Helper Classes

At Wizards one year, I gave a short lecture to the RPG R&D crew about why clerics are impossible to balance. Since most of their power (healing) helps other characters, it’s power that doesn’t feel cool. To help the cleric feel cool, it needs a double-helping of power, and that’s what we gave it. In theory, one way to balance the cleric is to re-write every class so that a good deal of its...

At Wizards one year, I gave a short lecture to the RPG R&D crew about why clerics are impossible to balance. Since most of their power (healing) helps other characters, it’s power that doesn’t feel cool. To help the cleric feel cool, it needs a double-helping of power, and that’s what we gave it. In theory, one way to balance the cleric is to re-write every class so that a good deal of its power comes from helping other characters in the party. Druids and bards have “helper” abilities, and we discussed giving such abilities to all classes. For example, some folks talked about taking away the 5-foot step as a general rule and re-writing the fighter so that one of the class’s abilities was to allow party members to take 5-foot steps. That was too big change for the system and for fighters, and what actually came out of these conversations was a number of new “helper classes.” The D&D Miniatures Handbook included the healer and the marshal, the 13th Age system included the occultist, and 13th Age Glorantha included the trickster.

old page 90(1) copy.jpg

The healer in the Miniatures Handbook was sort of like a cleric but even more focused on healing. Over previous decades, I had seen players occasionally create pacifist characters, and a healer class of one sort of another has appeared here and there. It’s a natural enough concept. Unfortunately, it’s a hard concept to get right. The healers from the fantasy world Glorantha, for example, are duty bound to try to protect even enemies from being killed. If a self-righteous paladin in a party can be at odds with the other characters, try a pacifist who tries to keep party members from killing their foes. When Rob Heinsoo and I later wrote 13th Age Glorantha, we balked at writing up a playable healer because the canonical healers in the setting don’t “play nice” with others—ironically because they play too nice with the enemy. As for the healer class in the Miniatures Handbook, it never got a lot of play and didn’t prove popular enough to recur in later iterations of the game.

The marshal was a non-supernatural class that had bard-like abilities to improve other characters’ performances in combat. Mostly, they provided specific buffs to party members, which represented the practical guidance they provided in the heat of battle. There was a lose fit between what the marshal was doing in the game world (barking out orders) and the magic-like bonuses in the game system. In design terms, it represented sort of a Magic: The Gathering approach, in which simple, useful mechanics evoke what’s happening in the game world rather than strictly simulating it. Years later, 4E would double down on the evocative and game-oriented approach instead of 3E’s simulations esthetic. Unlike the healer, the marshal was popular, and similar classes would appear later in the development of D&D classes.

For 13th Age, Rob Heinsoo did most of the classes, but I wrote up the occultist, one of the game’s first all-new classes. The occultist was my attempt to create the equivalent of a cleric, and in particular one that would feel more powerful in play without actually being more powerful. In combat, the occultist mostly observes the attacks made by the other characters and the attacks made against them. The occultist’s spells are instant actions that let another character reroll a missed attack, prevent damage from incoming attacks, or increase damage that their allies deal. In effect, preventing damage is “healing in advance,” but it feels gratifying to interrupt a monster’s attack to reduce damage to a friend. It’s proactive and even aggressive, while healing is more reactive. Likewise, helping a friend land a mighty blow is also a feel-good moment. The other player gets to feel more effective because it’s their character that’s dealing out more damage. The player running the occultist, meanwhile, also feels effective because the effect on play is more dramatic than after-the-fact healing. The occultist is ideal for the sort of player who loves to keep an eye on combat, to watch every turn, and to judge when to apply the right effort for the best effect. For the occultist, friends’ turns and enemies’ turns sort of feel like part of their own turn because the player is monitoring events and deciding when to intervene. Other players’ turns and monsters’ turns are more interesting when you have the option to instantly step in and alter the outcome. For an added touch of cool factor, the class description specifies that there is only one occultist. There are no occultist guilds or even higher-level occultists to make the occultist character feel unexceptional.

