D&D General What kind of class design do you prefer?

[Minigiant]

Ranger being Con based is pure grid filling.

The only CON based class concept in D&D is having magic flow though you body/blood. That would be a Warlock or Sorcerer. The only CON based warriors in fantasy are warriors powered or fortified by their gifts. Basicallly Warhammer Chaos Warriors/Marines.

The Warrior version of the Warlock doesn't exist in D&D.... yet.

 

[Lanefan]

The 0e-1eRanger actually didn't do anything with CON though.It just had a requirement.


Monk is multiple stat but all 6 wouldbe hard to design.


Just remaking D&D archetypes is:

STR
Barbarian
Champion
Fighter*
DEX
Fighter*
Monk
Ranger
Rogue
CON
Warlock
INT
Artificer
(Halfcaster)
Wizard
WIS
Beastmaster
Cleric
Druid
CHA
Bard
Paladin
Sorcerer

And that's all before you get to idea D&D avoids before it is still working on basics like psions and INT/WIS/CHA based warriors ouside of paladin.

You've only got one CON class listed. Curious: why could Barbarian not be redesigned as a CON class based around toughness and durability rather than brute strength and thus, as a happy side effect, giving it some niche separation from the Fighter?

I also don't somehow see much point to an INT or WIS-based warrior; just like I see little if any point in a STR-based arcane caster.

Side note: unless I'm missing something there's only 4 true non-casters on your list (Ftr, Chmp, Bbn, Rog) out of 16. A fifth one, Monk, while not perhaps an actual caster of spells might as well be. So, 11 out of 16 are casters. Too many?

 

[Lanefan]

Ranger being Con based is pure grid filling.

The only CON based class concept in D&D is having magic flow though you body/blood.

Not at all.

A non-caster CON-based class would or could be based around toughness, durability, and stamina. Mechanically this would show up as big bonuses on Con-based saves, more hit points (or baked-in damage reduction; or a flat bonus to AC; any of these would work), great resistance to an element based on culture (e.g. a member of this class raised in a cold-climate area would have massive resistance to cold), etc. It would be much harder for a member of this class to gain any levels of Exhaustion, and-or easier to shrug Exhaustion off once gained. It could be able to keep going even while making death saves (i.e. does not go unconscious at 0 h.p.). That sort of thing.

In 4e terms it'd be the Defender to end all Defenders.

And the more I think about it, the more I wonder if this is what the Barbarian should have been all along.

 

[Minigiant]

You've only got one CON class listed. Curious: why could Barbarian not be redesigned as a CON class based around toughness and durability rather than brute strength and thus, as a happy side effect, giving it some niche separation from the Fighter?

That's only because

1) I didn't add new class archetypes.
2) I didn't add concepts that the community hasn't accepted in mass yet

I could get FIVE classes per ability score if I wanted to.

I also don't somehow see much point to an INT or WIS-based warrior; just like I see little if any point in a STR-based arcane caster.

The point is to have a mental character but not have to run the complex world of a spellcaster

Side note: unless I'm missing something there's only 4 true non-casters on your list (Ftr, Chmp, Bbn, Rog) out of 16. A fifth one, Monk, while not perhaps an actual caster of spells might as well be. So, 11 out of 16 are casters. Too many?

Reason 2.
I could add 7 noncaster classes to D&D easy. Easy.

Not at all.

A non-caster CON-based class would or could be based around toughness, durability, and stamina. Mechanically this would show up as big bonuses on Con-based saves, more hit points (or baked-in damage reduction; or a flat bonus to AC; any of these would work), great resistance to an element based on culture (e.g. a member of this class raised in a cold-climate area would have massive resistance to cold), etc. It would be much harder for a member of this class to gain any levels of Exhaustion, and-or easier to shrug Exhaustion off once gained. It could be able to keep going even while making death saves (i.e. does not go unconscious at 0 h.p.). That sort of thing.

In 4e terms it'd be the Defender to end all Defenders.

And the more I think about it, the more I wonder if this is what the Barbarian should have been all along.

That's one of my ideas for a noncaster.
I've been advocating splitting the barbarian in half: The Rage Class and the Tough Guy class.
Then you have the Warrior-lock.

 

[Maxperson]

Ranger being Con based is pure grid filling.

The only CON based class concept in D&D is having magic flow though you body/blood. That would be a Warlock or Sorcerer. The only CON based warriors in fantasy are warriors powered or fortified by their gifts. Basicallly Warhammer Chaos Warriors/Marines.

The Warrior version of the Warlock doesn't exist in D&D.... yet.

Rangers weren't historically a dex class, though. They were outdoorsmen who could endure the harsh environments and walk for days to get where they were going. That's con.

 

[Minigiant]

Rangers weren't historically a dex class, though. They were outdoorsmen who could endure the harsh environments and walk for days to get where they were going. That's con.

My point is the ranger never actually did anything thing you said in D&D except when it got Endurance feat for free in 3e.

The ranger literally only had 1 CON based class feature once in 6 editions.

That's why the "3-4 classes" thing never worked. "Saying something is part of a class" and "making it a meaningful mechanic" are 2 different things.

 

[Maxperson]

My point is the ranger never actually did anything thing you said in D&D except when it got Endurance feat for free in 3e.

The ranger literally only had 1 CON based class feature once in 6 editions.

That's why the "3-4 classes" thing never worked. "Saying something is part of a class" and "making it a meaningful mechanic" are 2 different things.

In 1e the highest stat requirement was 14 con. He also needed 13 in int and wis. They got 2d8 at first level, more than any other class(durability).

 

[Minigiant]

In 1e the highest stat requirement was 14 con. He also needed 13 in int and wis. They got 2d8 at first level, more than any other class(durability).

That's stat requirement and a HD.
The 1e monks required Str and Con too.

How many times has a Ranger use their Con score or Con mod in a class feature?
Once. in 3e at 3rd level for something that gets ignored by 50% of tables and cancelled by common magic spells and items.
The D&D ranger has never been con based.

The only historic Con based class that still exists in D&D is the Warlock.

 

[Shardstone]

First I need to know if classes are going to be basically generic and game mechanic-motivated... or if classes are going to have narrative, story, and fluff attributed to them.

If it's the former, then fewer classes with many choice points. We're basically looking at a version of a point build system at that point, so let me build the mechanics out however I want, and then I'll layer on the character's story after the fact.

If it's the latter, then more classes with very specific fluff, and very specific and condensed mechanics. Spell lists should be like 8 or 9 spells per level for each different class so that there's little to no overlap. The Wizard shouldn't have Mage Hand or Detect Thoughts on their spell list, because those spells would be ones that the Psion would have in order to differentiate the two. Likewise... there might be three to five different classes that make use of the Combat Superiority mechanics, but each of them would have only four or five different and specific Maneuvers available to them depending on their story.

For once, I completely agree with you. This very much is exactly how I think fluff-based class-related games should be.

 

[Undrave]

Not at all.

A non-caster CON-based class would or could be based around toughness, durability, and stamina. Mechanically this would show up as big bonuses on Con-based saves, more hit points (or baked-in damage reduction; or a flat bonus to AC; any of these would work), great resistance to an element based on culture (e.g. a member of this class raised in a cold-climate area would have massive resistance to cold), etc. It would be much harder for a member of this class to gain any levels of Exhaustion, and-or easier to shrug Exhaustion off once gained. It could be able to keep going even while making death saves (i.e. does not go unconscious at 0 h.p.). That sort of thing.

In 4e terms it'd be the Defender to end all Defenders.

And the more I think about it, the more I wonder if this is what the Barbarian should have been all along.

So... a Warden?