+ Log in or register to post
Results 31 to 40 of 102
Friday, 27th April, 2012, 05:47 PM #31
Myrmidon (Lvl 10)
A cleric is a human character who is dedicated to serving a great and worthy cause.
A cleric's spell powers come from the strength of the cleric's beliefs.
I'm not saying that this is the direction I personally want to take with the game, but one could argue that clerics (and possibly druids) are divine because of their faith, and not the gods. The warlock's pact is not based on faith, but on a bargain.PbP Signature: http://www.enworld.org/forum/5934473-post84.html
- EN World
- has no influence
- on advertisings
- that are displayed by
- Google Adsense
Friday, 27th April, 2012, 05:59 PM #32
Magsman (Lvl 14)
My main questions when it comes to classes are:
1) Is is a common archetype for a D&D adventurer?
2) Can you make a decent representative of that archetype wiout the process being too complex?
If you answer Yes to the first but No to the second, you need a new class.
For example, if you only had the core four: Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard.
Baker? No. Not a common D&D archetype.
Necromancer? Yes it is a common D&D archetype. Yes it can be made with a wizard or cleric.
Warlock? Yes to the first. The second.... not really. Needs a class
Ranger? Common archetype, check. Simple composite of the four four... Depends who you ask.
My beard is hairy.
Friday, 27th April, 2012, 06:04 PM #33
Guide (Lvl 11)
Friday, 27th April, 2012, 06:08 PM #34
Enchanter (Lvl 12)
I don't see a reason to include "sorcerer" myself.
I don't see a need for any class to exist solely to reserve name-space. When 3e wanted a class that used spontaneous casting, using the name "sorcerer" was fine. But when 4e came out, they didn't need to make a class named "sorcerer" because there was no call for it. Yes, they'd attached a lot of fluff to the term in 3e, but it was driven by the class mechanics. 4e had to invent a new class concept for "sorcerer" simply because people wanted to port the name and "innate magic" fluff from 3e.
In 5e, where any wizard would seem to be able to discard Vancian casting for other choices, sorcerer doesn't need to be anything other than a theme for the wizard. Don't make up a new class just because "sorcerer" was a box you could check in previous editions.
I suspect Warlock could be handled the same way, if the feats are built correctly. Maybe even Warlord.
“Well, I’m sorry, I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect an exhaust port less than two meters wide!”
-- Emperor Palpatine
Friday, 27th April, 2012, 06:13 PM #35
Magsman (Lvl 14)
If so i'm fine with it. If not, you need a ranger class.
Repeat with every common D&D adventurer archetype.
My beard is hairy.
Friday, 27th April, 2012, 06:26 PM #36
Grandfather of Assassins (Lvl 19)
Friday, 27th April, 2012, 06:28 PM #37
Spellbinder (Lvl 16)
The issue of boiling it down to the "core four" (which I have no issue with really. Too many years playing BECM/B/X, I suppose) and then saying, Well we could boil it down to three: Fighter/Martial guy; Expert/Specialist guy; Magic guy...seems to stop short for no good reason.
The argument could be made you need two classes: Caster and Non-caster. Magic-using/Not-magic-using. And then create to the nine hells and nine heavens everything off of that.
That works for a lot of people and a lot pf games. But it's not "D&D".
It's like, in cooking terms. Do you want Balsamic Vinegar? Vinegarette? A Balsamic reduction? Or some burnt solid blackness at the bottom of the pot that won't pour?
D&D is a class based system. Lament it as the day is long if you wish. But that's what it is. Making it something else is making it "not D&D." Take your "build points" and go home. D&D has classes. Fantasy archetypes that are strong enough to warrant a specific class.
If some of them are "specialized" well...so what? That's what the game has always been. Four broad open categories that you can make your own. Or these other (usually in the neighborhood of 8-12 more) "sub-classes" that get all kindsa cool powers and extra abilities at the expense of others. Specific archetypes that are understood and spark the imagination.
