| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4429 Posts |
 Posted - 23 Aug 2013 : 06:29:07
|
quote:
@redcometcasval With the bard coming next packet, are we getting any other classes? We are getting five new races(maybe kender are a subrace).
@mikemearls That'll be it for classes
@Gweemaranl Do you mean it for the playtest classes or it for classes in general in the final 5e release?
@mikemearls classes for the game - really want to limit them, focus on subclasses to expand.
So that gives us...
Barbarian
Bard
Cleric
Druid
Fighter
Mage
Monk
Paladin
Ranger
Rogue
Later Mike said that the Warlock won't probably make it in the final packet but it might be in the book for the release.
Speculation is that the Sorcerer is going to be a sub-class of the Mage as is the Wizard as it's already seen in the latest packet. The Fighter sports 3 different sub-classes already (Knight, Gladiator, Warrior) and might have others like the Warlord. The bard also might have something similiar to the 4E warlord that uses magic. Assassin is already being covered under the Rogue and there is a big question as to where the Warden might go. Originally it was a path of Paladin called the Green Knight and beholden to neutrality but quite a few people didn't think it fit under that scheme (me included) so it might go to the Druid or Barbarian. If the Warlock makes it in as it's own class we might also see other sub-classes emerge like the Hexblade and Binder. There are some other classes they havent really touched upon that were pretty popular such as the Duskblade/Swordmage (aka. the "true" gish) as well as the Bladesinger (could fall under Mage or even Bard) and of course 4E classes like the Rune-priest and Avenger have ways of being adopted by perhaps the Paladin.
I'm not too thrilled with all these sub-classes but as long as it PLAYS like older versions and I can grab the same feel then I wouldn't mind it too much.
Thoughts?
|
Edited by - Diffan on 23 Aug 2013 06:29:25
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31701 Posts |
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2013 : 18:42:03
|
So a Paladin, Monk, Ranger, and Barbarian are NOT fighters? 
And yet, they think a sorcerer is a wizard... curious. 50 flavors of fighter but only one of 'magic user'.
A sorcerer should be a 'natural talent' - someone with innate magical abilities (which would include MANY races, most especially Fey). Wizards are a type of (mostly human) caster who has to study hard and memorize arcane glyphs and impress esoteric formulas into his mind. Yes, they both do magic, but thats like saying a martial artist and a Roman legionnaire are the same thing. The results may be the same, but the approaches are very different.
I would have preferred the four base classes, and perhaps two additional for sorcerers and psionicists. With those, I could build anything else. I suppose the Wizard and Sorcerer could be combined under one umbrella 'Mage' class, but by the same token, so could every one of the martial classes. They have very different casting styles, spell selections, and weaknesses - I just don't understand why they would put them together (after 3e/OGL worked so hard to differentiate them).
UNLESS... they plan to give the Warlock some of the sorcerer's stuff.. that could make sense. Swapping the names will be a hard sell, but it could work (Warlocks are also a 'natural caster') - I have to see the finalized rules before I make any decisions. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
 |
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2013 : 19:12:46
|
| So long as all of those classes make it into the first PHB, I'll be satisfied. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4429 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2013 : 20:40:33
|
Well further tweets from Mike suggest that the warlock will also fall under the Mage class as well. I guess the biggest problem is that they're ALL going to have access to the same spells or close to it. That, to me, is a mistake. At least with 4E there were variations to these classes with their own flavor and spell list. Sure, some of it might have been redundant but at least they TRIED to be different. I'm with MT, I just dont see how they're going to maintain the flavor oc the warlock and sorcerer with just some fluff differences and not have them all play similiar.
As for the Fighter, thats the biggest hypocracy considering that the Warlord would be stepping on the toes of the Fighter too much for it to be it's own class. ........really? I mean, as long as these are all in the PHB i guess thats a good thing but how much difference will people tolerate this time around to play the class they're used to? |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2013 : 21:04:01
|
| I grew up in 2E, so I preferred the common spell lists. I never liked the idea that arcane spellslinger number 1 could learn Bigby's Crushing Tactical Nuke, but arcane spellslinger number 2, whose only difference was how he learned spells, could never learn it. It's like saying that only a right-handed person could use a crescent wrench, and someone left-handed would never be able to learn how to use it. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4685 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2013 : 21:19:29
|
| I am thankful the the insulting Warlock might be removed, I would of course boycott 5th Edition if that is a core class. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4429 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2013 : 22:22:36
|
Oh the Warlock will most likely be incorporated into the Core PHB but it will probably be under the Mage as a sub-class. When the Mage gets the choice of wizardly academy they'll probably offer Bloodlines (for sorcerers), pacts (for warlocks), formulas or something similiar for (artificers), etc.
