D&D General Your Core Classes if The Core 4 Aren't Allowed

[jmartkdr2]

Hmm.

I think you still need warriors and mages and such, but we need to arrange them totally differently?

Warriors are broken out by fighting style: no general "fighter", but specific classes like swashbuckler, knight, assassin, gladiator, etc.

Rogues as in skill-focused non-combat classes are out; all warriors are also skilled at a bunch of stuff. Roguish concepts use finesse-based weapons andlight armor is all.

Magic-users are going to be elementalists, and we'll make our new magic system both distinct and generic by using the classic elements as the base. Just 4 so there's lots of variety within each. (Necromancy exists, outside of the four elements, but isn't a default player option. Maybe in a GM guide or some later edgy supplement.)

My favorite way to do gishes would be to assume all pcs will have an Archetype in the vein of Pathfinder 2e Archetypes, except it's assumed everyone gets one. Magical warriors pick a warrior class and a basic elemental archetype (or a caster base and a melee-enabling archetype.) The archetypes can also cover stuff like special backgrounds, dabbling in different fighting styles, animal companions, etc.

For ancestries, I'm torn between two options:

1. By default, all pcs are human. Nonhuman pcs might come up in supplemental materials as archetype options, but the core rules assume y'all're just people. Oops misread the OP, this doesn't fit the assignment.

2. Making it a furry game and use animal people for everyone. Pick a "beast feature" off a list to represent the animal you are.

The latter working or not depends hugely on the art direction.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Well my problem is more that I do not like the "simple martials" which just do basic attacking, I did not mean the fighter specifically. So I think there needs to be some simple classes, but it should not be too dumb and not martial ownly.

Yeah its hard to make simple classes that dont primarily lean into basic weapon strikes.

Well I dont think its realistic to become the top dog, but it still makes sense to try to make sure even a broad variety of players can play the game. I know its a bit stupid but losing players just because there is no "human"y thing they can relate to, is not worth it.

I kinda disagree, but also gnomes and goliaths and shifters and such are 'humany'. They have human faces, after all.

I found the small races life halfling and dwarfs never even in the slightest interesting. If I would do a small race it would be something like a gummibear. Not just a smðall human / football with legs.

I would much rather have a few human but xyz' folk than humans.

Hmm.

I think you still need warriors and mages and such, but we need to arrange them totally differently?

Warriors are broken out by fighting style: no general "fighter", but specific classes like swashbuckler, knight, assassin, gladiator, etc.

And archer, maybe knife thrower, for sure.

Rogues as in skill-focused non-combat classes are out; all warriors are also skilled at a bunch of stuff. Roguish concepts use finesse-based weapons andlight armor is all.

I cant get behind this. all classes should have combat and noncombat juice, sure, but having some focus more one way or the other makes sense imo.

Magic-users are going to be elementalists, and we'll make our new magic system both distinct and generic by using the classic elements as the base. Just 4 so there's lots of variety within each. (Necromancy exists, outside of the four elements, but isn't a default player option. Maybe in a GM guide or some later edgy supplement.)

My favorite way to do gishes would be to assume all pcs will have an Archetype in the vein of Pathfinder 2e Archetypes, except it's assumed everyone gets one. Magical warriors pick a warrior class and a basic elemental archetype (or a caster base and a melee-enabling archetype.) The archetypes can also cover stuff like special backgrounds, dabbling in different fighting styles, animal companions, etc.

For ancestries, I'm torn between two options:

1. By default, all pcs are human. Nonhuman pcs might come up in supplemental materials as archetype options, but the core rules assume y'all're just people. Oops misread the OP, this doesn't fit the assignment.

2. Making it a furry game and use animal people for everyone. Pick a "beast feature" off a list to represent the animal you are.

The latter working or not depends hugely on the art direction.

Making it thematically consistent like this can def work

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Aha, fair enough. If I had to pick twelve, probably...

Alchemist
Assassin
Avenger
Barbarian
Monk
Paladin
Psion
Shaman
Sorcerer
Summoner
Warlock
Warlord

Alchemist, Warlord, and Shaman would have the most natural "support" bent, but most any of these could lean support-y, particularly Summoner, Psion, and Paladin.

Assassin, Avenger, and Monk are tricksy, skillful types. Alchemist, Barbarian, and Warlock might also fit, especially if the Warlock and/or Summoner have features or subclasses that reward high Int alongside (or instead of) high Cha.

Paladin and Barbarian are front-line fighters, and Avenger isn't half bad here either if they focus on defense/beef. Summoner, through their Visitant, can also moonlight here, as can Blade Warlock and beefier types of Warlord and Monk.