No, D&D doesn't...it can't...allow for a written out class for every permutation of your imagination. Personally, I don't think it should. It is D&D. Play and enjoy...BEND what you can to suit your needs! Make what you can from it...what your group/DM allows...or, to put it perhaps a bit too bluntly, play something else.
We didn't have the options "back in the day". Now you do! Rejoice in the choices!
Because your paladin can't be the paladin you want to play (with all of the bells and whistles but none of the restrictions) or your assassin doesn't have the shadow-magic powers you want it to have does not mean D&D MUST make a class to suit your needs. Homebrew it or play something that does let you play that character...like some other version of D&D that DOES have it!
If 12-15 choices isn't enough...than maybe D&D isn't your game. Nothing wrong with that. Play what you like. It is about having fun, after all.
I sincerely hope 5e gives everyone what they want...the OPTIONS to make up whatever they might want. But, again, the possibilities are infinite! You can't expect a class-based game to have everything you want in it...the best it can do is come close. And that should not try to be by offering seventy-teen-hundred distinct classes with all of their own rules.
Friday, 27th April, 2012, 06:30 PM #38
Guide (Lvl 11)
Friday, 27th April, 2012, 06:47 PM #39
Waghalter (Lvl 7)
11 original classes
8 additional classes (in Advanced Player's Guide, Ultimate Combat, and Ultimate Magic).
2 dedicated semi-classes (Ninja and Samurai which are different enough to get full write ups from level 1 to 20).
4 third party classes covering Psionic classes
And, I still feel there is room for more classes since they are all bringing different and unique builds to the game.
There are several builds in 4e that I would like to see become versions in PF. The Avenger, Warden, Shaman, Vampire, Invoker, and Essentials Ranger Hunter.
You can often put things into groups but just because you put apples, oranges, and pears in the same group does not mean that they should be taken as a whole. Each has a marvelous and different quality all its own.
I mean, I like the occasional glass of orange juice but the only pear juice that I like is made into cider.
Friday, 27th April, 2012, 07:01 PM #40
Spellbinder (Lvl 16)
OK! I know this might not be the thread for it...but I've thought this for so long, I have to say it SOMEwhere...
VAMPIRE IS NOT A CLASS!!!!
Vampirism is a DISEASE! An affliction! A curse! ANYONE can be...become...be turned into...a vampire!
It's not something you do (a class) it's something you are or become in the course of play (preferably avoid becoming at all costs!)
I do not give one whit how popular Twilight is...or Buffy (though I am a HUGE Buffy fan from waaaay back!) It has NO PLACE in a list of "classes."
That's Twilight and/or Buffy and/or Angel...not D&D!
That goes for werewolves (-rats, -boars, -tigers, -bears) also.
We have some indication that werewolf and vampire will both be "themes" or "backgrounds" that can be built onto a character in 5e. That is...at least tolerable...You weren't "born a vampire" but have become one before play starts. I can see that...and it has the added advantage of being easily dismissed with a "No, you can't take that."
But to make it all its own CLASS?! No way! Madness I tell you, MAAAADDDDNESS!
By AFGNCAAP in forum RPGs & Tabletop Gaming DiscussionReplies: 40Last Post: Thursday, 1st February, 2007, 06:32 PM
By RigaMortus2 in forum D&D and Pathfinder Rules & DiscussionReplies: 8Last Post: Tuesday, 1st August, 2006, 07:09 AM
By dead in forum RPGs & Tabletop Gaming DiscussionReplies: 6Last Post: Thursday, 1st September, 2005, 07:10 AM
By Terwox in forum RPGs & Tabletop Gaming DiscussionReplies: 10Last Post: Saturday, 6th November, 2004, 09:19 PM
By Archimago in forum House Rules, Homebrews, & Conversion LibraryReplies: 5Last Post: Wednesday, 23rd January, 2002, 06:42 PM