DDXP Begins Today!
Under that logic, a Ranger is just a fighter with woodsy skills and a Paladin is just a fighter that got religion. Though maybe that would be fine with you... Personally, I like them as different classes as that frees up the classes to exemplify those archetypes mechanically without also having to conform to one degree or another to the fighter archetype.
Kurtomatic
First Post
A lot of folks have a pretty common-sense notion that a "basic core" means a stripped down 4X4 class/race game, and everything else (other classes/races) must be in segregated optional rules modules. Because we know so little about what they've cooked up so far, this model of the core does seem consistent with what they're saying.
However, I am not convinced yet; I just don't think we know enough. They're being intentionally vague, and that obfuscates much of the meaning in these descriptions.
Another model of "basic core" is a game with lots of simple classes (and races, for that matter). This fits it well with the greatest hits meme.
For example, do you think it would be possible to write-up an AD&D version of the [warlord] class? Sure you could! You could write up a BEMCI warlord for that matter. They wouldn't play quite like a 4E warlord by any means, but I think they could capture essential spirit of the "taclord" experience expressed in earlier edition mechanics. Granted, they'd be wordier class write-ups than the fighter, with some special class rules, but not too dissimilar to the thief class.
Now you're looking at a model which, in addition to simple fighters, wizards, etc, also has simple warlords and sorcerers and barbarians and warlocks and hell, maybe even simple swordmages and avengers. Whatever fits in the available page spread. But they're all simple executions that fit on a one-page character sheet with few mechanical inflection points.
You want the warlord hot-rodded up with 4E-style mechanics? You'll need a rules module for that...
BTW, the idea that [warlord] could just be a kitted add-on to another class is well within the Next descriptions we have to date. So I'm not discounting that idea, I'm just using the notion of a core warlord class to show how our understanding of what "core" means is pretty limited at the moment. Still very early days.
However, I am not convinced yet; I just don't think we know enough. They're being intentionally vague, and that obfuscates much of the meaning in these descriptions.
Another model of "basic core" is a game with lots of simple classes (and races, for that matter). This fits it well with the greatest hits meme.
For example, do you think it would be possible to write-up an AD&D version of the [warlord] class? Sure you could! You could write up a BEMCI warlord for that matter. They wouldn't play quite like a 4E warlord by any means, but I think they could capture essential spirit of the "taclord" experience expressed in earlier edition mechanics. Granted, they'd be wordier class write-ups than the fighter, with some special class rules, but not too dissimilar to the thief class.
Now you're looking at a model which, in addition to simple fighters, wizards, etc, also has simple warlords and sorcerers and barbarians and warlocks and hell, maybe even simple swordmages and avengers. Whatever fits in the available page spread. But they're all simple executions that fit on a one-page character sheet with few mechanical inflection points.
You want the warlord hot-rodded up with 4E-style mechanics? You'll need a rules module for that...
BTW, the idea that [warlord] could just be a kitted add-on to another class is well within the Next descriptions we have to date. So I'm not discounting that idea, I'm just using the notion of a core warlord class to show how our understanding of what "core" means is pretty limited at the moment. Still very early days.
Not quite... rangers and paladins at least have enough uniqueness to warrant separate classes. But you're right, they could be simulated with good skill/feat choices and a bit of multiclassing. I just don't see that the warlord has enough special abilities to warrant a class of its own. IMHO.
GreatLemur
Explorer
Rangers and Paladins were quite explicitly Fighter sub-classes when they first showed up, so I could easily see them being sub-classes/kits/builds/archetypes/whatever of the Figther in a new edition. I don't think it's gonna happen, but I think it would be possible do do it in a satisfying way. (But that's coming from me, who totally doesn't care about either class.)
