Cultural trappings

[Celebrim]

Ive, always liked the idea of giving the fighter heavy armor or an exotic weapon.

I've never really seen armor proficiency as a major advantage. Every base class basically recieves all the amor proficiencies that they can realistically use, and the heavy armor classes are by no means required to make the heavy armor choice and often it isn't in there best interest to do so. Heavy armor comes with signficant drawbacks. With the sort of tradeoff you describe, I see it as a significant boost in the power of fighters not wearing heavy armor with no benefit to those that do. Since you can already make a viable fighter wearing lighter armor and many deliberately choose to do so, I don't see this as something that enhances.

Before this sort of feature becomes balanced, the class must be giving up something significant from its default class features.

You also have to make sure that you change the rules such that you don't gain new weapon proficiencies or armor proficiencies merely by multiclassing. Otherwise, players that plan to multiclass can essentially by advantages in the long run for free.

 

[Sylrae]

I agree in theory, but I brainstormed about alternate Rage powers for a while and the problem is making an interesting mechanic that also has good flavor. When it comes to combat, there isn't really alot of good ideas that can't be encompassed by 'Anger'. The Dwarven Defender has a stance best described as 'Stubborn', but its almost strictly inferior to rage. I thought about making a 'Hatred' stance, but I couldn't think of anything as elegant and evocative as the Rage strength boost. I've seen a 'Fear' stance which was designed to be comical, and succeeded, but it's not really something I want to make an option in anything but a deliberately silly setting (like 'Discworld'). So, while in theory alternate stances sould like a good idea, in practice a set of interesting flavors and matching mechanics is hard to come up with. My personal feeling is that 'Rage' can just be reflavored for any other sort of intence dislike which provokes combat excellence.

I've seen a few warrior types with different stances, which were pretty cool.

In the Witcher, you have three stances. Strong, Fast, and Group. Strong is kindof like Rage. Fast, you attack faster. Say you get an extra attack at some kind of extra penalty instead of a strength bonus. Group lets you hit multiple opponents at once, but youre doing less damage.

World of Warcraft has stances too and they might work for ideas. The Defensive stance makes you tougher, and taking damage ups your rage meter (Warrior Mana, which goes down with time instead of up). Battle-Stance is the 'balanced one' and your Rage goes up from taking AND dealing damage, but at slower rates. Fury raises rage when the user does damage.

Those sorts of things could make stances. Not all the stances have to have the same effect as rage, you just want to have them have a similar mechanic. At least that would be my approach.

 

[Sadrik]

I've seen a few warrior types with different stances, which were pretty cool.

In the Witcher, you have three stances. Strong, Fast, and Group. Strong is kindof like Rage. Fast, you attack faster. Say you get an extra attack at some kind of extra penalty instead of a strength bonus. Group lets you hit multiple opponents at once, but youre doing less damage.

World of Warcraft has stances too and they might work for ideas. The Defensive stance makes you tougher, and taking damage ups your rage meter (Warrior Mana, which goes down with time instead of up). Battle-Stance is the 'balanced one' and your Rage goes up from taking AND dealing damage, but at slower rates. Fury raises rage when the user does damage.

Those sorts of things could make stances. Not all the stances have to have the same effect as rage, you just want to have them have a similar mechanic. At least that would be my approach.

How about these three options?

Frenzy
1st +4 Strength, +2 Dodge bonus to AC and Reflex saves, An extra attack (but -2 to all attacks)
11th +6 Strength and +3 Dodge
14th Evasion while in a frenzy instead of Indomitable Will
20th +8 and +4

Frenzy could represent whirling dervishes, blade dancers, fanatical patrons etc.

Rage
1st +4 Strength and +4 Constitution, +2 Morale bonus to Will saves, -2 to AC
11th +6 Strength and +6 Constitution
14th Indomitable Will
20th +8 and +8

Rage could represent your standard, berserker, frothing lunatic or just all around savage mentality.

Defense
1st DR 2/- and +4 Constitution, +2 Dodge bonus to AC and Reflex saves, +2 Morale bonus to Will saves
11th DR 3/- and +6 Constitution
14th Indomitable Will
20th DR 4/- and +8

Defense could represent stalwart training, legionaries, super heavy armored and armed warriors.

 

[Sadrik]

the heavy armor classes are by no means required to make the heavy armor choice and often it isn't in there best interest to do so.

I agree, but the one thing that removing heavy armor does is give medium armors a little bit more play. In the games I have played in medium armor only ever came into play when the fighter type could not afford heavy at 1st (which was usually remedied by level 2) or there was suit of mithral medium armor so they could use it like light armor (move full speed).

Before this sort of feature becomes balanced, the class must be giving up something significant from its default class features.

Well all it really is doing is swapping one of its bonus feats for another bonus feat I really don't see a problem here.

You also have to make sure that you change the rules such that you don't gain new weapon proficiencies or armor proficiencies merely by multiclassing. Otherwise, players that plan to multiclass can essentially by advantages in the long run for free.

Yes I see what you mean, level 1 paladin dips into fighter so he can get a free exotic weapon feat + bonus fighter feat. Hm, how to resolve?

 

[garrowolf]

classes

I have a different d20 system that I created. One of the things that I did was that I have culturally neutral classes. I have a fighter class, a martial artist class, a scholar class, and a scout class to name a few. If you give Transmutation powers to a scout you have a Ranger. If you give Transmutation to a Scholar then you have a Druid. If you give Life powers to a Fighter you have a Paladin. If you give Sorcery to a Martial Artist then you have a Wujen. If you give Academics skill (Lore) to a Scout you have a realistic Bard. etc.

