Elemental Hero' Handbook

[Incenjucar]

There is no class, to my knowledge, that makes attacks through allies. There are classes that allow allies to attack in their stead, but that's a different sort of action.

There are many classes that conjure creatures, but none of them use conjured creatures in this way. The closest is a shaman, but it's the wrong role and the class features don't really fit the same function. Shamans don't have at-will conjurations (as in, 1st level at-will attacks), nor do they have powers that are significantly altered by which such they choose.

Your other statements are functionally strawmen - ideas that lack significant distinction, instead of the concepts I'm suggesting which can't be done without a full class or a subclass-only-in-name.

 

[Major Moab]

Examples:
There is no controller class with attacks that can be either short or close range.

There is no defender class that fights through a conjuration in order to occupy two locations.

There is no striker class that makes attacks through allies.

There is no class that has at-will conjurations that it channels attacks through which are modified by the specific at-will used.

Defender class that fights with a conjuration in order to occupy two locations. Swordmage; specifically Glamor Blade level 9 swordmage attack from forgotten realms

A class with at will conjurations that it channels attacks through: the fundamental shaman spell summon spirit companion. I don't quite grasp what you mean by modified by the specific at will used, but I imagine you and your dm can use slight modifications to solve that.

Controller class with short or close range attacks: ensnarement swordmage, or enigmatic enchanter from the essentials book (I actually play a front line controller.) Most effective here is the Beguiling Strands effect, an at-will power from the Fallen Lands Essentials book. Close Blast 5. I rather enjoy this style of play. I suspect an artificer could also fulfill this role, although I have no support for that. It simply seems like the sort of thing a potion tossing tinkerer would do.

As to the striker class, I thought most ally related effects were the purview of the leader role. But I suspect a hybrid would be able to do these things, if no one else. Maybe a psionic/warlord or something.

I discount the need for extra classes, as I can work something similar to what I want from the available classes. What I can't pull together, I can discuss with my gaming group, and create an effect.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Is it time for D&D to turn into a classless system?

Naah.

There is no "correct" number of classes. Maybe you roll Paladin into Fighter, maybe you don't. It's not a matter of picking the "correct" option, it's a matter of taste. In a campaign where models of noble knights, divine crusaders, and suchlike should be prominent, the Paladin should probably be distinct from the Fighter. In a campaign where everyone's a super-gritty mercenary, that archetype is less important, so it's not important to have a Paladin class in that campaign.

Classes are archetype machines. Not every archetype is appropriate for every game, and the number of unique archetypes is not limited.

So for a "typical D&D," I'd certainly have a Fighter (dude in armor with weapons), a Thief (sneaky agile stealthy), a Cleric (divine powered healer), and a Wizard (books and magic missiles), but beyond that it's pretty much "negotiable." In a wilderness campaign, a Barbarian, a Druid, and a Ranger might make sense. In an urban campaign, a Noble and an Artificer might make sense. In a "high magic" campaign, you might want a Spellblade.

There is no controller class with attacks that can be either short or close range.

There is no defender class that fights through a conjuration in order to occupy two locations.

There is no striker class that makes attacks through allies.

There is no class that has at-will conjurations that it channels attacks through which are modified by the specific at-will used.

These are mechanical niches, not archetypes. Classes, I think, should be broader than mechanical niches, based on the amount of page space they currently use.

For a melee controller, I might make a Monk build who focuses on unarmed MBAs with rider effects.

For a "dual-location defender," I might make a Swordmage build who fights with a shadow-double.

For an "ally-using striker," I might make an Artificer build that focuses on buffing an ally's attacks.

For your "at-will conjurer," I might make a Wizard build that does that.

None of these need 20 pages of unique, specific material that only they can use, just to do a neat mechanical trick.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Examples:
There is no controller class with attacks that can be either short or close range.

There is no defender class that fights through a conjuration in order to occupy two locations.

There is no striker class that makes attacks through allies.

There is no class that has at-will conjurations that it channels attacks through which are modified by the specific at-will used.

But none of these is really a concept, they're mechanics. Sure, you can invent more new mechanics until the cows come home. That doesn't make them necessary in order to realize a character concept. I'm not saying it is not possible that there is some concept out there that simply isn't adequately addressed by current mechanics (spell thief certainly could qualify). Further I suspect that the vast majority of concepts you can come up with that could use more support can be perfectly well supported with something less extensive than an entire new class.

