D&D 5E What new classes do you think we need?

[Hussar]

Oh, yeah, and this:

Again, it's really hard not to see these arguments as self-serving.​

Like I said.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...ses-do-you-think-we-need/page12#ixzz4agtMQQtw

But, how else can I see this argument? I'm sorry, but, your opposition to a Warlord in AL isn't based on anything other than your personal preferences. It's not mechanical in nature. It's because *you* have a hang up here. And basically, you're telling everyone around you that they can't play something they want to play solely because you don't like it.

What other way can I view this?

Look, I have no horse in this race at all. I'm perfectly content with an UA article or two (one for a first draft, one for a second pass, because, let's face it, they're unlikely to hit it out of the park the first time around) and that's it. I couldn't care less if it's AL compatible.

But, I'm sorry, but, what other way can I view what you're saying here?

To be fair though, at least you're consistent. You don't want ANY new classes in AL. I have a sneaking suspicion that you're about to be very disappointed. I mean SCAG and the Elemental Evil supplement were both added to AL play. I highly, highly doubt that this big book of crunch we keep hearing about isn't going to get plugged straight into AL. It would be rather foolish on WotC's part to bang out a big book of crunch and then deny its use to probably one of the largest groups of its consumers.

So, yeah, I think you're in for a rather big disappointment later this year. We're going to see a LOT of those UA elements stuffed into AL play.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yeah, when SW Saga came out and I was hearing about 4e, I was hoping that it was going to be based on similar rules as SW. There are definitely some similarities in some of the basic systems, but I really liked the whole structure of the class talent trees and hoped for a similar system for 4e. As I recall, there were 1 or 2 fantasy hacks of the saga system.

I really want to make a hack of 5e that uses the basic system math of 5e, the basic class chassis of the warlock(for every class), talents, condition track, force points, the structure of force powers and starship maneuvers from SWSE, encounter building, themes, and the defenses from 4e, and tinker that into a workable fantasy game.

I'd plug the monk's ki into all limited resource systems like spells and manuevers, but they would run more like Force powers. Talents would go where Invocations are, including two every time.

Feats I would tone down to saga/4e level, I think, and divorce them from class. Idk, it's a rough idea.

 

[cbwjm]

I really want to make a hack of 5e that uses the basic system math of 5e, the basic class chassis of the warlock(for every class), talents, condition track, force points, the structure of force powers and starship maneuvers from SWSE, encounter building, themes, and the defenses from 4e, and tinker that into a workable fantasy game.

I'd plug the monk's ki into all limited resource systems like spells and manuevers, but they would run more like Force powers. Talents would go where Invocations are, including two every time.

Feats I would tone down to saga/4e level, I think, and divorce them from class. Idk, it's a rough idea.

I've thought of doing the something similar. I was wondering if it would be easy to start with the saga system and change to bounded accuracy as a starter. I thought about the basic attack and defence scores but didn't get much further than that. Bounded accuracy would be good I think to ensure those storm troopers can remain a threat to high level PCs.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I've thought of doing the something similar. I was wondering if it would be easy to start with the saga system and change to bounded accuracy as a starter. I thought about the basic attack and defence scores but didn't get much further than that. Bounded accuracy would be good I think to ensure those storm troopers can remain a threat to high level PCs.

Definitely.

I think it should be pretty easy to convert SWSE to 4e style encounter building with xp budget, and predictable threat levels, and switch the numbers to bounded accuracy while you're at it.

My thing is, I don't like how late a lot of features come in on a PC in SWSE, due to the slow progression of talents, and how late prcs come in.

I've thought about just adding a bonus talent at lvl 1 or two. Maybe make an abbreviated list of starting talents for each class, and you pick one as a bonus talent if you pick that class at lvl 1? Even then, I'd want to add a few talents in the first 5-6 levels.

 

[Guest 6801328]

But, how else can I see this argument? I'm sorry, but, your opposition to a Warlord in AL isn't based on anything other than your personal preferences. It's not mechanical in nature. It's because *you* have a hang up here. And basically, you're telling everyone around you that they can't play something they want to play solely because you don't like it.

What other way can I view this?

Look, I have no horse in this race at all. I'm perfectly content with an UA article or two (one for a first draft, one for a second pass, because, let's face it, they're unlikely to hit it out of the park the first time around) and that's it. I couldn't care less if it's AL compatible.

But, I'm sorry, but, what other way can I view what you're saying here?

To be fair though, at least you're consistent. You don't want ANY new classes in AL. I have a sneaking suspicion that you're about to be very disappointed. I mean SCAG and the Elemental Evil supplement were both added to AL play. I highly, highly doubt that this big book of crunch we keep hearing about isn't going to get plugged straight into AL. It would be rather foolish on WotC's part to bang out a big book of crunch and then deny its use to probably one of the largest groups of its consumers.

So, yeah, I think you're in for a rather big disappointment later this year. We're going to see a LOT of those UA elements stuffed into AL play.

Yes, I'm sure I'll be disappointed with some changes in the game. As will you when there's no Warlord, and probably a bunch of other things. That's how this works, right?

I don't post here because I think it's going to influence WotC; I just think it's interesting to debate these sorts of things. It's too bad that a handful of people carry so much baggage about this topic that they can't even admit (or really the problem is probably that they can't even see) that an opposing viewpoint is even valid.

 

[Ratskinner]

Sometimes I wonder if the right design isn't to add one more layer to the Class/Race/Background stack, which I'll call "Template". Kind of like Background, but with more significant mechanics. For example, "Barbarian" would be a template. You could be a Barbarian Druid, a Barbarian Fighter, Barbarian Rogue, etc.

