D&D 5E Speculation on the Barbarian DD Next Class

[DEFCON 1]

Rokugan had the Courtier class, which exactly does that but is also a skill-monger (8 skill points per level, not so long class skill list but every 5 levels you get 2 more class skills to expand your list).

IMHO it's a very cool class (but be warned I'm a fan of the setting ) but indeed such character can be both either underpowered or overpowered depending on how the DM setups the game.

That was indeed one of the games I was thinking of when I came up with it. 7th Sea is another one that also eventually created "social combat" rules to give interaction it's own mechanics as in-depth as combat gets.

 

[DEFCON 1]

A well-designed Rogue class should be able to do this out-of-the-box. We default to thinking of Rogue as a Dex-based class, but (especially in DDN) there is nothing that should require that. The first playtest pack gave us (potentially) a Str and a Dex based build, but since then, Dex or Dex-and-Cha seem to be presumed.

Very true... but indeed like I said, you have to specifically build the rogue in that way (and in many ways short-change the exploration aspects of your rogue) to do so. Which is why I would think that *if* the Interaction pillar was to get a more robust mechanical side beyond just CHA checks... I think we might be better served having a class that was mainly Interaction with side branches for Exploration/Combat, just as the Rogue is mainly Exploration with side branches for Interaction/Combat.

It's basically the same argument that is given as to whether Ranger should be their own class or not. Some folks say that you shouldn't have it as a class, as you can have a Ranger just by taking the Fighter class and the correct Background and Specialty. Whereas others then say that you've now removed the possibility of different types of Rangers, because rather than having choices for Backgrounds and Specialties to make the Rangers different... you lose that character choices in order to just get to the "base Ranger" off the Fighter chassis. Same thing with the Courtier (or whatever you might call it). You could certainly get there using the Rogue chassis and careful application of Scheme, Background and Specialty... but then all Courtiers are mainly all the same. As opposed to having a Courtier class... which then allows differentiation by allowing players to take different Backgrounds and Specialties.

At the end of the day it really doesn't matter though... cause I don't think a Courtier type of class will get made. Mainly because I suspect that any sort of robust social interaction game system is very, very far down their line of stuff to create/work on. And if you don't have that kind of system (and the Interaction pillar is meant to suffice with just CHA checks within the Skill system), then anyone with Backgrounds and a good CHA can participate in the pillar with little to no problem.

 

[gyor]

There is a martial class that does focus on social interactions. This would be a good niche for a Warlord class, after all social interaction is the heart and soul of the class and that's just in combat. They're main weapon is other players, not swords or spells, although they use swords as well, many are charming as well. The social interaction element could get more focus.

 

[YRUSirius]

That's brilliant, gyor!

-YRUSirius

 

[the Jester]

Sooo no news from Winter Fantasy yet, I take it? Isn't it this weekend?

 

[DEFCON 1]

There is a martial class that does focus on social interactions. This would be a good niche for a Warlord class, after all social interaction is the heart and soul of the class and that's just in combat. They're main weapon is other players, not swords or spells, although they use swords as well, many are charming as well. The social interaction element could get more focus.

I see where you are going with this, and I do agree to a certain extent. Although I also agree that the social interaction would need more of a focus on the actual Interaction pillar in the class's mechanics to really get at the heart of it. Ironically... if you were to do that, you'd probably actually get closer to what a 'Warlord' actually is, then where it stands right now with the name.

 

[gyor]

Winterfest has already started a couple of days ago, are there any leaks on the barbarian yet, or other D&D Next?

 

[gyor]

That's brilliant, gyor! -YRUSirius

Thank you

 

[malcolm_n]

No word that I've seen as of yet for the barbarian. I like the idea of making the warlord a niche socialite, but I also agree that the rogue should have some hand in it.

 

[gyor]

The rogue does, just as the rogue has combat focused abilities.