Martial Power: archetypal builds

[Atreides]

Monk is probably in PHB3 - either Ki or spiritual or similar flavor of Power Source.

Archtype is probably just that - so there is a heavy armor fighter archtype, and maybe gladiator fighter archtype etc.

 

[Mercule]

They're using "build" to refer to sets of suggested feats, skills, and class features, such as the examples "Brawny Rogue" and "Trickster Rogue". I don't see any reason they would suddenly use it to mean something else.

I think I'd actually prefer this to a bloat of classes. I may or may not get much mileage out of them, but a couple of my players almost certainly will. Plus, it cuts down on the insane number of types of rules bloat from 3.5.

 

[Imban]

I would prefer the former over the latter because I wouldn't buy a book with just a bunch of "take these feats and then you can call yourself a "Brawny Rogue" or "Trickster Rogue".

Probably the latter. WotC is a big fan of selling you not-content that no one ever uses. That's why Big Books of Prestige Classes include a writeup which includes useless passages on which races, classes, and alignments prefer a different class, usually written in a meaningless way that doesn't help anyone. "Typically, Tough Juggernauts draw from the ranks of Half-Orcs and Dwarves. Occasionally they are Human or Half-Elf. It is rare for Halflings to be Tough Juggernauts, but not unheard of." "Usually, Fighters, Barbarians, and Paladins become Tough Juggernauts. It is relatively uncommon for Clerics and Rogues to do so. Due to the entrance requirements, Wizards and Sorcerors almost never become Tough Juggernauts." "The typical Tough Juggernaut is destructive and chaotic evil, but many good characters welcome the defensive benefits, and there are lawful orders which count several Tough Juggernauts as members."

They then follow the class up with a full NPC writeup, who may or may not be rules-legal, including a full sample encounter description with that character.

So each prestige class is literally 2/3 useless padding. WotC loves padding, and I won't be surprised to see a ton of it in Martial Power.

 

[Irda Ranger]

I think I'd actually prefer this to a bloat of classes. I may or may not get much mileage out of them, but a couple of my players almost certainly will. Plus, it cuts down on the insane number of types of rules bloat from 3.5.

I'm pretty happy about "Builds, Not Classes" too. There were a number of good, strong classes in 3.5 that definitely needed their own class, but also a number of classes and prestige classes would have been better handled with an established Core class, feat selection and a change in clothes.

In 4E, for instance, you don't need a Knight - a Warlord or a Fighter with a couple Mounted Combat Feats & Powers is all you need. Throw in a "Champion of the Realm" PP and a "The Scourge of God" ED and you're done. Same for Ninjas and Pirates (Rogues builds) or the variously colored Wizards of High Sorcery from Dragonlance.

I'm also happy that WotC is providing guidance on how certain feats & powers complement each other better than others. That's not always obvious to the novice player, and can lead to disappointment when "your build" ends up being a self-gimp. At least this way when you choose to deviate from the listed build you'll know why your character is sub-par.

 

[WhatGravitas]

I'm also happy that WotC is providing guidance on how certain feats & powers complement each other better than others. That's not always obvious to the novice player, and can lead to disappointment when "your build" ends up being a self-gimp. At least this way when you choose to deviate from the listed build you'll know why your character is sub-par.

Yeah, these builds are a pretty nice idea, like a kit bash of feat trees, class kits, and variant class features, all coupled with building advice.

Though I've hoped they'd put more weight into them, making older classes into builds of the new classes, like wizard/sorcerer or stuff like that. But it seems to be that way, at least partially, as the newer classes seem to be reconceptions in some way.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Voss]

On the other hand, the 4e classes seem really strict in their definitions. A rogue is a light bladesman, by default, and in a lot of ways, thats pretty much all he is. And a fighter is pretty much a heavy armor and weapons guy, if not defined as class features, its 'expected' he'll be wearing heavy armor. A lightly armored thug with a club doesn't have a place in either of those classes, and no 'build' is going to allow for it, without a major overhaul of the class features.

Based on that, I expect we will see class *and* power bloat, fairly quickly if this release list is anything to go by.

 

[sunrisekid]

"Build" concepts remind me of the 2E kits that came out in the late 80s/early 90s. You take one of the core classes, eg Fighter, then choose one of dozens of different kits, eg Gladiator. I think there was some sort of mechanic whereby you could drop one kit and take on another somehow.

Honestly, I kind of prefer something like a kit or build rather than an entire new class. The 3.5 class bloat was big turn off for me, though admittedly I rather liked some of the ideas that came out of that.