Samurai warriors are not a fair example as they aren't mechanically remarkable even in the real world.

Furthermore, if WotC doesn't put out more classes, they get NO sales because their business model is to sell game options.

And there are no other options except classes? Admittedly classes are something they've sold quite a number of, but as the_jester pointed out there are a LOT of other things that the game actually definitively needs right now that I would personally place much higher priority on (and his list certainly would please me greatly if WotC followed it). Maybe in 5 years or so I might feel a desire for a few more classes, but frankly 4e will be dust long before I get a chance to play half the characters I'd like to just in what is out now.

 

[Incenjucar]

We've been discussing the mechanical aspect of classes, as that is what makes creating new mechanics necessary. Concepts are a different, but related discussion which I avoided for the purpose of keeping the discussion to a reasonable size, especially since concepts are so much broader a topic than mechanics, and I've already written more than enough on the topic in blogs: 1 2 3

The amount of work to make a current class into something comparable to the classes I've composed would be be about as much work as building a class from scratch, with maybe some space saved on utilities.

The Glamor Blade daily power does indeed get the most basic gist of the class, like how a wizard's conjuration does a shaman. Now build a class around the concept utilizing that instead of all the teleportation and other arcane-feeling stuff that Swordmages do, remove their weapon type restrictions, add encounter and daily powers that do interesting things with their proximity to their conjuration, so on and so forth. It'll end up resembling a swordmage about as much as a warden does, and open up space for a variety of "warrior with a magical partner" concepts.

Wizards and druids and invokers so forth can be built to be front-line focused, but in the same way a slayer can be an archer - they're still not a ranger. Building a class around near-range options, with the ability to convert most or all of their abilities into close or short-range attacks creates a very different feel. Controllers are perhaps the easiest to modify into random things, simply because they're defined by their powers rather than their class, but you can get more variation on a concept if you work with a narrower field than "everything" and create that can work in interesting ways within that concept.

To clarify, the striker concept is that they make attacks from an ally's square, but they're the one making the attack, allowing them to utilize class-specific abilities rather than modifying their ally's abilities - attacking from an enemy's square is also a conceptual possibility. Imagine a character who can gesture at an ally (or an enemy) to momentary conjure a demonic visage in their flesh, which then stretches out to chomp into the actual target. It's a class that would rely heavily on controller or leader abilities to position things so that they can reach exactly the target they want, allowing them to attack around corners and from behind the enemy's cover. I would personally find it very satisfying to stab an evil cultist through the heart through his own tied-down sacrifice.

Moreover, adding new mechanics to the game gives people more to apply their imagination to. There is some overlap, but such overlap is usually going to be in limited-use abilities rather than constant use ones, like that Swordmage daily power above, or a wizard's summons compared to an animal companion. Not everyone would care for such archetypes, but not everyone cares for the fighter, rogue, cleric, or wizard.

Certainly, I won't claim that new classes need to be added -constantly- or -now-. Say four classes per year, and only so long as they had actual new ideas to flesh out rather than doing it for the sake of doing it, would be great to me.

 

[twilsemail]

Examples:
There is no controller class with attacks that can be either short or close range.

There is no defender class that fights through a conjuration in order to occupy two locations.

There is no striker class that makes attacks through allies.

There is no class that has at-will conjurations that it channels attacks through which are modified by the specific at-will used.

Controller: Druids can be entirely close and still have control.

Defender: That's a pretty spiffy idea.

Striker: Sure there is. Take a Warlord. Equip him with a Rogue. Kill stuff.

Conjurer: Isn't that the entire basis of a Shaman?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Concepts are a different,

I don't think they are. Concepts form the basis of any "class." The important difference between the Fighter and the Thief isn't that they have different mechanical tricks, it is that one is a heavily armed, well-trained master of arms, and the other is a sneaky, stealthy, cunning little rogue. The mechanics exist to support these concepts. The concepts do not exist to support the class's mechanics.

It'll end up resembling a swordmage about as much as a warden does, and open up space for a variety of "warrior with a magical partner" concepts.

I don't see the need for a new class. Why can't it be more similar to the swordmage? Why can't they share gear proficiency? Why 200 unique powers and not 20? What concept are these mechanics supporting?

