Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6927490" data-attributes="member: 996">That's fine - if you're limiting yourself to 3-4 Sources, or you want certain sources to omit certain roles...Don't kid yourself you're consolidating classes if they're just going to turn into sub-classes.  I never did, I always just read the first level powers when getting a feel for it, the class features really had most of the feel.  I'd only read powers as of classes I actually played, as I got to a level to choose 'em.  Much simpler that way.Maybe go the other way, and consolidate powers (maneuvers, spells, etc) by Source.  So you wouldn't need separate powers or even lists for each class, every Martial Class could choose any maneuver, but their features would interact with it differently.  A Martial Defender tacks on marks when he uses a maneuver, a Martial Controller makes melee maneuvers Close or Ranged ones Area, etc..Toss all the feat taxes and feats that add bonuses in general, for a start.  Well, sub-classes can, essentially each sub-class becomes a different class, often largely incompatible with it's parent class (and you can't MC between 'em) in Essentials.  Not great for 'simplifying' the game.If you do want to divorce class from Role, consider having Class determine Source, and something else Role or role-emphasis (allowing that some builds might not go all-in to only one role).In essence, then each class is like it's own Source, and each sub-class like a class.  4e came close, at times to being a Source X Role matrix, with a class at each position.  Sticking to the 3 most traditional sources (martial, divine, arcane) that'd imply 12 possible classes.    You won't simplifying that if you let each class cover multilple roles, instead of 12 or more classes, you'll potentially have 48+ sub-classes.  Still not seeming like you're going to get anything 'simpler' out of that.'Simpler and more Classic' is pretty nearly a contradiction in terms.  D&D has never been simple.  But, if you really want to try to cater to the illusion of simplicity some D&Ders get from familiarity, /do/ start with the 'big 4' classes (or better yet 0D&D original 3 classes, no 'Thief'), but, behind the curtain, treat them more as 4e does Source:Fighter (Martial)- Cavalier (Defender)- Ranger (Controller)- Rogue (Striker)- Barbarian (Striker)- Warlord (Leader)Priest (Divine)- Cleric (Leader)- Druid (Controller)- Paladin (Defender)- Blackguard (Striker)Wizard (Arcane)- Evoker (Striker)- Illusionist (Controller)- Enchanter (Controller)- Conjurer (Controller)- Transmuter (Controller)- Abjurer (Defender)- Diviner (Leader)- Necromancer (Leader)- Sorcerer (Striker)- Warlock (Controller)- Artificer (Leader)- Duskblade (Striker)- Swordmage (Defender)- Bladesinger (Controller)- Bard (Leader)- Warmage (Striker)- Truenamer (Controller)- Sha'ir (Controller)- Witch (Leader)- Beguiler (Leader)Then have a Wizard spell list, a Cleric spell list, and a Fighter maneuver list.  Sub-classes then have feature that synergize with or modify the spells they take.</blockquote>

Verification