessary, or would compleximifying the classic 4 somehow "harm" of impugn the design, or even just the archetype?
Does making the wizard, fighter, cleric, or rogue more complex negatively impact the archetype, or does a more complex game (standard is certainly more complex than basic) demand more complex components, even when those components have simpler forms in the basic version?
Essentials zigged, when I wanted to continue zagging.
Roll dice, not cars.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 22, 2013 - 11:19PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
May 25, 2012
|
Fox- fix straitforward in the third from the last Paragraph, you forgot the D. Then I'll delete this post.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 22, 2013 - 11:23PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Aug 28, 2005
|
Interesting thought. I'm going a bit back and forthe on the matter, but I think that it's possible to make "complex" versions of those core four classes without actually needing to make them effectively whole different classes. If I can use an analogy, look at specialties and feats. Specialties are the basic game, feats are the standard game, but in reality specialties are just pre-selected sets of feats. Similarly, the basic versions of the classes will just have options pre-selected, probably the more simple and straightforward options, while the standard game will have more options including both the basic ones and more complex ones.
Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TMSpeaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 22, 2013 - 11:47PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Oct 11, 2009
|
Interesting thought. I'm going a bit back and forthe on the matter, but I think that it's possible to make "complex" versions of those core four classes without actually needing to make them effectively whole different classes. If I can use an analogy, look at specialties and feats. Specialties are the basic game, feats are the standard game, but in reality specialties are just pre-selected sets of feats. Similarly, the basic versions of the classes will just have options pre-selected, probably the more simple and straightforward options, while the standard game will have more options including both the basic ones and more complex ones.
I agree, the Standard game will use the same class structure, just with more customization ability. I think the "Basic" classes will be useable right alongside the "Standard" classes (and even any "Advanced" classes, if there are any).
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 23, 2013 - 12:52AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Jan 14, 2013
|
Ya, I'm on with the other opinions here, there is no need to add any actual change to the class structure to make them more varied, that can be done through simply giving them more options content to choose from within the same archetecture. Things like manouvers are easily expandable to create a lot of variety and options, and these sorts of things will keep the simplicity of the core classes mechanics while allowing them a lot of customization and options.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 23, 2013 - 12:54AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Sep 30, 2006
|
the basic game won't use backgrounds, and it'll pre-pick a specialty for each class. the standard game will assume full customization.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 23, 2013 - 1:00AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
If the classic 4 are being designed to work for the basic game, and are simple, straightforwar, and direct; and the other classes are being designed around the standard game, with more complex mechanics to suit both a) the increased complexity of the concept and b) the demands of players more interested in complexity...
...then what about the classic 4 classes in the standard game? Do you think there should be a "standard version" of the 4 classic classes to stand alongside the other standard classes, one that is (at least somewhat) more complex than the "basic version"? Do you think a more complex version is necessary, or would compleximifying the classic 4 somehow "harm" of impugn the design, or even just the archetype?
The class being played in the basic version will be simpler than the one in the standard version. It's not exactly clear what the differences will be from the L&L article, but I imagine that the basic version will not have players choose manuevers/skill tricks/deity, and maybe not even choose which spells they learn.
The basic 4 classes as they stand right now aren't any less complicated than the only non-basic class we have at the moment (the monk). In fact, the spellcasters are arguably quite a bit more complex than that. The core four don't need to be scaled up in complexity for standard; they need to (and will) be scaled down in complexity for basic.
<Ioun> they're apparently making a MolIsCool pp
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 23, 2013 - 5:46AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
It seems like the only real difference between basic and standard will be the number of choices pre-determined. I think that is a solid solution for streamlining the creation/leveling process, and easily expandable to allow a player to customizing their character as soon as they want to.
Magic Dual Color Test
Show
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 23, 2013 - 5:57AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2007
|
Based on information doled out over time, it is pretty clear the "basic" version of D&DN will only have the classic 4 classes as options. Other classes seem like they are/will be associated with, at least, the "standard" version of D&DN. This means iconic classes like the Paladin, Druid, Bard, Monk, etc will not be included in the "basic" rules.
I doubt it will be just the 4 traditional classes, though it wouldn't surprise me if there are classes that are not in the basic game. Remember, they are putting a Vancian caster in the basic game, so basic doesn't exactly mean simple. Rather, they are cutting down the number of options so that character design will be easier and faster. Plus, with the way they are designing classes, most classes could easily get a basic version, just be specifying defaults for class options.
The only classes that couldn't be easily put in the basic game are ones that have inherently complex mechanics, require careful DM campaign balancing or depend on some optional module not in the basic game. For the first your looking at something like a pure summoner class, which can clog up the battle field with lots of creatures and multiple summons active at one time. For the second think something like a spell-thief or blue mage, where the DM has to carefully balance the distribution of monsters for the class to be balanced. For the third, something like a gun slinger class makes no sense if you don't have the gunpowder weapons options in the game.
...then what about the classic 4 classes in the standard game? Do you think there should be a "standard version" of the 4 classic classes to stand alongside the other standard classes, one that is (at least somewhat) more complex than the "basic version"? Do you think a more complex version is necessary, or would compleximifying the classic 4 somehow "harm" of impugn the design, or even just the archetype?
No, because doing that would get in the way of one of the basic ideas of the game, that you can simply take the basic fighter and use it in a standard game. Besides, I don't see there really being a need for increasing the complexity beyond what they are doing already. Right now when you move a basic class to the standard game you will essentially unlock the feats/maneuvers/skills that are pinned down in the basic game. That should allow you to add enough complexity if you want it.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 23, 2013 - 6:18AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
On the class side, I think the only difference between basic and standard is that the basic classes will be prebuilt with the most traditional and simplest choices.
Every fighter is a slayer, every rogue a thief, every cleric a mace wielding healer, every wizard a scholar. Other classes might be included as well in their simplest forms. Monks could all be merciful ascetic brawlers. Barbarians are just nongreen Hulks. Etc etc.
Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds.
Constitution Based Class for Next!
|
|
|