I guess my problem with sharing the same spell list is that it has the possibility of playing very similiar to other classes. Which is funny considering that was a major complaint of 4E. I guess only time will tell. I hope the Avenger makes it in as a sub-class of the Paladin as its a class I REALLY enjoyed in 4e. Same is true for the Duskade and Swordmage.
|
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7970 Posts |
Posted - 24 Aug 2013 : 06:14:30
|
I find it curious that clerics and druids are kept separate, while traditional illusionists and necromancers are only subclass/specialist/subtype mage subsets. Especially since (it seems to me) arcane spellcaster classes have always been overwhelmingly powerful and glorified at highest levels. Not many players would rather play a high priest, and fewer enjoy playing a low-level first aid station.
I despise the warlock concept, as well as all fighter/mage type gishy hybrid classes ... but to be fair, that‘s much the same thing as a paladin (fighter/cleric) hybrid - which, incidentally I also despise as a game-breaking class which invariably attracts game-breaker personalities. Just an opinion. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11700 Posts |
Posted - 24 Aug 2013 : 12:20:46
|
| hmmm, haven't looked at any of the playtest packets for a while. My main complaint was there weren't many options. That's what I liked about 3rd edition was you could build what you pictured... only problem became numbers of feats required. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4429 Posts |
Posted - 24 Aug 2013 : 16:13:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
I find it curious that clerics and druids are kept separate, while traditional illusionists and necromancers are only subclass/specialist/subtype mage subsets. Especially since (it seems to me) arcane spellcaster classes have always been overwhelmingly powerful and glorified at highest levels. Not many players would rather play a high priest, and fewer enjoy playing a low-level first aid station.
I despise the warlock concept, as well as all fighter/mage type gishy hybrid classes ... but to be fair, that‘s much the same thing as a paladin (fighter/cleric) hybrid - which, incidentally I also despise as a game-breaking class which invariably attracts game-breaker personalities. Just an opinion.
Hm, I'll be honest and say that I haven't played a game where the Paladin or Gish class was all that powerful or game-breaking. That mostly resided with full-spellcasters such as the Druid, Cleric, and Wizard. And to be fair as well, my experiences came mostly from 3E and beyond. I hear that Paladins were pretty powerful because if you met the stat-requirements then you were basically a Fighter + Extra stuff. Luckily in the past 15 years or so the designers of the game have attempted to make each class distinct and fun while not overly powerful when compared to other like-minded classes.
Of couse YMMV. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 24 Aug 2013 : 18:20:21
|
Classes (races, spells, etc) don't break the game, PEOPLE break the game.
If you have a an optimizer/min-maxer/power-gamer/etc in your group, its going to happen, no matter what system or setting you use.
Reasonable players play reasonably, and won't 'break the game' just because they can (which includes playing those Gish classes). |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
TBeholder
Great Reader
2388 Posts |
Posted - 24 Aug 2013 : 18:36:11
|
I, surprisingly, am in complete agreement with Markustay for once.
Munchkins gonna munch. Even with pre-rolled sheets. Which is why the arguments toward making all characters into pre-rolled sheets of someone's particular head-canon because OMG munchkins everywhere, while pretty much eternal, are barely worth a yawn.
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
Did I read that right? Kender as a subrace?
Woot!
He-he-he... <adorbs> |
People never wonder How the world goes round -Helloween
And even I make no pretense Of having more than common sense -R.W.Wood
It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo. -Ed Whitchurch |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31701 Posts |
Posted - 25 Aug 2013 : 04:04:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
I, surprisingly, am in complete agreement with Markustay for once.
Munchkins gonna munch. Even with pre-rolled sheets. Which is why the arguments toward making all characters into pre-rolled sheets of someone's particular head-canon because OMG munchkins everywhere, while pretty much eternal, are barely worth a yawn.
