Seminar Transcript - Class Design: From Assassins to Wizards

I don't get it. What if the players at the game are fine with the 3E Vancian Magic System and not this different iteration of the system for 5e? How do the spellcasting classes deal with spell acquisition then, concerning their class abilities?

Again, I don't understand why WotC feels that everyone at the same gaming table has to play different ways. If you're the DM, and you DM 3e, then the players have to suck it up and play 3e or find another DM.

Why the need to get 4 editions of people at the same table playing it THEIR way, making it tough for the DM, and at the same time the rules of 5e doesn't really allow all those players to play exactly the edition style they enjoyed?

See, they have the right idea revisiting all 4 editions...but they failed again at trying to throw them onto a dish platter for people to pick and enjoy together. It's not going to be that simple.

Their best bet was my original proposition --- support ALL FOUR editions!

Reprint some books, sell the rest as PDFs, and create adventures/splatbooks/monster/campaign books for all 4 editions. Put them all in one book once a month, or maybe 1 big book every 4 months, with smaller stuff inbetween. Use DDi to make articles with more material for everyone and, boom, you're extremely profitable once again because you're now catering to EVERY D&D gamer since the 70s, and not to just one demographic of one generation anymore.

Lanefan said:

Nice list. A few thoughts...Maybe not even the "stabby Rogue" but instead the non-caster's version of the "I win" button when dealing with non-fantastic foes. I'm an Assassin. I don't fight very well, but if I get a chance to line up my strike for a few minutes while you're unaware of me, and if I can pull it off, you're dead. Period.

Click to expand...

If anything, that "slow win button" should be a feat, not the main theme of a class. Most people don't like playing such a style.

Doing up different spell lists for each deity is a huge amount of work, [...] While I like the idea, I certainly can't blame the designers for putting it way down the priority list.

Click to expand...

Eh, the Spontaneous Variant Cleric in 3e did a basically good job. Not too crazy.

Another idea here might be to introduce a third type of Cleric - the War Cleric - which has some fighter-y abilities and some caster-y abilities, can't cure worth a damn but is really good with the battle spells; and that's what you start as if your career goal is Paladin.

Click to expand...

I don't see why this should be separate from the "classic 1e-style" Cleric class.

Go back to calling it a Thief, and I'd suggest it should be the "I can do anything but you'll never know about it because I'm just that quiet" class.

Click to expand...

No, this should be the assassin. Rogue shouldn't be tied to sneak attacking anymore. It should be the mundane swashbuckler, the Indiana Jones dungeoneer, and so on.

I can't see how Wizard (or MU) is any more setting-specific than most of the other classes.

Click to expand...

It's scholarly, formulaic, focused on memorizing stuff out of a book before using magic. Most fantasy settings don't have magic quite like that.

Flatus Maximus said:

It's a crying shame that clerics will still be Vancian casters. Wizards? OK, I get it -- memorization fades and must be renewed daily. But if a cleric calls upon his/her god to intercede RIGHT NOW, it should be spontaneous rather than a daily prayer:

"Dear god, please grant me two...no, make that three cure light wounds, one bless, two...no, I can get away with one dispel magic,...god, are you getting all this?"

IMHO.

Click to expand...

Sounds a lot better to me from the gods standpoint vs. the cleric in the middle of combat "Hey god, I need this spell, 6 seconds later, Hey god, give me this spell now...(10 rounds later) Um...hey god, I know I'm really starting to be a pain in the butt, but umm. now I need this spell.

If I were a god granting spells to a follower, I would much prefer to having a follower make a single prayer in the morning that I answered, than have him shouting orders to me in the middle of combat repeatedly on what spells he needs. At that point it would probably be easier for the got to just kill everyone for him instead of having to intervene 5-20 times a day on behalf of the follower.

Lots of good stuff here.

A few separate comments:

Draz said:

. . . You're right, that's a LOT of PHB1 classes to try to launch a new system with. I think they should narrow it a bit. Here are my thoughts on each:

Assassin: I approve of this, as long as it's not pigeonholed into the arcane casting or mystical shadow powers of the 1e/3e/4e Assassins. Those things should be optional; the focus should just be on being the "stabby Rogue" archetype. Something pretty similar to the 3e Swordsage, plus a bit more aptitude with burglary or infiltration.

Click to expand...

Not all assassins use blades -- some assassins prefer to kill by using saps ("coshes"), poison, garottes, drowning, defenestration, silk scarves, summoned owlbears, kidnapping-and-marooning, etc.

Barbarian: < snip >

Bard: Definitely an archetype worthy of a PHB1 class. I just hope the 5e version can support "wise" bards, "spoony" bards, and "aggressive swashbuckler" bards alike. 1e emphasized the "wise" aspect; 2e and 3e heavily favored "spoony." 4e tried to make all three viable, and I applaud the attempt, but I think all three may have fallen a little short of what I'd like to see (most 4e Bards really ended up more as a mishmash of all three).

Click to expand...

The arcane class that puts the "grammar" into "grammarye."

Cleric: A classic; obviously has to be included. 1e Clerics, 3e Clerics, and especially 4e Clerics weren't diverse enough. They weren't all that different from deity to deity. (2e had a framework to make them more diverse, but it required a fair amount of homebrew.) So because of that, I approve of the split between Cleric (healer/holy warrior) and Priest (casting-focused, hopefully very diverse between different deities). < snip >

Click to expand...

