FrogReaver
As long as i get to be the frog
Why does it matter how many classes there are if there isn't multiclassing?
Your ideal class orgainization
Why does it matter how many classes there are if there isn't multiclassing?
Blue
Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
Why have bloat, representing the same thing over and over but in different ratios?
Just a stylistic choice. Both are valid.
aco175
Legend
I like the idea of having base classes and adding more powers as levels are gained. I also like combining the base classes to make more advanced classes. Not necessarily more powerful than if you kept the base class though. You could have a fighter base class and lead to more of a prestige class specializing in something, like a knight or defender/bodyguard type. You could also take a few levels in base cleric to become a paladin.
I always liked 3e multiclassing and would like to see something as good as it was. The 4 base classes can advance in similar power and have option for powers on par with multiclassing. I think it can be easy to learn for new players and passing players not interested in options and good for others who want to specialize. The problem is not making the options better than staying base classed.
I always liked 3e multiclassing and would like to see something as good as it was. The 4 base classes can advance in similar power and have option for powers on par with multiclassing. I think it can be easy to learn for new players and passing players not interested in options and good for others who want to specialize. The problem is not making the options better than staying base classed.
Yaarel
He Mage
I organize classes as either mage or warrior, or both.
Mages: wizard, psion, bard, druid, warlock, sorcerer, cleric.
Warrior: fighter, rogue, barbarian, warlord.
Both: certain builds of any of the above classes, plus paladin, ranger, monk.
I also divide the classes vertically by theme.
Mind
• magic: telepathy, charm, illusion, suggestion, prescience, luck, outofbody
• nonmagic: mental abilities, persuasion, intimidation, knowledge, perception
Life
• magic: healing, shapeshifting (organic), plants, animals
• nonmagic: physical abilities, athletics, nature, grappling, second wind, medicine, poison
Elements
• magic: water, fire, air, earth, transmutation (inorganic)
• nonmagic: weapons, armor, tools, technology, acid
Force
• magic: telekinesis, force, light, ether, space-time, teleportation, planar travel
• nonmagic: ?
Mages: wizard, psion, bard, druid, warlock, sorcerer, cleric.
Warrior: fighter, rogue, barbarian, warlord.
Both: certain builds of any of the above classes, plus paladin, ranger, monk.
I also divide the classes vertically by theme.
Mind
• magic: telepathy, charm, illusion, suggestion, prescience, luck, outofbody
• nonmagic: mental abilities, persuasion, intimidation, knowledge, perception
Life
• magic: healing, shapeshifting (organic), plants, animals
• nonmagic: physical abilities, athletics, nature, grappling, second wind, medicine, poison
Elements
• magic: water, fire, air, earth, transmutation (inorganic)
• nonmagic: weapons, armor, tools, technology, acid
Force
• magic: telekinesis, force, light, ether, space-time, teleportation, planar travel
• nonmagic: ?
TwoSix
Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer
I'm OK with advanced classes being better at their specialty, and base classes are broadly versatile. A mage gets more spells and spell slots, but only an evoker can cast meteor swarm.
mellored
Legend
Oh, and back to FF tactics for a moment, if a little off topic.
The other thing they had was that everyone started battle with 0 magic points, and then you gained some each turn. So it took a few rounds before you could unleash your big spells.
A bit like dragon ball z, where you powered up as the fight went on.
Or 13th age's escalation die.
I think something like that would be good. Though I'm not sure of what the best mechanic for it.
The other thing they had was that everyone started battle with 0 magic points, and then you gained some each turn. So it took a few rounds before you could unleash your big spells.
A bit like dragon ball z, where you powered up as the fight went on.
Or 13th age's escalation die.
I think something like that would be good. Though I'm not sure of what the best mechanic for it.
HAHA! You're playin' my JAM! Organizing classes? Are you kididng me...clear your calendar. I can do this for DAYS!