For 13th Age Glorantha, I wrote up another helper class: the trickster. As with the Gloranthan healer, the Gloranthan trickster has an iffy pedigree. The wild and unpredictable trickster character from the setting was an uneasy fit with the no-nonsense and gritty RuneQuest system that powered Gloranthan roleplaying. Andrew Finch tells a story of how the clever use of a trickster’s powers managed to defeat an entire temple of Chaotic cultists by tricking them into destroying themselves. The players at the table were geared up for a massive, running battle with the toughest enemies they’d ever fought, and on the enemies’ home territory. The trickster made all that planning and anticipation moot. No one else got to so much as make an attack roll. Thankfully, the trickster makes a better ally than the pacifist healer, and Rob and I were able to make a memorable, playable character that feels like no other class.

If the occultist is ideal for a player who likes to pay close attention, the trickster is good for a player who likes to mix things up and maybe get the snot beat out of them in the bargain. (Can you guess? I enjoy playing both classes.) As with a typical class, the trickster’s abilities work on the character’s turn, but as with the occultist these powers typically help the other characters. With powers such as the Dance of Blood and Slapstick, the trickster helps allies make extra attacks on enemies while provoking attacks from those same enemies on themselves. No one knows what’s going to happen when the trickster takes their turn. For me, the less I know about how my turn is going to end up, the more interesting the dice rolls are. Sometimes the trickster ends up just taking damage for nothing—hey, that’s a trickster for you! To balance the possibility of costly failure, these powers have big upsides when everything works out right.

The trickster’s standard, at-will melee attack deals no damage at all. In the game world, the trickster might be using a chicken carcass as a weapon, and how much damage would you expect that to deal? Instead of dealing damage, “feckless strike” curses the target with bad mojo, so the next time an ally strikes that foe, the ally deals a lot more damage than normal. In a sense, the trickster’s damage is delayed, waiting for an ally to hit that foe and apply the “damage” done earlier by the trickster. Again, the player with the trickster feels effective, and the other player is happy to deal more than normal damage.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Jonathan Tweet

Jonathan Tweet

D&D 3E, Over the Edge, Everway, Ars Magica, Omega World, Grandmother Fish

log in or register to remove this ad

CapnZapp

Legend
Of course it didn't, it wasn't a computer game after all. Certain mechanics don't translate well into PNP games. It did however clearly define class roles into a system that resembles the holy trinity.
Well, no.

When I say D&D has never attempted a WoW model, I am specifically thinking about:

The tank should not also be very good at dealing damage. D&D fighters have always adhered to the notion that fighters should be the best, well, fighters.

But to replicate the WoW trinity the damage should come from the damage dealers. The tank's job is instead to absorb/deflect/etc damage, as well as control monsters.

Now, D&D doesn't do forty man raids (and shouldn't) so the difference between a tank's and a DD's damage output needs to be pronounced.

Let's say we halve the damage output of a 5E fighter while doubling that of a Rogue. On the other hand, we give the fighter damage resistance and AC out the wazoo. And introduce actual aggro mechanics so the fighter doesn't have to just hope the DM decides his monster keeps attacking the clearly hardest target.

Then monsters should deal enough damage to make a healer or two absolutely mandatory. Only a tank will be able to absorb enough damage to survive until the next turn of the healer - a DPS class would crumble and die half way through the monster's turn.

4E felt nothing like WoW. Sure, it didn't feel much like 3E or 5E either, but overall it's still much more like D&D than WoW.
 

Mannahnin

Scion of Murgen (He/Him)
No one's saying 4E is like WoW. We're saying it had defined roles, and that they did the things you're talking about more than you seem to be aware of.

Strikers (like Rogues) definitely DID substantially more damage than Defenders (like Fighters), for example.

Defenders DID have better AC, substantially more HP, more healing surges, and access to DR powers.

And Defenders did indeed have mechanics to control/encourage monsters to keep attacking them instead of attacking the other characters. Marking was a thing, and individual powers were more dramatic. Come And Get It! was famously awesome, and still great even after WotC nerfed it.