I haven't thought all the way through this, so I couldn't tell you which archetypes are classes and which are templates, but that's the general idea.

I do remember during the design phases, there was an Idea kicking around that might have something like what you're describing as a subclass or secondary class that could be applied to any base-class. I love the idea of a Paladiny-MagicUser or being able to pick between Rangery-Rogue and Rangery-Fighter. I'm not sure where/how that got the axe, but I think it would be cool to have more character-developmental weight on the background/drive, race, compared to class. Maybe that would be too complicated for new players? ...dunno

 

[Ratskinner]

Every time I look at Star Wars Saga Edition, I sigh a little and think of what could have been.

Yeah, when SW Saga came out and I was hearing about 4e, I was hoping that it was going to be based on similar rules as SW. There are definitely some similarities in some of the basic systems, but I really liked the whole structure of the class talent trees and hoped for a similar system for 4e. As I recall, there were 1 or 2 fantasy hacks of the saga system.

I remember having SWSAGA, reading some pre-4e hype/ads that said it was like a combo of Bo9S and SWSAGA and thinking that game would be awesome. I even remember posting possibilities for how spells/magic could work and what the writeups might look like...then I got 4e and was dumbfounded. The merits of 4e aside, it certainly didn't leave me with the impression that it was D&D Saga Edition.

 

[Ratskinner]

The pure of heart who can call out to the good in even the most evil of creatures. Examples are Luke Skywalker vs Darth Vader, and Frisk in Undertale.

The healer who draws the wounds and pain of others into themselves. Examples are in various folklore, Lost Years of Merlin, Wizard's First Rule, and all sorts of fantasy stories.

The demonologist who deals with forces beyond his or her control, only barely maintaining a safe handle on the magic and threatened by utter annihilation if they fail to maintain their stability. Examples are pretty much *any* story where a deal with the devil is struck, and any fantasy setting where evil spirits and devils can be conjured and bound to the caster's will.

The pure-hearted friend who bears the burdens of others, not so much magical as much as simply wise beyond their years. Their mere presence seems to keep others from straying from the path of good, and though they are not masters of blade or combat, they somehow make those around them stronger. Example would be Samwise from Lord of the Rings, whose combat abilities were pretty piss poor, but somehow he made Frodo infinitely stronger against the temptation of the ring, and was incredibly wise and kept others stable when the weight of their burdens wore them down. Without using magic or incantations.

The fool who is unpredictable and seemingly chaotic, but has a method to its madness. Examples are widely varied, but can include the Drunken Masters from that old Jackie Chan movie, the Jester from Devil May Cry 3, The Joker from Batman, Deadpool, the Comedian, and pretty much any "Mad" character who has survived well beyond their life expectancy.

None of these archetypes are easily realized in 5e without massive amounts of work and an absolute ton of reflavoring. I think any one of these could become their own class and would be unique enough to stand apart from the existing lineup.

With the possible exception of your healer...these all seem like very heavy-premise dramatic concepts. D&D has never, IMHO, supported such things mechanically. That being as it is, I can see most of this being "realized" with some extensive role-play/reflavoring and not much else being necessary. Which is not to say that there shouldn't be mechanics to support that, but that would be a far-off bridge for D&D. Other systems live there as their bread and butter.

The healer thing, though,....I mean, that sounds like a missing spell or feat, not class, to me.

 

[Ratskinner]

Okay, so my personal answer is "None". 5e basically hits all the bases for me already. I could have lived with a few more subclasses (sorcerer, I'm lookin' at you) here and there, but I think its pretty good. However, I'm not the only one playing the game....so with that in mind:

Warlord
Okay, I played a Warlord in 4e. Good fun. I feel like the "concept" can be done with existing mechanics and some re-flavor, at best a Fighter subclass. Additionally, I think trying to make a full class out of this schtick with 5e's comparatively reduced tactical ruleset is a recipe for disappointment. Especially since there appear to be a lot of folks who (collectively) want the Warlord to do everything it could do in 4e, mechanically. However, assuming that someone can wizard up a satisfactory version of it that doesn't end up making the (already fuzzy) math/balance of 5e go too wonky. Sure, why not?

Psion
Seems like a good candidate for Sorcerer subclass, to me. However, many folks seem hung up on spell/psi point mechanics or somesuch....whatever. I can always say "no" at my table.

3e's 10-to-the-eighty-third Prestige Classes
No.
Just, No.
Most of these, honestly, were just some wonky mechanics spliced onto the chassis of a base class for a few levels. I figure we can do that effectively with a feat or two and call it a day. And I'd be willing to invent and keep those feats in my home game, too. Now, a guide to doing that...that would be cool.

Just my .02

 

[Vael]

I'm all for keeping down class bloat, but that doesn't mean there isn't room for new classes in 5e.

Psion (Mystic): Yes, I'm a Psionics fan. If nothing else, a different magic system offers more flexibility in campaign creation. And Psionics are pretty essential to Eberron and Dark Sun, two campaign worlds I want to see more of.
Artificer: The new UA option didn't quite hit the mark for me. Admittedly, part of the problem is that I want an Artificer more geared toward Eberron, and this felt too generic. The other problem is that the original Eberron Artificer relied heavily on 3.5's magic item creation rules, something that can't be a part of a 5e Artificer.
Incarnate, Totemist: Okay, while the implementation left a lot to be desired, I really liked the idea of Magic of Incarnum. Specifically, the idea of shifting energy from one ability to another.
Summoner/Pokemon trainer: Yes, I want a pet-focused class. Ideally flexible enough to be crafting golems, raising undead or simply summoning creatures.