You mean like in a vide...*THUMP*
*scuffle scuffle*
*Grrrrrrr!*
*WHACK*
Please move along...nothing to see here.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D&D 5E What needs to be fixed in 5E?
- Thread starter KarinsDad
- Start date
You mean like in a vide...*THUMP*
*scuffle scuffle*
*Grrrrrrr!*
*WHACK*
Please move along...nothing to see here.
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
hehe. There's nothing wrong with using a tool to track things. After all, papers and pencils are tools. Just not maybe the most sophisticated ones. I have to admit that existing tools are too klunky and building a game that virtually requires them seems kind of extreme. 4e really does come pretty close too (though honestly was 3.5 actually better in this respect? You'd have to go back to 2e to find a really simpler system).
Well, as I've stated before, the "V-word" aspect of 4Ed to me was that HSes reminded me of games like Tekken & Mortal Kombat...
But to the rest of the group I'm in (most of whom are programmers, at least one of whom is a game programmer), it reminded them of games like WoW. Not for the reasons usually stated, but precisely because of all the condition tracking. The very first critique they raised- almost to a man- was that they didn't like the idea of doing things a computer should be doing.
I do video game design as well and that's where my opinion on that came from.
I can't tell you how many erasers I go through per game session.
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
Yeah, it has over the editions become a more and more prominent aspect of D&D. I recall when we started playing 1e thinking that there were disadvantages to such complicated characters, lol. Well, maybe if there's actually a '5e' somewhere in the future it will go somewhat in a contrary direction, but it may be pretty hard to fight the trend. Especially when the newer generation of players are a lot less likely to find it odd to just use some kind of application, especially with things like tablets starting to make it pretty convenient to do that at the table.
I suppose we older generation of gamers don't HAVE to roll with the times. We are probably doomed to either our own sort of niche PnP systems at some point though, or we adapt and grumble about it, lol.
I suppose we older generation of gamers don't HAVE to roll with the times. We are probably doomed to either our own sort of niche PnP systems at some point though, or we adapt and grumble about it, lol.
KidSnide
Adventurer
I don't see how those particular interpretations of the classes are reflected in the rules for those classes. Once you have a cleric dressing in heavy armor and walking around smashing people with a sword, he becomes just as much a "sword-arm" as his friend the paladin. And whether either character has a ecleasiastic authority to perform marriages or excommunications is entirely a question of the characters' roles in the relevant excleasiastical organization(s) -- not a question of character class.
I mean, I get the difference between a paladin and a robed priest casting ranged spells. But once you created an armored, weapon-using melee priest, it's just a paladin with a more healing-oriented set of powers.
-KS
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
Well, this is a point that goes all the way back to 1e. I never really saw much difference frankly. The old AD&D cleric had some fairly random weapon restrictions, and was functionally mostly a caster, but the original concept seems to have been drawn from 'priest militant'. Obviously the paladin was drawn from a slightly different concept, but the difference was always pretty thin. What really is the difference between a warrior who fights for his god, and a priest who picks up a weapon and fights?
Frankly my feeling is that the 4e Paladin should have been STR/CHA based and the cleric should have been CHA/WIS based. STR clerics and CHA paladins always were redundant concept overlap.
So, if you want to be a holy warrior type, you use the paladin class, and if you want to play the prayer/holy symbol wielding adventuring priest you use the cleric class. They can both be 'Spiritual' powered characters. In general it seems to me you have a number of character concepts that straddle powers.
Martial - Fighter
Martial/Spiritual - Paladin
Spiritual - Cleric
Spiritual/Arcane - Warlock
Arcane - Wizard
Martial/Arcane - Swordmage
Etc, this only covers a few of the more specific classes. There are others in all 6 of these categories, and some may be more one than the other. I guess you could also build the in-between types using some sort of MC mechanics. A paladin is a fighter with some spiritual stuff mixed in, etc. However for the more classic and popular types like paladin it is more reasonable to just provide that as a separate class.
The distinction originated in the RW functions of priests and the legends of what paladins do...and who asks them to do it.
In 4Ed, there is virtually no distinction. But in earlier editions, it IS hardwired into the classes, mainly in spells. Look for spells like Ceremony and ESPECIALLY Atonement- they aren't anywhere near the paladin list.
Crazy Jerome
First Post
For you guys that prefer to have a few lists by power source instead of a few lists by role, how about flipping the keywords to be for role then?
So you've got Martial, Arcane, Spirit (or Martial, Arcane, Divine, Primal). Then every power has one or more keywords of Defender, Striker, Leader, Controller. That allows all the, say, arcane controllers to share some powers without automatically having bards throwing flaming spheres around.
A power would have only one or two role keywords. If it has two, then only characters explicitly called out as having one of those roles as primary and one as secondary, qualify. Thus, you can easily include powers that apply to Fighter and Barbarian (defender/striker versus striker/defender) but not Paladins and Rogues.
Of course, I still agree that classes should have a handful of powers that belong only to them.
One of the options in multiclassing is to pick up a new role. The other is to get access to those class-only powers. So a bard multiclassing into a wizard can go for the wizard class power list or pick up the controller keyword or, if he spends enough, eventually both.
So you've got Martial, Arcane, Spirit (or Martial, Arcane, Divine, Primal). Then every power has one or more keywords of Defender, Striker, Leader, Controller. That allows all the, say, arcane controllers to share some powers without automatically having bards throwing flaming spheres around.
A power would have only one or two role keywords. If it has two, then only characters explicitly called out as having one of those roles as primary and one as secondary, qualify. Thus, you can easily include powers that apply to Fighter and Barbarian (defender/striker versus striker/defender) but not Paladins and Rogues.
Of course, I still agree that classes should have a handful of powers that belong only to them.
One of the options in multiclassing is to pick up a new role. The other is to get access to those class-only powers. So a bard multiclassing into a wizard can go for the wizard class power list or pick up the controller keyword or, if he spends enough, eventually both.
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
Yeah, I think at this point the only way to work it out is to construct some power lists and see how the distributions fall out. I think if there are strong roll-based class features on each class, maybe something like the ability to apply a power rider say for a controller, that a LOT of powers can be fairly dual-use. An Arcane Striker can toss off a blast of fire that hurts bad, and a wizard can toss off a similar blast of fire that shoves people around or dazes them or whatever. Maybe that isn't quite enough, but it would be a good start. And if each class has a few unique powers that isn't terrible. Really you don't need vastly different power lists, and even having really different power lists by itself isn't always going to make a lot of difference. Sorcerers for instance can be pretty controllery as it is now.
