Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="M_Natas" data-source="post: 8972082" data-attributes="member: 7025918">I'm dropping:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Bard (it's just a Wizard who sings)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Warlock (it's either a cleric who has an unusual deity or is a wizard who gained their knowledge from an unusual place)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Paladin (it is just a fighter who dipped into cleric)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Barbarian: an angry fighter</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Druid: a wood/hippie wizard</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Monk: it's just an unarmed fighter</li> </ul>That leaves me with what?<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Cleric</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Fighter</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Ranger</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Rogue</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Sorcerer</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Wizard</li> </ul>Let's have first a look at the core magical classes.A Cleric, a Sorcerer and a Wizard. I think that is a good division. It divides the magic user classes by source of magic:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Clerics gain their power trough an external powerful beings like a god, devil, Fey, the spirit of their ancestors ... they channel the power of somebody or something else and can loose access to it.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Wizards gain their power trough knowledge. They learn stuff and use that. The source of knowledge can differ but except for brain damage/amnesia spells or similiar effects, they can't loose access to the knowledge. That could be our regular scholars wizard, witches, druids and everybody who gains knowledge.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">sorcerers gain their powers trough something that bestows them with intuitive magic. They didn't learn it, they don't channel the power of somebody else. The power comes from within. They only have to learn to controll it. This is your typical 5e sorcerer, but could also be a psionic.</li> </ul>This are the core magical classes.Than we have the martial class.The Fighter. Everything that is good at fighting is a fighter. Only the style differs. Monk, Barbarian, Paladin? All just subclasses of the Fighter.Then we have specialist.Ranger and Rogue.And actually, now that I think about it, let's cancel them too and replace them with ...The TalkerThe ExplorerThe Tool ExpertThe Talker is like the face of the party. They are good at convincing and deceiving people, at Reading people. They are at home at parties, they mingle with the crowds.The explorer is good at exploring stuff. Be it the wilderness, Dungeons or the city. They rarely get lost and if they do, they get excited about it.The tool expert gained a lot of knowledge with the usage of specific tools. He could be thieve who is proficient with Thieves tools, a Smith who makes the best weapons ect.ppAnd now that I think about it, I see the big problem, also with 5e.Some classes are organised by the source of the power (wizard, warlock, cleric, to a lesser extent monk) and some classes are organised by party role (ranger, Rogue, to some extent cleric) and some are organised by style (Barbarian, Monk, paladin).Which are wildy different organisational schemes.Let's say we want to have one primary organisational structure. What would it look like if we organise the classes by party role?We would have<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Fighter</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Support</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Healer</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Explorer</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Talker</li> </ul>But that is ... we would have to define all party roles and that would really constrict, what a character can do. It feels a little like 4e again, to gamey, to much like a computer game with tanks and support and stuff. It would also mean that the Fighter is the main class and a Wizards who specialises in battle magic (eg Fireball) would be a subclass of a Fighter, while a Wizards who specialises in support would be a subclass of support. That doesn't feel right.So back to square one. So maybe the source of their abilities?That works well for magic users. Cleric, Wizard and Sorcerer are the bases foe the different sources of magic.With Martials, how could we separate that? We could do that by Formal Training and Nonformal Training.So we would have something like:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">the Thug (learned how to fight by surviving in the streets - could be a replacement for the rogue)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">the Soldier (learned how to fight in an institution that trains a lot of people, that could encompass the Fighter and also the Monk)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">the apprentice (learned how to fight from one other person, like a squire to a Knight, could replace a paladin, could be named Knight-Class, also maybe the barbarian)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">the wildling (had to learn how to survive in the wilderness, could be the ranger class)</li> </ul>Thug and Wildling could be put in the "expert" category.So, that works out.My new 7 classes are:WizardSorcererClericThugWildlingSoldierAprrentice</blockquote>

Verification