Much looking forward to that split.

Druid: Obviously should be a PHB1 class, but I hope it's not quite as shapeshifting-focused or overpowered as it has been at times ...

Click to expand...

These woods are my library, by Oak and Ash and Thorn.*
Each Tree is a letter, and those letters form all possible words.
Welcome to the groves of learning, but beware--
A little learning is a dangerous thing!

Fighter: < snip >

Illusionist: < snip >

Monk: I don't think this should be in the 5e PHB1. It's too "niche." When the 4e PHB1 came out, people complained about the Druid and Bard's absences, but not so much the Monk. Save it for an Eastern-themed or Psionic-themed splat.

Paladin: I've always thought the Paladin title was more befitting a PrC than a base class, and I stand by that now. < snip >

Psion: I don't know what it's going to look like, or whether it can cover the whole gamut of psionic archetypes by itself (seems like it would at least need to be able to select which ability score it's based on), but I like the idea of psionics getting put in the PHB1 for a change, instead of being shunted into splatbook territory. They've got the history for it.

Ranger: Definitely PHB1 material.

Rogue: This should be as different from the "stabby" Assassin archetype as a skillful urbane character can be. This should be the "I can do anything because I'm just that awesome" class. Like the 3e Factotum, except with magic optional.

Click to expand...

Rogues should get magic from multiclassing into a magic class only.

Sorcerer: I actually wouldn't give this a PHB1 slot. It feels too setting-specific ... I mean, not in every world is there strains of dragonblood amongst the population, granting magical powers. It's just not as universal (or traditional) as some of the other D&D magic sources.

Click to expand...

Hmm. In Fourth Edition, there are three other power sources that give Sorcery: Chaos ("Wild"), Cosmic, and Storm; so not all sorcerers have dragonblood.

Warlock: 3e should have had this instead of the Sorcerer all along. (Flavor-wise. I'm not necessarily judging mechanics or even the name. Just the flavor.) 4e made the right decision between them.

Warlord: Hmmm. I love the Warlord concept.< snip >

Wizard: Obviously it's not D&D without a Wizard class. < snip >

Click to expand...

* EDIT: Oak and Ash and Thorn: "O" and "A" and "Th." What's that spell? "OATH."

Lanefan said:

Having never seen a Warlock in play, can someone please tell me what differentiates it from a Wizard or Sorcerer or Bard? (or can it relatively easily be melded into one of those three?)

Click to expand...

(4e Warlock)

Flavor-wise they are very different---essentially you make a pact with an entity for magical powers and the ability to pronounce curses in their name. When a cursed enemy dies, you absorb part of their soul (which presumably makes its way to your patron).

In play, they are very similar to other spell-casters. You cast your at-will/encounter/daily spells just like a wizard or sorcerer, with an eldritch blast being your signature at-will attack. Eldritch is a cool word. And as above, you can lay curses on people. When you attack a cursed target, you do more damage, and when they die you gain the benefit of a minor boon associated with your patron (fey step for FeyPact, temporary hit points for Infernal Pact, etc).

Tactically, you get fewer area attacks (fireballs and the like) but more focused, 'screw-you' type spells that annoy DMs.

[behind the screen: Warlocks were an early 4e attempt at making an arcane striker. As the game progressed and the striker role got better implementation, they fell behind the pack. The PHB Warlock is almost quaint by today's standards).

Encounter powers are a perfect mechanic for artificers. Rewinding the clockwork, puttimg all the spring-loaded jumping caltrops back in the bag, filling the flashbomb ("because only a suicidal fool would walk around with more than one filled. You have to hold it perfectly level, or...")

You could call them "preparation" powers, that take a few peaceful minutes to prepare for their next use. Coiling a lasso or loading a musket could be examples of non-magical preparation powers.

Assassin: the 'striker' hit-you-for-crazy-damage type
Rogue: the skill bunny

That's my take, anyhow.

FitzTheRuke said:

I see it as the NUMBER of encounter powers is a product of character skill, while WHAT the power does is a product of circumstance. It's not that the character can't do the same thing twice, it's that the opportunity doesn't occur too often. Call it gamist of me, I suppose

Click to expand...

It is more than a little gamist. Probably just rationalization, but I can understand that.

Really, it's a matter of presentation. There is a place between simulationist and gamist where mechanics are generally representative. They're pinned to something within the fantasy. I think the biggest problem people have with 4E is that it didn't take that extra step to marry it's mechanics to the fantasy. Honestly, I think the design team intended to, but ran out of time.

But I doubt we've seen the end of abilities or resources that require a five minute rest before they can be used again. I just think they'll be used more sparingly and with a more representative description.

It's an unfortunate path they seem to be on. At this stage I have very low expectations for 5e. The fundamental problem I see is that they are using the same people as the chief designers. Bring them in as advisers on the reasoning for and logic of previous features, but keep them off the lead. I see 5e becoming even more convoluted than the previous systems. You cannot take the disparate popular elements from each system, cobble them together, and expect a better overall system.

Out of the lists presumed the Assassin is the most disposable class. It should be the first one chucked out. Assassination shouldn't be the focus of a single class. All classes could perform this sort of thing (depending on alignments). This should be a kit or theme or background package.