D&D General Do you have a class that you don't play?

[Lanefan]

i mean...not really. if you receive a bless spell, you get a 1d4 to attacks and saves for 1 minute or until concentration is lost. you only really have control of that insofar as you can choose not to gain the 1d4, but like...why would you do that? and most buffs don't even let you ignore them.

That it ties up the caster in having to concentrate on maintaining the buff is bad, IMO. I far prefer all such spells to be fire and forget, with a set duration.

That said, even if the caster has to concentrate on maintaining it the recipient, while under the effects of the buff, still gets to choose whether to attack or cast or flee or fire missiles or try to negotiate or whatever - their own action options and timing aren't impacted.

in the sense that it's instant instead of having a duration, sure, but this just sort of feels like a nonissue to me in part because at every table i've been at, the warlord type asks ooc if someone wants the buff before giving it.

No way would I allow that unless that communication could happen in-character, which very often it can't; even less so if the speaker(s) don't want the enemy to understand what's being said and react accordingly, and even less less so if the speaker and listener don't have any languages in common (which happens often round here).

if i can see and hear the area of the ally im yelling at then where is the fog of war?

Seeing an area is often but not always easy, hearing it is not. Combat is noisy, and the enemies are often shouting and yelling too.

also, the fact you find it a dubious proposition to begin with was my point - it's strange for it to be something anyone can just do, but justifiable as an acquired and practiced skill. like a class feature.

If I were ever to introduce anything like this I'd probably (in 5e terms) make it a feat that anyone can take at-after a certain level. That way you have to spend a feat on it - that's the cost - but it's not just restricted to one class.

That said, my concern would be that any sort of action transfer would be wide open for abuse even if restricted to adjacent characters. Easy example off the cuff: a high-level Fighter hires two henches who have exactly one job: to stand to the boss' behind-left and behind-right whenever the boss gets into melee, go full defense, and each round transfer their actions to the boss. Boss suddenly gets two more attacks per round, which is far more effective than the two henches each using their actions to themselves attack.

 

[Seramus]

I generally don't play autoattack classes like Fighter, Barbarian, Monk, etc.
I have played them, but they are always below spellcasters on the list.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

That it ties up the caster in having to concentrate on maintaining the buff is bad, IMO. I far prefer all such spells to be fire and forget, with a set duration.

i...sort of agree? i definitely think concentration is massively overused in 5e. same with attunement.

That said, even if the caster has to concentrate on maintaining it the recipient, while under the effects of the buff, still gets to choose whether to attack or cast or flee or fire missiles or try to negotiate or whatever - their own action options and timing aren't impacted.

it is still a pressure to do certain actions in a certain time frame.

No way would I allow that unless that communication could happen in-character, which very often it can't; even less so if the speaker(s) don't want the enemy to understand what's being said and react accordingly, and even less less so if the speaker and listener don't have any languages in common (which happens often round here).

then back to what i said - congratulations, you played yourself. you are creating the very issue that concerns you.

that said, if you're really that unwilling to compromise on that and your players really hate the idea of being allowed to make another attack that much, then i suppose the only real solution IS to not have anyone play the class.

 

[Maxperson]

Warlock. I won’t ever play it. Not even to take a level.

It should never have been added it the game. It’s very existence is an abhorrent mistake.

Why? Why is it bad wrong fun for everyone else?

 

[Alzrius]

With regard to Pathfinder 1E, it's most* of the "occult" classes. I just prefer psionics to the occult classes, which certainly tried to carve out their own niches that were different from psionics, but still seem to skew towards psionics enough that I'd just prefer to use that and not something that feels like they were afraid to move too far away from Vancian casting.

*the kineticist notwithstanding.

 

[TheSword]

Why? Why is it bad wrong fun for everyone else?

Because its creation spawned a whole class of complaints around the per encounter powers. “It isn’t fair on Warlocks” or the opposite “warlocks get it why can other classes”. It also broke a load of things that are otherwise fine were it not for per encounter powers, Eldritch blast and familiars etc.

Just my opinion though, no one’s gonna take your Warlock away.

 

[DammitVictor]

With regard to Pathfinder 1E, it's most* of the "occult" classes. I just prefer psionics to the occult classes, which certainly tried to carve out their own niches that were different from psionics, but still seem to skew towards psionics enough that I'd just prefer to use that and not something that feels like they were afraid to move too far away from Vancian casting.

*the kineticist notwithstanding.

One of the good things about 5e (IMO) is the spellcasting system, the way it combines spell slots with the 3.X XPH idea that the power of a spell depends on the amount of power put into it. I also think 5e's spell slots are way more elegant than most psionic powers having multiple A: options with different point values. If I was going to do a spell points system, I'd do something similar to the one in Player's Option: Spells & Magic, where the same level of spell slot can have different spell point values based on how well the caster knows it.

I actually like the flavor of Paizo's psychic magic better than XPH/DSP psionics, but I like DSP's classes and class design better. I low-key don't like how 3.X psionics tried to cover all of arcane magic's bases with all of the evocation energy types and construct "summoning", but I also wish Paizo's Psychic had more access to more fire/lightning/sonic spells, even if they don't get the mainline ones like fireball.

 

[Maxperson]

The source of their power is just fluff. You could easily have a sorcerer who gained magic from a bargain or indeed a wizard.

No you can't. Not without changing the lore of those classes. Wizards learn from books, not bargains. Sorcerers have innate ability, not ability born of bargains. Re-fluffing works for a lot of people, but doesn't work for a lot more.

I just don’t like anything about the class. Not the warlock specific spells, or the encounter based key class ability. It’s either overpowered or underpowered and it causes loads of arguments for other classes when looking at encounter balance and encounters per day.

And that's cool. You don't have to like the class, but a lot of others do. It's not bad wrong fun for warlocks to exist and for them to enjoy the class.

I've never been able to stand bards. I don't play them at all. That's not a reason for me to declare it bad wrong fun for everyone else and call the class a mistake that should never have existed.

 

[Maxperson]

Because its creation spawned a whole class of complaints around the per encounter powers. “It isn’t fair on Warlocks” or the opposite “warlocks get it why can other classes”. It also broke a load of things that are otherwise fine were it not for per encounter powers, Eldritch blast and familiars etc.

Just my opinion though, no one’s gonna take your Warlock away.

I don't think I've played one in 5e and if it went away I wouldn't lose any sleep. That said, nothing you've yet expressed makes it bad wrong fun for anyone other than you.

 

[DammitVictor]

Because its creation spawned a whole class of complaints around the per encounter powers. “It isn’t fair on Warlocks” or the opposite “warlocks get it why can other classes”. It also broke a load of things that are otherwise fine were it not for per encounter powers, Eldritch blast and familiars etc.

I think codifying AEDU, and making it so that every character/class had AEDU, was one of the best innovations in 4e.

Only real mistake is abandoning the principle, going back to OD&D, that different classes had different amounts of AEDU and had to shape their playstyles accordingly. 4e in play isn't as samey as it looks on paper, because of how the classes are designed... but it still would have been better if Fighters and Warlocks were almost all A and Wizards were almost all D, and there were classes that focused on A and E and D in their own specific proportions.

It was an incredibly tight design, and that was a lot of the problem; a lot of D&D's texture before (and after) 4e came from the tension between classes that needed to conserve resources and rest, and classes that need to press ahead.