D&D General Experts type PCs, Magic Items, and Higher Fantasy

[EzekielRaiden]

Back at the start of the One D&D Playtest survey process, WOTC tried out an idea of class grouping. One of the first grouping displayed was the experts. This grouping consisted of the Bard, Ranger, and Rogue. Speculation suggested a possible future inclusion of the Artificer. The main unifier of these classes would be their base inclusion of Skill Proficiency.

Outside of that, the classes were very different. The Bard is a full caster. The Rogue had no base spells. And the Ranger and Artificer were half casters of different end of the warrior caster spectrum. Their chassis were very different.

But there was one thing that IMHO they had similar between them. In the fantasy, both in D&D fantasy and broader adventure fantasy, the four were associated with items.

Artificers are of course tied to magic items. The Bard is linked to musical instruments and games. Rangers have herbs, salves, special arrows and hunting traps, as well a history of their spells being flavored as items by some players. And Rogue are known from disguise kits and poisons in their assassins and tricks like caltrops and ball bearings for thieves. And all 4 could be associated with potions and scroll use.

Which the rerelease of the Artificer, my belief that these Expert classes would be better served if the Item use was a more core element of Dungeon and Dragons and then linking them to the Item line of fantasy than the Spell line. At low levels, these experts would combine their superior skills with their better usage of mundane items of their worlds. Then at higher levels, they could craft temporary magic items that fit their archetype. Possibly this could be their in into the Spellcasting system and exclusive iconic magic spells. Finally at highest levels, they could be linked to class specific magic items and special ways to use general ones.

A bard storing his spells in their lite. A ranger summoning their real animal beast companions from a gem or figurine and communicating via a ring of animal influence. A rogue looking for their guild leader so she can learn how to combine caltrops with poison and where the charm which could recall them after use.

What are your thoughts?

Sounds great to me! In this current design climate, anything that pulls us away from "every class feature is just a spell" is good in my book. (It is of course possible to go too far in the other direction and avoid spells when they should really be used--but 5e does not even remotely have a problem on that end.)

Warriors: Weapons and Armor
Experts: Tools and Items
Priests: Spells and Relics
Mages: Spells and Arcane implements

Given the somewhat loaded nature of "Priests", perhaps something like the following:

Warriors: Weapons and Armor
Experts: Weapons and Tools
Auxiliaries: Spells and Icons
Mages: Spells and Lore

Of course even this won't be perfect--should a Warlord be an Expert but all about support and force multiplication? That sounds like what the intent of a "Priest" is, but Warlords don't use magic. Likewise, there are plenty of things that it's hard to say whether they should go in "Priest"/"Auxiliary"/whatever or Mage, e.g. Druid--and there are Experts who cast spells, and Experts who don't cast spells, so is "spells" really much of an indicator? Especially since we have things like Paladin, which is pretty clearly a Warrior, but it casts spells in 5e. (I personally would have it not cast spells and instead have specific class features, but that's just me.)

 

[Minigiant]

Given the somewhat loaded nature of "Priests", perhaps something like the following:

Warriors: Weapons and Armor
Experts: Weapons and Tools
Auxiliaries: Spells and Icons
Mages: Spells and Lore

Of course even this won't be perfect--should a Warlord be an Expert but all about support and force multiplication? That sounds like what the intent of a "Priest" is, but Warlords don't use magic. Likewise, there are plenty of things that it's hard to say whether they should go in "Priest"/"Auxiliary"/whatever or Mage, e.g. Druid--and there are Experts who cast spells, and Experts who don't cast spells, so is "spells" really much of an indicator? Especially since we have things like Paladin, which is pretty clearly a Warrior, but it casts spells in 5e. (I personally would have it not cast spells and instead have specific class features, but that's just me.)

Well the idea would be that a Warlord is a Warrior first and a Paladin is a priest first. So that's the items they got.

 

[Minigiant]

So at Christmas, I talked to my cousins and we discussed our simple 4e game from a decade back.

Simple 4e was a hack were we simplified all PCs to a few powers

• Green: At Will
• Red: Encounter
• Black: Daily
• Brown: Racial
• Blue: Ammo
• Gold: Magic item charge

I forgot about Blue powers and it's a cool idea. Basically you had an At Will power that costs special ammunition or item to use.