<I hear the moans and groans, now. "Oh gods, Steeldragons talking about classes again. I know, people. I know. It's a sickness.>
Let's start here. Most of you have probably seen this [periodically] over the last few years:
SO, beginning there...you see my generally preferred mode of breaking all classes into four cardinal points.The traditional "Big 4" of the games origins, used explicitly up through 2e, and kinda left "unspoken" since. I tend toward referring to them, collectively, as: the Warriors, the Wizards, the Priests, and the Rogues.
Originally the Fighting Man, Magic-user, Cleric, and Thief and their alterations of title from edition to edition. The broadest archetypes you can have. If you can play a knight, or a gladiator or a barbarian or a scout or, or, or, you can make it a Fighter and just do the rest through equipment and roleplay. Do you want to be a witch, a sorcerer, a "Gandalph/Dumbledore" kind of wizard, a Merlin or Circe kind of "wizard," or, or, or, you can make it a Wizard[Mage] and just do the rest through roleplay and some re-skinning/flavoring/backstory. And so on.
The categories are boiled down into their most concentrated distillations: What are Warriors/do they do that other classes don't or can't? Warriors are dependent on and defined by their Combat Skill/Styles.
Wizards are dependent on and defined by their use of Magic that is harnessed/directed/mastered by the Self (either literally or access to some all-pervasive universal source/energy, such as FR's "Weave," that would be available to anyone). Whether these are Arcane energies or Natural or Elemental or Primal or however else you want to collect the type of magic/spells, the caster (his/her knowledge, his/her ancestry, his/her force of will, happenstance, etc...) is the source of their own magic-use.
Of late, I have replaced "Priests" with "Mystics" to allow for that servant of a greater "other" power, but not necessarily a deity/divine origin and not necessarily a member of a religious order. But the general category and how it interacts/combines with the other cardnial points still holds.
Priests/Mystics are dependent on and defined by their use of Magic & Combat ability, embodied in the first default option of this caster/non-caster combo of the Cleric. They are further differentiated by the source of their Magic being something OTHER than that personal imbued/learned/figured out or mastery of some all-pervasive radiation, but something "outside" or "beyond" the individual. Yes, even the traditional [shaolin stlye] "monk" who is a master of their own enlightenment are, really, reaching beyond/outside themselves to greater heights of spirituality/divinity and the powers that come from there. Hence, the Monk -or a Mystically-flavored variant thereof- also counts as a Mystic class.
Rogues fairly self-evidently are dependent on and defined by their use of Skills, predominantly non-Combat related skills, though some combat ability is not entirely out of place (hence "Assassins" and "Avengers" being considered Rogue classes). Rogues rely on what they know how to do more than how they handle themselves in a fight.
From there, the next "tier" of classes are those direct combinations: the Fighter+Cleric = Paladin; the Mage+Thief = Warlock (perhaps) or to my mind, Illusionist (the magic of deception); etc...
From those 50/50 classes, the rest become shades of grey...how about the guy with more "fightery" but still divinely inspired or empowered, what about the guy who's more "cleric-y" than fightery? What about the class that combined Divine and Arcane magic leaning toward/with a splash of rogue skills. So things -depending on the game- like amounts of "non-weapon skills," "backgrounds," "archetypes," etc... those sorts of third or fourth layer of traits and features further shade different types of characters...and whether those shadings are distinct enough to warrant themselves as their own full class (or existence as a subclass of another full class) becomes more and more delicate and subjective.
SO, there's that. The classes are essentially branching trees from the 4 cardinal points of Non-Magic: Combat skills/Magic: From Self/Magic: From Other/Non-magic: Non-combat Skills. Who's a Warrior/Wizard/Mystic/Rogue/? The more of one "base" tier class or the other decides where in the hierarchy the classes go. Tradition and longevity within the game/across editions is another factor of where and how close to the base a class becomes.
With every new "tier" we need to have abilities more and more specialized and, I would submit more Ability Score dependent, either/or with a minimum Score, a need for multiple minimum scores, or both.
