Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="PTHoorah" data-source="post: 5855062" data-attributes="member: 6691226">Something similar to what Kamikaze Midget said is the way to go. Take the four core/base classes and tie them to power sources like in 4e. So the fighter (martial exploits), the thief (tricks, or whatever you want to call them), cleric/priest (divine powers) and magic-user (magic). The specialization should come from the race, theme, feats, powers, skills and whatever other character options are in 5e. The core/base classes need to be playable as are, but should be flexible for players to make characters as they imagine them.For the cleric/priest argument: Both are the divine power class. The cleric takes feats/options/themes that allow him to wear armor, wield heavier weapons and use a shield, but gets fewer spells -- either in number or access to different spheres. The priest is more limited in weapons and armor, but has more spells. If a player wants a divine character that wields a two-handed hammer and no shield, then he doesn't take the shield feat, but maybe gains something else instead. (But doesn't lose out on a class perc by not having the shield.) Likewise, if a player wants a priest who's got a lot of spells but can every now and then jump into the fray and pull off one cool attack with his wood staff, he should be able to take a combat power/feat/option that is more cleric-like. If the themes are good, they could really support this: temple keeper (for more priest-like characters), student (priest-like), defender of the faith (cleric-like) or just veteran soldier (cleric-like). And in the end, one player's priest or cleric is going to be much different than another player's priest or cleric.This could work for rangers too: fighters who choose feats/powers/options that make them bow specialist or two-weapon fighters, and skills that let them sneak or track. And if they want access to divine spells at later levels, they multi-class a level of divine caster and take nature sphere spells. If they want to be even sneakier rangers, they take the thief class and feats/powers/options for bows or two weapons. The themes could be the same no matter the class: raised by wolves, hermit, tree hugger, sworn defender of the wild. The themes could provide some of the unique ranger-type abilities. If the classes are minimized at first level (meaning the normal class powers build between 1st and 3rd level, as is being discussed) then multi-classing should be easier, and a sword-mage shouldn't have to be its own class; the player takes a couple levels of mage and a couple levels of fighter and options to make the character be who they want it to be. Rather than being stuck with what the creaters think a sword mage should be. (Or if an entire party wants to be "barbarians" but one's playing the warrior, one the sneak and one the shaman, they should all be able to take rage-based feats that lets them add damage or gain temp hp at the expense of ac or something. Why should all raging barbarians be fighters?)Players should be able to pick fictional or historical figures and create them easily in d&d in a way that matches how they see the character, not how the class tells them they should see the character. That requires generic classes and flexible options in those classes. Anyway, that's my two cents. It's my first time posting. 5e's got me that excited.</blockquote>

Verification