2 Pair and an Ace

[Minigiant]

As the days go by, it seem to me that the only solution to the "Class list" issue is to split the traditional class.

For each archetypal 1-4e class we need:

• An Ace: A class that exemplifies the traditional views of the class over the editions of its strongest edition but without two many hard fluff only mechanics.
• A Pair of 3s: 2 Backgrounds that display the traditional skills and histories of the class.
• A Pair of Deuces: 2 Specialties that display the common adventuring tweaks that can be applied to main class to reinforce old tropes or applies to other classes to mimic other views of the original class

And let us mix and match between whatever elements the groups uses.

Barbarian:
Savage (background)
Tribesman (background)
Barbarian (rage based tough class)
Berserker (specialty with rage-lite)
"Fearbringer" (scary warrior specialty)

Then in the back of the PHB, show examples that display the class of old.

 

[Remathilis]

As the days go by, it seem to me that the only solution to the "Class list" issue is to split the traditional class.

For each archetypal 1-4e class we need:

• An Ace: A class that exemplifies the traditional views of the class over the editions of its strongest edition but without two many hard fluff only mechanics.
• A Pair of 3s: 2 Backgrounds that display the traditional skills and histories of the class.
• A Pair of Deuces: 2 Specialties that display the common adventuring tweaks that can be applied to main class to reinforce old tropes or applies to other classes to mimic other views of the original class

And let us mix and match between whatever elements the groups uses.

Barbarian:
Savage (background)
Tribesman (background)
Barbarian (rage based tough class)
Berserker (specialty with rage-lite)
"Fearbringer" (scary warrior specialty)

Then in the back of the PHB, show examples that display the class of old.

And the award for "first person to suggest D&DN becomes a card game" goes to...

 

[timASW]

I would rather they stuck with just a few broad archetypes and let backgrounds and specialties create the "classes".

So that for instance Palidan is a warrior with the "religious" background and the "divine magic" specialty.

And ranger is a warrior with the "outdoorsmen" background and the "archer" or "twin weapons" specialties.

Hell, i would also wrap the cleric into the spell caster though and give him the same "divine magic" specialty as the palidan in place of an "arcane magic" specialty that wizards would have.

And then make different class powers into feats and give characters a feat every level so they can custom create whatever class they want.

I doubt I'll get what I want though.

 

[the Jester]

Keep in mind that some of the "deuces" and "threes" may overlap between classes.

For instance, "knight" and "acolyte" are perfect specialties for a paladin.

 

[Minigiant]

Keep in mind that some of the "deuces" and "threes" may overlap between classes.

For instance, "knight" and "acolyte" are perfect specialties for a paladin.

It helps if some specialties and backgrounds hit multiple archetype.

If you want to play a 1-2e paladin you go fighter(protector)/knight/acolyte or cleric(war)/knight/survivor

If you want a 4e paladin, you go warlock(Raziel/Archon)/knight/acolyte

If you want a 3e style paladin, you take the paladin/knight/acolyte.

 

[Moon_Goddess]

I would rather they stuck with just a few broad archetypes and let backgrounds and specialties create the "classes".

So that for instance Palidan is a warrior with the "religious" background and the "divine magic" specialty.

And ranger is a warrior with the "outdoorsmen" background and the "archer" or "twin weapons" specialties.

Hell, i would also wrap the cleric into the spell caster though and give him the same "divine magic" specialty as the palidan in place of an "arcane magic" specialty that wizards would have.

And then make different class powers into feats and give characters a feat every level so they can custom create whatever class they want.

I doubt I'll get what I want though.

So you've got 3 classes?

Fighter, Rogue and Spellcaster?

Heck feats as class abilities, Lets just do Fighter, Spellcaster

Why not even just Hero at that point...

Can't we just do point buy at that point.


I love point buy systems, I also enjoy Class systems don't make a class system that is a pour imitation of a point buy system.

In my opinion, if we get less than 10 classes we should have just gone point buy

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It is a great spring board, but I think each class having 1 "old school" background and speciality then 1 cross over of each would do it roo

 

[Remathilis]

I gotta agree, if the names are meaningless (I mean, warlock = paladin)? then make the dang thing point buy and dump class concept already.

 

[Victim]

Let me know where you have a specialty that provides sufficient differentiation to effectively create even two different classes out of one. Because the specialties in the Playtest document don't do that.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

So you've got 3 classes? <snip>

In my opinion, if we get less than 10 classes we should have just gone point buy

I agree that trimming the list down too far goes against the spirit of DnD, a class and level based game.

Define the Ace class as 'significantly unique concept/archtype, the backgrounds as broad categories, and specialties as what tools do you prefer, then add in schemes as a 'how do you approach things'.

Then when considering creating a new class, which may result in rules bloat and unforeseen synergies, you can walk through some basic checks:

Is this concept significantly different from existing classes?
If so, move ahead with new class.

If not, is this concept a broad category, a focus on tools used, or methods?
Based on the answer build it in as a background, specialty, or scheme.

What this allows is for the blade-singer, sword-mage, martial bards, and F/MU 'classes' all occupying the same mechanical space.

Advantages:
- limit scope of character generation can alter the 'feel' of the game
- assuming backgrounds, specialties, and schemes broaden character options instead of create depth.. players in the same game could play with characters built with differing levels of scope.
- multi-classing is handled readily by use of the backgrounds, specialties, and schemes
- more character concepts supported with less page count
- character generation easier to automate

Disadvantages:
- fluff is less tied to classes so someone wanting to play a 'true' blade-singer has to explain why his character is a blade-singer instead of a sword mage
- manual generation of characters is increasingly difficult as players need higher system mastery and access to more page counts to build their concept. This can be offset by setting guide books having 'preset' builds laid out. 'Blade Singer = Fighter with high-elven defender background, arcane weaponry specialty, and the 'combat dancer' scheme'
{or, leaning over the edge of insanity here, have collectable 'cards'...talk about randomly generating a character!}