So the base game would appear to have something like this:
WARRIORS
Fighter - guy who hits reliably, damages reliably, stands longer than most, NO magic guys, Fighting Styles
--Knight/Cavalier: guy who hits the most, special thing "Virtuous Styles" (Cha. based)
--Barbarian: guy who damages the most, special thing "Rage Styles" (Con. based)
--Martial Adept: guy who stands the longest (mostly due to good saves, movement, damage reduction and deflection features), special thing "Disciplined Styles" (Dex. based)
Paladin - guy who hits reliably, damage reliably, stands longer than most, adds divine magic & auras, Oaths
--Vanguard: guy who hits best and gets the most magic, special thing "Defender's Oath" (Wis. based)
--Warlord: guy who saves best and gets the most auras, special thing "Leader's Oath" (Cha. based)
--Blackguard: guy who damages best, special thing "Foresworn Oath/Banes" (Con. based)
ROGUES
Thief - guy who uses skills the best, move reliably, hits/damages reliably. NO magic. Tricks.
--Acrobat: guy who moves the best, special thing "Tumbling Tricks" (Str. based)
--Assassin: guy who damages the most, special thing "Killing Tricks" (Con. based)
--Swashbuckler: guy who hits the most, special thing "Panache Tricks" (Cha. based)
Ranger - guy who uses outdoor/wilderness skills best, moves reliably, hits/damages reliably, adds a smattering of magic, Trances.
--Avenger: guy who hit the most, gets a little divine magic, special thing "Divine Trances" (Wis. based)
--Warden: guy who damages the most, gets a little nature magic, special thing "Nature Trances" (Con. based)
--Investigator: guy who gets the most auras, gets a little arcane magic, special thing "Deductive[divinations] Trances" (Int. based)
I have a game to get to...but you get the gist...I'll go into the other half dozen ways we can categorize things later tonight or tomorrow.
Bate that breath. BATE IT!
<I hear the moans and groans, now. "Oh gods, Steeldragons talking about classes again. I know, people. I know. It's a sickness.>
Let's start here. Most of you have probably seen this [periodically] over the last few years:
SO, beginning there...you see my generally preferred mode of breaking all classes into four cardinal points.The traditional "Big 4" of the games origins, used explicitly up through 2e, and kinda left "unspoken" since. I tend toward referring to them, collectively, as: the Warriors, the Wizards, the Priests, and the Rogues.
Originally the Fighting Man, Magic-user, Cleric, and Thief and their alterations of title from edition to edition. The broadest archetypes you can have. If you can play a knight, or a gladiator or a barbarian or a scout or, or, or, you can make it a Fighter and just do the rest through equipment and roleplay. Do you want to be a witch, a sorcerer, a "Gandalph/Dumbledore" kind of wizard, a Merlin or Circe kind of "wizard," or, or, or, you can make it a Wizard[Mage] and just do the rest through roleplay and some re-skinning/flavoring/backstory. And so on.
The categories are boiled down into their most concentrated distillations: What are Warriors/do they do that other classes don't or can't? Warriors are dependent on and defined by their Combat Skill/Styles.
Wizards are dependent on and defined by their use of Magic that is harnessed/directed/mastered by the Self (either literally or access to some all-pervasive universal source/energy, such as FR's "Weave," that would be available to anyone). Whether these are Arcane energies or Natural or Elemental or Primal or however else you want to collect the type of magic/spells, the caster (his/her knowledge, his/her ancestry, his/her force of will, happenstance, etc...) is the source of their own magic-use.
Of late, I have replaced "Priests" with "Mystics" to allow for that servant of a greater "other" power, but not necessarily a deity/divine origin and not necessarily a member of a religious order. But the general category and how it interacts/combines with the other cardnial points still holds.
Priests/Mystics are dependent on and defined by their use of Magic & Combat ability, embodied in the first default option of this caster/non-caster combo of the Cleric. They are further differentiated by the source of their Magic being something OTHER than that personal imbued/learned/figured out or mastery of some all-pervasive radiation, but something "outside" or "beyond" the individual. Yes, even the traditional [shaolin stlye] "monk" who is a master of their own enlightenment are, really, reaching beyond/outside themselves to greater heights of spirituality/divinity and the powers that come from there. Hence, the Monk -or a Mystically-flavored variant thereof- also counts as a Mystic class.