Maybe we're just talking past each other and I don't understand what you meant by "close to replicating the role dynamic". 🤷‍♂️
 

Aldarc

Legend
The tank should not also be very good at dealing damage. D&D fighters have always adhered to the notion that fighters should be the best, well, fighters.
Keeping in mind that 2/3 of Warrior specializations in WoW are DPS and only one is a Tank. Also keep in mind that Blizzard also relaxed the amount of damage that a Tank spec could do because trying to level as a tank in PvE content could be a nightmare if you hit like a wet sponge. Honestly, it's probably easier now to level as a tank in WoW because you can gather a mob and tank them in less time than it would be for DPS to kill them all.
 

cbwjm

Seb-wejem
Keeping in mind that 2/3 of Warrior specializations in WoW are DPS and only one is a Tank. Also keep in mind that Blizzard also relaxed the amount of damage that a Tank spec could do because trying to level as a tank in PvE content could be a nightmare if you hit like a wet sponge. Honestly, it's probably easier now to level as a tank in WoW because you can gather a mob and tank them in less time than it would be for DPS to kill them all.
I remember the fun of the warrior's overpowered shield slam, it was a hilarious to play a warrior in PvP as you were nigh unstoppable. I remember getting ganged up on by three enemies and I still won, it was crazy, I believe they reined it back in. Been a while since I've played WoW, but it was definitely easy to wipe out mobs and complete quests as a tank last time I played.
 

CapnZapp

Legend
Keeping in mind that 2/3 of Warrior specializations in WoW are DPS and only one is a Tank. Also keep in mind that Blizzard also relaxed the amount of damage that a Tank spec could do because trying to level as a tank in PvE content could be a nightmare if you hit like a wet sponge. Honestly, it's probably easier now to level as a tank in WoW because you can gather a mob and tank them in less time than it would be for DPS to kill them all.
Absolutely.
 

Igor Mendonça

Explorer
@Jonathan Tweet is one of the most influential authors of the modern RPG is many ways. And he gis saying that "Rob Heinsoo did most of the classes" of 13th Age, so he is a RPG genius by proxy, because 13th Age is a work of (two) genius(es).

And it's funny, because when I saw the premise in the post ("Since most of their power (healing) helps other characters, it’s power that doesn’t feel cool"), my immediate answer would be 13th Age's Cleric.

One of the underrated innovations I saw in 13th Age was its class design. I say underrated, because what I see and read when people talk about 13th Age is mostly its Icon system and its rules light approach to D&D. Fine! These are really interesting. But there are other superb design insights there that at least myself didn't find people talking about.

In the book, they say the classes are different aiming complexity and new players. So the Barbarian is the simplest and straightforward class to play, fighters and bards are middle ground and wizards and rogues are the most complex (if you set aside the druid...). But calling it differences in complexity is a huge understatement! I feel each class almost as if they were different games!!

Barbarian is a class that almost doesn't gain anything new, making the player feel stable within a gameplay that involves rolling two dice most of the time. If he, the player, needs to roll only one die, something is probably wrong with her, the character, because she is not raging in a battle. And the critical hit happens both rolling 20 and hitting with both dice - it's an almost "number of successes" game.

Meanwhile, the fighter is dedicated into probabilities through his die. The d20 roll for the fighter is far from just success/fail rate, because each roll can activate different abilities, thanks to the flexible attacks. Acquiring new maneuvers is not only about dealing more damage is a specialized attack, but a myriad of different effects that might happen. If someone is feeling his fighter is too random because of the flexible attacks, it's because this player is not accepting the non-binary structure of his fighter - she is from a different class and needs to be refined. The fighter in 13th Age is the all-out war soldier, which is trained enough to have lots of maneuvers, but is fighting unruly and dirty combats, in which finding spots to use those maneuvers is a mixture of thinking and chance.

The rogue is not about number of successes, nor its a non-binary class. Rogue is about sequence. She needs to keep the momentum flowing, so she needs to guarantee that her strikes will follow her rythm. Hide in plain sight in the first round; hit in the flank in the second; hit in the frnt in the third... until you find the moment to strike, even if it means losing all that momentum she gathered. It's something like Fate characters, accumulating aspects until is the right moment; as if the inspiration in 5ed is the most important thing and you need to find a way to keep it, otherwise you lose it without spending its powers.

