What's on your mind?
+ Log in or register to post
Results 21 to 28 of 28
Thread: Given the choice...
Wednesday, 10th October, 2012, 06:10 AM #21
Spellbinder (Lvl 16)
- Join Date
- Jan 2002
- Edenvale, San Jose, CA
- Read 0 Reviews
ø Ignore Tony Vargas
Y'know, if 5e manages to cover all the prior-ed PH1 classes, with enough room left over for one more, why not let it contribute a completely new class?
- EN World
- has no influence
- on advertisings
- that are displayed by
- Google Adsense
Wednesday, 10th October, 2012, 07:15 AM #22
Waghalter (Lvl 7)
I don't think one more magic character is all that valuable, especially not if the purpose of the core rules is to give you something flexible enough to play a wide range of fantasy campaigns with.
I would much rather have a non-magical expert type character, someone that leans heavily on Int, Cha, or both depending on build. The idea would be to cover the courtesans, sages, etc. Basically I want a non-magical way for cunning characters to matter.
The effectiveness of such characters depends a lot on the ability to manipulate resources and relationships and thus on the political, economic, and social aspects of the world, but there could be modular aspects to that just like there are modular magic systems. This will probably have to wait for a supplement about kingdoms, politics, intrigue, etc., but I think it's a core enough fantasy trope that it belongs in the core books.
Another advantage of including this early on is that it gives the DM more ability to dial down magic without throwing off game balance. If a core Expert class is competent, then a low magic game can make spellcasting only available through feats/multiclassing/etc. while keeping such characters effective (assuming a good multiclassing system, of course).
Moving to Lubbock, TX in August 2014. Excited by 5th ed.
Wednesday, 10th October, 2012, 07:19 PM #23
Magsman (Lvl 14)
The key for choosing a new core class isn't trying to span 2 others like a gish or doubling up magic systems under a different name. (We have enchanters already as a subschool) The key is to pick something every other class already does and identify it as a legitimate class concept for those who choose to be excellent in that area.
Now a summoner can already bring monsters of all stripe to the party. That isn't the defining trait. What everyone else does is train new people for their class. What the Pokemon class does is train creatures that are not intelligent enough to pick up a class, but utilize these "pets" in new and useful ways.
This isn't like a minigame of Zookeeper, but taking the NPC class of husbandry and fleshing it out into a viable game Adventure archetype with enough overlap of the Core Four to have some shared goals and common ground for growth and exploration.
The Pokemon (or whatever name you choose) is the professional educator-trainer-coach for the basics of attack, defense, tool usage, and teamwork. They are not masters of those areas, but capable enough in each to train creatures and possibly even some sentient humanoids.
Wednesday, 10th October, 2012, 07:42 PM #24
Thaumaturgist (Lvl 9)
I would prefer a fighter/magic-user class...providing
It's a true fighter/magic-user class, and not something like 4e's spellblade, or 3.5e's duskmage. When he fights, he fights like a fighter, and when he casts spells he casts like a wizard. In other words, a hybrid "jack of all trades" class, a little like what the bard is supposed to be but really isn't.
Last edited by Salamandyr; Wednesday, 10th October, 2012 at 08:05 PM.
Wednesday, 10th October, 2012, 07:44 PM #25
I'd definitely favor using the spot for a Warrior-Mystic style character - something that covers the swordsman with a lightning blade or the martial-artist who mastered the way of the flaming tiger death-punch.
I'd be looking for a character much more in line with a 4E Sword-mage, 3E Swordsage, Essentials Hexblade, or a 4E Bladesinger than a 3E Duskblade, though.
- Marty Lund
Wednesday, 10th October, 2012, 08:24 PM #26
Scout (Lvl 6)
Arcane / Fighter gish types face a couple hurdles with the rules as-is. First off, you NEED a good AC now to be in front line, not just to fight off blows, but also enemy magic. So if you're gonna take hits, you need to be able to take them. How to accomplish that if you're supposed to cast spells one round and then back to melee the next?
Upon re-reading the Combat rules in "How to play".pdf, it seems that casting magic on the enemy you're currently engaged in does not risk disrupting it, so at least that part of the rules won't need special "hacks" (ahem), to make a functional Gish.
Whatever solution they come up with for MC, there should be "archetype" builds clearly suggested in the PHB so you can easily pick a workable combo. Such as multiclass + theme. So if your theme is more melee-oriented, you are more in-your-face type of gish, whereas perhaps an arcane archer, for example, could be modeled with another specialty combined with Fighter/Wizard multiclass.
I did think 4e managed to get the 1st level multiclass character working whereas other editions did not. Then again, the pathfinder solution was great, but required HUGE amounts of books to support all those classic archetypes. I think the DDN way is potentially better, but Wotc should take all their permutations and try to build all those archetypes out of them, test them out, and see if they work. If not, tweak specialties or add new ones. And ADD a "suggested builds" section in the PHB with GOOD choices. Ideally there would be no terrible ones, such as there are in every edition, but comparatively speaking, when I can make a better defenses "paladin" by reflavoring a fighter / BCL cleric in 4e, you know something's wrong.
Wednesday, 10th October, 2012, 08:59 PM #27
Myrmidon (Lvl 10)
I really think having a good "gish" character won't be nearly so much of a challenge in 5e. Bounded accuracy and flexible class "kits" solve most of the problems with pre-4e gish types.
Look at a 3e sorcerer: what prevents him from succeeding in melee? BAB is the first hurdle; that's gone in 5e. HP and armor proficiencies are another problem; in 5e, these are determined by "kit" (sorcerous origin), so for example the draconic sorcerer (or the battlemage-tradition wizard or the hexblade-pact warlock or whatever) can get higher HP and better armor/shield/weapon proficiencies, in return for other tradeoffs. Throw in a few melee-friendly signature spells like Dragon Strength and you've got a pretty fun gish character.
Now, this isn't to say that classes like the duskblade or the spellsword or whatever are obsolete, any more than the success of the war-domain cleric obsoletes the paladin. It would still be cool to have classes that cast only through their swords or whatever. But it does mean there's a much less pressing need for them in the first PHB.
Wednesday, 10th October, 2012, 09:12 PM #28
Frankly, I don't see mixing the Wizard and Fighter in multi-class having the correct effect of a Mystic Warrior. Just opening up the spell list appropriate to the Wizard is not sufficient. Frankly, it opens up a lot of stuff that's inappropriate. I'd also rather not hand every feature for arcane melee combat over to the Wizard on a silver platter. There should be plenty of spells in the game that neither the Wizard nor the Cleric can cast.
With that enforced there's obviously design space for a Warrior-Mystic outside of multi-classing.
- Marty Lund