Take any of the base classes and mix them with a power and you have a huge number of classes. Your choices in skills and feats adds even more.

check it out!
Nexus D20 Wiki

 

[Sadrik]

Bard: Literally a Jack of all trades, allowing them to be fighter, rogue, cleric and wizard. It would really require an entire rewrite of the class. The general idea though, I can do everything. I want to make strumming a lute an option but not the definition.
What is a bard's archetype? Let's break it down.
A sage
A warrior
A rogue
A swashbuckler
A gallant
An entertainer
A leader

Did I miss anything? Heavy emphasis is placed on the entertainer portion but broadening them and allowing them to express in different ways through selectable class features might be the best way to do this.

 

[shadow]

The Cleric

Actually, IMHO, the biggest offender BY FAR is the cleric. Spellcasting clerics are found only in D&D and D&D-inspired fantasy settings. The class almost requires and active polytheistic pantheon of dieties that dole out powers to their followers. Also, it assumes that the setting has a militant religious order.

Yes, you can have clerics who believe in a "philosophy" as per 3e rules. However, this is still tying into the religious theme (albeit a little more obfuscated). I would rather have a more generic spell casting class that is not required to be tied to a religion or philosophy.

One other thing that has bothered me about the cleric class is the fact that it requires the setting to have two "flavors" of magic -arcane and divine. (Another heavily D&D inspired cultural trapping.) Why can't arcane magic heal? Why should a setting assume that there is this dicotomy? Also, why are clerics allowed to wear heavy armor and carry weapons, while the "other type" of spellcasters (wizards and sorcerers) have almost no proficiency with weapons or armor?

I know that the cleric class has always been somewhat of a "sacred cow" for D&D, but it has always bothered me for the assumptions that it forces on your setting.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Actually, IMHO, the biggest offender BY FAR is the cleric. Spellcasting clerics are found only in D&D and D&D-inspired fantasy settings. The class almost requires and active polytheistic pantheon of dieties that dole out powers to their followers. Also, it assumes that the setting has a militant religious order.

Yes, you can have clerics who believe in a "philosophy" as per 3e rules. However, this is still tying into the religious theme (albeit a little more obfuscated). I would rather have a more generic spell casting class that is not required to be tied to a religion or philosophy.

Indeed. I might've even hinted at this already, but that's quite OK.

Why can't arcane magic heal?

Actually, it can.* But I do know what you mean, of course. And yes, again, I agree.


* Even then, that's perhaps more damning than anything else. In other words, if that arcane magic can heal, why can't. . .

 

[Celebrim]

Actually, IMHO, the biggest offender BY FAR is the cleric. Spellcasting clerics are found only in D&D and D&D-inspired fantasy settings.

I disagree, but to the same extent you could make that argument, you could also argue that magic entirely without a religious component is found only in D&D and D&D inspired settings. The vast majority of magical systems in history have involved invoking the power of some sort of god, even if that god was a bit smaller of a god than the word has come to mean for us. The notion of natural magic without religious or spiritual component is very modern.

The assumption that the arcane does not have anything to do with the divine makes the same sort of forcing assumptions about Wizards that it makes about Clerics, only in general, the people that complain about it are perfectly happy to not have all their Wizards be witch doctors and wizard-priests.

The class almost requires and active polytheistic pantheon of dieties that dole out powers to their followers.

No it doesn't. The primary inspirations for the Cleric came out of a monotheistic tradition, which is precisely why - other than for reasons of game balance - D&D has an arcane/divine split. If you look at the list of 1e Clerical spells - create food and water, part water, raise dead, remove disease, insect plague, sticks to snakes, flamestrike, etc. - it is not coincidently almost entirely a description of miracles recounted in the Bible. Moreover, the flavor of the Cleric as armored warrior is taken primarily from the Song of Roland, right down to the original prescription that the Cleric not used edged weapons.

Also, it assumes that the setting has a militant religious order.

Yes, this it assumes. But it can be assumed that if the setting doesn't have militant religious orders, it probably also doesn't have adventuring clerics.

I would rather have a more generic spell casting class that is not required to be tied to a religion or philosophy.

In other words, you'd like to have a spell casting class primarily inspired by the D&D Wizard.

Why can't arcane magic heal? Why should a setting assume that there is this dicotomy? Also, why are clerics allowed to wear heavy armor and carry weapons, while the "other type" of spellcasters (wizards and sorcerers) have almost no proficiency with weapons or armor?

Most of these questions can simply be answered with 'game balance'. Initially, spellcasters dominated the game. The solution that was adopted was to make spellcaster heavily restricted in various ways.

 

[shadow]

No it doesn't. The primary inspirations for the Cleric came out of a monotheistic tradition...

Admittedly, some of the flavor of the cleric class as written came from Christianity, but the way the class works is very different from either Jew or Christian traditions. For example, while their are stories in the Bible of prophets performing miracles, they are treated as, well, miracles. Miracles were meant to be signs of God's power, not a daily allotment of spells that could be cast anyway and at anytime the cleric felt like.

Also, the DMG states flatly that "polytheism is the default assumption of the D&D" game. This does not mean that other systems are not possible (Deities and Demigods presented monotheism, dualism, and pantheism), but the RAW seem to lean very heavily to a polytheistic pantheon.

Finally, the heavy armor and fighting features of the class, as stated previously, are obviously inspired by The Song of Roland. This always struck me as rather odd - here we have a class that mixes miracles from the Bible, the religious warrior tradition of The Song of Roland, and often a number of gods inspired by Greco-Roman mythology.