In this whole context, the cleric is the class that uses multiple actions. The quick action (similar to the 5ed's bonus action) is the most important feature for the cleric, because most of his spells use it. So the cleric is an able warrior, hitting the enemy with one action and helping the other player with another. She also has domain powers that could be focused on giving rules exception. With these two features, the cleric gains the possibility to help and act each time it's her player's turn. If the class itself in the book in not doing it alright, it isn't a matter of the class design but the class list of options in the book, which is really easy to improve.

You can write new games based in these classes: number of successes like Exalted; non-binary results like Genesys; accumulating the effects like Fate; multiple actions like Storyteller. And 13th Age has tiny pockets of these games in each of its classes.

I usually like crunchier games, like Pathfinder. And what make me fell in love with 13th Age is far from its streamlined rules I always complement with crunchier alternatives, like feeling it with skill sets. And has nothing with Icon rules, which I limit the use during play because I suck at improvisation, and it took me years to get used to. XD

So that's it. I think I just used a simple commentary to heavily praise 13th Age. And didn't even mention the escalation die... Yep, that's it.

Paz!
 

NotAYakk

Legend
They did really cool things with 13th age. I'd be interested in a 5e style reworking of 13th age.

5e to me is a deconstruction of 4e. If you really got 4e, you can see its elements torn apart and put together into 5e. The presentation is extremely different, and a greater acceptance of symmetry breaking is also there. A bunch of rough spots where ground down as well.

While 4e took the 3e lesson that +X magic items change the game and then assumed you'd have them and built it into progression, 5e accepted they changed the game, explicitly stated it does not assume you have them, then ensured that their scale (up to +3) was small enough that they wouldn't make the game go quite as gonzo. 5e left itself a 3 point wiggle room in accuracy and ensured it didn't break with that much wiggle room. If 5e magic items went up to +6 that really doesn't work.

4e had each class have separate minigames. Most strikers had positional minigames to protect themselves and go after vulnerable foes. Defenders had a positional minigame to bog down the enemy. Controllers had a battlefield reshaping minigame. Leaders had to watch everyone's HP, usually keep adjacent to defenders (but not too exposed), and often reposition allies.

13th age moved more of those minigames into mechanics instead of being tactical positioning.

5e didn't go as far as 13th age mechanics wise, but kept some distinct minigames. Resource differences are another aspect of difference, where there was intended to be a strategic minigame that different classes played (in my experience, this has failed in most groups).

The Rogue is almost entirely at-will.
Warlocks, Monks and Fighters are almost entirely at will and short rest.
Barbarian, Rangers, Paladins are a mixture of strong at-will combat abilities and daily spells, with a dash of short rest.
The "support" casters have daily spells and short rest support abliities: Cleric (Channel), Druid (Wildshape), Bard (Inspiration)
The arcane casters, Wizard and Sorcerer, are almost entirely daily spells (and sorcery points).

Supporting multiclassing while having 13th age style minigames would be tricky. Either they'd step on each other (you can only do 1 action, and that action scales with your class level, so you suck) or interact strangely (you can stack everyones minigame together into a machine of chaos).

What 5e did surprisingly well is its power per action scaling. The extra attacks, damage bonus riders, cantrip scaling, spell levels scaling -- all of them work using different mechanics. It makes a great difference in feel.

4e used [W] and spell dice, which now that I look at it looks too similar. 13th age did a worse job than 4e in my opinion, with ad-hoc systems to "get the math right" having to be retrofitted because the dice rolling got stupid.

5e could probably do it a bit better, but the way they managed to get weapon attacks (usually scale in number of attacks, add attribute to damage) feel different than cantrips (scale in dice, no attribute added), which are more similar to spells (scale with slot level with dice) is well done. It is a difference in feel more than mechanics, but that does really matter.

Even the paladin's level 11 boost -- adding 1d8 radiant damage -- makes the paladin feel more magical in damage dealing than the fighters +1 attack.

The Rogue's damage boost, the at-will 1d6 and only one attack, feels different than the paladin smite, despite both being buckets of dice added to damage all the time, because one is at-will, the other burns that daily power slot. Very different decision matrix.

---

Rotating around, applying 13th age lessions 5e. What minigames could we have?

Arcane Caster:
What if the most efficient way of acting was to take 2 turns to cast a spell? You'd attempt to protect yourself between the two turns. Disruption could result usually in being forced to let it go early (as a reaction) less efficiently, or in rare cases (a critical) losing it entirely.

