Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jester David" data-source="post: 7184641" data-attributes="member: 37579">The 4e categories apply better to characters than classes. There shouldn't be a &quot;tank&quot; class, there should be a class you can build a tanky character with.(Although, thinking on those characters can lead to interesting subclass decisions.)Having designed a bunch of subclasses, two-thirds were based on story hooks. An elemental warlock, a storm druid, an urban ranger, etc. A few had mechanical aspects, like a rogue that doesn't sneak attack, or a tanky fighter. But even those had to have story hooks and personality.When thinking about classes, I tend to restrict myself. I don't think we need any more classes in the game. New concepts should be designed with sublcasses in mind. There's near-infinite potential for slightly different archetypes. You can get as granular as you want. But when I do muse about new classes, I tend to think of Big Tend concepts. Ideas that can accommodate numerous subclasses. There's no point in having a small class that just works with one or two hyper focused concepts. For example, I've said before than an alchemist would be a fun concept - being inspired by the Pathfinder class - but then the artificer goes and effortlessly makes that work with that concept.That said, a dedicated shapechanger could be fun. The limits of existing 5e conjurations would accommodate a summoner class.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jester David, post: 7184641, member: 37579"] The 4e categories apply better to characters than classes. There shouldn't be a "tank" class, there should be a class you can build a tanky character with. (Although, thinking on those characters can lead to interesting subclass decisions.) Having designed a bunch of subclasses, two-thirds were based on story hooks. An elemental warlock, a storm druid, an urban ranger, etc. A few had mechanical aspects, like a rogue that doesn't sneak attack, or a tanky fighter. But even those had to have story hooks and personality. When thinking about classes, I tend to restrict myself. I don't think we need any more classes in the game. New concepts should be designed with sublcasses in mind. There's near-infinite potential for slightly different archetypes. You can get as granular as you want. But when I do muse about new classes, I tend to think of Big Tend concepts. Ideas that can accommodate numerous subclasses. There's no point in having a small class that just works with one or two hyper focused concepts. For example, I've said before than an alchemist would be a fun concept - being inspired by the Pathfinder class - but then the artificer goes and effortlessly makes that work with that concept. That said, a dedicated shapechanger could be fun. The limits of existing 5e conjurations would accommodate a summoner class. [/QUOTE]

Verification