A call for rampant speculation and suggestions on classes.

[Ratskinner]

Because we needed one....

Each class is supposed to have its "thing" that its best at, and has some unique or special mechanic to deal with it. However, we've only heard so far about 6 classes, and we were promised that you'd be able to do any class that was in a PHB1. Assume they all get to be full classes, and not just themes, schemes, or whatnot. Pick your favorite class that remains to be seen and tell us what you think its particular schtick should be, and maybe even how you think they should pull it off mechanically. How do see them fitting in, and what do you think distinguishes them?

I ask this because I actually think a lot of these character concepts could be expressed well just through the application of Backgrounds, Specialties, and things like the Rogue's Schemes. I'd like to hear what the champions of the "also ran" classes have to say for them standing next to the Big 4.

Thanks in advance for your input.

 

[ferratus]

Rogue: Ability (Skill) checks during combat. Acrobatics to tumble, pick pockets to disarm, stealth to sneak attack etc. Link special damage to a successful skill roll. No combat superiority dice please, because rogues aren't good at fighting. They are good at cheating when they fight.

Assassin: Take the 3e sneak attack ability away from the rogue. The assassin, not the rogue, should be the best at sneaking around and killing. A rogue should be best at sneaking and thieving instead. The only reason rogues can fight is because they cheat, not because they are skilled killers like the assassin. No combat superiority dice though because they don't outfight their victims, they surprise them. Could work as a speciality of rogue, which may happen.

Ranger: No idea. But make sure it has to do with archery and do not bring back favoured enemies. Probably better as a skilled speciality of the fighter, but that's not going to happen.

Paladin: Smites and divine powers instead of combat superiority please. Sure we've seen it before, but nobody seems to mind it. A fighter with the acolyte speciality is pretty much a paladin already, but I doubt if a paladin speciality for the fighter is likely.

Druid: First we have to decide if it is a Celtic priestly caste, an eco-terrorist, a speciality cleric of a nature god, or an anacrhonistic Wiccan. Then maybe we can decide what abilities it should have. I'd probably just subsume it as a cleric domain of nature and turn all the druid abilities into spells, but that's not going to happen.

Bard: Grants advantage rolls to everything. Easier to remember than discrete buffing bonuses. Should perhaps be a speciality that any class can take since the only thing the class is really about is buffing and singing... but that's probably not going to happen.

 

[fba827]

Rampant Speculation (with no real basis in reality at all)...

Ranger: Will be similar to Fighters but with those combat dice advancing at a slower rate AND they'll have the ability to use combat dice to cast nature-y spells rather than affect their damage inflicted or attack precision. And maybe they get advantage on certain survival-related skill checks or an animal companion.

Paladin, similar to what I just said for ranger except replace nature-y spells with divine ones. and instead of advantage on survival-related skill checks they get a holy smite type capability usable a number of times per day that increases at a staggered rate per level... and a noble steed named Donkey that speaks with the voice of Eddie Murphy.

Bard with get rituals similar to how the warlock does

Druid a very nature-y spell list of it's own (complete withe summon animal, and summon elemental spells). and a beefed up animal companion. and after a certain level they don't age. And they will use a spellpoint system so as to make them more distinct from just being a nature cleric.


anyway, again, that's all just very rampant guessing...

 

[pemerton]

I have a soft spot for paladins. The warpriest seems to be covering a lot of that territory, though.

Maybe the paladin could play a bit like the warlock, but spending favours on Smites and Lay on Hands, and recovering favours through a short prayer. Maybe Lay on Hands could involve sharing hit dice - this is a nice feature of it in 4e, I think.

I also like the idea that the paladin gets better when surrounded by enemies, or when rescuing his/her allies from disaster. It's a little hard to do that without metagaming/"dissociating" it, but maybe the paladin gets a bonus to hit when engaged with multiple foes (like 4e's valiant strike). Maybe a paladin can spend his/her hit dice a bit like a fighter's combat dice, but only on certain defensive/self-sacrificial manoeuvres.

 

[Raith5]

Rogue: Ability (Skill) checks during combat. Acrobatics to tumble, pick pockets to disarm, stealth to sneak attack etc. Link special damage to a successful skill roll. No combat superiority dice please, because rogues aren't good at fighting. They are good at cheating when they fight.

Assassin: Take the 3e sneak attack ability away from the rogue. The assassin, not the rogue, should be the best at sneaking around and killing. A rogue should be best at sneaking and thieving instead. The only reason rogues can fight is because they cheat, not because they are skilled killers like the assassin. No combat superiority dice though because they don't outfight their victims, they surprise them. Could work as a speciality of rogue, which may happen..

I agree with this. Assassin could/should be a scheme though. But yes rouges should be able to inflict conditions with sneaky targeted strikes and assassins should inflict be better at bigger damage. I also like to see assassin abilities tied to to use of poison.

 

[Badapple]

I'd like to see each class have unique mechanics and schticks. In that vein, I'd like to see combat superiority remain exclusively to fighters.

For barbarian, I'd like to see something along the lines of how warriors work in WoW. For example every time a barbarian hits with a basic attack they get a rage point. If at some point in the round they are hit for damage by an enemy they get a rage point. They have various attacks that get unlocked as they level up that use rage points. As they level they start generating rage on a miss, carry rage over from fight to fight, or begin the fight with a rage point or two depending on what feats they take. Of course more powerful attacks cost more rage points.