Rogues fairly self-evidently are dependent on and defined by their use of Skills, predominantly non-Combat related skills, though some combat ability is not entirely out of place (hence "Assassins" and "Avengers" being considered Rogue classes). Rogues rely on what they know how to do more than how they handle themselves in a fight.
From there, the next "tier" of classes are those direct combinations: the Fighter+Cleric = Paladin; the Mage+Thief = Warlock (perhaps) or to my mind, Illusionist (the magic of deception); etc...
From those 50/50 classes, the rest become shades of grey...how about the guy with more "fightery" but still divinely inspired or empowered, what about the guy who's more "cleric-y" than fightery? What about the class that combined Divine and Arcane magic leaning toward/with a splash of rogue skills. So things -depending on the game- like amounts of "non-weapon skills," "backgrounds," "archetypes," etc... those sorts of third or fourth layer of traits and features further shade different types of characters...and whether those shadings are distinct enough to warrant themselves as their own full class (or existence as a subclass of another full class) becomes more and more delicate and subjective.
SO, there's that. The classes are essentially branching trees from the 4 cardinal points of Non-Magic: Combat skills/Magic: From Self/Magic: From Other/Non-magic: Non-combat Skills. Who's a Warrior/Wizard/Mystic/Rogue/? The more of one "base" tier class or the other decides where in the hierarchy the classes go. Tradition and longevity within the game/across editions is another factor of where and how close to the base a class becomes.
With every new "tier" we need to have abilities more and more specialized and, I would submit more Ability Score dependent, either/or with a minimum Score, a need for multiple minimum scores, or both.
So the base game would appear to have something like this:
WARRIORS
Fighter - guy who hits reliably, damages reliably, stands longer than most, NO magic guys, Fighting Styles
--Knight/Cavalier: guy who hits the most, special thing "Virtuous Styles" (Cha. based)
--Barbarian: guy who damages the most, special thing "Rage Styles" (Con. based)
--Martial Adept: guy who stands the longest (mostly due to good saves, movement, damage reduction and deflection features), special thing "Disciplined Styles" (Dex. based)
Paladin - guy who hits reliably, damage reliably, stands longer than most, adds divine magic & auras, Oaths
--Vanguard: guy who hits best and gets the most magic, special thing "Defender's Oath" (Wis. based)
--Warlord: guy who saves best and gets the most auras, special thing "Leader's Oath" (Cha. based)
--Blackguard: guy who damages best, special thing "Foresworn Oath/Banes" (Con. based)
ROGUES
Thief - guy who uses skills the best, move reliably, hits/damages reliably. NO magic. Tricks.
--Acrobat: guy who moves the best, special thing "Tumbling Tricks" (Str. based)
--Assassin: guy who damages the most, special thing "Killing Tricks" (Con. based)
--Swashbuckler: guy who hits the most, special thing "Panache Tricks" (Cha. based)
Ranger - guy who uses outdoor/wilderness skills best, moves reliably, hits/damages reliably, adds a smattering of magic, Trances.
--Avenger: guy who hit the most, gets a little divine magic, special thing "Divine Trances" (Wis. based)
--Warden: guy who damages the most, gets a little nature magic, special thing "Nature Trances" (Con. based)
--Investigator: guy who gets the most auras, gets a little arcane magic, special thing "Deductive[divinations] Trances" (Int. based)
I have a game to get to...but you get the gist...I'll go into the other half dozen ways we can categorize things later tonight or tomorrow.
Bate that breath. BATE IT!
Last edited:
Tales and Chronicles
Jewel of the North, formerly know as vincegetorix
I'll go wild a little bit with the FF inspired mechanics: how about using the grid from FF12 to map class features and skills? All classes have a different starting point on the grid, but all classes share the same grid. All features for each class are all in the same ''sector'' on the grid. You gain XP for completing quests and use those points to progress, square by square, in you desired direction on the grid. You could go pure class and unlocking all squares for your class, go deeper and deeper in your specialized features or you can just take some features from your starting class then change direction and cross into another class grid (some kind of multi-classing).