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
Did I read that right? Kender as a subrace?
Woot!
He-he-he... <adorbs>
Strangely, I don't see anything wrong with that.
Kender wildmages are a great deal of fun! |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
Plaguescarred
Learned Scribe
Canada
190 Posts |
Posted - 25 Aug 2013 : 17:05:33
|
| While i was never fond of classbloating found in more recent iterations of D&D, i think the sorcerer, warlock and psionic should be seperate class rather than mage subclasses, otherwise it will try to be too many things at once and feat it will suffer identity crisis. |
Yan
Playtester |
|
|
|
SirUrza
Master of Realmslore
USA
1283 Posts |
Posted - 25 Aug 2013 : 23:37:49
|
I surmise that the casting style of the Sorcerer falls into the category of the modular nature of D&D Next.
Look at the 3/3.5 Wizard and Sorcerer. What's the relief difference between the two mechanically? One needs an extra page for their spellbook, the other needs an extra table for how many spells their know. Thematically they're different, but mechanically, they're almost the same class.
It's hardly the same for Fighters, Paladins, Barbarians, and Rangers. Paladins and Rangers have spell, Fighters and Barbarians don't. Paladins, Rangers, and Barbarians gets special abilities, Fighters don't. Paladins and Rangers cast completely different spell lists. It's not as interchangeable, especially when you're talking about later supplements.
Any spells you add to the Wizard, automatically work for the Sorcerer or the Mage (assuming that's what we'd call a Wizard using a spell pool/point system instead of spell slot.)
A spells for a Paladin for instance isn't a spells that's appropriate for a Ranger, so you can't lump them together because now you're not treating them equally in terms of printed content and options. |
"Evil prevails when good men fail to act."
The original and unapologetic Arilyn, Aribeth, Seoni Fanboy. |
Edited by - SirUrza on 25 Aug 2013 23:39:41 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 26 Aug 2013 : 04:33:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by SirUrza
A spells for a Paladin for instance isn't a spells that's appropriate for a Ranger, so you can't lump them together because now you're not treating them equally in terms of printed content and options.
You can do the 2E approach: paladins can cast spells from specific spheres, rangers can cast spells from other spheres. Either way, the spells are divine magic, and clerics may or may not be able to cast them, depending on their deity. So you don't need separate spell lists, just a blurb saying what spheres they can access. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 26 Aug 2013 : 07:52:29
|
A caveat about a "final list"--things can and do change during design and development, and the game is still a year off. So read this with a grain of salt.
The primary difference between a Mage and a sorcerer in the new edition would be a question of background (which is a fundamental part of your character) and flavor. If everyone casts spells in fundamentally the same way (like a sorcerer), then there really isn't a mechanical distinction. That said, it seems very likely to me you'll eventually see "wizard," "sorcerer," and/or "warlock" as advanced options.
The various warrior types (fighter, ranger, barbarian, paladin) have major mechanical differences because you expect them to do different things in totally different ways. Personally, I could see them all caught under "warrior," but the classes have distinguished themselves significantly for many, many editions.
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 26 Aug 2013 : 13:29:08
|
Which goes completely against what I thought was their main goal for 5e - to build a simple system with lots of options. Thats what OD&D was, and what D&D should be again. You don't get newbs into the game by giving them so many options (up-front) that they are over-whelmed.
IMHO, they are over-designing again. Small rules at first, with lots of growth potential - thats what D&D needs right now if its ever going to make a comeback.
Yes, a Ranger is different then a Paladin - a ranger should draw his spells from the druid list... yet both are sub-types of fighter with levels of priest (one a cleric, the other druid).
Its already been proven with the 3e rules that a fighter can be optimized to be a BETTER two-weapon fighter then a Ranger, thus making the Ranger class irrelevant (for most folks). A druid is a better combatant then a fighter, because his shape-change ability allows him to take forms that are better then a fighter at melee at the same levels. As soon as you build another class that out-performs a class in its primary strength, you have broken the game. With an open set of fighter rules, I can build any of the sub-classes I want, simply by dipping into other classes; anything else is just game-breaking, IMO.
