Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jmartkdr2" data-source="post: 8199947" data-attributes="member: 7017304">I would go with 'protector' as a general start - we don't want to get too specific - and then come up with a way to make them protect that doesn't simply make them a variant of another class.Put another way: if rangers weren't already a thing, your arguments against adding them would be exactly the same. I'll go with "we need a story" and "we need a mechanic that makes them stand out", and I'll raise you "the mechanic needs to support the story in a real and direct way."Way back in 4e I made a bodyguard pc that was linked to another pc. His main thing was that they had a pair of magic rings - this allowed the bodyguard to teleport to the protectee as a minor or free action (I forget) and immediately attack with a big ol' axe. I would use this as the core idea.Your magical guard can 'mark' a person, place, or thing as that which they will protect. (instead of marking an enemy, they mark an ally) They get special, magical abilities that help them do this, while using weapons to strike back. This could include teleporting to them (starting with small ranges), taking damage for them, or free attacks against things that target the mark. These options can get broader and more impressive as they gain levels. They should also have a selection of spells for utility and fun special attacks.Is there anything else the class seed needs?Edit: a few additional thoughts:1. a shield-as-weapon option should be available2. subclasses should probably be based on what your protecting, although special magic styles are also an option.3. This will definitely need not only a new spell list but several new spells to support the style.4. The 'default' flavor should probably be 'bodyguard', as that's the simplest version of the idea, but like all classes there should be a lot of range in terms of the specifics. The universal is that you protect, not what you protect.</blockquote>

Verification