I generally dislike classes. I would start with race, gender, and culture. I would then expand that with backgrounds, ability feats (not ability scores), skills and talents.
Being a member of an organization (or having a mentor) would make learning specific things easier, but might come with restrictions or obligations. For example, a member of the local militia would be able to learn the basics of combat a little more easily than a farmer with no guidance, but would be required to serve his lord. An apprentice to a wizard might think his arcane studies are difficult, and his chores onerous, but without that mentor they would be nearly impossible to learn on his own. The man that seeks magical power without a mentor might bargain with a powerful entity for an easy path to power, but will pay a price later. There are many possible scenarios here.
Priests of a specific church
Knights of certain orders
Members of various criminal organizations
Covens of Witches
Members of a tribal society
Students of a college
Sailors of a particular navy
Performers in a famous troupe
Etc. . . . .
On the subject of ability scores, I have reached a point where I believe that the use of ability scores is almost pointless. Every Wizard ends up with 20 INT, every Fighter has 20 STR, every Rogue has 20 DEX, etc. Why even bother? Instead, I think that utilizing feats with flavorful abilities would work better. Players would pick descriptors of their character. Some possible examples of what I mean, without having worked out exact game mechanics:
Massive Muscles (large bonus to strength and intimidation tests, but slower reflexes)
Adrenaline Rush (short term boost to strength in critical situations, followed by fatigue)
Athletic (medium bonus to strength, constitution and dexterity tests)
Wiry (high bonus to dexterity tests, but not very tough)
Logical (high bonus to intelligence skills, but difficulty with positive charisma skills)
Leader (high bonus to positive charisma tests)
Bully (high bonus to negative charisma tests)
Tough (high bonus to resist damage, medium bonus to strength, slower reflexes)
Etc . . .
That part would require a lot more work, but gives the feel of what I would go for.
But there we go again . . . Every time I start considering what I would change about D&D I end up going so far that the game becomes unrecognizable. D&D is built upon such a flawed foundation that the only way to significantly improve upon 5e is to tear it apart and start from scratch, but then you no longer have D&D. *sigh*
Being a member of an organization (or having a mentor) would make learning specific things easier, but might come with restrictions or obligations. For example, a member of the local militia would be able to learn the basics of combat a little more easily than a farmer with no guidance, but would be required to serve his lord. An apprentice to a wizard might think his arcane studies are difficult, and his chores onerous, but without that mentor they would be nearly impossible to learn on his own. The man that seeks magical power without a mentor might bargain with a powerful entity for an easy path to power, but will pay a price later. There are many possible scenarios here.
Priests of a specific church
Knights of certain orders
Members of various criminal organizations
Covens of Witches
Members of a tribal society
Students of a college
Sailors of a particular navy
Performers in a famous troupe
Etc. . . . .
On the subject of ability scores, I have reached a point where I believe that the use of ability scores is almost pointless. Every Wizard ends up with 20 INT, every Fighter has 20 STR, every Rogue has 20 DEX, etc. Why even bother? Instead, I think that utilizing feats with flavorful abilities would work better. Players would pick descriptors of their character. Some possible examples of what I mean, without having worked out exact game mechanics:
Massive Muscles (large bonus to strength and intimidation tests, but slower reflexes)
Adrenaline Rush (short term boost to strength in critical situations, followed by fatigue)
Athletic (medium bonus to strength, constitution and dexterity tests)
Wiry (high bonus to dexterity tests, but not very tough)
Logical (high bonus to intelligence skills, but difficulty with positive charisma skills)
Leader (high bonus to positive charisma tests)
Bully (high bonus to negative charisma tests)
Tough (high bonus to resist damage, medium bonus to strength, slower reflexes)
Etc . . .
That part would require a lot more work, but gives the feel of what I would go for.
But there we go again . . . Every time I start considering what I would change about D&D I end up going so far that the game becomes unrecognizable. D&D is built upon such a flawed foundation that the only way to significantly improve upon 5e is to tear it apart and start from scratch, but then you no longer have D&D. *sigh*
Last edited:
Similar Threads
D&D General
6 Core Classes: You are in charge