If they truly did go back to OD&D and try to build a modern game from it, then we wouldn't have this convoluted mess. We need simple - thats Pathfinder's weakness, and it could be D&D's strength (although, come to think of it, I believe the 4e team went into it thinking this same thing...) At the very least, they need to create a set of FREE, online line quick-start rules with just the basic classes; that would help tremendously. Get them hooked, and then sell them the oodles of options (but don't go 2e-style nuts with those.... 5 different sets of rules for stamina/exhaustion was insane). |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 26 Aug 2013 13:31:11 |
|
|
|
The Red Walker
Great Reader
USA
3563 Posts |
Posted - 26 Aug 2013 : 14:00:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Which goes completely against what I thought was their main goal for 5e - to build a simple system with lots of options. Thats what OD&D was, and what D&D should be again. You don't get newbs into the game by giving them so many options (up-front) that they are over-whelmed.
IMHO, they are over-designing again. Small rules at first, with lots of growth potential - thats what D&D needs right now if its ever going to make a comeback.
Yes, a Ranger is different then a Paladin - a ranger should draw his spells from the druid list... yet both are sub-types of fighter with levels of priest (one a cleric, the other druid).
Its already been proven with the 3e rules that a fighter can be optimized to be a BETTER two-weapon fighter then a Ranger, thus making the Ranger class irrelevant (for most folks). A druid is a better combatant then a fighter, because his shape-change ability allows him to take forms that are better then a fighter at melee at the same levels. As soon as you build another class that out-performs a class in its primary strength, you have broken the game. With an open set of fighter rules, I can build any of the sub-classes I want, simply by dipping into other classes; anything else is just game-breaking, IMO.
If they truly did go back to OD&D and try to build a modern game from it, then we wouldn't have this convoluted mess. We need simple - thats Pathfinder's weakness, and it could be D&D's strength (although, come to think of it, I believe the 4e team went into it thinking this same thing...) At the very least, they need to create a set of FREE, online line quick-start rules with just the basic classes; that would help tremendously. Get them hooked, and then sell them the oodles of options (but don't go 2e-style nuts with those.... 5 different sets of rules for stamina/exhaustion was insane).
I agree, especially where I bolded. But a simple, small, nimble rule set doesnt really justify a very large design team and/or budget does it? And I'm guessing the designers are already fighting for every $ they need to 'do it right" as it is.....so they are in a tough spot here. |
A little nonsense now and then, relished by the wisest men - Willy Wonka
"We need men who can dream of things that never were." -
John F. Kennedy, speech in Dublin, Ireland, June 28, 1963
|
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4429 Posts |
Posted - 26 Aug 2013 : 20:34:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
A caveat about a "final list"--things can and do change during design and development, and the game is still a year off. So read this with a grain of salt.
Right, they can always change or add/delete what will be in there. I do, however, think the design process is for less "main" classes and have just a larger base of sub-classes. One could roll 3 or 4 "styles" of characters just through the Paladin or Fighter class based on what options are presented. It's not something I'm overtly comfortable with because I've seen this with Pathfinder and some of the options are truely horrid, but I've also adopted this "wait-and-see" attitude towards the process. Hopefully I'll be impressed.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
The primary difference between a Mage and a sorcerer in the new edition would be a question of background (which is a fundamental part of your character) and flavor. If everyone casts spells in fundamentally the same way (like a sorcerer), then there really isn't a mechanical distinction. That said, it seems very likely to me you'll eventually see "wizard," "sorcerer," and/or "warlock" as advanced options.
While I'm a BIG fan of reflavoring, I think they're missing an opportunity to make some strong distinctions between these concepts. Yes, the Sorcerer could cast spells like a Wizard, by why? I had hoped there would be possible alternate spellcasting methods as differnt spellcasting classes came out. Instead we get the similiarity of casters that we saw in v3.5 (and prior), which isn't necessarily a good thing. So we have 5 different flavors of "warrior" due to the differences in playstyle and concept and these differences are showcased in different class features and styles. OTOH a "mage" is a catch all for every single arcane user? There's also a HUGE difference IMO that sets a Warlock apart from a Wizard that just reflavoring cannot provide.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
The various warrior types (fighter, ranger, barbarian, paladin) have major mechanical differences because you expect them to do different things in totally different ways. Personally, I could see them all caught under "warrior," but the classes have distinguished themselves significantly for many, many editions.
