Your ideal class orgainization

[Satyrn]

Sounds fun. Dungeons as the new class levels.

Level 1: Choose between these 3 dungones, timmy the inept pyromanic, jack the weak bully, or clare the polytheist. At the end of the dungeon, you learn about 3 new dungeons.

Level 2: Choose between these 3 new dungeons...

Oh my. This could really work!

And to think, I started with a subtle joke about picking dwarf, human or elf as your class (where the only difference is the weapon!) as a gut reaction to the dread of having to pick from this nightmare:

Level 1: Choose one of these 243 classes.
Level 2-5: You're stuck on the path you chose

 

[Paul Smart]

OP here. I love that there are lots of interesting ideas, there is more variety here than I ever expected. In the spirit of variety and interesting ideas here is something crazy to think about.

When I am thinking of creating a new character I ask myself two questions:

1) What does this character do; ie: what role do they play in the party?
2) How does this character do it?

For question 1 I will get answers like:

1) Tank / Defender
2) Support specialist
3) Damage specialist, either DPS or DOT
4) Party Face

For question 2 I think of things like:

1) Brute Strength - ex: Champion Fighter, Barbarian
2) Because they are very skilled - ex: Rogue
3) They use Magic - ex: Mage, Cleric
4) They use Psionics
5) They have supernatural abilities: ex: Barbarian Rage, Monks Ki etc.

I am wondering if we can build a character that way. For example:

1) Choose your role / roles in the party
2) Choose X number of way you accomplish that role
3) Choose race

So I might choose to be the party face with a secondary role of support specialist using magic. Or I could be a damage (DPS) specialist using skill.

Just throwing the idea out there.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

Since this is primarily a game of tactical combat (you're only fooling yourself if you want to argue otherwise), I would start by looking at what role the class is intended to play on the battlefield, and then the source of it's power. On the first order, which some have already pointed out, you have tanks, damage dealers, manipulators, and support. Let's call them Defenders, Strikers , Controllers, and... I suppose Leaders?

Then we look at sources from which classes derive their abilities. For example, melee or weapon users use Martial abilities, wizards use Arcane, and clerics have Divine....

Hold on. This looks familiar. Has this already been done?!

 

[mellored]

I am wondering if we can build a character that way. For example:

1) Choose your role / roles in the party
2) Choose X number of way you accomplish that role
3) Choose race

That's more or less had, though in a different order.

1: Race + background + non-combat abilities. Levels separately from the other options, though may have some prerequisites. (i.e. finding food might require a level of ranger. Or charm person require arcane spell slots).


2: How do you do stuff (power source). Gives simple abilities useful abilities and baseline proficiencies for the other options. Can be taken multiple times to make a simple generalist character. (level 1 spells and manuvers)
Martial -> You gain +X to fighting.
Divine -> You can channel divinity Y times, which you recover during a short rest.
Arcane -> You gain X arcane slots which you fill during a long rest.
Psion -> You gain X psi points, and recharge some other way.


3: What you do with that power (base class). More focuses than the general option above. Modestly complex features (level 2 spells and maneuvers).
Fighter (Marital): +offense.
Defender (Martial): +defense.
Sorcerer (Divine): +offense.
Cleric (Divine): +defense.
Evoker (Arcane): +offense.
Aburation (Arcane): +defense.


Bonus: Advanced options (paragon class) = Combos or further specializations of different base classes. With more complex and finicky features (level 3+ spells and maneuvers).
Pyromancer (Evoker): +Fireball and firewall.
Artificer (Transmutation, Abjuration, Enchantment): +enchanting items.
Beastmaster (Ranger, Druid): +fight with animals.
Paladin (Fighter, Cleric): +aura's
Warlord (Bard, Fighter): +grant attacks

 

[Blue]

Since this is primarily a game of tactical combat (you're only fooling yourself if you want to argue otherwise), I would start by looking at what role the class is intended to play on the battlefield, and then the source of it's power. On the first order, which some have already pointed out, you have tanks, damage dealers, manipulators, and support. Let's call them Defenders, Strikers , Controllers, and... I suppose Leaders?

Then we look at sources from which classes derive their abilities. For example, melee or weapon users use Martial abilities, wizards use Arcane, and clerics have Divine....

Hold on. This looks familiar. Has this already been done?!

Not well.

*ducking*

On a more serious note, staying within the bounds you set of focusing on the game as tactical combat, where does the power source enter into it? Early in the thread there was a power-source as recharge mechanic for mudnane=at-will, divine=short rest, and arcane=long rest, but no, that actually hasn't been done before.

The power source controls the type of abilities you have ... oh wait, no, that's specified by choice of role.

The power source controls which type of abilities you can get. For example, divine magic and arcane magic are incapable of allowing someone else to get extra attacks, but anyone skilled can do it. Oh wait, WHY do we want that?