So you could deal 4W poison damage with a dagger but it costed a dose of poison to use. Or my cousin's Green Arrow Punching Glove arrows that did a W and pushed.

Perhaps in 6e you could tie that to tools and kits

• All
  • Herbalist kit: Potion
• Warriors
  • Blacksmith Tool: Throwing Axes, Metal Armors
  • Brewer Tools: Beer, Antitoxin
  • Carpenter tools: Club, Greatclub
  • Fletcher Tools: Special Arrow
  • Leatherworker Tool: Leather and Hide armor
  • Weaver Tools: Padded Armor, Rope
  • Whitesmith Tools: Daggers
• Experts
  • Alchemist Supplies: Acid, Fire
  • Cobbler Tools: Shoeknife, Steeltoe
  • Disguise kit: Costume
  • Glassblower Tools: Magnifying glass, Spyglass
  • Musical Instruments: Musical Instruments
  • Poisoner's Kit: Poison
  • Thieves Tools: Lockpick, Skeleton key
  • Tinker Tool: Hunting trap, Manacles, Caltrops
• Priest
  • Clergy Tools: Holy Water
  • Heretic Kit: Unholy Water
  • Jeweler Tools: Holy Symbol
  • Painter Tools: Druid Focus
• Mage
  • Calligrapher Tools: Spell Scroll
  • Woodcarver Tools: Arcane Focus

 

[Mind of tempest]

Sounds great to me! In this current design climate, anything that pulls us away from "every class feature is just a spell" is good in my book. (It is of course possible to go too far in the other direction and avoid spells when they should really be used--but 5e does not even remotely have a problem on that end.)


Given the somewhat loaded nature of "Priests", perhaps something like the following:

Warriors: Weapons and Armor
Experts: Weapons and Tools
Auxiliaries: Spells and Icons
Mages: Spells and Lore

Of course even this won't be perfect--should a Warlord be an Expert but all about support and force multiplication? That sounds like what the intent of a "Priest" is, but Warlords don't use magic. Likewise, there are plenty of things that it's hard to say whether they should go in "Priest"/"Auxiliary"/whatever or Mage, e.g. Druid--and there are Experts who cast spells, and Experts who don't cast spells, so is "spells" really much of an indicator? Especially since we have things like Paladin, which is pretty clearly a Warrior, but it casts spells in 5e. (I personally would have it not cast spells and instead have specific class features, but that's just me.)

what about hybids do they take one from each?

 

[Minigiant]

what about hybids do they take one from each?

Depends

Either the Hybrids are full part of one group or half of 2. Depending how you design it

Like a Ranger

You can design it where Ranger gets 2 Expert Tools. Or you can design them where they get 1 Warrior and 1 Expert

 

[Mind of tempest]

Depends

Either the Hybrids are full part of one group or half of 2. Depending how you design it

Like a Ranger

You can design it where Ranger gets 2 Expert Tools. Or you can design them where they get 1 Warrior and 1 Expert

Assuming the latter, how many hybrids could be rationally supported?

 

[Minigiant]

Assuming the latter, how many hybrids could be rationally supported?

4*3/2 =6

Warrior Expert
Warrior Priest
Warrior Mage
Expert Priest
Expert Mage
Priest mage

 

[Mind of tempest]

4*3/2 =6

Warrior Expert
Warrior Priest
Warrior Mage
Expert Priest
Expert Mage
Priest mage

so a total of 10 full classes?

any idea what each would be called?

 

[Minigiant]

so a total of 10 full classes?

any idea what each would be called?

I personally wouldn't do it that way.

If I were to do it, I would go back to my Simple 4e skeleton which hybrids have 2 power sources or the OneD&D skeleton where hybrids are fully one class group.

 

[Minigiant]

so a total of 10 full classes?

any idea what each would be called?

Just got home. So if it were up to me and I was doing it as an equipment based system, i'd go:

Choose a class
Choose a background
Choose a species


But each would have different power sources, roles, and groupings.

So Barbarian and Ranger would both be Martial/Primal. But Barbarian would be Warrior who can be Striker or Defender but Ranger be an Expert who can be Striker or Controller.