Classes: In and Out?
- Thread starter Howndawg
- Start date
Destil
Explorer
This actually strikes me as odd, as elsewhere they have said that Vancean magic would only bey about 20% of a wizard's power. Why devote such a huge chunk of the book to something so minor? I love the current magic system, but I'd rather see it ditched than burn up disproportional space like that...Glyfair said:
Somehow those two numbers just don't add up.
Mighty Veil
First Post
Should be interesting to see what they give us for classes. That's a big thing that I find directly gives each edition its feel.
I would rather they drop PrCs. If kept, then they'd be a 5 levels type class. The class tree idea, like in SWSE, could be neat. Yes within a month there will be 1000 new tree classes out there thanks to Dragon online and D20 publishers.
Which classes would I like to see. I have to ask that to myself. Not sure really. Not yet.
I would like more archtype feel. Monk and Bard would be a type of traveler class. Not from around here type of deal. Not the anime warrior and lute playing idiot.
I like the idea of cleric over priest. Paladin its own class, though I'd like a return to its roots. Let the cleric be the holy warrior, crusader, the adventuring priest (Friar Tuck), holy mage and prophet (Moses) again. Paladin is a hero. And in medieval fantasy, that means a knight. I think I'd like to see a paladin be built more for fighting the big monsters, like dragons, devils, liches. I've never been a druid guy. But I would expect lots of people being upset to see it become a tree class of cleric.
Keep barbarian, fighter, ranger, rogue (or thief even). I do miss the assassin. Keep wizard and call it wizard. It would be a perfect class for specialist wizards. I would like to see them DO AWAY with the 8 schools and just have "x" number of tree for all the popular archtypes, like an enchanter (beguiler), necromancer, warlock. Not sure why a sorcerer might be needed if they update the magic system, but I suppose one of the two arcane would have tougher magic while the other has many more lesser magics.
I like the marshal from MHB. Add me in hoping the warlord is the next generation of it.
I would rather they drop PrCs. If kept, then they'd be a 5 levels type class. The class tree idea, like in SWSE, could be neat. Yes within a month there will be 1000 new tree classes out there thanks to Dragon online and D20 publishers.
Which classes would I like to see. I have to ask that to myself. Not sure really. Not yet.
I would like more archtype feel. Monk and Bard would be a type of traveler class. Not from around here type of deal. Not the anime warrior and lute playing idiot.
I like the idea of cleric over priest. Paladin its own class, though I'd like a return to its roots. Let the cleric be the holy warrior, crusader, the adventuring priest (Friar Tuck), holy mage and prophet (Moses) again. Paladin is a hero. And in medieval fantasy, that means a knight. I think I'd like to see a paladin be built more for fighting the big monsters, like dragons, devils, liches. I've never been a druid guy. But I would expect lots of people being upset to see it become a tree class of cleric.
Keep barbarian, fighter, ranger, rogue (or thief even). I do miss the assassin. Keep wizard and call it wizard. It would be a perfect class for specialist wizards. I would like to see them DO AWAY with the 8 schools and just have "x" number of tree for all the popular archtypes, like an enchanter (beguiler), necromancer, warlock. Not sure why a sorcerer might be needed if they update the magic system, but I suppose one of the two arcane would have tougher magic while the other has many more lesser magics.
I like the marshal from MHB. Add me in hoping the warlord is the next generation of it.
Alnag
First Post
So I was listening to acutal interview with James Wyatt on YouTube and he speaks about 4 types of classes and two classes in each. (I am not a native speaker so it was not so easy to understand fully, so you should listen it if you hear it differently).
But here it is...types are:
defenders (fighter, paladin)
leaders (cleric, warlord)
strikers (ranger, rogue)
controlers (wizard, ...)
i guess, the last one is rogue, but he was not mentioned. Also the druid was mentioned but not by Wyatt. So I don't know for sure, but this might correspond with the other info elsewhere. It also coresponds with classical fighter, cleric, wizard, rogue paradigm just doubled. Hope it will help... sorry for my poor english.
But here it is...types are:
defenders (fighter, paladin)
leaders (cleric, warlord)
strikers (ranger, rogue)
controlers (wizard, ...)
i guess, the last one is rogue, but he was not mentioned. Also the druid was mentioned but not by Wyatt. So I don't know for sure, but this might correspond with the other info elsewhere. It also coresponds with classical fighter, cleric, wizard, rogue paradigm just doubled. Hope it will help... sorry for my poor english.
Olgar Shiverstone
Legend
Yeah, I was just about to jump in and point out the GamerZero interview with James on Youtube. Interesting discussion of roles -- it will be neat to see how these translate into reality.
In my opinion, defined roles for each character is one way to play. There is another -- where each character shares a bit of a role and can play it at a given point in time, but might switch roles in another encounter. I tyhink you see this more with many multi-classed characters, or so-called "second-liners" like the bard. I suspect the talent/feat approaches will allow this second type of play ... for example, hopefully you can take feats that allow your fighter to play the "striker" role.
In my opinion, defined roles for each character is one way to play. There is another -- where each character shares a bit of a role and can play it at a given point in time, but might switch roles in another encounter. I tyhink you see this more with many multi-classed characters, or so-called "second-liners" like the bard. I suspect the talent/feat approaches will allow this second type of play ... for example, hopefully you can take feats that allow your fighter to play the "striker" role.
I have a distinct feeling there will be 6 core classes based on their primary ability scores because that is a nice concept to new players to grasp.
Str = Fighter
Dex = Rogue
Con =Barb
Int= Wizard
Wis= Cleric
Cha =Sorc
The other classes may be “named” talent trees or a PRC like class. They may make a Druid a Cleric Talent tree, a Paladin a Fighter talent tree and Ranger a Rogue Talent tree.
Of course this is wild speculation but it been something I have been thinking about for a while.
-Netnomad
Str = Fighter
Dex = Rogue
Con =Barb
Int= Wizard
Wis= Cleric
Cha =Sorc
The other classes may be “named” talent trees or a PRC like class. They may make a Druid a Cleric Talent tree, a Paladin a Fighter talent tree and Ranger a Rogue Talent tree.
Of course this is wild speculation but it been something I have been thinking about for a while.
-Netnomad
