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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Seminar Transcript - Class Design: From Assassins to Wizards
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="Mercurius" data-source="post: 5796896" data-attributes="member: 59082"><p>[MENTION=13913]pl[/MENTION]ain Sailing, Keefe is only wrong in specifics; his sentiment is right, imo, especially if we look at what Monte actually said: "We want to <strong>potentially </strong>have..." <em>Potentially </em>is a mighty important qualifier; I suspect that they won't actually end up putting all 15 or so classes in the first 5E PHB, but maybe 10-12 of them. </p><p></p><p>On to other things...</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes, exactly. This is an example of where people are going to continually be irritated with 5E, because their own preferred mechanic or version of a specific rule is not where exactly they want it to be. But the thing is, it will still likely be somewhere, or something <em>like </em>it. If a player doesn't like Vancian magic but wants to play a spell-caster, there are other options than wizard - sorcerer, for instance.</p><p></p><p>The real potential here is for 5E to diversify classes by giving them different sub-systems that are still compatible with core. This would mean that sorcerer would and should exploit the theme of spontaneous casting; maybe they wouldn't know spells at all but would instead have something like power points and modes or forms.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I like this sort of approach, although with the caveat that I think levels 1-20 should be in PHB 1 and that PHB 2 should be a second wave of classes and with more modular options, then PHB 3 can be epic tier. I just think that it would be better to have the full range of "normal" (non-epic) level development playable from the first book. </p><p></p><p>This also gives them an excuse to cut down on trying to fit every classic class into the first PHB and gives them some license to add in some more exotic/non-traditional classes and races in PHB 2. So something like this:</p><p></p><p><strong>Player's Handbook 1</strong></p><p><strong></strong>classes (10): fighter, wizard, cleric, rogue, paladin, ranger, druid, bard, warlord, warlock</p><p>races: human, dwarf, elf (sylvan and grey), halfling (hobbit-ish and kender-ish), gnome</p><p><strong>Player's Handbook 2</strong></p><p><strong></strong>classes: assassin, avenger, invoker, sorcerer, illusionist, monk, barbarian, psion, swordmage, cavalier </p><p>races: half-elf, half-orc, drow, deva, tiefling, dragonborn, shifter, etc</p><p></p><p><strong>Player's Handbook 3</strong></p><p><strong></strong>epic play for all classes and races from 1 and 2.</p><p></p><p>I'm not crazy about some of the races in PHB 2, but some folks like them and the point of 5E is not to be my own "vanity edition" but an edition to please as many folks as possible, and as deeply as possible.</p><p></p><p>There are, of course, other ways to slice the cake; one could argue that PHB 1 would be followed by the "Martial Handbook" and the "Arcane Handbook" etc, with further classes along power sources lines. The danger would be getting too far into kit territory and a major problem would be that if one wanted to, say, play an obscure Divine character, they might have to wait a couple years until their preferred handbook came out. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>But this is where you aren't getting the core 5E design philosophy: they're trying to accommodate optimizers <em>and </em>non-optimizers, and even to balance it enough so that two can play at the same table.</p><p></p><p>This is obviously easier said than done, but is also a very important goal, imo. I've never played at a table where all of the players were on the same page with this; my current group has a range of about three different levels, from a couple highly tactically oriented players who like to build their characters with an eye for optimization to one player who just wants to show up, drink beer, talk about Ron Paul and swing his axe at his enemy, to a few players in-between.</p><p></p><p>To say that the optimizer has no place in 5E is to entirely miss the point of 5E. IMO, of course.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, the thing is that they want every class to contribute equally and, let's face it, a "Merchant" class just doesn't hold the same weight as the more combat-oriented classes. "Hey ranger, you just did 71 HP on one opponent? Well watch me - I just traded or a nice roll of brocaded silk at half its value!" </p><p></p><p>Sure, there are more aspects to the game than combat, but damage per round ends up being a kind of bottom line in many, even most games. Or rather, it is the one thing that is easily quantifiable in every game - roleplaying and problem solving and skill use are all important, but don't necessarily have the same tangible gratification as "I just did 71 HP of damage." "I just picked that wicked hard lock" or "I just intimidated that orc toddler."</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This I can agree with, at least in principle. On the other hand, an encounter could also be easily defined as "A period of action without rest." Once a rest occurs, even just five minutes, then the encounter ends. </p><p></p><p>Have you done any jogging? If you run for 20 minutes and then walk for a few minutes, the "encounter" of jogging isn't over in that your heart rate probably won't go back to resting, but if you sit or stop for 10-15 minutes, the encounter is over and you start again (although may be more tired, which is why the equivalent of any used "dailies" would be gone).</p><p></p><p>All that said, it might be best to scrap the whole encounter/daily mechanic and go with some kind of stamina system. This would allow, as someone said above, for more flexibility with combat maneuvers and powers and spells. Sure, Vancian casters might still be limited to fire-and-forget, but that's part of the payoff for their potent magic!</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Hmm...I'm not sure where you're reading this. First of all, your last sentence has always been the case: If I DM 3e and you don't want to play 3e then either you can find another group or I can DM something else, or someone else can DM. 5E just makes this more flexible, so that a DM can run the core game with his or her own unique style (and/or <em>in the style of </em>a specific edition or editions), and different players can play characters of varying degrees of complexity and customization.