Seminar Transcript - Class Design: From Assassins to Wizards

[gourdcaptain]

I'm not sure we said or wanted to say anywhere that that fighter was just dpr all the time. Currently, the plan is for fighters to have options that help them change and manipulate the battlefield if they want to build that way.

Bruce: If the fighter is 100% damage for example, then maybe this other class is 80% damage/combat and 20% exploration, or some other mix of game elements. Each class has its time in the spotlight, and not all classes are built expressly for combat.

That's what I got the impression off of. It's probably just a hypothetical "if we had a class that is 100% damage" bit.

 

[WotC_Trevor]

That's what I got the impression off of. It's probably just a hypothetical "if we had a class that is 100% damage" bit.

Ah yep, I gotcha now. I don't think they want to give you a fighter that can't contribute to exploration or roleplay, or that can't open up his options and do more during combat. However, when it comes to combat, I think the base fighter they're working from now focuses on hitting things and dealing damage. Again, they're making sure there are options to expand what a fighter can do in combat for those who want to go that direction.

 

[avin]

Again, they're making sure there are options to expand what a fighter can do in combat for those who want to go that direction.

I just hope they're not thinking about expand that to CAGI and other aggro mechanics... that may be complicated and raise anger among some players... let's admit, maybe you like aggro, maybe you dislike aggro, but I don't with one would deny it's a polemic mechanic. I'd play safe here...

 

[Zustiur]

but I respectfully suggest that the monk deserves some of the same investment in diversity. It's always felt like a one-trick/flavor pony class to me, and I think it could be much more.

I don't care when it turns up - I was never a fan of monks. But when it does turn up, I totally agree with you. I needs to have the same range of diversity that every other class has. None of this "You can use special monk weapons, but you do more damage if you don't" nonsense.

 

[ScottMcG]

I don't care when it turns up - I was never a fan of monks. But when it does turn up, I totally agree with you. I needs to have the same range of diversity that every other class has. None of this "You can use special monk weapons, but you do more damage if you don't" nonsense.

I don't know if this describes you, but I know many people felt that the monk felt somewhat out of place in the D&D setting. It felt at home for me, but I could see where it wouldn't for others. Creating a background of a different flavor could open it up to a wider audience. Perhaps something along the lines of a feral/primal spirit monk that doesn't imitate animals or the natural world through monastic training, rather it channels those spirits directly (similar to the 4e Warden).

Just some food for thought for the designers. If you're playing to only one iconic source for a class it might not be broad enough.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I really always thought of the monk of more "Friar Tuck" and less "Yamma Bushi" or "Jet Li" (with the exception of asian-themed settings.)

If this were the case, it would suit D&D's usual implied setting a bit more.

That said, I've never been fond of D&D designers saying "a Samurai is a fighter with a bastard sword... basically the same thing."

No, no it's not.

 

[ScottMcG]

I really always thought of the monk of more "Friar Tuck" and less "Yamma Bushi" or "Jet Li" (with the exception of asian-themed settings.)

If this were the case, it would suit D&D's usual implied setting a bit more.

That said, I've never been fond of D&D designers saying "a Samurai is a fighter with a bastard sword... basically the same thing."

No, no it's not.

I tend to think of D&D setting more in terms of high fantasy than I would be comfortable assigning to a Sherwood Forest character, but that's just my spin on it. To me Friar Tuck is basically a fighter with a penchant for the quarterstaff and ale, and not necessarily in that order.

I agree with you about the Samurai. Attempting to do a faithful interpretation of the Samurai without the cultural context misses too much. On the other hand, could you play a fighter as Samurai? I don't see why not.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I tend to think of D&D setting more in terms of high fantasy than I would be comfortable assigning to a Sherwood Forest character, but that's just my spin on it. To me Friar Tuck is basically a fighter with a penchant for the quarterstaff and ale, and not necessarily in that order.

Good point. I guess I kind of meant more an idealized heroic Friar Tuck. But not quite to the point of fantasy ninja.

I agree with you about the Samurai. Attempting to do a faithful interpretation of the Samurai without the cultural context misses too much. On the other hand, could you play a fighter as Samurai? I don't see why not.

Sure!

 

[Pezmerga]

I haven't read all of this, so forgive me if something similar has been said.

I think it'd be neat if they did a subclass for each school for wizards. Instead of just having extra spell slots, maybe give them all cool abilities that work off of their respective school! Depending on what abilities you come up with you could even restrict them to having only spells of their school! Maybe too radical, but It'd be just an option anyway. I'd still wanna see the basic wizard we all know and love/hate.

Qmark on the wotc forums also brought up a neat idea.
Early access to spells. This would help make up for the narrow versatility of a single school caster. If that proved too strong, maybe limit it to one spell per spell level to be casted one level lower. Then you'd have class abilities etc as you level too.

Maybe make it like this...

Abjurer - Has Abjuration Spells, and class abilities based on Abjuration. They'd be very defensive, but could work.

Conjurer - Has Conjuration spells, and class abilities that enhance or work with conjuring things. I'd like to see summon monster of course, but maybe something to do with summoning good weapons too?

Diviner - Maybe some sort of Gish? Precognition to avoid incoming attacks etc.

Enchanter - Enchantment spells, etc etc.

Evoker - Obviously the Direct Damager caster! Would have class abilities that deal with enhancing that aspect. You'd also have some other tricks too like Grasping Hand etc.

Illusionist - Yeah

Necromancer - The Undead serve you etc. etc.

Transmuter - Would be FUN. Wizards that turn into dragons and eat their bunny rabbit enemies!

Universalist - your basic wizard. would have less cool stuff, but would have more versatility.

You could even still do the 3.5 specialist too, he'd just not have the cool class abilities of the mored dedicated wizards, but would sitll have some versatility.

 

[erleni]

Out of the lists presumed the Assassin is the most disposable class. It should be the first one chucked out. Assassination shouldn't be the focus of a single class. All classes could perform this sort of thing (depending on alignments). This should be a kit or theme or background package.

I do not agree. In previous editions the assassin was really a sort of specialized rogue, but the 4th edition shadow-based Assassin was a different animal. Teleportation from level 1, shadow form for level 1 and the shroud mechanic made it really stand out as a class on its own.