Cheers
See, I think the same is true of arcane spellcasters as well. With the sorcerer you have a very strong point. It didn't really get it's identity until the must later products of v3.5 with Bloodlines and even Pathfinder went that route as well but essentially they were different spellcasting wizards. But in 4E they have a much stronger identity with external forces and how they've manifested within each sorcerer. And the fact that they didn't share any spells and even had a different design philosophy makes it seem like there isn't much in common except that they cast spells. The Warlock is even further similiar since they have a completely different mechanic (at-will spells + eldritch blast) in 3E and brought to light a different roleplaying aspect (making pacts with demons, devils, fey) in 4E.
I just see some of the same mistakes that 4E did when the original PHB came out. A LOT of people were angry that they couldn't make a Fighter that used a bow and were basically told (heck, even by me) to just play a Ranger and reflavor it. But the problem is that people don't want to do that. They want to be able to write Fighter on that CLASS_________ box on their character sheet. So now we have a lot of diversity with the warrior types but mage is a catch all that might leave a lot of people not liking more distinction.
Oh well, only time will tell. |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 01 Sep 2013 : 21:50:45
|
MT, they're doing a mix. The Mage seems to be simple with the option of eventual subclasses, but they have all the usual warrior suspects. If I were doing it, I'd do four basic classes--Warrior, Rogue, Mage, Priest--and then do subclasses.
It seems like every character has three basic components:
1) Race, what you are all the time
2) Class, what you do mostly in combat
3) Background, what you do mostly outside of combat
Ranger, paladin, and barbarian seem more like backgrounds than classes to me (rogue, priest, and warrior respectively), but there's a certain mechanical expectation players have, and it'd be cool to distinguish between types of rangers, paladins, and barbarians.
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7970 Posts |
Posted - 03 Sep 2013 : 00:13:28
|
ESdB, what you‘re describing sounds a lot like ye olde AD&D 2E ...
I‘m still curious why so much effort seems dedicated to defining the boundary distinctions between all the warrior-melee sorts of classes. To be honest, I‘d rather see that effort go into making the warrior types more hefty vs mage types.
A druid being better in melee vs a specialist warrior? Plus he‘s got all the druid spells and powers and stuff? So why, exactly, would anyone want to play a fighter?
The traditional linear-fighters-vs-quadratic-wizards issue ... again, why would any PCs be sucky fighters when they could just hire some NPC beef to bodyguard them past low levels?
I personally prefer balanced classes. Specifically, at each level (or XP breakpoint, or whatever) each class should be roughly equal to each other. Whether making a 1st-level or 20th-level PC, the player should need to consider strengths and weaknesses and always gain something class-unique while forgoing all the other class-unique options.
I think muticlassing should be handled very carefully as well, I realize it‘s the default 3E playstyle model but it‘s the quickest and surest way to break a rigid 2E-modelled class balance. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4685 Posts |
Posted - 03 Sep 2013 : 01:26:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
MT, they're doing a mix. The Mage seems to be simple with the option of eventual subclasses, but they have all the usual warrior suspects. If I were doing it, I'd do four basic classes--Warrior, Rogue, Mage, Priest--and then do subclasses.
It seems like every character has three basic components:
1) Race, what you are all the time
2) Class, what you do mostly in combat
3) Background, what you do mostly outside of combat
Ranger, paladin, and barbarian seem more like backgrounds than classes to me (rogue, priest, and warrior respectively), but there's a certain mechanical expectation players have, and it'd be cool to distinguish between types of rangers, paladins, and barbarians.
Cheers
Well idea strikes me as flawed.
The being race I can offer no complaint about, how one fights clearly can change and background clearly sounds like it needs work. A farmer's son could become a fighter, wizard or a theif starting out with farming profession. Learning the greater world clearly could learn a skill like smith or scribe.
The ranger as a thief total strange.
I concede on Paladin as priest.
Barbarian at best a survivalist and never should have been a class in the first place. Indeed many need to fight, but they also need to gather food and so on.
|
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 03 Sep 2013 : 17:20:48
|
Note to all: I am not a D&D-Next designer and have no real insight into the process. All I'm saying is what I perceive based on my experience with the game and perceptions of what's coming out.