The power source flavors the descriptions. Fine. But that's to reskinning, and has nothing to do with tactical combat which is the scope of what we're talking about.

So, considering that what you do is entirely outside of the power sources and can not be abridged by them, where do power sources fit in tactical combat?

 

[Jacob Lewis]

Not well.

*ducking*

On a more serious note, staying within the bounds you set of focusing on the game as tactical combat, where does the power source enter into it? <snip>

So, considering that what you do is entirely outside of the power sources and can not be abridged by them, where do power sources fit in tactical combat?

Not well, indeed! Lot of good ideas, but poorly executed for many reasons. Let's leave it at that so as not to derail the thread,....

which seems to be the direction you are headed. Are we discussing the organization of classes, or are we getting into the full-blown mechanics of how everything should work? According to the topic, I believe it is the former. So we should take the latter discussion elsewhere if you're really interested.

(Seriously, though. How has the concept of "sources of power" eluded you? Arcane is mystic (wizards, sorcerers, bards, swordmages). Divine is blessings (clerics, paladins, avengers, invokers). Primal is nature (druids, barbarians, wardens, and shamans). Martial is mundane (fighters, rangers, rogues, and warlords). You really don't see it?)

 

[Blue]

(Seriously, though. How has the concept of "sources of power" eluded you? Arcane is mystic (wizards, sorcerers, bards, swordmages). Divine is blessings (clerics, paladins, avengers, invokers). Primal is nature (druids, barbarians, wardens, and shamans). Martial is mundane (fighters, rangers, rogues, and warlords). You really don't see it?)

Sources of power haven't eluded me. Sources of power when strictly speaking about the realm of tactical combat as you defined are the puzzle. When you limited the discussion to just that, but then said that power source was just as big a choice as the role, I am missing what the role of power sources is on combat.

For example, how does 4d12 fire damage in a 20'r sphere with a DEX save differ based on if it's an arcane striker vs. a primal striker? How does 4d6+4 healing as a bonus action at 30' range differ if it's from a martial leader vs. a divine leader?

 

[Ratskinner]

Well, I'm personally really big on sacred steaks.

I think I might lean towards a modular abstract story-centric approach and away from a X&O's tactical dungeon-crawl approach. Players would build characters from several "classes" that each addresses certain aspects of the game.

Pillars: Interaction, Exploration, and Combat. Honestly, Interaction and Exploration share just too much overlap for me. So I would condense them into "Flavor". I would also add a (possibly optional) third pillar "Story".

So, for each pillar.

Combat - "How you contribute in combat" things like heavy, striker, controller, artillery, leader,....
Combat classes are very stripped down and include all the tactical information (HP, AC, Attack, movement) that you will ever need to know, baked right in. So every 5th level Striker does the same base damage, with the same "spike damage" values and the same HP/defense. How and why your character has these values in-fiction is informed by the other pillars. I would adopt some rules from 13th Age to make this work a bit easier, staying relatively abstract.

Flavor - "How you fit in the world" - Thief, Soldier, Wizard, Scoundrel, Brute, Ranger, Saint, Lord, Highly- Muscled Barbarian, etc.
Each is a) starting or traditional resource list, and a description of how this pillar informs the combat pillar b) a package of starting "Moves". These can even use custom mechanics, because some things make sense as level-dependent and others don't. c) "Advanced Moves" that you can take as you level up occasionally. However, I see this class-choice as mostly static, even if some abilities improve with level. I'm not sure if race should be wrapped into this as well. So maybe "Elven Warrior" is distinct from "Human Warrior", or maybe you pick a "Race" or "Background" flavor as well.

Story - "How you fit in the story" - Prodigy, Hero, Mentor, "Lancer", Heart, Sidekick, Buddy, Oddball, Fixer, etc.
Another set of "moves", but also adjustments to starting level and advancement. So the Mentor might start out at a higher level, but not advance. Might also include alternate lethality rules for each story role, and modifications to other Flavor rules, triggered by events in story. For most of these, only one character may have them at a time. Some might actually "level-up" into another role, allowing for characters to dual class and the like.

Other Notes:
This lets you get rid of equipment/weapon tables as well as hyper-detailed spell descriptions. For example, weapons are mostly flavor/narrative permission. Spells as well. So Pyrotechnics might just say "You can manipulate and wield flames with magic." The limits of what you can do with it are circumscribed by the moves in the Combat, Flavor, and Story classes.
There would also be a set of "Basic Moves" that everyone had access to.
DMs could set power-levels for campaigns. That might alter things like the starting level of Mentor characters or even the races allowed for starting characters. (a low power campaign might have a 5th level Grizzled Warrior mentor, while a high-powered campaign might have an angel or something.)

Anyway, prolly never see that in D&D.