Hokey smokes-- designing a 4th edition class

[FireLance]

One way to reduce the number of things you need to do is to reference WotC work when you can. Instead of coming up with paragon paths, for example, just list the WotC paragon paths that the class qualifies for. Instead of coming up with 80+ completely new powers, make a list of the WotC powers that are appropriate for the class. Of course, the more original creations you can come up with, the better (or so one would assume).

 

[jmucchiello]

One way to reduce the number of things you need to do is to reference WotC work when you can. Instead of coming up with paragon paths, for example, just list the WotC paragon paths that the class qualifies for. Instead of coming up with 80+ completely new powers, make a list of the WotC powers that are appropriate for the class.

The problem with that approach is why make a new class when you can just say the powers are an extension of the other class. Suppose you want to make a Thief-Acrobat type class. If you borrow 30-40 powers from the Rogue, why not just say your powers are now Rogue powers and allow people who choose the rogue class to become a "thief-acrobat" through their power choices.

Creating a new class will really require a certain minimum uniqueness to avoid that issue.

 

[FireLance]

The problem with that approach is why make a new class when you can just say the powers are an extension of the other class. Suppose you want to make a Thief-Acrobat type class. If you borrow 30-40 powers from the Rogue, why not just say your powers are now Rogue powers and allow people who choose the rogue class to become a "thief-acrobat" through their power choices.

This would work if your new class is thematically pretty close to or a subset of one the existing classes. However, if you wanted to create something that contained elements of two or more classes but had its own distinct flavor (say, a stopgap bard class), you could take appropriate powers from the warlock, wizard, warlord and cleric lists and come up with new abilities to fill the gaps.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The problem with that approach is why make a new class when you can just say the powers are an extension of the other class. Suppose you want to make a Thief-Acrobat type class. If you borrow 30-40 powers from the Rogue, why not just say your powers are now Rogue powers and allow people who choose the rogue class to become a "thief-acrobat" through their power choices.

Creating a new class will really require a certain minimum uniqueness to avoid that issue.

Classes are mostly defined by their powers, but not only. If you need new base class features, you might want a new class. But agree that generally, you should consider if your concept warrants a new class or just new powers and a new style/build option.

 

[Kaodi]

While it may be much more difficult to design classes for 4e, that also means that it is much more rewarding when you do it right.

I certainly look forward to giving it a try when I get the books.

 

[Mercule]

Yep, might as well just retire from game design and get a real job. This is too difficult now.

But.... It's the hard stuff that I'm willing to pay for.

 

[Jhaelen]

This would work if your new class is thematically pretty close to or a subset of one the existing classes. However, if you wanted to create something that contained elements of two or more classes but had its own distinct flavor (say, a stopgap bard class), you could take appropriate powers from the warlock, wizard, warlord and cleric lists and come up with new abilities to fill the gaps.

This. While official classes will probably come with a full set of ~ 80 unique powers, nothing's preventing fan-based classes from reusing what's already there.

The larger the number of official classes, the easier it will be to create new ones. At a certain point new classes become variations of existing themes anyway.

Like many things in 4E this reminds me a lot of the Earthdawn approach. In Earthdawn official classes reused exisiting powers quite a lot, though. The rules also included guidelines what levels were appropriate for selecting powers.

I could imagine something similar in 4E. I guess, powers from a class with a different role should become available at a later level and / or be downgraded from at-will to per encounter or even daily.

 

[WhatGravitas]

It's clearly a plan to reduce the value of fan content.

Cheers, -- N

Says the guys with a handful new ToB disciplines. And on the WotC boards, there were loads of other new disciplines. People will still do it.

Cheers, LT.

 

[jmucchiello]

This would work if your new class is thematically pretty close to or a subset of one the existing classes. However, if you wanted to create something that contained elements of two or more classes but had its own distinct flavor (say, a stopgap bard class), you could take appropriate powers from the warlock, wizard, warlord and cleric lists and come up with new abilities to fill the gaps.

I'm talking about from a saleability point of view. No one is going to buy a 2 page "class" PDF containing reference to 80 existing powers. Will they buy a (longer PDF) with 20 new powers and reference to 60 existing powers? 30/50? 40/40?

 

[JVisgaitis]

If the tight design of D&D 4ed was implemented partially to head off the flood of awful "I'll write some stuff for my home campaign and then sell it for money!" supplements at the pass, I'm all in favor of it. Retailers (and some consumers) still lament purchasing the low quality publications of which I speak.

I can't speak for WotC, but I'm pretty sure that making it difficult to make rules/classes wasn't even close to being one of their design goals. They work on this stuff more then other publishers do. They want a ruleset that is super easy to develop for.