Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pour" data-source="post: 5242737" data-attributes="member: 59411">This doesn't really have anything to do with ditching classes, unless you feel the departure from the trinity is the death of classes as we know them. I simply wanted to start a discussion on how Guild Wars 2 design philosophy could be applied to future Essentials material, maybe an evolution of class roles and variants of classes.I mean their ideas on distilling what it means to be a healer alone holds exciting prospects for future clerics, maybe even class roles in general. Instead of spamming heals, which is just like spending turn after turn on healing powers, deprives a player of their freedom of choice, or at least makes for a static existence. I know WotC tried to counteract this by making healing word a minor, and by giving heals some combat and ranged damage, but I'd like to see them take it further. Heck, the Warlord class also felt like an attempt to pull away from the classic healing trope, to try and redefine what it meant to support and buff.Arenanet is looking to expand the notion of healing from reactive to proactive, and do away with most of the classical 'heal 1d6+4 hp'. They seem more of a mind preventing or diverting attacks and damage, or countering them entirely with powers. Imagine a cleric without healing word, who only has 1 daily classic heal. How is he going to lead and support a group? Well, pretend now he's an evolution of the Essential's Storm Warpriest, but instead of the dreaded power points or rigid class features, he can use his actual powers to effect terrain or counteract certain attacks. Maybe a rain power dilutes ongoing acid damage, or douses a burning area. Their presentation of the warrior profession, controlling the battlefield not by any sort of influence on the terrain or enemies, but as a sort of hyper-defender who manages how attacks gets through if they do at all (I think best illustrated when he leaps to intercept an arrow, in essence providing a living damage shield and preempting the need for classical healing). In the case of a wizard, he may be able to summon forth a hurricane wind to deflect projectiles. I'm not saying I know how it could be implemented, but I do know every class, in one of their many iterations, could be made to share the support load. And I hardly think it would step on anyone's toes, but rather inspire some really exciting new party makeups.The idea these characters who share in support or diverge from classic tropes will fall into one of two inevitable categories doesn't strike me as believable. There could be dangers of abuse with a poor design, but the design goal wouldn't be self-sufficiency or a watering down of role, rather new ways of fulfilling the traditional roles, or perhaps new roles entirely. And the way Guild Wars 2 actually promotes cross-profession moves is entirely counter to the fears above. How wonderful it would be to for future classes to be able to combine or supplement their powers with other classes' powers. To some extent, that can be achieved with some DM finesse, but I'm sure a set of classes with more interconnected parts would be worth the design.I think Arenanet's work really challenges designers to step back and begin identifying the fundamentals of given classes and class roles. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see future classes changing roles entirely, and having leader and controller fighters or wizards. There's already been some speculation of such in other threads.Understandably, D&D is about levels and team work, but I can't understand how any of this design work or potential threatens either of them.</blockquote>

Verification