D&D 5E 08/05/2013 - Legends & Lore : Scaling Complexity

[Warbringer]

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]

A definite 4e-ism to keep; "refluff too your hearts content"

 

[Lord Rasputin]

I have to say, I'm mightily impressed they had the stones to reduce the number of daily spells as much as they did.

Having at-will cantrips doing damage lessens some of the need at the early levels for lots of spells, which might set some tone.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The "refluff" argument isn't exactly persuasive -- those names have power, and they don't necessarily imply a complexity. Either don't call it a gladiator, or ensure that anyone who wants to play a "gladiator" will be OK with playing that.

 

[Hussar]

But, it isn't necessarily refluffing. Well, it is, but, it's more to forestall the endless "Warlords" wankery that went on in the run up to 4e. No matter what name they choose, someone can find a nit to pick. If they start up front that the name of the class has no in game meaning and that it's simply the name they chose because they felt it was a good choice at the time, then hopefully people won't feel the need to endlessly kvetch about the names.

In other words, own the game. Mage vs Wizard vs Magic User - at the end of the day, pick the one you like and don't worry about it. If your character is an escaped slave who fought in an arena, he might be a Fighter or he might be a Gladiator, depending on whichever one fits best with the player.

 

[lkj]

But, it isn't necessarily refluffing. Well, it is, but, it's more to forestall the endless "Warlords" wankery that went on in the run up to 4e. No matter what name they choose, someone can find a nit to pick. If they start up front that the name of the class has no in game meaning and that it's simply the name they chose because they felt it was a good choice at the time, then hopefully people won't feel the need to endlessly kvetch about the names.

In other words, own the game. Mage vs Wizard vs Magic User - at the end of the day, pick the one you like and don't worry about it. If your character is an escaped slave who fought in an arena, he might be a Fighter or he might be a Gladiator, depending on whichever one fits best with the player.

I think naming those paths is a harder thing than it seems. There's an argument for keeping a compelling name that evokes a strong image. For psychological reasons, it just makes you want to play that class more. The problem is that a lot of the most evocative titles also run the risk of stepping on the particular archetypes that different groups associate with that name. They could go generic 'The Maneuver Path' fighter. But that's so bland as to be lame, and I really do think an evocative title matters. Not for everyone. But it definitely does for some of my gaming buddies.

So, here's the tightrope-- Find an evocative name that is generic enough to minimize (not eliminate) inevitable nerd rage (my nerd rage included!)

AD

 

[I'm A Banana]

There's still basically two options to rectify the the problem: rename it, or ensure that your evocative name doesn't force anyone to jump through mechanical hoops to play it. The latter option shouldn't be impossible. Even if you don't have an alternate "easymode" for every conceivable archetype, (something that's pretty impossible), it should be entirely within the realm of possibility to have some guidelines for turning the Warrior into the Gladiator, allowing someone to a la carte it. Presumably, they're equivalent, so just break down the math for us, let us see the bones of it. Let me have a character who can crib one or two of the maneuvers without having to do ALL of them.

The "scale" right now is very binary, which ain't cool. And it also conveys the connotation that if you want to play a "Gladiator," you have to play a complex character. If the word has no actual meaning, it shouldn't be used. If the intent is to say "Manuever-based fighter," just say that. If the intent is to say "Gladiator," then say THAT. Since "Gladiator" and "Manuever-based Fighter" aren't the same thing, they shouldn't try to make them the same thing unless they also give us a way to do either one without the other (meaning: give us the tools to use to make the game our own).

 

[Hussar]

See, I disagree. As it stands, "Gladiator" is "Maneuver Based Fighter". That's currently what Gladiator means in 5e. Like I said before, no matter what they choose, someone's going to be picking nits. So, we're basically faced with completely bland and neutral names like "Fighting Man" or actually giving the class a flavourful name and then telling people that the names, while they have real world connotations, are not necessarily specifically that thing.

I mean, we accept paladin as a generic "holy warrior" archetype, despite it having very specific meanings. Or Druid. Or Cleric or any number of other classes. Even "Rogue" as a class doesn't have to have anything to do with the dictionary definition of a rogue. Why do we have to ensure that every name is so stripped of connotation that people won't complain?

 

[lkj]

Well, they have already said that they are going to provide guidelines for making your own subclasses. So, as KM notes, that's probably the most viable solution. Keep the evocative name, but let people know they can 'mod' it. It's less obvious with the gladiator, but you can already see the potential for 'pick and choose' custom subclassses. The two ranger subclasses, for example, look pretty easy to mix and match.

AD

 

[CM]

Clearly we can solve the evocative names issue by using the time-honored tradition of 3e and 4e monster naming. Just call the gladiator class the "swiftarm pugilist-tumbler"

For what it's worth, I never read too much into a character based on its class name. Class name is there just for reference only.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Quite a few people seem to like the combat superiority subsystem. I can appreciate it from a mechanical standpoint, but not as part of a whole. The reason I suggested using DCs is because every other feature of the game uses them - saving against spells, making skill checks, resisting poison and disease, even initiative - everything is d20+X where you can influence X by choice of attributes, class, feats and so on. The combat superiority dice is separate - you cannot influence it other than by reaching 15th level and getting 2d6 instead of 1d6 (which rather blows the idea that it limits the scope of the maneuver unless there are some 36 Str/Dex creatures out there). Getting stronger, more dextrous, more clever, being blessed or hasted, having a (current) magic weapon - none of these things will make you any more likely to pull off your maneuver. I really dislike this lack of integration into the system - I don't want to see different dice rules for attacks, saving throws, skill checks, initiative and surprise again.