Seminar Transcript - Class Design: From Assassins to Wizards

[Phaezen]

Here is a video/audio recording of the seminar

Class Design Seminar - DDXP 2012 on Vimeo

 

[Plane Sailing]

I'm not quite so amazingly excited by this seminar as by the previous one for a few reasons, but I'm still feeling overall positive.

I could wish that they had gone with a smaller number of classes and allow people to take options to take them in different directions - so the fighter class has options that allow someone to go barbarian or swashbuckler. The wizard class would have options that allow someone to go wizard or sorcerer or warlock.

The problem with a proliferation of classes is that each new class means that there are certain things which become walled off from other classes. If there is an assassin class, that means that there are certain things that we now expect a rogue (or fighter) *can't* do, because it stands on the assassins schtick.

Too many classes and the demands of niche protection start to be additionally limiting on the existing classes.

That's my worry.

 

[Dice4Hire]

The problem with a proliferation of classes is that each new class means that there are certain things which become walled off from other classes. If there is an assassin class, that means that there are certain things that we now expect a rogue (or fighter) *can't* do, because it stands on the assassins schtick.

I also worry about this. I was hoping for the basic 4 classes in the first game and then branch out form there in later books. I would be perfectly happy with that.

 

[Roman]

I am really seeing a lot of respect for EVERY edition here. It looks like there is something to appeal to just about everyone here.

The class section itself is going to be a thing of beauty.

I have to agree. So far, the information looks very positive indeed. Of course, they actually have to pull off what they are promising, which may turn out to be tough, but I certainly like what I am hearing thus far.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

OK, let's try this again. The classes which were in EVERY PHB, not the classes from all PHBs.

And it entertains me to no end that using 3e as an example for "easy multiclassing into other classes" means for a lot of people "3e multiclassing". Talk about overreaction.

 

[Chimpy]

Red Box (Levels 1 - 5, Introductory)

Player's Handbook I - Heroic (level 1 - 10)

Player's Handbook II - Paragon (level 11-20)

Player's Handbook III - Epic (level 21-30)

This organization would keep paragon ideas in it's own book and epic ideas in it's own book. Could be an excellent organizational tool and also an incredible way to get folks to buy a minimum of 3 main rule books without resorting to "Splat Books".

They might even use quasi-BECMI names for the books/sets.

You could take this idea further and group monsters by tier in their own Monster Manuals.

I'd quite like this, but I think most players would be up in arms, because I think most players want to buy the core books and play the entire game from 1-30. I know some people that won't ever buy supplements.

 

[Njall]

OK, let's try this again. The classes which were in EVERY PHB, not the classes from all PHBs.

And it entertains me to no end that using 3e as an example for "easy multiclassing into other classes" means for a lot of people "3e multiclassing". Talk about overreaction.

Monte: To start with we kind of shot at the moon, and said everything that's been in a Player's Handbook 1, we want to potentially have in our new player's book. That includes things like the warlock and the warlord from 4th edition, but also includes the classes from other editions like the ranger, the wizard, the cleric.

No need to try again, methinks

 

[Anselyn]

At first glance I'm very dubious about this idea of trading out low-level powers-abilities-feats for higher-level ones, but I'll leave the jury out until I see more hard facts on it.

Me too. If this is permanent trade then it has the dissociated mechanics problem. If it's about the set of tools you take with you for that day or adventure then that might be OK. Where do you want to invest your mana today ...

And for the love of mushrooms the game is about more than just Damage Per Round!!! If everything in the game is being reduced merely to how much damage it represents (e.g. Charm Person = 105) the designers have lost sight of the forest because they just face-planted into a tree!

I agree that the game I want to play doesn't focus on this - but I think this is the work the designers need to do behind the scenes (perhaps preferably out of sight and mind?) so the game runs smoothly when we play it without ever getting thrown out of gaming immersion by lack of clarity or balance in the rules.

I think it's interesting that they now think they need to hide the game jargon. The /4e power sources (as I understand them) and roles meant that the designers explicitly presented the game in terms of their shared design space. Perhaps there are some things that some (most?) players just don't need to know.

 

[Plane Sailing]

OK, let's try this again. The classes which were in EVERY PHB, not the classes from all PHBs.

No need to shout - especially when you're wrong! Read those quotes again...

 

[BryonD]

So when you see "per encounter", just replace it with "per 5 minutes". Because of fatigue.

There, done; now everyone can stop complaining about encounter powers.

I'm not complaining.
I'm stating that I've got a great game now. The great game now doesn't require me to re-tool fundamental pieces.

If I'm going to switch, it is going to be because the new game is worth it.
The bar is high.