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
ESdB, what you‘re describing sounds a lot like ye olde AD&D 2E ...
As I understand it, D&D-Next is making a concerted effort to pull from all editions to make something that seems familiar to all sorts of players. It seems a lot like 2e to me, too, but I can see lots of 3e and 4e as well, with a strong 1e feel.
quote:
I‘m still curious why so much effort seems dedicated to defining the boundary distinctions between all the warrior-melee sorts of classes. To be honest, I‘d rather see that effort go into making the warrior types more hefty vs mage types.
I see this as a legacy of 3e, which decided it needed to differentiate types of warriors rigidly into different classes. 2e did this somewhat, but rangers and paladins in that edition were basically fighters with some magical abilities added on. In 3e, the barbarian, ranger, and paladin began working fundamentally different from the fighter (different hit points, unique non-magical abilities unavailable to other classes), and 4e made the distinction even wider (making the classes fulfill different roles entirely in combat). At this point, we seem to be stuck with the paradigm of the warrior types all being separate classes.
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
A druid being better in melee vs a specialist warrior? Plus he‘s got all the druid spells and powers and stuff? So why, exactly, would anyone want to play a fighter?
I'm not sure what you're getting at. The only edition of the game in which a druid could really compete with a fighter in combat was 4e, and then only because of wildshaping, and even then the druid was a second-liner at best.
quote:
The traditional linear-fighters-vs-quadratic-wizards issue ... again, why would any PCs be sucky fighters when they could just hire some NPC beef to bodyguard them past low levels?
I personally prefer balanced classes. Specifically, at each level (or XP breakpoint, or whatever) each class should be roughly equal to each other. Whether making a 1st-level or 20th-level PC, the player should need to consider strengths and weaknesses and always gain something class-unique while forgoing all the other class-unique options.
I agree with relatively balanced classes. Every character should have a chance to shine, and no one should ever feel useless, and what I've played of D&D-Next seems to manage that.
quote:
I think muticlassing should be handled very carefully as well, I realize it‘s the default 3E playstyle model but it‘s the quickest and surest way to break a rigid 2E-modelled class balance.
I'm very curious to see how D&D-Next accomplishes this.
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
MT, they're doing a mix. The Mage seems to be simple with the option of eventual subclasses, but they have all the usual warrior suspects. If I were doing it, I'd do four basic classes--Warrior, Rogue, Mage, Priest--and then do subclasses.
It seems like every character has three basic components:
1) Race, what you are all the time
2) Class, what you do mostly in combat
3) Background, what you do mostly outside of combat
Ranger, paladin, and barbarian seem more like backgrounds than classes to me (rogue, priest, and warrior respectively), but there's a certain mechanical expectation players have, and it'd be cool to distinguish between types of rangers, paladins, and barbarians.
Well idea strikes me as flawed.
Not sure what idea you mean? Do you mean how D&D-Next is doing it, or do you mean my idea of 4 basic classes and subclasses? Because those are way not the same.
If you're critiquing my idea, thanks, but that's outside the scope of the thread. We're here to talk about what D&D-Next is doing, not what one designer would do if he were calling the shots. 
quote:
The being race I can offer no complaint about, how one fights clearly can change and background clearly sounds like it needs work. A farmer's son could become a fighter, wizard or a theif starting out with farming profession. Learning the greater world clearly could learn a skill like smith or scribe.
Absolutely. And that's why all backgrounds are open to all classes. You could play a fighter, wizard, or rogue with the Farmer background. Some might make more sense than others, of course, but some of the most interesting characters come from juxtaposition.
quote:
The ranger as a thief total strange.
I concede on Paladin as priest.
Barbarian at best a survivalist and never should have been a class in the first place. Indeed many need to fight, but they also need to gather food and so on.
This sounds like you're talking about my idea. Let me clarify: D&D-Next isn't doing this. Currently, barbarian, paladin, and ranger are all separate classes.
I largely agree that barbarian was an unnecessary addition as a class in 3e. But they didn't really have a convenient mechanical path to fulfill that kind of role, and the raving berserk orc is a classic trope in a D&D game, and the design aesthetic of 3e was to have everything explainable in the same mechanical system (i.e. so orcs that could go berserk would have a class that let them do that).
