Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Looking for thoughts on my kitbashed 4E
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Igwilly" data-source="post: 7232871" data-attributes="member: 6801225"><p>That is just my opinion, but…</p><p></p><p>First, this is more than a few changes. You are remaking the edition. May as well create your own home-brewed edition or even an entirely new game.</p><p></p><p>In addition, honestly I like classes. A lot. Moreover, I like many classes. I would rather have 30+ classes to choose from, needed only for the ones who want them, then to every player go through numerous sub-classes for each class, list of skills, feats, and so on. I don’t know why people blame new classes for “bloat”; there are much more serious offenders.</p><p>I think it’s cool to give classes versatility in the roles they play in combat. However, I would say do not abuse this: part of each class’ spirit are the roles they typically perform and common strategies/tactics. For example, I’m one of those people that don’t like regular Clerics to blast enemies like a striker (Specialty Priests are an exception, but they’re not Clerics!), and to have Arcane Magic being capable of healing is heresy to me. Many class concepts I have in mind, however, are quite different from the game’s classical content (I’m looking at you, Ranger!)</p><p>I agree with you on unified lists of spells or powers. It makes sense to make that certain classes share their abilities. For example: the implementation was not perfect, but my favorite version of the Sorcerer is the 3.X one: same spell list as the Wizard, but with a very different spellcasting system, and a Romantic Fantasy style of magic: spontaneous innate magic, improved intuitively. No need for the “there’s magic in your blood!” I mean, we could have that, but both concepts are interesting and merging them is not necessarily a good idea.</p><p>Yes, it was a very different system; I played both at equal levels and I saw a clear difference.</p><p></p><p>About Bards: you will face a tough decision. There are two concepts of bards:</p><p>1. The Jack-of-all-Trades Bard. Uniting wizard’s spells, fighter’s weapons and thief’s skills, he or she trades raw power for versatility. Contrary to some people, I actually think a Jack-of-all-Trades can be fairly balanced, especially in an unpredictable game as D&D – which also tends to have small parties. This Bard is not supposed to only heal or only blast foes with fireballs, and so on. It’s a different style.</p><p>2. The Frail Support Magical Bard. In this scheme, the Bard is a spellcaster which uses magic as his/her focus/implement, so to speak. The wand is the harp, the magical words are the music, and creativity is his/her spellcasting attribute. In this version, the Bard takes more of a support role, being more fragile and have a special knack to buffs.</p><p>3. Actually, there is a third concept of the Bard. I’ve seen it on few occasions: The Archer Bard. Like a fusion of both concepts, this Bard sings to the benefit of the party while firing arrows from a safe position.</p><p>I’m not going to lie to you, all of those concepts seem very interesting to me. However, they’re different enough so that designing them is very different. I would say those concepts are worth separated classes, but I’m not afraid of “class bloat”.</p><p>In addition, there’s a book about bards in 2e. I didn’t bought it yet, but I will. Many alternative bards there, it seems.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Igwilly, post: 7232871, member: 6801225"] That is just my opinion, but… First, this is more than a few changes. You are remaking the edition. May as well create your own home-brewed edition or even an entirely new game. In addition, honestly I like classes. A lot. Moreover, I like many classes. I would rather have 30+ classes to choose from, needed only for the ones who want them, then to every player go through numerous sub-classes for each class, list of skills, feats, and so on. I don’t know why people blame new classes for “bloat”; there are much more serious offenders. I think it’s cool to give classes versatility in the roles they play in combat. However, I would say do not abuse this: part of each class’ spirit are the roles they typically perform and common strategies/tactics. For example, I’m one of those people that don’t like regular Clerics to blast enemies like a striker (Specialty Priests are an exception, but they’re not Clerics!), and to have Arcane Magic being capable of healing is heresy to me. Many class concepts I have in mind, however, are quite different from the game’s classical content (I’m looking at you, Ranger!) I agree with you on unified lists of spells or powers. It makes sense to make that certain classes share their abilities. For example: the implementation was not perfect, but my favorite version of the Sorcerer is the 3.X one: same spell list as the Wizard, but with a very different spellcasting system, and a Romantic Fantasy style of magic: spontaneous innate magic, improved intuitively. No need for the “there’s magic in your blood!” I mean, we could have that, but both concepts are interesting and merging them is not necessarily a good idea. Yes, it was a very different system; I played both at equal levels and I saw a clear difference. About Bards: you will face a tough decision. There are two concepts of bards: 1. The Jack-of-all-Trades Bard. Uniting wizard’s spells, fighter’s weapons and thief’s skills, he or she trades raw power for versatility. Contrary to some people, I actually think a Jack-of-all-Trades can be fairly balanced, especially in an unpredictable game as D&D – which also tends to have small parties. This Bard is not supposed to only heal or only blast foes with fireballs, and so on. It’s a different style. 2. The Frail Support Magical Bard. In this scheme, the Bard is a spellcaster which uses magic as his/her focus/implement, so to speak. The wand is the harp, the magical words are the music, and creativity is his/her spellcasting attribute. In this version, the Bard takes more of a support role, being more fragile and have a special knack to buffs. 3. Actually, there is a third concept of the Bard. I’ve seen it on few occasions: The Archer Bard. Like a fusion of both concepts, this Bard sings to the benefit of the party while firing arrows from a safe position. I’m not going to lie to you, all of those concepts seem very interesting to me. However, they’re different enough so that designing them is very different. I would say those concepts are worth separated classes, but I’m not afraid of “class bloat”. In addition, there’s a book about bards in 2e. I didn’t bought it yet, but I will. Many alternative bards there, it seems. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Looking for thoughts on my kitbashed 4E
Top