Support Caster:
Stealing a page from 13th age, you'd be split between your action and your support action. Your support action can be strong and use daily or short rest resources, and maybe boosts your action on later turns.

Like, Warpriest getting:
Piety in Battle
After making an attack as part of the attack action, you can cast a cleric spell as a bonus action. This spell must have a casting time of 1 action or 1 bonus action. Choose one benefit:
  • One creature you hit this turn that is within 5' of you suffers disadvantage on the save from this spell.
  • The first weapon attack you make on your next turn deals +1d4 radiant damage per level of the slot used to cast the spell if you hit with it.

Skirmisher
An abstract tactical game.

Like:

Hunter's Mark
As a bonus action you can mark a creature as hunted. Whenever you attack a hunted creature on your turn, if it is your first attack on the creature, you gain advantage on the attack and you deal an extra 1d6 damage.

When a creature you have hunted hits you or forces you to make a save, as a reaction you can sacrifice the mark to apply a -1d6 penalty to the attack roll, +1d6 bonus to your saving throw, and reduce any damage you take by 1d6 (after all resistances, saves and vulnerabilities apply).

Extra Attack
At 5th level when you take the attack action, you can either attack one creature twice or up to three creatures once. If you choose to attack multiple creatures, they do not provide each other cover from your attacks, and any creature you attack cannot make an opportunity attack on you afterwards.

So I set up a minigame here. Spreading your Hunter's Mark around to multiple foes, consuming it to protect yourself, and getting a significant boost if you can get multiple creatures marked.

On a single foe, the sacrifice-HM-for-defence is stronger, and on multiple foes the ability to put HM on many of them is stronger.

Champion
A combination of the Defender and Melee Striker of 4e, or the Brute and Solider monster roles.

These would have features that make them sticky, that let them shape the battlefield with their presence, and make it very efficient for them to be hit and take damage. So self healing, penalize enemies movement when near them, and significant melee threat.

A Melee Skirmisher would dash in, jump on the Dragon's back, deal a blow, then either jump off or use its position to avoid the Dragon's claws. A Champion would jump on the dragon's back and stay there, hindering the dragon's ability to fly.
 

Igor Mendonça

Explorer
They did really cool things with 13th age. I'd be interested in a 5e style reworking of 13th age.

5e to me is a deconstruction of 4e. If you really got 4e, you can see its elements torn apart and put together into 5e. The presentation is extremely different, and a greater acceptance of symmetry breaking is also there. A bunch of rough spots where ground down as well.

While 4e took the 3e lesson that +X magic items change the game and then assumed you'd have them and built it into progression, 5e accepted they changed the game, explicitly stated it does not assume you have them, then ensured that their scale (up to +3) was small enough that they wouldn't make the game go quite as gonzo. 5e left itself a 3 point wiggle room in accuracy and ensured it didn't break with that much wiggle room. If 5e magic items went up to +6 that really doesn't work.

4e had each class have separate minigames. Most strikers had positional minigames to protect themselves and go after vulnerable foes. Defenders had a positional minigame to bog down the enemy. Controllers had a battlefield reshaping minigame. Leaders had to watch everyone's HP, usually keep adjacent to defenders (but not too exposed), and often reposition allies.

13th age moved more of those minigames into mechanics instead of being tactical positioning.

5e didn't go as far as 13th age mechanics wise, but kept some distinct minigames. Resource differences are another aspect of difference, where there was intended to be a strategic minigame that different classes played (in my experience, this has failed in most groups).

The Rogue is almost entirely at-will.
Warlocks, Monks and Fighters are almost entirely at will and short rest.
Barbarian, Rangers, Paladins are a mixture of strong at-will combat abilities and daily spells, with a dash of short rest.
The "support" casters have daily spells and short rest support abliities: Cleric (Channel), Druid (Wildshape), Bard (Inspiration)
The arcane casters, Wizard and Sorcerer, are almost entirely daily spells (and sorcery points).

Supporting multiclassing while having 13th age style minigames would be tricky. Either they'd step on each other (you can only do 1 action, and that action scales with your class level, so you suck) or interact strangely (you can stack everyones minigame together into a machine of chaos).