I might have called the class a Berserker and made it a Prestige Class.
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Drustan Dwnhaedan
Learned Scribe
USA
324 Posts |
Posted - 06 Sep 2013 : 23:13:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Classes (races, spells, etc) don't break the game, PEOPLE break the game.
If you have a an optimizer/min-maxer/power-gamer/etc in your group, its going to happen, no matter what system or setting you use.
Reasonable players play reasonably, and won't 'break the game' just because they can (which includes playing those Gish classes).
Well, now I know why I don't fit in with my current gaming group; I like an adventure with a good plot, they're all power-gamers. My DM has tastes similar to mine, but always tailors his campaigns for what the majority of the players want (which, unfortunately, is to have a hack'n'slash adventure with their game-breaking characters doing anything they *bleep* well please). |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 07 Sep 2013 : 01:54:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drustan Dwnhaedan
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Classes (races, spells, etc) don't break the game, PEOPLE break the game.
If you have a an optimizer/min-maxer/power-gamer/etc in your group, its going to happen, no matter what system or setting you use.
Reasonable players play reasonably, and won't 'break the game' just because they can (which includes playing those Gish classes).
Well, now I know why I don't fit in with my current gaming group; I like an adventure with a good plot, they're all power-gamers. My DM has tastes similar to mine, but always tailors his campaigns for what the majority of the players want (which, unfortunately, is to have a hack'n'slash adventure with their game-breaking characters doing anything they *bleep* well please).
I would take your DM aside and ask if he (or she) can also incorporate some of the elements that you like. Really good DMs try to take into account everyone at the table, not just a handful or the majority. It's important for you to have fun also, otherwise why play?
Take him or her aside, give really specific examples of things you'd like to see featured more. Most DMs are willing to adapt a little, I've found.
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4429 Posts |
Posted - 07 Sep 2013 : 05:39:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
quote:
Originally posted by Drustan Dwnhaedan
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Classes (races, spells, etc) don't break the game, PEOPLE break the game.
If you have a an optimizer/min-maxer/power-gamer/etc in your group, its going to happen, no matter what system or setting you use.
Reasonable players play reasonably, and won't 'break the game' just because they can (which includes playing those Gish classes).
Well, now I know why I don't fit in with my current gaming group; I like an adventure with a good plot, they're all power-gamers. My DM has tastes similar to mine, but always tailors his campaigns for what the majority of the players want (which, unfortunately, is to have a hack'n'slash adventure with their game-breaking characters doing anything they *bleep* well please).
I would take your DM aside and ask if he (or she) can also incorporate some of the elements that you like. Really good DMs try to take into account everyone at the table, not just a handful or the majority. It's important for you to have fun also, otherwise why play?
Take him or her aside, give really specific examples of things you'd like to see featured more. Most DMs are willing to adapt a little, I've found.
+1
|
|
|
|
Drustan Dwnhaedan
Learned Scribe
USA
324 Posts |
Posted - 07 Sep 2013 : 06:28:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
quote:
Originally posted by Drustan Dwnhaedan
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Classes (races, spells, etc) don't break the game, PEOPLE break the game.
If you have a an optimizer/min-maxer/power-gamer/etc in your group, its going to happen, no matter what system or setting you use.
Reasonable players play reasonably, and won't 'break the game' just because they can (which includes playing those Gish classes).
Well, now I know why I don't fit in with my current gaming group; I like an adventure with a good plot, they're all power-gamers. My DM has tastes similar to mine, but always tailors his campaigns for what the majority of the players want (which, unfortunately, is to have a hack'n'slash adventure with their game-breaking characters doing anything they *bleep* well please).
I would take your DM aside and ask if he (or she) can also incorporate some of the elements that you like. Really good DMs try to take into account everyone at the table, not just a handful or the majority. It's important for you to have fun also, otherwise why play?
Take him or her aside, give really specific examples of things you'd like to see featured more. Most DMs are willing to adapt a little, I've found.
Many thanks for the advice, Therise ! It's nice to have someone who can suggest a rational solution and still put up with someone of my, ah, temperament. |
|
|
|
ksu_bond
Learned Scribe
New Zealand
214 Posts |
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Finalized list of classes for 5E PHB
