Results for tag: archetypes
Posted by: The_Jester on Aug 23, 2012 at 02:18:39 PM
I had a chance to play the new package of the D&D playtest at GenCon and really see most of the classes at work. I helped friends make characters and spent some time reading through the options.
Additionally, before the convention, in the event of a dead evening, I adapted an old 1e module to 5e, updating monsters via reflavouring or adding some environmental effects, loosely playing with the encounter building rules.
With all the changes, it's felt like time for another quick review.
There's an Update?
In case you hadn't heard, we're on playtest 2.1, as WotC slipped the warlock and sorcerer into the package (along with an adventure) after the start of GenCon. Of course, as WotC wasn't really updating their website during the last week, you might not have noticed.
Given we're required...
Posted by: The_Jester on May 24, 2012 at 05:18:03 PM
We know the four big classes: fighter, wizard, rogue, and cleric. Each one has an archetypal role in the classic D&D party and is a staple of the fantasy genre. They’re shoe-ins for inclusion in the next edition, as it would not be D&D – let alone a fantasy TTRPG – with those four.
The Big Four should be the baseline; they should set the bar for all the other classes. The barbarian might hit harder than the fighter while raging, but be (slightly) less effective the rest of the time, such as being easier to hit or less skilled with armour. The druid might be able to offer some utility and interesting spell effects when needed, but nothing close to the versatility of the wizard. And so on.
With all the fuss over what is unique to the paladin – what separates a pally...
Posted by: The_Jester on Jun 28, 2010 at 10:34:12 AM
Last time I blogged, I talked about what 4e's combat roles are, their brief origins, and how they compare with the ideal. What worked with the roles and what could have been done better.
Upon reading the comments and after more thought I realized there were a couple points I missed, which needed further thought and nitpicking.
The controller class is based on the wizard, for better or worse. Which means now that every controller has wizard-type hit points. Why? Why are wizards so darn squishable?
This goes back to 1e and beyond, when wizards were the long ranged damage dealers that couldn't take the hit. This contrasts nicely with the heavily armoured melee fighters that are harder to hit and take more to put down.
However, in 1e-3e, druids and other classes also fit what would...
Posted by: The_Jester on Jun 26, 2010 at 03:44:16 PM
4e firmly introduced combat roles to the game, and the idea every class should have a role in the party they are working to fulfil. Although, 4e did not create or introduce this idea: it is prolific throughout MMORPGs.
In *most* MMOs there tends to be three roles: damage (DPS), tank, and healer. This is the World of Warcraft model. There's no real "controller" because many classes have a crowd control mechanic and because controlling is undesirably during boss or raid fights for the exact same reasons heavy controlling breaks solo fights in D&D.
The above statement is a lie. Like cake. 3e explicitly said the game was designed around a party of four characters, typically a fighter, cleric, wizard, and rogue. These are big archetypal classes, with some wiggle room: druids could...