|
3 months ago ::
Mar 08, 2013 - 12:49PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Aug 25, 2007
|
I am of the opinion that each class should have it's own mechanics/powers with as little overlap as possible.
Ofcourse there might be some recourses that you see in multiple classes spell slots, maneuver dice, skill dice.
But each class should use them in different ways.
A example of what i don't want might be a paladin that casts spells as a cleric.
The paladin class should stand on it's own with abilities like auras. divine grace, lay on hands, smite evil and so on.
If you do want a paladin that can cast a few spells as a cleric you go dual class taking a few cleric levels.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 08, 2013 - 1:06PM
#2
|
|
|
I agree actually.
I can't stand overlap, it just causes too many problems in terms of multi-classing and doesn't really help in terms of class identity.
Idealy, I would prefer rogues, fighters and monks have their own set of maneuvers... and for the paladin/ranger not to have spells at all but abilities that reflect their role.
It would be nice for there to be the option of completely martial rangers and paladins as well where a character can choose abilities that arn't supernatural in nature. So you can have a Game of Thrones type ranger, a Middle Earth type ranger and a more supernatural ranger like in Forgotten Realms. Either way, all those abilities should be entirely seperate of divine spells — that is the clerics deal.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 08, 2013 - 1:19PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2007
|
I'm much more concerned that classes be distinct conceptually then they be distinct mechanically. Though obviously no two classes should have exactly the same mechanics, if only for purpose of saving space, I don't mind clerics and paladins both getting divine spells if they have some other feature that makes them distinct. Trying to force every class to be unique mechanically forces unnecessary mechanics into the game and eventually forces you to invent mechanics just to bulk up classes so they are mechanically distinct enough.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 08, 2013 - 1:20PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Jun 11, 2012
|
I am of the opinion that each class should have it's own mechanics/powers with as little overlap as possible.
Ofcourse there might be some recourses that you see in multiple classes spell slots, maneuver dice, skill dice.
But each class should use them in different ways.
A example of what i don't want might be a paladin that casts spells as a cleric.
The paladin class should stand on it's own with abilities like auras. divine grace, lay on hands, smite evil and so on.
If you do want a paladin that can cast a few spells as a cleric you go dual class taking a few cleric levels.
This would be awesome, and I fully support it, but unfortunately when people saw that approach to 4e they got upset because it "bloated" the class sections and there's this push to simpler/smaller classes. Nevermind that the spells and maneuvers section will of course be large (3rd's spell section was HUGE and annoying to navigate), and that classes with different build structure but using the same spells/abilities are easily just as same-y as those built around the same core structure but with different abilities, perhaps even more same-y, but this is the path DDN is taking for the basic and perhaps even standard books, so we may have to wait until 'Advanced.'
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 08, 2013 - 1:29PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2008
|
I am of the opinion that each class should have it's own mechanics/powers with as little overlap as possible.
Ofcourse there might be some recourses that you see in multiple classes spell slots, maneuver dice, skill dice.
But each class should use them in different ways.
A example of what i don't want might be a paladin that casts spells as a cleric.
The paladin class should stand on it's own with abilities like auras. divine grace, lay on hands, smite evil and so on.
If you do want a paladin that can cast a few spells as a cleric you go dual class taking a few cleric levels.
Completely agreed.
I don't like that Barbarians, Monks, and Rogues all have Martial Damage Dice.
I don't like that Clerics have Vancian Spellcasting.
Wizards should have Vancian Spellcasting and no at will spells. (renewable per day)
Sorcerors and Warlocks should have Spellcasting that is per encounter and per turn (at will)
Fighters should have maneuvers and martial damage dice (renewable per turn)
Monks should have ki powers associated with mechanics for a renewable ki pool by encounter.
Barbarians should have rage based abilities based on a per day and per encounter mechanic.
Rogues should have skill tricks, skill-based abilities, and situation based combat abilities (when hidden, when opponent is prone, when opponent is blinded, when opponent is stunned, etc.)
Clerics should have abilities and spell mechanics based on divine intervention that involve a per day mechanic but is not as predictable as the Vancian spellcasting. Spells cast that further the will of their deity might not cost them.
Rangers should be based on favored enemies, favored weapons, and teamwork with animal companion.
Paladins should have smite evil, holy powers, and leadership qualities.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 08, 2013 - 1:34PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2008
|
This would be awesome, and I fully support it, but unfortunately when people saw that approach to 4e they got upset because it "bloated" the class sections and there's this push to simpler/smaller classes. Nevermind that the spells and maneuvers section will of course be large (3rd's spell section was HUGE and annoying to navigate), and that classes with different build structure but using the same spells/abilities are easily just as same-y as those built around the same core structure but with different abilities, perhaps even more same-y, but this is the path DDN is taking for the basic and perhaps even standard books, so we may have to wait until 'Advanced.'
4E Mechanics actually seemed too similar between classes despite the bloat. Every class had per day, per encounter, at will, and utility abilities. Most abilities were combat centric as well.
My choice would be to have much more variation in the actual mechanisms for abilities as well as abilities that are much less combat focused and more theme focused.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 08, 2013 - 1:38PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
I agree.
And it appears as if the design team does as well.
From the article on Cleric Design goals - their overall goal for all classes was summed up in three bullet points.
Bullet point #2 was: The class should have an element that makes it unique. Playing one class should feel different from playing another one.
This is why I am concerned for (but anxiously awaiting the details of) the ranger and the paladin. It would be easy to make them not unique and too similar to a multiclass fighter/caster.
That said - some overlap is going to happen and is only natural. You object to the Paladin casting spells and call it overlap. How is that different from someone objecting because the Paladin fights?
Spellcasting is not the 'unique' thing of the cleric. The cleric's unique things are the channel divinity powers and the deity powers. Casting spells, like fighting, is a basic action which will exist as an overlap between many classes.
How they get their spells, what spells they can cast and how they prepare their spells may vary. But the ability to cast spells is a basic ability - not a unique class function.
Carl
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 08, 2013 - 1:40PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Mar 29, 2012
|
do any of you DM? the more specific special minutae rules you create sure makes it tough on the DM. one thing I liked about 4e is all the powers were constructed the same way. Some didn't like the sameyness, but when you are directing a story it sure helps to streamline the rules.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 08, 2013 - 1:46PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
do any of you DM? the more specific special minutae rules you create sure makes it tough on the DM. one thing I liked about 4e is all the powers were constructed the same way. Some didn't like the sameyness, but when you are directing a story it sure helps to streamline the rules.
If you only have 2 real classes ... And only one is important
like for instance... "Caster" and "Not A Caster" its kind of OK 
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 08, 2013 - 1:47PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
do any of you DM? the more specific special minutae rules you create sure makes it tough on the DM. one thing I liked about 4e is all the powers were constructed the same way. Some didn't like the sameyness, but when you are directing a story it sure helps to streamline the rules.
The flip side of that was that because of 4E's exception based design, 4E had twenty-bazillion different powers and no DM could reasonably know every power in the book. And that, combined with the already long and drawn out combats, meant that any attempt to make sure that the players actually were interpreting their powers correctly (and I often found players mis-using powers, not out of any intent to deceive, but just because they were misreading them)-- or anticipate what the players are capable of - pretty much went out the window.
As compared to (for example) AD&D1st (and 5E at present) where it is relatively easy to know what each and every character is capable of.
Regardless - no one is suggesting lots of specific minutiae rules. They are suggesting rules that are unique to the class - not unique to each character (as was the case in 4E due to the vast numbers of different powers (despite the fact that their were structurally very similar). So I find that it is easier on the DM, not harder.
Carl
|
|
|
