Tony Vargas
Legend
Noble and Prince also denote social rank and leadership, and in a broader context, less evocative of the warlord's martial concept.
D&D 5E What Classes do you really want to see in D&D Next?
- Thread starter TrippyHippy
- Start date
Most of the words associated with martial leadership also denote some kind of status, earned or by birthright. Perhaps the "Warlord" should be a build type...maybe Feat based and open to anyone who meets the prereqs.
Hussar
Legend
Honestly, I think this is the best way to go. Make it a specialization or a background (probably background from my limited understanding of Next) that can be applied to any class.
So long as I can make a character that is mechanically supported when trying to organize the party tactics, I'm pretty content. It doesn't HAVE to be a specific class, although I do think there's enough room there to do so. The Combat Superiority dice pool for fighters I think has the right design space for making a warlord.
I mean, it's not too much of a stretch to think that a Warlord background gives you access to things like, "Spend one die, grant an ally a single attack that does your die in damage". So, I can forgo my attack to let someone else take a swipe, but, without their damage bonuses - just like the Jab (?) effect that we already have. Add in some stuff about blocking damage and maybe some movement effects and we're pretty much good to go.
Texicles
First Post
I'll toss in my support for the Druid class. I know 4e doesn't get a lot of love around these parts and that's fine, but I think that the 4e druid was pretty well executed, especially with regards to Wild Shape. Sure there were some exploits with feats and equipment that could get a little ridiculous, but things were (generally) balanced, (imo) compelling, and far from the state of things in 3.5. Thing is... it kinda took the AEDU system to make it happen. I've just never been in love with pre-4e rules around Wild Shape and inheriting animal attacks and the 4e toolkit made things fun (for me).
Summoning can also definitely be tedious, and I wouldn't be upset to see the extent of summoning be reasonably curtailed for all classes.
If 5e Druids can cast spells like 2e and melee like 4e, or at least do so the way I want them to when I play, while doing whatever others want them to elsewhere, I'd be pretty satisfied with that.
Summoning can also definitely be tedious, and I wouldn't be upset to see the extent of summoning be reasonably curtailed for all classes.
If 5e Druids can cast spells like 2e and melee like 4e, or at least do so the way I want them to when I play, while doing whatever others want them to elsewhere, I'd be pretty satisfied with that.
TrippyHippy
Hero
'Noble' denotes social class as opposed to rank, which is halfway towards being a 'Class' in the first place.
And I'm actually considering that the Class has broader application than just a martial concept - literally being a 'professional' strategist as such - with the concept being linked to Machiavelli as much as Sun Tzu .
Stacie GmrGrl
Adventurer
I would hate to see a Noble class. That really makes no sense to me.
Tony Vargas
Legend
A social class seems much closer to a Background, given what we've seen of the 5e paradigm, than it would be to a PC class.
So, they're in the nice white tent, on the top of the hill, sipping Sancerre and directing the battle?
TrippyHippy
Hero
Admittedly, this could be the case.
....or engaging in courtroom politics and power plays, or strategising on the next great campaign...
I mean, we have seen a 'Noble' style Class used in D20 games before - Dragonlance and Star wars.
Blackwarder
Adventurer
For the last time, barbarian is a background, berserker is a speciality, none of them should be a class.
Want to play the classic 3e and 4e barbarian? Take a fighter with a barbarian background and berserker speciality, want to play a noble elf bard who been cursed? Elven berserker noble bard is a viable option.
Same goes for the warlord, just take a leader speciality.
Warder
Want to play the classic 3e and 4e barbarian? Take a fighter with a barbarian background and berserker speciality, want to play a noble elf bard who been cursed? Elven berserker noble bard is a viable option.
Same goes for the warlord, just take a leader speciality.
Warder
Steely_Dan
First Post
Blackwarder
Adventurer
Or a fire Mage class and a frost Mage class, or an archer class, or even a knight class, you know, with a horse.
And let's not forget the great baker class for the times we all want to flesh out our characters personal story, although a brick layer class is a bit too much, you have to lay your foot down somewhere and having a brick layer class is absolutely rediciluse...
Warder
Stacie GmrGrl
Adventurer
Ditto. Agreed on all points..
The Barbarian could be renamed Battlerager as a class... it would make sense.
But, anything that could be seen as either a Feat tree/Fighting Style system should be a part of the Fighter class.
----- (separate minor rant)
I wish WotC looked at FantasyCraft for ideas and inspiration. Instead of having 8 different magic using classes they have one, maybe two. The other 10 classes fill non-magical Archetypes but many are non-combat focused... the Courtier,Burglar, Explorer, Sage, and Keeper classes are amazing because of this. Instead of making every combat focused, they put many of the awesome combat stuff into Feat Trees.
and FC doesn't have the problem of Linear Fighters/Quadratic Wizards. They are all fairly well balanced, without trying to be balanced. It's awesome.
If WotC got the people over at Crafty to get on this and help we would see a truly amazing game.
Tony Vargas
Legend
And the 3e 'Aristocrat' NPC class.
Noble is a background. For one thing, literally, for another, it's independent of class: you could be a noble who wears heavy armor and goes jousting, a noble who joins the clergy and smites the foes of god & mankind, a noble who dabbles in the arcane arts, even a noble who goes to all the best parties and steals jewels.
Hussar
Legend
I think you can get away with something like a "noble" or "barbarian" or "samurai" class in specific settings far better than in core books. In a specific setting, like Dragonlance or Kara Tur, these classes have a place and an actual function within that setting.
Outside of specific settings though, I think these kinds of classes are far better as backgrounds - something that you can certainly have in the game, but not quite so centrally defining and so broadly setting changing. In Dragonlance, I have the specific information in order to make a Noble class and know exactly what that means. In Generic Fantasy Setting #28 , a Noble class dumps a butt load of work onto the DM. Great if he wants to do it, but, still a PITA.
Outside of specific settings though, I think these kinds of classes are far better as backgrounds - something that you can certainly have in the game, but not quite so centrally defining and so broadly setting changing. In Dragonlance, I have the specific information in order to make a Noble class and know exactly what that means. In Generic Fantasy Setting #28 , a Noble class dumps a butt load of work onto the DM. Great if he wants to do it, but, still a PITA.
Mishihari Lord
First Post
For the core I'd like so see
Fighter
Magic-User
Cleric
Thief
Paladin
Ranger
Illusionist
Bard
Warlord
So yeah, I'm a traditionalist. With the exception of the warlord of course - I love the idea even if I don't care for 4E's implementation.
I'd also like the priest to be primarily a caster, or maybe a caster/social class with the paladin taking up the combat side of the cleric, but there's not much chance of that.
Fighter
Magic-User
Cleric
Thief
Paladin
Ranger
Illusionist
Bard
Warlord
So yeah, I'm a traditionalist. With the exception of the warlord of course - I love the idea even if I don't care for 4E's implementation.
I'd also like the priest to be primarily a caster, or maybe a caster/social class with the paladin taking up the combat side of the cleric, but there's not much chance of that.
Similar Threads