What 5e did surprisingly well is its power per action scaling. The extra attacks, damage bonus riders, cantrip scaling, spell levels scaling -- all of them work using different mechanics. It makes a great difference in feel.

4e used [W] and spell dice, which now that I look at it looks too similar. 13th age did a worse job than 4e in my opinion, with ad-hoc systems to "get the math right" having to be retrofitted because the dice rolling got stupid.

5e could probably do it a bit better, but the way they managed to get weapon attacks (usually scale in number of attacks, add attribute to damage) feel different than cantrips (scale in dice, no attribute added), which are more similar to spells (scale with slot level with dice) is well done. It is a difference in feel more than mechanics, but that does really matter.

Even the paladin's level 11 boost -- adding 1d8 radiant damage -- makes the paladin feel more magical in damage dealing than the fighters +1 attack.

The Rogue's damage boost, the at-will 1d6 and only one attack, feels different than the paladin smite, despite both being buckets of dice added to damage all the time, because one is at-will, the other burns that daily power slot. Very different decision matrix.

---

Rotating around, applying 13th age lessions 5e. What minigames could we have?

Arcane Caster:
What if the most efficient way of acting was to take 2 turns to cast a spell? You'd attempt to protect yourself between the two turns. Disruption could result usually in being forced to let it go early (as a reaction) less efficiently, or in rare cases (a critical) losing it entirely.

Support Caster:
Stealing a page from 13th age, you'd be split between your action and your support action. Your support action can be strong and use daily or short rest resources, and maybe boosts your action on later turns.

Like, Warpriest getting:
Piety in Battle
After making an attack as part of the attack action, you can cast a cleric spell as a bonus action. This spell must have a casting time of 1 action or 1 bonus action. Choose one benefit:
  • One creature you hit this turn that is within 5' of you suffers disadvantage on the save from this spell.
  • The first weapon attack you make on your next turn deals +1d4 radiant damage per level of the slot used to cast the spell if you hit with it.

Skirmisher
An abstract tactical game.

Like:

Hunter's Mark
As a bonus action you can mark a creature as hunted. Whenever you attack a hunted creature on your turn, if it is your first attack on the creature, you gain advantage on the attack and you deal an extra 1d6 damage.

When a creature you have hunted hits you or forces you to make a save, as a reaction you can sacrifice the mark to apply a -1d6 penalty to the attack roll, +1d6 bonus to your saving throw, and reduce any damage you take by 1d6 (after all resistances, saves and vulnerabilities apply).

Extra Attack
At 5th level when you take the attack action, you can either attack one creature twice or up to three creatures once. If you choose to attack multiple creatures, they do not provide each other cover from your attacks, and any creature you attack cannot make an opportunity attack on you afterwards.

So I set up a minigame here. Spreading your Hunter's Mark around to multiple foes, consuming it to protect yourself, and getting a significant boost if you can get multiple creatures marked.

On a single foe, the sacrifice-HM-for-defence is stronger, and on multiple foes the ability to put HM on many of them is stronger.

Champion
A combination of the Defender and Melee Striker of 4e, or the Brute and Solider monster roles.

These would have features that make them sticky, that let them shape the battlefield with their presence, and make it very efficient for them to be hit and take damage. So self healing, penalize enemies movement when near them, and significant melee threat.

A Melee Skirmisher would dash in, jump on the Dragon's back, deal a blow, then either jump off or use its position to avoid the Dragon's claws. A Champion would jump on the dragon's back and stay there, hindering the dragon's ability to fly.
Unfortunately, in 2007-08, I was one of those who got too disappointed to the massive changes made in the 4th edition.

I was eager to play before narrating, picked the bard as it was my favorite since 2ed, and it felt so weird that I never looked back. Nowadays I regret this a lot! :/

Pathfinder's Adventure Paths were much more attractive. And this might reveal a part of the problem, which is something @Jonathan Tweet wrote himself in the post: 4ed looked like Magic the Gathering. It was an extreme case of "mechanics first".

Anyway, I really liked your view on how 5ed could become much more attractive if it focused more on class design translating into really different game experiences, It would certainly be more awesome
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top