Sorcerer, Warlock, Psion, and Alchemist can each fill some portion of the stereotypical "Wizard" role--utility, crowd control, area denial. I could see an Assassin, Shaman, or Summoner moonlighting here, too.

We can also make groups that have pretty low-magic takes. A Barbarian, Monk, Alchemist, and Warlord combo would flirt with the edges of the fantastical while still having plenty of room to stay very grounded in the physical reality we know. Might fit a re-fluffed Assassin, Avenger, or Warlock in there too, depending on how each individual character leans and how much bleed one accepts between the mundane and the supernatural--that's a rough order of "mostly mundane with a kiss of the supernatural" to "personally mundane, but acquired supernatural power".

We have the Primal (Barbarian/Shaman), the Shadow (Assassin/Warlock), the Arcane (Sorcerer/Summoner), the Divine (Avenger/Paladin), the Psionic (Psion/Monk), and--if you allow chemical concoctions as "equipment"--the Martial (Alchemist/Warlord). We have a relatively decent spread of physical and mental stat preferences, especially if Warlord, Summoner, and Warlock can be a bit flexible in what mental stats they value.

So this is a world where most people draw power from something supernatural, but it can be pretty light/subtle, or it might be understood as the part of the natural, mundane world aligned to those forces. This is a world where the supernatural can be as close as the nearest fork-in-the-road, the nearest fairy-circle, just waiting for the right time to flower...or intoxicate.

The only class I'd consider swapping out is my beloved Summoner, simply because we have a lot of Cha casters here; if I did I'd probably put a custom class that is functionally a ground-up re-imagining of the Wizard by very different rules: specifically, a Runecaster, who learns a mostly-fixed set of rune letters, which they have to leverage creatively in order to produce the effects they want.

Different subclasses would focus on different ways of using language as magic, so you might have an Orator who doesn't actually "carve" runes, they only speak them, with limitations and benefits arising from being sound-based; you might have a Calligrapher, who can invoke elements of traditions like Islamic calligraphic art or ofuda seals; you might have a classic Carver who marks physical objects (stones, bones, wood, leaves, shells, etc.) and literally throws them to perform magic, again with benefits and penalties arising from that. The idea would be that you can only master a few core runic letters, but you can embellish them with accents to change how they express.

That'd mean putting Metamagic back into this class, and I'd fill the gap in Sorcerer by fully fleshing out the old "D&D Next" playtest Sorcerer concept. You spending your magic mojo literally warps your body until you have a chance to rest, sliding you toward different playstyles depending on what our magic-soul is (e.g. dragon -> heavy bruiser; shadow -> corrupting lurker; divine -> protecting angel; storm -> living thunderhead; etc.)

Interesting. I like it.

Im thinking about adding the warden alongside the barbarian to my list, or folding barbarian into warden, as the "tank that sues an altered mode" class.

I also dont have many purely mundane classes currently, mostly the Jack and...kinda the Swordmage (variant monk) and Ranger if you build them that way.

But otherwise i think we have similar ideas of how the aechtypes of the game can be represented, at least on a broad overview. Interesting. I wonder how my own trpg Crossroads would hit your eyes...

Final Fantasy Tactics. I was exposed to its story elements through other games, but was pleased to learn that those elements were present in the original. Religious characters speak litany lines to perform magic; things like, "I call out to the skies and tremble as the brilliance of a thousand bolts blinds mine enemies and tears their flesh asunder", or "To the current of life we succumb, its judgment swift and final, its bite as cold as steel", or "To live by the sword is to die by the sword: there is time enough for regret in the flames of Hell." Those all from sincere religious folks--ones who are genuine heroes. Then you have wicked supernatural beings who have their own magic: "Denizens of the abyss, from ink of blackest night, I summon you", or "Simmer does the light of life before rising to the heavens in a cleansing conflagration of divine benevolence."

These phrases have weight. They are redolent with unshared context and liturgical meaning we will never get to see, because the religion isn't real and doesn't actually have holy texts etc. But they are well-written, and when done well, it gives a clear feeling of a religious identity. Doing this in a game where it is the player saying things like this, you'd have to do a LOT more work and flesh it out to a much, much greater extent. But I think you could pull it off in a reasonable way, and it would very much enrich the experience, at least IMO.

Very cool. I have thought alot about makimg spellcraft very lexiconographic in usage. Different languages have different linguistic elements with examples, and like subject, verb, object, and "form", make a spell, with more complex spells needing more complex constuctions like adverbs and such and complex forms.
Forms would be basically stuff like "free prose", couplet, lymric, and on the exrteme end might include a sestina or villanelle.

I wonder what the structure of liturgical spellwork should be...