D&D 4E My plans for a 4E revamp

[Minigiant]

The decayed form of class collapse would be classes based on sources.
Hero (Martial) - Wizard(Arcanist) - Druid (Animist) - Priest (Channeler)

Except I think class and power source should serve different masters.

"A champion in plate armor, wielding a seord and shield, standing between her allies and the foe" is a class to me. That class could be powered by divine, martial, psionic or other power source. What more, I could see a game where your power sources are limited in capacity, and part of adventuring is seeking out more (or upgrading yours).

Classes should be archtypes, roles should be patterns that subclasses use, power sourcrd should be in-world things to hang mechanics off of.

I see power sources as just a grouping of "powers" that vaguely has a theme. They had a vague theme in PHB1 but once Primal came in it got muddled until it a bit. Ideally, you would create great pools of powers by powersource and let the classes pick fleeing but be swayed by their subclass.

So the Fighter would be a pure Martial class, whereas the Barbarian would be Martial/Primal. Then subclass would nudge you to which powers you take.

• Fighter- Martial Class
  • Gladiator- Striker (Arena Strike)
  • Hero- (Hero Challenge}
  • Knight- Defender (Knightly Challenge}
  • Marksman -Striker (Sniper's Strike)
  • Slayer- Striker (Power Strike)
  • Warlord- Leader (Inspiring Word)
  • Weaponmaster- Defender (Combat Challenge)
• Cleric- Divine Class
  • Knowledge Leader (Inventive Word)
  • Life- Leader (Word of Life)
  • Light -Striker (Radiant Strike)
  • Nature Domain- Leader (Nature's Word)
  • Protection Domain- Defender (Protector's Challenge)
  • Tempest- Striker (Thunderous Strike)
  • Trickery Domain- Striker (Tricker's Strike)
  • War Domain- Defender (Warpriest's Challenge)
• Ranger- Martial/Skill/Primal Class (At will Exploits, Encounter Tricks, Daily Spells)
  • Bearlord- Defender (Bear Challenge)
  • Beastmaster- Defender (Beastmaster's Challenge)
  • Falconer- Striker (Raptor Strike)
  • Gloomstalker- Striker (Gloom Strike)
  • Horizon Walker- Striker (Planar Strike)
  • Houndmaster- Striker (Wolf Strike)
  • Hunter -Striker (Hunter's Strike)

I still think controllers and strikers should be split into 2 roles. Ranged strikers are Snipers. AOE controllers are blasters.

 

[NotAYakk]

Ya, no, Rogue strikers shouldn't get the Martial power "Come and Get It", while Fighters defenders should.

Role (subclass), Archtype and Power Source should all matter in what you can do.

 

[Garthanos]

Since we are discussing collapsing roles. The original Hero of Chainmail included the Fighter/Warlord/Ranger all under one mantle (yes the Hero of chainmail who increased the HD of those around him was a Warlord why do we doubt and at somewhat higher levels induced fear in enemies) and AD&D added Paladin and Barbarians as additional subtypes of fighter. AD&D gimped the Hero by particularly his status as One man army and Warlord though it did nod at both, ( so I think it wasn't on purpose). The one-man army element could be seen in his gets as many attacks as he has levels against low level foes; This is not actually comparable to being equivalent of 80 soldiers at level 4 and 160 at level 8. But it sort of tried. They removed the two sided morale impact of the Hero fighters presence which is very Warlord like too. Martial types very much seem to have oaths as some of their major vehicles of power sometimes explicitly like monks (oath of independence) and paladins (oath of service really). Barbarian has a similar element though less seen as an oath and rangers too.

 

[Garthanos]

Ya, no, Rogue strikers shouldn't get the Martial power "Come and Get It", while Fighters defenders should.

Picture a come and get it that is the maneuver that Zorro does where the enemy fall all over themselves and are knocked prone instead of the rogue getting a bunch of attacks to mark them with.

Now write the exploit so the effect depends on the role of its user.

 

[Minigiant]

Ya, no, Rogue strikers shouldn't get the Martial power "Come and Get It", while Fighters defenders should.

Role (subclass), Archtype and Power Source should all matter in what you can do.

I think Rogues should use a new power source. Skill power source with Tricks powers.

4e rogues aren't traditional rogue. They are more Dex fighters. If you want traditional D&D rogues, they would not be martial.

 

[Garthanos]

If you want traditional D&D rogues, they would not be martial.

The thief had no battlefield role at all it was a failing not a feature

The thief might have been better designed as a controller.. sure they can do spikes of damage but hamstringing enemies while diving from the shadows. Blinding them with smoke bombs and blood in the eyes cuts and throwing down caltrops that there allies can exploit etc.

The dex fighter rogue aka scout, I am pretty certain is something we can point at 3e... 4e just followed suit.

 

[Minigiant]

The thief had no battlefield role at all it was a failing not a feature

The thief might have been better designed as a controller.. sure they can do spikes of damage but hamstringing enemies while diving from the shadows. Blinding them with smoke bombs and blood in the eyes cuts and throwing down caltrops that there allies can exploit etc.

The dex fighter rogue aka scout, I am pretty certain is something we can point at 3e... 4e just followed suit.

No, I mean the basic D&D rogue isn't a martial character outside of the fact it uses weapons. Rogues use skills and tools and trickery. Martial characters use fighting styles, weapon techniques, and combat tactics.

4e forced rogues to be swashbucklers and brutes.

Martial is not a catchall for all things nonmagical. Thieves, assassins, and spies aren't martial. Theyare something else.

 

[Garthanos]

No, I mean the basic D&D rogue isn't a martial character outside of the fact it uses weapons. Rogues use skills and tools and trickery.

I think martial is about using skills and trickery looks at the Warlord yup definitely.... so I disagree.

 

[Garthanos]

Heck many of the fighter moves are trickery... Come and Get it for instance is all about trickery

Pretending fighters wouldn't have and should not be skilled I consider an injustice in its own right.

 

[Minigiant]

I think martial is about using skills and trickery looks at the Warlord yup definitely.... so I disagree.

To me, the Warlord is still battlefield tactical skills, combat guile, and combat inspiration. The rogue is more use of raw trickery, underhandedness, and tool use.

Martial Arts learned from a sifu vs Low Blow learned from a master thief.

Pus rogue powers use more Ws since the weapons are stronger. You DO NOT want rangers access to rogue powers.