Adds some tactical elements such as "should I do a regular attack this round to power up and be more powerful next round, or shoot my wad now and do a more powerful attack but lose all my stored rage points?"

And of course, the barbarian has more hit points but worse AC than the fighter.

I kind of hate the 3E and 4E barbarian that are essentially Incredible Hulks a couple times a day, and otherwise slightly worse fighters with more hitpoints.

 

[Raith5]

I'd like to see each class have unique mechanics and schticks. In that vein, I'd like to see combat superiority remain exclusively to fighters.

For barbarian, I'd like to see something along the lines of how warriors work in WoW. For example every time a barbarian hits with a basic attack they get a rage point. If at some point in the round they are hit for damage by an enemy they get a rage point. They have various attacks that get unlocked as they level up that use rage points. As they level they start generating rage on a miss, carry rage over from fight to fight, or begin the fight with a rage point or two depending on what feats they take. Of course more powerful attacks cost more rage points.

Adds some tactical elements such as "should I do a regular attack this round to power up and be more powerful next round, or shoot my wad now and do a more powerful attack but lose all my stored rage points?"

And of course, the barbarian has more hit points but worse AC than the fighter.

I kind of hate the 3E and 4E barbarian that are essentially Incredible Hulks a couple times a day, and otherwise slightly worse fighters with more hitpoints.

I like this idea for feeding rages if it could be done in a way that is not too fiddly. It is new mechanic that gives the class a distinctive feel. I also like whirlwind rend type of abilities and nature skills.

I quite liked 4th ed Barbarian's primal and elemental attacks FWIW, but I think they were out of place with what I think of a barbarian as a more mundane class. Maybe those dramatic 4th ed primal abilities should be a specialty or another class entirely.

 

[1of3]

For barbarian, I'd like to see something along the lines of how warriors work in WoW. For example every time a barbarian hits with a basic attack they get a rage point. If at some point in the round they are hit for damage by an enemy they get a rage point.[...]

I like it. Treating the barbarian as a character who wants to get hurt is an interesting concept.

Another thing to consider is how supernatural the barbarian shall be. There have been various takes, some more magical than others. I propose that players should be able to select the supernatural-ness for their barbarians as they like.

I imagine totems as a flavorful way to achieve that. Totems would grant certain abilities, like a spider offers good climbing, orca offers great seamanship, hare makes you run faster and so on. With this system, totems of magical beasts could grant visibly supernatural abilities. There should also be a "Don't bother me with (further) totems" choice. Call it Venerate the Ancestors and offer a generic bonus.

 

[MoonSong]

Rogue: Ability (Skill) checks during combat. Acrobatics to tumble, pick pockets to disarm, stealth to sneak attack etc. Link special damage to a successful skill roll. No combat superiority dice please, because rogues aren't good at fighting. They are good at cheating when they fight.

Assassin: Take the 3e sneak attack ability away from the rogue. The assassin, not the rogue, should be the best at sneaking around and killing. A rogue should be best at sneaking and thieving instead. The only reason rogues can fight is because they cheat, not because they are skilled killers like the assassin. No combat superiority dice though because they don't outfight their victims, they surprise them. Could work as a speciality of rogue, which may happen.

Ranger: No idea. But make sure it has to do with archery and do not bring back favoured enemies. Probably better as a skilled speciality of the fighter, but that's not going to happen.

Paladin: Smites and divine powers instead of combat superiority please. Sure we've seen it before, but nobody seems to mind it. A fighter with the acolyte speciality is pretty much a paladin already, but I doubt if a paladin speciality for the fighter is likely.

Druid: First we have to decide if it is a Celtic priestly caste, an eco-terrorist, a speciality cleric of a nature god, or an anacrhonistic Wiccan. Then maybe we can decide what abilities it should have. I'd probably just subsume it as a cleric domain of nature and turn all the druid abilities into spells, but that's not going to happen.

Bard: Grants advantage rolls to everything. Easier to remember than discrete buffing bonuses. Should perhaps be a speciality that any class can take since the only thing the class is really about is buffing and singing... but that's probably not going to happen.

You could have saved time by saying you simply don't want those as classes, but I guess to each their own.

Bard: It should be awesome, like the 4e bard but feeling truly musical and able to hold a rapier. Bards should have access to songs/performances as small at-will effects or encounter-like effects (song of courage, song of rest, etc), we will also need perform skills for bards to feel truly like bards (no more musical instruments that are glorified fluff or sub optimal implements, a bard with a lute has to be and feel awesome, magical musical instruments should allow others to emulate what a bard can do by hismself). Bards truly have to shine in the social pillar, if a warlock or rogue consistently outshines a bard on social interactions, then something is very wrong. Bards will also need some kind of scalable class feature that affects the way they spellcast or if they spellcast at all, in that way we get the Arcane dabbler bard (preppared vancian spellcaster), the skald (no spellcasting, but some martial maneuvers instead), the celtic bard (more similar to the druid), and the visceral caster from 3.x (non vancian).

will post later my ideas on the paladin and the ranger.

 

[ferratus]

You could have saved time by saying you simply don't want those as classes, but I guess to each their own.

I think I'll start a new thread about that.