How would you do a "Grognard" class?

chronoplasm

First Post
OK, so let's say that you were to make a class that attempted to replicate some of the feel of older editions within the 4E framework.
Let's say that this class is to be named The Grognard.

Some ideas:

Your two build options are Fighting-Man and Magic User. The Grognard is a hybrid-powered class (martial and arcane) with both spells and exploits.

Your class features replicate the mechanics of older editions. For example, you may have one feature that requires enemy attacks to roll under your AC in order to hit. I'm not quite sure how to work this and make it balanced though.


What do you think?
Is this possible?

*edit*

Heres an idea for a feature...

Chainmail Combat
If you are wearing chainmail, then whenever you would make a d20 roll, you may roll 4d6 instead. If you are rolling for attack, then for each 5 or 6 you roll the attack deals an additional 1 damage.

This could make for a good Striker I think.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Err... I think the way to replicate "old edition feel" is by dming and campaign style.

I'm not quite sure what you want to make this class into- what role do you envision it as being? What old edition features are you trying to make? I'd beware of the 'reverse AC' thing, it doesn't really make sense. I dunno- I am not certain what you're trying to make here.
 

I'm not quite sure what I'm trying to make either.

After that edit to the first post, I'm thinking possibly Striker. I think that feature is probably quite over-powered though.
 

There really is no sense in creating a 'Grognard' class. First, it is not Canon. So it is BLASPHEMY!! Second it trounces on the gamist nature of 4e by bringing a clearly simulationist class back into it. If I wanted that I would just play an older edition without the addition of a superfluous class. It goes against the entire ethos of being a gamer. And lastly, who gave you the right to pee in my cheerios this morning?

:)
 

First off, you want to be sure you're not insulting anyone accidentally, so you should change the name to "Grogtard". That way they know it's on purpose.

Second, you need to distinguish between the different flavors of past editions. You should make one Int-based build (for 3.x munchkins) and one Wis-based build (for those who keep their blind faith in 1e). There aren't enough 2e fans left to be worth insulting them specifically, so don't bother.

- - -

This is a long way of saying: I'm not really sure what you're going for either.

Cheers, -- N
 

I have to do it. I'm driven my an unknowable desire to destroy everything you love for my own corporate greed! :)

Continuuing my previous thought, regarding rolling multiple d6 instead of d20... it's a bit more reasonable if you reduce it to 3d6, at least at level one. It gives you a range of 3-18 for attack rolls as opposed to 1-20. That's not too unbalanced I think... how about this:

Chainmail Combat
If you are wearing chainmail, whenever you would make a d20 roll, you may roll 3d6 instead.
Increase to 4d6 at 11th level.
Increase to 5d6 at 12th level.

...and you could get attacks like...

Good-Old-Fashioned Smite Grognard Attack 1
"Fire and brimstone? Ah, that takes me back."
At-Will. Divine, Melee Weapon, Radiant, Fire
Standard-Action
Target: One creature
Attack: Wisdom vs. AC
Hit: Wisdom modifier radiant damage plus an additional 2 fire damage for each 5 or 6 you rolled on your attack roll.

...and...

Bag of Rats Grognard Attack 1
Encounter. Melee Weapon
Standard-Action
Close burst 1
Target: Each creature in burst.
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: Strength modifier damage.
Secondary Target: One creature in burst.
Secondary Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: Strength modifier damage for each enemy you reduced to 0 hit points since the beginning of this turn.
 

First off, you want to be sure you're not insulting anyone accidentally, so you should change the name to "Grogtard". That way they know it's on purpose.

Second, you need to distinguish between the different flavors of past editions. You should make one Int-based build (for 3.x munchkins) and one Wis-based build (for those who keep their blind faith in 1e). There aren't enough 2e fans left to be worth insulting them specifically, so don't bother.

- - -

This is a long way of saying: I'm not really sure what you're going for either.

Cheers, -- N


I'm not trying to be insulting. If I am coming across that way, it isn't intentional.
I think what I want to do is may deference to those who have come before me. I want to make a class that is itself an homage to older times.
 

I'm not trying to be insulting. If I am coming across that way, it isn't intentional.
I think what I want to do is may deference to those who have come before me. I want to make a class that is itself an homage to older times.

I think this is a good idea. This way he is able to pay homage to the older versions by using the newer and clearly superior version. :D
 

I'm doing this all wrong.

I'm abandoning this class idea altogether because I'm just taking a backwards approach to this whole thing I'm doing.

I'm interested in combining the best of the new with the best of the old.
However, I've been doing this by taking the already tight and structured rules of 4E and either pulling them back or convoluting them to reference older games.
I need to go back to the older editions, the looser, more open-ended editions, and supplement them to incorporate the best ideas of 4E.
 


Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top