. Imagine a character who can gesture at an ally (or an enemy) to momentary conjure a demonic visage in their flesh,

Sounds like a neat warlock power.

Moreover, adding new mechanics to the game gives people more to apply their imagination to.

New mechanics are great, but they don't require entire classes to exist. New classes are big investments of page count and development time, and you don't do that for a single mechanical trick like "Uses an ally like an implement." Make a few Warlock powers, call it a day. Be efficient.

 

[the Jester]

Your other statements are functionally strawmen - ideas that lack significant distinction, instead of the concepts I'm suggesting which can't be done without a full class or a subclass-only-in-name.

But you are suggesting that every little tiny mechanical niche needs a class to exist. I am suggesting you need to stretch your imagination a little. If I can see an easy answer to each of your "missing classes" using existing stuff- and I do, despite your characterizing them as straw men- there is no clear need for a new class.

If you have four nails of different sizes, you don't need four different hammers to pound them into a board when the same hammer will take care of all of them.

From a business perspective, WotC knows better than to cater to a tiny slice of their customers with something that takes major time, effort and money to develop. Look at this thread: it seems to me that you are pretty much the only one here clamoring for new classes, and it seems that you are clamoring for a class for every mechanic you can think of. You picked a number of very narrow, specific mechanical concepts- all of which can be at least approximated by the game as it stands- and suggest they need to be classes, followed by a "not now, not many" line. I can't reconcile those two statements.

Finally, you are so totally off base about druids. The PH2 druid was the first melee controller for pcs. You keep saying things like "Wizards and druids and invokers so forth can be built to be front-line focused, but in the same way a slayer can be an archer - they're still not a ranger." If your intent is to show that druids aren't close range controllers, all you've done is make an assertion countered in the very book the druid first appeared in.

EDIT: And speaking of the front line wizard controller, I'm Major Moab's dm and I will vouch for his "front line control" approach to the game. And it works, not just fine, but GREAT! So I don't even know what your "still not a ranger" comment is supposed to mean.

 

[Incenjucar]

It's hard to understand my statements fully if you don't read everything I write, including the blogs that go into greater length on these things - I don't really want to copy-paste several thousand words here.

Remember that we're talking about elemental classes here, and mere examples of areas to explore. A druid is a shapeshifter that can be either in close or in distant mode, and that close mode is generally very physical rather than elemental. That doesn't really approximate a class oriented around powers with "close burst 1 or burst 1 within 5" in the description. Could you tack that on to a random class? Sure. You could tack that one to a war pack mule if you wanted. However, if you build a class around it and related flexible concepts, like more active shaping or dangerous choices, you can get more creative about it, assigning additional flexibility based on build without having to compensate for potential rules abuse from everything that has come before (one of the pitfalls of wizards especially).

The power source specific feel for elemental has a lot of potential variety, so it would be exhausting to just start going through all of those possibilities beyond what I wrote in that first blog entry - my point is that there is room for more, not just "hey look what I made!"

--

I don't see why you can't just tack a rogue's powers on a slayer. Or a warlord's powers on a fighter. Make a build out of it that trades their better armor proficiency for better skill options, and BAM, one less class to waste text on. You could theoretically reduce D&D to two or three and just use powers instead of class features with no loss in "concept," but a lot of loss in flexibility.

 

[the Jester]

It's hard to understand my statements fully if you don't read everything I write, including the blogs that go into greater length on these things - I don't really want to copy-paste several thousand words here.

To be honest, if it takes reading through blogs to understand the argument, the argument will outlast my attention span every time. "TL;DR" indeed!

Please note that I'm not criticizing you with that statement!

I don't see why you can't just tack a rogue's powers on a slayer. Or a warlord's powers on a fighter. Make a build out of it that trades their better armor proficiency for better skill options, and BAM, one less class to waste text on. You could theoretically reduce D&D to two or three and just use powers instead of class features with no loss in "concept," but a lot of loss in flexibility.

Now THIS I can get behind. I find the powers that are the same but for a different class to be a redundant waste of space. IMHO one system might be to assign each power a level, power source and role, and if you have the level and either the power source or the role, you can take it. If you're a fighter and you want an arcane defender power, go for it- but you have just multiclassed.