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>See, I think the operative word here is <em>style. </em>That implies a fair amount of flexibility and doesn't necessarily mean emulating the specifics of an edition's rules. "In the style of" 2E, for instance, does not mean descending AC and using THAC0 at the same table as the d20+ mechanic, it means deeply detailed settings and classic character types with some optimization possible. It is a flavor thing, with rules that accommodate a variety of flavors.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mercurius, post: 5796896, member: 59082"] [MENTION=13913]pl[/MENTION]ain Sailing, Keefe is only wrong in specifics; his sentiment is right, imo, especially if we look at what Monte actually said: "We want to [B]potentially [/B]have..." [I]Potentially [/I]is a mighty important qualifier; I suspect that they won't actually end up putting all 15 or so classes in the first 5E PHB, but maybe 10-12 of them. On to other things... Yes, exactly. This is an example of where people are going to continually be irritated with 5E, because their own preferred mechanic or version of a specific rule is not where exactly they want it to be. But the thing is, it will still likely be somewhere, or something [I]like [/I]it. If a player doesn't like Vancian magic but wants to play a spell-caster, there are other options than wizard - sorcerer, for instance. The real potential here is for 5E to diversify classes by giving them different sub-systems that are still compatible with core. This would mean that sorcerer would and should exploit the theme of spontaneous casting; maybe they wouldn't know spells at all but would instead have something like power points and modes or forms. I like this sort of approach, although with the caveat that I think levels 1-20 should be in PHB 1 and that PHB 2 should be a second wave of classes and with more modular options, then PHB 3 can be epic tier. I just think that it would be better to have the full range of "normal" (non-epic) level development playable from the first book. This also gives them an excuse to cut down on trying to fit every classic class into the first PHB and gives them some license to add in some more exotic/non-traditional classes and races in PHB 2. So something like this: [B]Player's Handbook 1 [/B]classes (10): fighter, wizard, cleric, rogue, paladin, ranger, druid, bard, warlord, warlock races: human, dwarf, elf (sylvan and grey), halfling (hobbit-ish and kender-ish), gnome [B]Player's Handbook 2 [/B]classes: assassin, avenger, invoker, sorcerer, illusionist, monk, barbarian, psion, swordmage, cavalier races: half-elf, half-orc, drow, deva, tiefling, dragonborn, shifter, etc [B]Player's Handbook 3 [/B]epic play for all classes and races from 1 and 2. I'm not crazy about some of the races in PHB 2, but some folks like them and the point of 5E is not to be my own "vanity edition" but an edition to please as many folks as possible, and as deeply as possible. There are, of course, other ways to slice the cake; one could argue that PHB 1 would be followed by the "Martial Handbook" and the "Arcane Handbook" etc, with further classes along power sources lines. The danger would be getting too far into kit territory and a major problem would be that if one wanted to, say, play an obscure Divine character, they might have to wait a couple years until their preferred handbook came out. But this is where you aren't getting the core 5E design philosophy: they're trying to accommodate optimizers [I]and [/I]non-optimizers, and even to balance it enough so that two can play at the same table. This is obviously easier said than done, but is also a very important goal, imo. I've never played at a table where all of the players were on the same page with this; my current group has a range of about three different levels, from a couple highly tactically oriented players who like to build their characters with an eye for optimization to one player who just wants to show up, drink beer, talk about Ron Paul and swing his axe at his enemy, to a few players in-between. To say that the optimizer has no place in 5E is to entirely miss the point of 5E. IMO, of course. Well, the thing is that they want every class to contribute equally and, let's face it, a "Merchant" class just doesn't hold the same weight as the more combat-oriented classes. "Hey ranger, you just did 71 HP on one opponent? Well watch me - I just traded or a nice roll of brocaded silk at half its value!" Sure, there are more aspects to the game than combat, but damage per round ends up being a kind of bottom line in many, even most games. Or rather, it is the one thing that is easily quantifiable in every game - roleplaying and problem solving and skill use are all important, but don't necessarily have the same tangible gratification as "I just did 71 HP of damage." "I just picked that wicked hard lock" or "I just intimidated that orc toddler." This I can agree with, at least in principle. On the other hand, an encounter could also be easily defined as "A period of action without rest." Once a rest occurs, even just five minutes, then the encounter ends. Have you done any jogging? If you run for 20 minutes and then walk for a few minutes, the "encounter" of jogging isn't over in that your heart rate probably won't go back to resting, but if you sit or stop for 10-15 minutes, the encounter is over and you start again (although may be more tired, which is why the equivalent of any used "dailies" would be gone). All that said, it might be best to scrap the whole encounter/daily mechanic and go with some kind of stamina system. This would allow, as someone said above, for more flexibility with combat maneuvers and powers and spells. Sure, Vancian casters might still be limited to fire-and-forget, but that's part of the payoff for their potent magic! Hmm...I'm not sure where you're reading this. First of all, your last sentence has always been the case: If I DM 3e and you don't want to play 3e then either you can find another group or I can DM something else, or someone else can DM. 5E just makes this more flexible, so that a DM can run the core game with his or her own unique style (and/or [I]in the style of [/I]a specific edition or editions), and different players can play characters of varying degrees of complexity and customization. See, I think the operative word here is [I]style. [/I]That implies a fair amount of flexibility and doesn't necessarily mean emulating the specifics of an edition's rules. "In the style of" 2E, for instance, does not mean descending AC and using THAC0 at the same table as the d20+ mechanic, it means deeply detailed settings and classic character types with some optimization possible. It is a flavor thing, with rules that accommodate a variety of flavors. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Seminar Transcript - Class Design: From Assassins to Wizards
Top