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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 6059420" data-attributes="member: 92511">*casts Thread Necromancy I*Well, seems the love is definitely lost from the 5e threads. Kinda sick of reading about "the pipedream" and the debate over on "too many cooks" so thought I'd conjure this back up to get us back onto talking about the creative/hypothetical/fun side of things...and respond to some things I didn't bother before, since others covered them for me.1) As already noted, bards started out with Druid magic...how/why this was EVER changed, I do not know. Given that basis and the celtic lore from whence the class was spawned, I think bringing Bards back to "Nature magic" (as its thought in today's day and age, or "Primal" if you prefer) is not only justified but preferable. Slip in a few illusions and enchantments from the mage's spell lists, a few heals (which they'd be getting from the druid list anyway) and "buffs" from the cleric's lists to emphasize the whole "support" class thing and give them their own "Bardic magic flavor", but the bulk should/could be druidic.2) The point of this little creative exercise was to try to work out the stated desires and design goals of allowing every class to have "it's own unique thing". People wanted the Fighter to have maneuvers. Great. Expertise Dice? Great. Wait, now rogues have them too. Now Paladins? Monks? I thought that was the Fighter's "thing."So, giving vancian casters "maneuvers" just makes no sense...in this hypothetical framework. Vancian casters (which I take to mean "mages" or "wizards") have their own shtick already...using/casting arcane magic (via a memorized/prepared casting mechanic, if you want to be specific).3) As for rogues and monks getting maneuvers under a different name...in a way, yeah. Every class is getting maneuvers under a different name. Some of them are magic, some of them are channeling and some of them are more skill-driven...They don't get the same "combat-specific" type maneuvers that Fighters would [and the secondary/tertiary warrior classes could] choose from. But, yeah, the framework is the same and one could say every class receives certain "maneuvers" (small "m"), but only Fighters receive "Maneuvers" (big "M").The main idea, if it wasn't that clear, was also to sort things from a caster/non-caster standpoint as well as further categorizing within a 4e-ish "power source" way without being overt about class "Power Sources."So the non-caster classes, kinda all go together...though I suppose you could make a case for a split of Warriors are "Martial" and Rogues are "Stealth" or "Skill/Expert" (of course then everyone gets up in arms that their character should be able to be an "Expert"...but let's just go with it for now). Then it's a matter of how you define "magic." Divine, Arcane and, I'll add in Nature as a third option ("Primal" always struck me as an overly dramatic name for something relatively simple).So, for Divine then, you have the caster of the Divine: Cleric, the channeler of the Divine: per my example, the Paladin (who could alternately be described as the warrior of the Divine), and then a non-caster (be it skill or combat focused, but still no magic!) of the Divine: who would be the Monk.  Depending on the flavor you like, you could swap out the channeler and rogue as a channeler and warrior: making the Monk the Divine [spiritual] Channeler and the Paladin a non-magical but divinely-driven warrior (but I think anyone who likes paladins wants them to have magical abilities if not outright spells).For Nature you have the caster: Druid, the channeler: Bard and the non-caster (in this case, a pretty even split between rogue and warrior): Ranger.For Arcane you have the caster: Mage, the channeler: Warlock, and the non-caster:.???..this is where it gets a bit muddy. Because they're still supposed to fit into the arcane-ly fueled class category...so, my best guess, went with Sorcerer, as the armor/weapon using mage. The argument could be made/refluffed, I suppose, that a Sorcerer is a "non-caster"...in that the magic is innate and they just "do" with magic, without having to "cast." That's a stretch though. So a "Swordmage/Spellsword/guy with magic and weapons" probably goes best here.For non-casting "Martial" (seems self-explanatory): Fighter, Barbarian, Warlord.For non-casting "Stealth/Skill": Rogue/Thief, Assassin, uhhhh...whom'I forgetting...new class?So, yeah, maybe trying to cram in some more symmetry than necessary. But it just all seemed so...neat (as in organized/everything in it's place kinda "neat") and simple.Aight, well, I have to get food shopping and then dr's appt. So I'll just leave it there. Back in a few.Cheers all.--SD</blockquote>

Verification