|
3 months ago ::
Mar 08, 2013 - 1:52PM
#11
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2012
|
I'm much more concerned that classes be distinct conceptually then they be distinct mechanically.
This is my perspective. I honestly don't even know where this call for distinct mechanics originated, since no previous edition has ever supported that (with the possible exception of late 3.5).
I think it's more important that the wizard/warlock/cleric/druid/psion cast different spells than that they have different rules governing their casting methods. If one character has a daily pool of points, and another character has Vancian preparation, and a third character is using a random-recovery method (like one of the Tome of Battle) classes, then it doesn't even feel like we're playing the same game.
The difference between classes should be what they do, and not how they do it.
Bullet point #2 was: The class should have an element that makes it unique. Playing one class should feel different from playing another one.
I would prefer that the unique element is a conceptual one, rather than a mechanical one. If a paladin is a fighter who can also cast healing spells, then that is already conceptually unique from any other class.
The metagame is not the game.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 08, 2013 - 2:05PM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Aug 25, 2007
|
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.
Carl
And i think this is also the bullet that hit the warlord.
The designer trying to come up with unique elements for the warlord class, and what they ended up with was just a mix of the fighter and the bard abilities they where working on.
Basicly concluding if you want to be a warlord play a fighter/bard dual class.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 08, 2013 - 2:36PM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
I'm much more concerned that classes be distinct conceptually then they be distinct mechanically.
This is my perspective. I honestly don't even know where this call for distinct mechanics originated, since no previous edition has ever supported that (with the possible exception of late 3.5).
I think it's more important that the wizard/warlock/cleric/druid/psion cast different spells than that they have different rules governing their casting methods. If one character has a daily pool of points, and another character has Vancian preparation, and a third character is using a random-recovery method (like one of the Tome of Battle) classes, then it doesn't even feel like we're playing the same game.
The difference between classes should be what they do, and not how they do it.
Bullet point #2 was: The class should have an element that makes it unique. Playing one class should feel different from playing another one.
I would prefer that the unique element is a conceptual one, rather than a mechanical one. If a paladin is a fighter who can also cast healing spells, then that is already conceptually unique from any other class.
I disagree because that makes every multiclass character concept into a new class.
There should also be a conceptual difference. But the conceptual difference is where you start - and it leads to the quest for a mechanical difference. If you can't then find that mechanical difference, the class misses the cut.
But you definately need both (which is why the 3.x sorcerer doesn't deserve a class - although a more interesting and unique sorcerer might). It is not conceptually different enough.
Carl
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 08, 2013 - 3:32PM
#14
|
Date Joined:
May 22, 2003
|
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.
I agree, for the most part. However, the paladin casting spells doesn't necessarily have to be described as 'casting spells as a cleric' -- the archetype and concepts are the important differentiator (given that the mechanics are not present 'in game').
The only exception to the effort of differentiation could be the bard. I'd be quite happy with bard traditions/schemes/virtues offering a maneuver, a skill trick, spellcasting, and an inspiration feature that functions much like channel divinity. The mechanical heart and soul of the D&D bard (in my opinion) is the 'able hero' who toys with everyone else's things. 
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 08, 2013 - 3:57PM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
Specificity in classes kills concepts cold. Unique mechanics, while great for setting a class apart, also can severely limit the concepts that can be built from that unique chassis.
I get that people want classes to stand apart from each other, but isn't more imporant that a CHARACTER can be built using the available parts? Why not let every character choose thier "one authentic feature" from the list of unqiue features? Otherwise, if you want the unique feature, you have to stick with the rest of the package.
I like cookies, but do they all have to use the same mold? Eating gingerbread gets a bit old, even if you keep changing the sprinkles.
Magic Dual Color Test
Show
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 08, 2013 - 6:18PM
#16
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2012
|
There should also be a conceptual difference. But the conceptual difference is where you start - and it leads to the quest for a mechanical difference. If you can't then find that mechanical difference, the class misses the cut.
I dislike that because it means there are multiple mechanics with which to implement a single concept. That means both system mastery (after you know what you want the character to do, you then have to examine the game mechanics in-depth to figure out how you want the character to do it), and significant power discrepancies within a single concept (Necromancer Wizard vs. Cleric of Death vs. Dread Necromancer).
By keeping all classes distinct at a concept level, it avoids system mastery and prevents direct comparison between classes.
The metagame is not the game.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 08, 2013 - 8:33PM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Feb 19, 2012
|
I actually prefer classes have unique hows instead of whats. Even though 4e classes have similar power structures (psions & E exceptions), how they did those things varied greatly from class to class (and even between characters of the same class).
what I want from classes seems to oppose what Saelorn wants. However,I would like to see power-source oriented mechanics. Martial characters getting mdd fits there. I don't want PCs to have to learn something completely new every time they play a new class. Again, this means I am comfortable w/ overlap as long as there is some difference in how those things are done. I also worry about how easy it was for PCs to accidentally do the wrong things with their powers. I don't want mechanics so widely diverse that it's difficult to help new players.
"What's stupid is when people decide that X is true - even when it is demonstrable untrue or 100% against what we've said - and run around complaining about that. That's just a breakdown of basic human reasoning."
-Mike Mearls
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 08, 2013 - 8:47PM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Nov 11, 2011
|
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.
First, I must admit this time I didn't followed the whole thread, but I just have to say that this... actually sounds really cool.
I am going to read the whole thing now.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 09, 2013 - 12:13AM
#19
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2006
|
But hybrid classes like ranger or paladin almost all classes should have got some exclusive mechanic. A class isn´t only a archetype and a list of class features and powers, but it should be a different gameplay.
For example the wu jen, in the third edition was only a wizard with a different list of spells and class features. It was a wasted great potential.
"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)
Book 13 Anaclet 23
Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 09, 2013 - 1:42AM
#20
|
Date Joined:
Mar 28, 2008
|
Proliferation of mechanical subsystems results in far too much bloat and fiddliness and a feeling that you have to make something different just because and then you wind up with a lot of crappy classes.
|
|
|