Saracenus
Always In School Gamer
Those numbered tent cards are a simple convention for tracking initiative that I first saw playing 3e, and I have used them during D&D Encounters (4e). I also know the DM, and Alphastream favors this method of tracking init because it gives the players a visual on when their turn is coming up. If there is a delay that would change the init order you just exchange the cards to reorder the initiative round when the player or monster comes back in.
So, in short, its edition neutral.
trancejeremy
Adventurer
Well, no, because I just don't think you need game mechanics to play a "leader" character. That's something that should be roleplayed.
And realistically, if you let someone who doesn't have real world leadership skills try to play a character that does boss others around, it's really not going to work well - lots and bickering and such.
OpsKT
Explorer
I was unable to get to this with a real keyboard earlier (Kindle good to view, not so much on the reply) so I'll make one big quote/comments post.
Same here. Give us good rules for an option, but don't make them required. I like to pass on them except for large fights with lots of combatants, or Dragons. I figure Dragons always deserve nice set pieces.
Indeed. And if any person could solve that problem, their talents would be put to better use at the United Nations than making games for nerds and grognards.
Agreed so much, I wish I could give you x5 on the XP.
One of my biggest issues with d20 v3.0, v3.5, Pathfinder, Saga Edition Star Wars, and 4e is that there is no good reason for the numbers to go that high. Really. The higher the numbers, and the more factors that add to them, the greater the chance for errors and needless complexity. This is not Final Fantasy XIII where we go from critters with 200 HP to end bosses with 6.5 million.
The lifetime bonuses (sans magic items) should be about +10. HP at Epic levels should be in the 50's range (Demigods might have like 200), with a Dragon being feared because they have 70 HP and some natural DR.
I'd like to see the sacred cow of +X items die as well, to help keep that math working. Have magic items have properties, not bonuses. It keeps the 'numeric arms race' to less insane levels, and makes magic items truly magic.
In fact, with the swingy nature of the d20 non-curve and the current math, people look for every bonus they can find just to actually be as good as their numbers and class should suggest. So numbers that stayed on the low end across the life of the campaign would make each +1 a PC got more relevant to the expression of the path from starting squire to 'Big Damn Hero.
So, the only people that should be playing Paladins are Political Science or Management majors and all Bards should be played by actual musicians? I think you are missing a vital point to role-playing...
Same here. Give us good rules for an option, but don't make them required. I like to pass on them except for large fights with lots of combatants, or Dragons. I figure Dragons always deserve nice set pieces.
Indeed. And if any person could solve that problem, their talents would be put to better use at the United Nations than making games for nerds and grognards.
Agreed so much, I wish I could give you x5 on the XP.
One of my biggest issues with d20 v3.0, v3.5, Pathfinder, Saga Edition Star Wars, and 4e is that there is no good reason for the numbers to go that high. Really. The higher the numbers, and the more factors that add to them, the greater the chance for errors and needless complexity. This is not Final Fantasy XIII where we go from critters with 200 HP to end bosses with 6.5 million.
The lifetime bonuses (sans magic items) should be about +10. HP at Epic levels should be in the 50's range (Demigods might have like 200), with a Dragon being feared because they have 70 HP and some natural DR.
I'd like to see the sacred cow of +X items die as well, to help keep that math working. Have magic items have properties, not bonuses. It keeps the 'numeric arms race' to less insane levels, and makes magic items truly magic.
In fact, with the swingy nature of the d20 non-curve and the current math, people look for every bonus they can find just to actually be as good as their numbers and class should suggest. So numbers that stayed on the low end across the life of the campaign would make each +1 a PC got more relevant to the expression of the path from starting squire to 'Big Damn Hero.
So, the only people that should be playing Paladins are Political Science or Management majors and all Bards should be played by actual musicians? I think you are missing a vital point to role-playing...
I have to have +X weapons. I agree with numerous posters that a more interesting sword has powers, but there is still room in my world for a sword that is just sharper and more accurate because it was honed/created by magic. i.e. + to hit / damage.
That's the swords they ADD the powers too!
Last edited:
