Let's play a game. [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Demonic Spoon

2015-01-02, 03:13 AM

So what you're saying is that you want a class build from the ground up to be nothing but a shapeshifter?
If that's the case, the obviously this fits in the "almost any" category and I'll direct you to stop arguing over a concept that quite clearly falls outside the extremely wide limitations I have set forth.
You're arguing for the sake of arguing, because I very clearly stated in both threads that "almost all" concepts could be filled.

I'm happy to stop arguing if you're agreeing that the archetype cannot be filled by the existing selection. However, this thread seems to suggest that you're interested in challenging what people think can't be done with the existing classes, and in the other thread you suggested that someone shouldn't bother creating new classes because it was unneeded.

"The existing selection of classes can fill any character concept, except when they can't" isn't meaningful. You're clearly trying to argue that the subclass system is more versatile than other people think it is, and that concepts others think need a dedicated class you think can be done with only a subclass or some multiclassing.

I'd also like to point out that such a class has never existed in DnD as a base class, and that any PrC had to start as a base class. Namely, Druid. Which is why Druid was the original base class of discussion and that this would be a subclass of it.
But if you aren't going to be happy with absolutely anything but an entire class build from the ground up around shapeshifting, and Druid isn't going to please you, then you simply cannot be pleased.

This isn't something I pulled out of the air - I've seen several attempts on these forums and elsewhere to make a more dedicated shapeshifter in the form of subclasses and feats, so there's clearly some demand for it.

Furthermore, while it's not like prior editions did this better, a druid in 3.5 only needed to take 5 levels before he could pretty much dedicate the rest of his career towards shifting.

A psion is, was, and always has been a variation on a wizard. That's even more true in 5e now that wizards spontaneously cast and power their spells as needed.
Psion is a wizard subclass. All it needs is abilities at levels 2, 6, 10 & 14 and it's playable.
The level 2 ability would be mechanically similar to sorcery points (no metamagic, unless that were a later ability at 6).

Or you can create a Bloodline for a sorc named Mental, and create subclass abilities for sorc instead of wizard. Either way, it's one of the easier ones.
If you really want to you can change the names of spells to sound more psionic.
Bam! Psion.

Subclasses don't change the base mechanics of a class, subclasses add additional mechanics and features to a base class. Similarly, they certainly don't change the core fluff of a class.

Psions don't use a spellbook. Furthermore, they do not learn new spells from scrolls or other wizards' spellbooks. They may or may not get ritual casting. They intrinsically function on a power point system which is different (and more flexible) than spells. They did not have the same spell list as wizards; it was similar in feel but very much not the same.

There were a large variety of psionic disciplines which would make awesome subclasses for an actual Psion class. How would you represent them as a wizard subclass? Sub-sub classes? Just eliminate them altogether?

Shadow

2015-01-02, 03:18 AM

Make a new subclass for a wizard that uses the variant spell point system.
That's all it takes to make a playable psion. You're arguing for the sake of arguing yet again.

Name a rudimentary character concept.
Either ask it as a request or give us a build idea, possibly including a new subclass for an existing class, possibly a multiclass, possibly both, which fits the concept well enough to be playable.

Let's continue with the game, shall we?

AugustNights

2015-01-02, 03:37 AM

I'll shoot some ideas out;

Artificer/Engineer/Device Builder sort (Suppose a Sorcerer/Wizard Subclass would work fine)

Debuff Jester (Probably a Bard Subclass...)

Metabolist/Grafter/My body does weird things and I'm a combat monster (Could probably function as a Monk, I guess)

Shadow

2015-01-02, 04:00 AM

Arty is one that would be tough, and really doesn't fit in the scheme of 5e, which is to say that magic items don't grow on trees. Artys make them grow on trees. I'm very interested to see what Keith does with it, because under 5e's general philosophy Artificers have the potential to break the game without some massive retooling.
The same could be said of pretty much ALL of Eberron.

Debuff Jester is most definitely a Bard subclass.

Metabolist/Grafter one as a monk would be interesting. Ki powers the metabolic changes and grafts. I could definitely see that.

Malifice

2015-01-02, 04:25 AM

One of the things I love about 5th edition is that pretty much all concepts are good to go out of the box. There are at least 4 or 5 different ways one can create a single classed Gish build. Add in multiclassing and the possibilities are endless.

But: Gunslinger. No class gets proficiency in firearms.

I suppose technically I could create a human Fighter or Rogue with the Weapon Master feat (for proficiency in firearms) but affording that gunat 1st level is impossible, and there is no feat at present that removes the loading quality from firearms later on.

Eslin

2015-01-02, 05:19 AM

Beguiler is agreed, warlord definitely isn't. The warlord's main focus is command, the paladin part takes too much of the available power to be a decent warlord. And a warlord isn't a spellcaster, has never been, even when called white raven.

A proper initiator/4e martial style class. Not a different class with some maneuvers thrown in, a class built around discrete martial abilities to a great enough extent that they never need use their action saying 'I attack' if they don't want to.

Artificer. Loved it in 3.5, was ok in 4e. Character concept is builder and user of magic items, with spell-like infusions that affected items.

Master of many forms type class. Pure shapeshifting, no real power except for the ability to turn into a variety of creatures.

Binder. How would you make that with a subclass? It had no pure focus or features - the main point was the ability to bind different vestiges to yourself to form a set of abilities.

Psion. Has an entirely seperate power source and focus - it's somewhat similar to a wizard in style, though different in play, but it can't be a wizard subclass, it needs subclasses of its own, spellbooks make no sense for it, and most of all psionics aren't spells, a wizard's spells and a psion's powers have similarities but they're fundamentally different - for instance, psions can heal.

Swordmage. Arcane character that uses magic for defense, control and mobility - not just a gish, someone who can use spells and strikes at the same time and can actively protect allies, basically a magical utility tank.

Logosloki

2015-01-02, 09:28 AM

wouldn't warlock be the better base class for psion if you were looking to use an existing base class? Invocations act similar enough to powers, a psicrystal could be added via pact boon or the level one feature of the subclass...

As for shifter, that is just druid. I think it would be kind of interesting to make a subclass that turns a caster into a half-caster or even into a martial in return for certain advantages. If you stripped a druid of spell casting for a circle feature then they only gain four other non-circle abilities: wildshape (which the circle would be modifying), two level 18 features (timeless body and beast spells) and their cap stone.

Eldritch knight is swordmage, or was intended much in the way that battlemaster was intended to be warlord. The problem is is that 5th has removed the protection/guardian role so it can't perform in the way it used to. Also, Eldritch knight suffers from being a one-third caster rather than a half caster.

I would like to see binder, artificer, psion, eldritch knight and battlemaster as base classes though. Master of many forms on the other hand sounds more like you should just come to an agreement with the DM about what parts of the MM you are allowed to transform into, although it would be interesting to see a class whose sole feature is making alter self more and more awesome (I'm thinking like the demonblooded people from fairytale here more than transforming into the MM).

JBPuffin

2015-01-02, 09:38 AM

Okay, erasing everything - Shadow, you're definitely 90% correct. However, the 10%, the "undoable" can simply be Unearthed Arcana style variants of classes.

A martial initiator class - actually, two, one based on the paladin and one on rogue. First one loses Vow, spellcasting and maybe something else (away from books ufn) and gains full maneuver progression; rogue does something similar, although I haven't read the class as of yet to know what to cut off.

Warlord is cleric with the serial numbers filed off. Guys, not everything needs to be a class, especially when this just amounts to reflavoring and maybe a five minute talk with your DM about if he's willing to waive one or two things. At worst? Trade channel divinity for the warlock's short rest spell recovery and maybe a martial weapon proficiency or four. Not neccesary to build a new class for except to please 4e converts - and in the end, not worth it. Sorry.

Artificer involves the Tinker Gnome's Tinker ability taken from 1 to 11, with appropriate levels of gold expenditure and whatnot. DM might just flat out only give the party gold and unforgeable artifacts and let him do the rest of the magic gear they want - if any. Wizard base, maybe reduce the casting by 4 levels (max 8th level spells, gain nothing of casting value 5,10,15 and 20) and extend the list slightly.

Psion comes closest and yet farthest from needing something new, if only because most people don't need another fiasco like 4e's ridiculous approach to psionics. Base wizard, variant spell list, their own class features (something not too far from sorc's sorcery points) and add in cleric's domain-type flavoring for the six psychic "schools". We don't need to track PP like the old editions did, or at least as much, okay? Okay.

Binder is a warlock who trades their invocations for something more interesting - a list of boosts (doubled proficiencies on certain things, attack/damage/save bonuses vs certain things, at later levels artificial ability score boosts[+1 to all checks of a certain ability], etc.) which they can modify during short rests. Some casting, probably Ranger progression arcane w/ warlock's short rest recovery. Subclasses based off vestige "groups", each giving bonus spells, additional boost options, and other trinkets.

Eslin

2015-01-02, 12:43 PM

wouldn't warlock be the better base class for psion if you were looking to use an existing base class? Invocations act similar enough to powers, a psicrystal could be added via pact boon or the level one feature of the subclass...
Invocations are passive boons, powers are active abilities somewhat similar to spells, and one is a charisma based class that gets their power from pacts with great entities and the other is an intelligence based class that gets their power from their own mental discipline and study.

As for shifter, that is just druid. I think it would be kind of interesting to make a subclass that turns a caster into a half-caster or even into a martial in return for certain advantages. If you stripped a druid of spell casting for a circle feature then they only gain four other non-circle abilities: wildshape (which the circle would be modifying), two level 18 features (timeless body and beast spells) and their cap stone.
Which means it doesn't make sense as a druid subclass, saying it'd work as a druid without casting is like saying something would work as a wizard without casting. Maybe, but it isn't a subclass at that point is it?

Eldritch knight is swordmage, or was intended much in the way that battlemaster was intended to be warlord. The problem is is that 5th has removed the protection/guardian role so it can't perform in the way it used to. Also, Eldritch knight suffers from being a one-third caster rather than a half caster.
Yep, an eldritch knight is to a swordmage what a battlemaster is to an initiator - a partial class tacked onto a fighter, a cool idea but not a substitute for a full class.

A martial initiator class - actually, two, one based on the paladin and one on rogue. First one loses Vow, spellcasting and maybe something else (away from books ufn) and gains full maneuver progression; rogue does something similar, although I haven't read the class as of yet to know what to cut off.
That's not a subclass.

Warlord is cleric with the serial numbers filed off. Guys, not everything needs to be a class, especially when this just amounts to reflavoring and maybe a five minute talk with your DM about if he's willing to waive one or two things. At worst? Trade channel divinity for the warlock's short rest spell recovery and maybe a martial weapon proficiency or four. Not neccesary to build a new class for except to please 4e converts - and in the end, not worth it. Sorry.
Really not true. A cleric has a very different focus, and while clerics can be used for support and warlords are supposed to be, they are in no way similar. It's not only fluff, the two are supposed to play differently, a warlord's abilities are as different to a clerics as a warlock's are from a ranger.

Artificer involves the Tinker Gnome's Tinker ability taken from 1 to 11, with appropriate levels of gold expenditure and whatnot. DM might just flat out only give the party gold and unforgeable artifacts and let him do the rest of the magic gear they want - if any. Wizard base, maybe reduce the casting by 4 levels (max 8th level spells, gain nothing of casting value 5,10,15 and 20) and extend the list slightly.
That's not a subclass.

Psion comes closest and yet farthest from needing something new, if only because most people don't need another fiasco like 4e's ridiculous approach to psionics. Base wizard, variant spell list, their own class features (something not too far from sorc's sorcery points) and add in cleric's domain-type flavoring for the six psychic "schools". We don't need to track PP like the old editions did, or at least as much, okay? Okay.
That's really not a subclass. There's pretty much nothing left of the original class, why not make a new one?

Binder is a warlock who trades their invocations for something more interesting - a list of boosts (doubled proficiencies on certain things, attack/damage/save bonuses vs certain things, at later levels artificial ability score boosts[+1 to all checks of a certain ability], etc.) which they can modify during short rests. Some casting, probably Ranger progression arcane w/ warlock's short rest recovery. Subclasses based off vestige "groups", each giving bonus spells, additional boost options, and other trinkets.
Doesn't make sense. Binders shouldn't have spells at all as a base, the whole point is making a pact for that kind of thing when you decide that's your focus for the day. The fluff may be somewhat similar (in that they both make pacts, though with different entities and in different ways), but the way they play has precisely nothing in common aside from endurance.

RedMage125

2015-01-02, 09:12 PM

Warlord could be done by creating some new maneuvers for the Battle Master Fighter which may grant temporary hit points or heal.

Psion I think would work as some kind of variant wizard, I agree that the "school of magic" abilities should be altered. Also, the Spell Point system should be used instead of Vancian casting.

Everything Eberron is being worked out by Keith Baker. He has addressed the issues with the Artificer himself, and already has a working 5e concept for Warforged. It's on his website.

I think a lot of the Beguiler is worked into the Arcane Trickster. They get to impose disadvantage on their spell saves with Magical Ambush.

I think Binder works best as a warlock. Invocations could be flavored as benefits from Vestiges. That, or Vestige could be a new pact.

Swordmage is difficult, but I think flavor-wise the Eldritch Knight fits in perfectly. It seems to me to be the spiritual successor to the Swordmage.

Eslin

2015-01-02, 10:34 PM

Warlord could be done by creating some new maneuvers for the Battle Master Fighter which may grant temporary hit points or heal.
Nope. The focus is still on being a fighter - you can add warlord style stuff to it, but that makes the fighter a warlord in the same way that eldritch knight makes the fighter a wizard.

Psion I think would work as some kind of variant wizard, I agree that the "school of magic" abilities should be altered. Also, the Spell Point system should be used instead of Vancian casting.
So... not a wizard? They use different powers, have subschools of their own, don't have a spellbook, don't have spell slots. The only thing they seem to have in common with a wizard is being int based casters, by which logic you don't need a druid class you could just have it be a cleric subclass. Actually, druid as a cleric subclass would have more overlap than psion as a wizard subclass.

I think Binder works best as a warlock. Invocations could be flavored as benefits from Vestiges. That, or Vestige could be a new pact.
Nope. The only thing they have in common is the play-all-day style and pact making, none of the warlock features fit a binder. Invocation style abilities are supposed to be rechosen each day for a binder, having a persistent patron wouldn't make sense, having persistent spellcasting wouldn't make sense.

Swordmage is difficult, but I think flavor-wise the Eldritch Knight fits in perfectly. It seems to me to be the spiritual successor to the Swordmage.
Nope. Their common elements are the fact that they're arcane warriors, but that's it. An eldritch knight is a fighter with some spells bolted on - that's fine, that's what people want out of it, but that doesn't make it a swordmage. Their actual abilities are pretty much useless (minus the teleportation on action surge, which is good), there is no actual mechanical synergy between their combat and spellcasting, all it is is 4 levels of spellcasting stapled to the fighter class. Which is fine, if there was any real synergy that'd make them too good, but it means they can't replace the swordmage - a swordmage needs to combine spells and strikes, not just be able to do one then the other. The swordmage was about protection and control, about making sure enemies didn't get near your allies, and eldritch knight isn't set up that way.

D.U.P.A.

2015-01-02, 10:42 PM

I see a psion as knowledge cleric, which has many mind controlling abilities.

For artificer, I would go for transmutation wizard.

Eslin

2015-01-02, 10:46 PM

I see a psion as knowledge cleric, which has many mind controlling abilities.

For artificer, I would go for transmutation wizard.

Yes but they aren't those things. That's like saying a paladin could be done by giving a ranger a horse and a stick up their ass - there are some similarities, but why not make an actual class that fits?

Basch

2015-01-02, 10:56 PM

How would one do a soulborn? I always kind of liked them.

Eslin

2015-01-02, 11:01 PM

How would one do a soulborn? I always kind of liked them.

Incarnum is actually one of the only systems I could see being made into subclasses for other classes - invent a system less pointlessly complex than the 3.5 one, bolt it onto classes like the fighter. No real reason to actually do that when you could just make them classes in their own right, though.

ZombieRoboNinja

2015-01-02, 11:38 PM

Let's play a game. Name any 5e class, and I'll tell you how it can be built using an existing fighter subclass.

Cleric? Easy peasy. Battlemaster with rally, Healer and Inspiring Leader.

Rogue? Dual-wielder with Mobile, Lucky, and maybe Skulker.

Wizard? Just an eldritch knight with Magic Initiate.

Clearly anyone who questions my methodology is being unreasonable.

Rfkannen

2015-01-03, 12:10 AM

Well since I have the anima beyond fantasy book right in front of my face, the summoner.

pathfinder did this well.

another good example is lucy from fairy tale

I always like the idea of a character that spends there time and summons up a big guy to crush the enemy. Not realy a spellcaster, more of a guy completly focused on the summoning.

I suppose a wizard would work, but to me it just seems like as a wizard you are more focused on magic as a whole, and aren't realy focused on your summoning.

Now you tottaly could make a summoner, conjuration wizard 20, cleric 20. Not that hard, but on the other edge that would just be makeing your ranger a druid 10 fighter 10 in my eyes. It can do most everything a ranger can, it just feels wrong somehow.

I don't think they will or should make a summoning class, just my thoughts.

other concepts?

My favorite prestife class ever, the horizon walker. seems like it would be pretty hard to pull off even as a ranger subclass

alchemists

I was going to say inquisitor but that would realy just be a dex based paladin of vengense, or maybe a ranger. Not sure which

planar shepard

shikigami from bleach?

I do however agree with you, and think that pretty much any concept can be done with the current classes and a I love it. Still would be nice for some more though, I mean you could just get rid of the ranger, barbarian, and rogue and put them into fighter, but I still like haveing those 3.

Gwendol

2015-01-03, 03:49 AM

Truenamer...?

I'd love to see it made right.

A mounted charger.

GoodbyeSoberDay

2015-01-03, 04:08 AM

I assume by legitimate you mean "within the heroic medieval fantasy genre." Because otherwise it's super easy to trip up the test, even with the borked methodology satirized by ZombieRoboNinja.

Honestly I'd rather see published subclasses handle these concepts. If only people weren't afraid of system bloat.

Eslin

2015-01-03, 04:22 AM

AstralFire

2015-01-03, 04:31 AM

I certainly think it would be easy to build a psion class using the wizard class as a blueprint, but making psion a subclass of wizard isn't really going to cut it as long as you adhere to the standards for a subclass set out in the PHB by example: the subclass improves, but does not alter, abilities granted by the class' chassis.

Warlord, Psion, Oracle (from PF) strike me as the big ones I'd like to see. I feel like the Warlord could work on an expansion of maneuver dice, which would also function as giving the Fighter some tactical leader options if they wish to go that way.

Knaight

2015-01-03, 06:43 AM

Name a rudimentary character concept.
Either ask it as a request or give us a build idea, possibly including a new subclass for an existing class, possibly a multiclass, possibly both, which fits the concept well enough to be playable.
I'll even start us out with an example or two.

Noncombatant merchant. Noncombatant scholar. Noncombatant diplomat. I can go on.

Rfkannen

2015-01-03, 10:41 AM

Noncombatant merchant. Noncombatant scholar. Noncombatant diplomat. I can go on.

level one pcs, probably fighters. With the apropiate backround.

Eslin

2015-01-03, 10:44 AM

level one pcs, probably fighters. With the apropiate backround.

Doesn't quite work - how do you represent someone who is as good a scholar or diplomat as a level 20 fighter is a warrior?

Rogue Shadows

2015-01-03, 10:49 AM

Binder, Truenamer. You could probably swing Shadowcaster as a Sorcerer variant, though.

Incarnate, Soulborn, Totemist.

Shugenja, which in 3.5 was a Charisma-based divine spellcaster with no armor proficiencies (the fact that it was not proficient with armor was actually central to the fluff) that cast from a scroll (ofuda, whatever) and was centered around the four Elements and had nothing to do with undead. While you could create domains for Fire, Water, Earth, and Air, you really don't get the "feel" simply by aping the Cleric class.

Ninja. Half of what you want is in the Monk (Way of Shadow) class and the other half is in the Rogue (Assassin) class and yet if you're multiclassing you'll never get the best bits of either, which a Ninja should.

Courtier. I want the viability and levels of a PC class without having to be skilled at literally stabbing people in the back for no damn reason (figuratively would be okay).

Alchemist. Oracle.

VOYAGEUR! (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-party-classes/4-winds-fantasy-gaming/voyageur) But then again the last is a Tier 0 class, I mean, Handle Canoe as a skill? Bonuses to Linguistics checks? Overpowered in the extreme.

mr_odd

2015-01-03, 10:49 AM

I would love to see a class that I wanted to, but did not get to play in 3.5: the Factotum. I would also love to see a class (or subclass) entirely around Lucid Dreaming.

Eslin

2015-01-03, 11:30 AM

I would love to see a class that I wanted to, but did not get to play in 3.5: the Factotum. I would also love to see a class (or subclass) entirely around Lucid Dreaming.

Ooo, a factotum would be nice. Can't see any way to give it subclasses though - it needs to be its own class, but specialising it with subclasses seems to be against the point.

RedMage125

2015-01-03, 01:41 PM

Nope. The focus is still on being a fighter - you can add warlord style stuff to it, but that makes the fighter a warlord in the same way that eldritch knight makes the fighter a wizard.
You have a very narrow range of what you would accept as "valid" for a lot of these. If it isn't the exact same as it was in previous editions, you just want to throw it out, or tell others why it's "not correct".

Is a class not a Warlord if you can't make a "lazy Warlord" build? Must it have some kind of feature called "Inspiring Presence"? Will you only accept a brand-new class that has STR/INT and STR/CHA builds? Is that it?

5e is not its predecessors. Your insistence on a strict adherence to previous editions earmarks for a class and rejection of interpretation of current mechanics for them stands at odds with Shadow's premise in starting this thread, which was to postulate on how we COULD use 5e's current mechanics to emulate other character concepts.

What you are doing is just being contrarian.

So... not a wizard? They use different powers, have subschools of their own, don't have a spellbook, don't have spell slots. The only thing they seem to have in common with a wizard is being int based casters, by which logic you don't need a druid class you could just have it be a cleric subclass. Actually, druid as a cleric subclass would have more overlap than psion as a wizard subclass.
What I meant was put more succinctly by whoever it was that suggested an alternative using the Wizard class as a chassis. Although Sorcerer could also be an appropriate basis. And the Spell Point system is identical to how the Psion worked in 3.5. I wasn't suggesting Psion be a subclass of Wizard, just that Wizard or Sorcerer would be a good template to MAKE a Psion.

Also, how many subschools does Psion really need? I'd be fine with just 2: Telepathy and Kineticist. Perhaps a 3rd one for Shapers. I just don't think Psychoportation needs its own subclass, nor Psychometabolism (whose powers I think fit better with a Psionic Warrior or Battlemind type).

On that note, I do think that Psychic Warrior or Battlemind would work best as a subclass of Fighter in the same way Eldritch Knight works. Introduce it with the same sourcebook that gives us Psion.

Nope. The only thing they have in common is the play-all-day style and pact making, none of the warlock features fit a binder. Invocation style abilities are supposed to be rechosen each day for a binder, having a persistent patron wouldn't make sense, having persistent spellcasting wouldn't make sense.
Vestige Pact was done in 4e and it worked. 4e had a class called "Binder" in Heroes of Shadow, which was considered a type of Warlock, even though it was an Arcane and Shadow Controller, not a Striker. The flavor of a Binder and a Warlock are awfully similar to be insisting that it be a variant class. Both of them make bargains with eldritch entities and draw power from it.

I think your insistence that "invocations be able to be chosen every day" is another example of you being narrow-minded in regards to adherence to something working exactly like it did in 3.5.

I think that as far as the original premise of this thread that the flavor of a Binder could be entirely maintained by making a Great Old One pact Warlock (with your "patron" being a number of vestige-entities, a different one for every Invocation perhaps).

However, I also think it could be a lot of fun if they made a "Vestige Pact" for the Warlock. Could be some good stuff there. And I don't think we need to adhere to the ability to change out invocations every day, changing them out every level is sufficient.

Nope. Their common elements are the fact that they're arcane warriors, but that's it.
Weapon Bond = SwordBond, only difference is that EK is not limited to swords specifically.
Arcane Charge is awfully similar to the effect Aegis of Assault's mark punishment.

An eldritch knight is a fighter with some spells bolted on - that's fine, that's what people want out of it, but that doesn't make it a swordmage. Their actual abilities are pretty much useless (minus the teleportation on action surge, which is good), there is no actual mechanical synergy between their combat and spellcasting, all it is is 4 levels of spellcasting stapled to the fighter class. Which is fine, if there was any real synergy that'd make them too good, but it means they can't replace the swordmage - a swordmage needs to combine spells and strikes, not just be able to do one then the other. The swordmage was about protection and control, about making sure enemies didn't get near your allies, and eldritch knight isn't set up that way.
Magic works COMPLETELY differently than it did in 4e, so I think your insistence that a class must work identically to its 4e counterpart is again being narrow-minded and trying to adhere to past edition mechanics, instead of looking at how the class CAN be done using the current ones.

Without a marking mechanic in place, a lot of the Defender classes are going to be wildly different. The Swordmage was about protection and control because it was a Defender, all Defenders were about that. I'm surprised you're not complaining about how the 5e Paladin class "isn't a Paladin" because of no Divine Challenge.
Magic is wildly different, using spell slots instead of an AEDU system. Thus there's not a way to imitate a lot of the Swordmage's ability to throw magic around all day. Cantrips are still at-will, and...oh!, look at that, War Magic trait of the EK lets him use a cantrip and a weapon attack together. His weapon strikes undercut a target's resistance to his spells, which is pretty sweet.

Eslin

2015-01-03, 02:12 PM

You have a very narrow range of what you would accept as "valid" for a lot of these. If it isn't the exact same as it was in previous editions, you just want to throw it out, or tell others why it's "not correct".
My range of 'valid' is having the same feel and play. If you want a different feel (say, attacker with secondary command abilities) then by all means do it as a fighter subclass, that's great, it just isn't a warlord.

Is a class not a Warlord if you can't make a "lazy Warlord" build? Must it have some kind of feature called "Inspiring Presence"? Will you only accept a brand-new class that has STR/INT and STR/CHA builds? Is that it?
I wouldn't say it has to have lazylord as an option, though as a full class I don't really see any reason it shouldn't. All it really needs is to have its primary focus be warlord style stuff and to be able to keep doing enough of it that it never has to fall back on 'I attack'. Not saying a balance between attack actions and command is a bad thing, but it shouldn't be the only option.

5e is not its predecessors. Your insistence on a strict adherence to previous editions earmarks for a class and rejection of interpretation of current mechanics for them stands at odds with Shadow's premise in starting this thread, which was to postulate on how we COULD use 5e's current mechanics to emulate other character concepts.

What you are doing is just being contrarian.
Not really. Again, I think wanting a warlord to primarily be about healing/buffing/commanding rather than that being secondary is perfectly reasonable.

What I meant was put more succinctly by whoever it was that suggested an alternative using the Wizard class as a chassis. Although Sorcerer could also be an appropriate basis. And the Spell Point system is identical to how the Psion worked in 3.5. I wasn't suggesting Psion be a subclass of Wizard, just that Wizard or Sorcerer would be a good template to MAKE a Psion.
Then what's the point? The thread is about whether you can make new classes out of old ones, and if you're just talking chassis then anything can work.

Also, how many subschools does Psion really need? I'd be fine with just 2: Telepathy and Kineticist. Perhaps a 3rd one for Shapers. I just don't think Psychoportation needs its own subclass, nor Psychometabolism (whose powers I think fit better with a Psionic Warrior or Battlemind type).
Psychometabolism is definitely big enough for its own subclass, but you're right in that it might suit a more martial oriented psionic class better.

On that note, I do think that Psychic Warrior or Battlemind would work best as a subclass of Fighter in the same way Eldritch Knight works. Introduce it with the same sourcebook that gives us Psion.
Yep, that'd work fine. Though I'd do a psionic martial class to go with the psion as well - have the full and 5/9 casters as new classes, attach a 4/9 to fighter and/or rogue.

Vestige Pact was done in 4e and it worked. 4e had a class called "Binder" in Heroes of Shadow, which was considered a type of Warlock, even though it was an Arcane and Shadow Controller, not a Striker. The flavor of a Binder and a Warlock are awfully similar to be insisting that it be a variant class. Both of them make bargains with eldritch entities and draw power from it.
The flavour is they both make pacts. Doesn't mean they have to be the same class, clerics and paladins are both divine spellcasters that hit things with sticks and they're separate - binders and warlocks aren't as similar as that, a warlock gains their power from making a lasting pact with a specific entity while a binder makes several pacts with a different type of entity every day. That's a lot less similar than a bunch of already existing distinct class.

I think your insistence that "invocations be able to be chosen every day" is another example of you being narrow-minded in regards to adherence to something working exactly like it did in 3.5.
Except it was the point of the class. Pick your focus for that day, never run out of abilities. Fun and different from how any other class operates (factotums are somewhat similar except on a round to round rather than day to day basis), why on earth would we want the class back without what made it unique?

I think that as far as the original premise of this thread that the flavor of a Binder could be entirely maintained by making a Great Old One pact Warlock (with your "patron" being a number of vestige-entities, a different one for every Invocation perhaps).
Flavour wise you can turn most classes into most others, if you want only flavour you can make barbarian a fighter subclass and warlock a sorcerer subclass, doesn't mean there's actually room to express themselves mechanically. Warlock and binder are too different in how they work, their only similarity is their all day nature.

However, I also think it could be a lot of fun if they made a "Vestige Pact" for the Warlock. Could be some good stuff there. And I don't think we need to adhere to the ability to change out invocations every day, changing them out every level is sufficient.
Right, which is why you'd make binder a separate class and wouldn't give them invocations.

Weapon Bond = SwordBond, only difference is that EK is not limited to swords specifically.
Arcane Charge is awfully similar to the effect Aegis of Assault's mark punishment.
Yep, they have a couple of points of surface similarity.

Magic works COMPLETELY differently than it did in 4e, so I think your insistence that a class must work identically to its 4e counterpart is again being narrow-minded and trying to adhere to past edition mechanics, instead of looking at how the class CAN be done using the current ones.
I don't want it to work the same way it did. I want a control/protector that can actually protect without having to take a specific combination of feats that only work in a specific way, there are plenty of ways to achieve that by building the swordmage class in different ways that don't have to have anything to do with 4e.

Without a marking mechanic in place, a lot of the Defender classes are going to be wildly different. The Swordmage was about protection and control because it was a Defender, all Defenders were about that. I'm surprised you're not complaining about how the 5e Paladin class "isn't a Paladin" because of no Divine Challenge.
Magic is wildly different, using spell slots instead of an AEDU system. Thus there's not a way to imitate a lot of the Swordmage's ability to throw magic around all day. Cantrips are still at-will, and...oh!, look at that, War Magic trait of the EK lets him use a cantrip and a weapon attack together. His weapon strikes undercut a target's resistance to his spells, which is pretty sweet.
5e paladins defend in a different way, they get a bunch of useful features that enable them to protect and patch up allies. They make good defenders, just not in the way they did in 4e - I'd only complain if I rolled a paladin and found I couldn't competently protect others.

And there are plenty of ways to imitate a swordmage's ability to throw magic all day - using your example, cantrips would work. Make a variety of cantrips that work with weapons and swordmage class features (so bards, feats and warlocks can't just steal their utility without having to invest heavily) that have interesting control and protection effects and you're most of the way there. Change the way it works, give them different strengths and weaknesses (preferably ones related to being arcane), whatever, just make sure they have A) spells B) swords and C) ways to combine the two to protect others.

I like the eldritch knight, I really do, but it's the fighter with a few levels of spellcaster bolted one. It's not perfectly designed, but it does its job well and it's fun - no need to try to stretch it into something it's not, it isn't a swordmage.

Shadow

2015-01-03, 02:46 PM

You have a very narrow range of what you would accept as "valid" for a lot of these. If it isn't the exact same as it was in previous editions, you just want to throw it out, or tell others why it's "not correct".

This.
The idea here isn't to make a class that perfectly mirrors what has previously existed.
The idea is to use classes that exist to create something that does basically what the old class did in play.
Arguing about things such as Power Source is useless. Power Source isn't a thing in 5e. Arguing about things such as specific stats powering the class is useless. That doesn't affect how the class plays in any real way.
Arguing that Psions didn't prepare spells is useless, just never change your prepared spells list.
All that stuff basically boils down to fluff, and you can change the fluff of something to fit your needs.

So lets look at a Warlord was.
A Warlord was an armed and armored support character, which was capable in melee, that healed/buffed/protected, sometimes in big ways, sometimes in small ways.
So how do we create that feel?
Drop Battle Master onto a Paladin chassis, choose your spells wisely, and possibly multiclass Bard.
That's all you need to do to create the feel and style of a Warlord.

Lets look at what a Psion was.
A Psion was a full caster with a mostly arcane list, which used a spell point system and dealt more with force, psychic, and (magical) physical damage types for blasting than with elements.
So take a Wizard chassis, use a spell point system.
Create a subclass which adds healing word to their list and changes one elemental type of damage for the players choice of psychic/magical piercing/magical bludgeoning/etc That's 2nd level. At 6th level they choose another element and another damage type to swap.
See where this is going? Choose your spells wisely.
Boom, you have a Kineticist and/or a Telepath or whatever that is playable.

The point of this thread was not for people to nitpick over useless details, but rather to get you to look at what the core of a class or character concept really is and use the classes that exist to figure out how to make it work with nothing more than new subclasses and possibly a multiclass.

Eslin

2015-01-03, 02:59 PM

This.
The idea here isn't to make a class that perfectly mirrors what has previously existed.
The idea is to use classes that exist to create something that does basically what the old class did in play.
Yep, that about makes sense. Fluff should be similar, or changed if appropriate, gameplay should have what was interesting about the class in previous editions in a way that works with 5e.

Arguing about things such as Power Source is useless. Power Source isn't a thing in 5e. Arguing about things such as specific stats powering the class is useless. That doesn't affect how the class plays in any real way.
Arguing that Psions didn't prepare spells is useless, just never change your prepared spells list.
All that stuff basically boils down to fluff, and you can change the fluff of something to fit your needs.
Arguing that psions didn't prepare spells is very relevant - psionics is not magic, and making it work like magic robs it of its point.

So lets look at a Warlord was.
A Warlord was an armed and armored support character, which was capable in melee, that healed/buffed/protected, sometimes in big ways, sometimes in small ways.
That about sums it up. There were archer warlords too, but that's more a specific subclass kind of thing.

So how do we create that feel?
Drop Battle Master onto a Paladin chassis, choose your spells wisely, and possibly multiclass Bard.
That's all you need to do to create the feel and style of a Warlord.
No, it really isn't. It creates a divine character that also plays music and has another list of arcane spells (power sources don't matter rules wise, but they do fluff - no-one would like it if wizards got their spells from the gods, for instance), a completely seperate feel from the warlord and a different playstyle (boosting/healing/leadership mechanics are entirely divorced from melee, come entirely from two spell lists and music). That is not in any way a recreation.

[QUOTE=Shadow;18608632The point of this thread was not for people to nitpick over useless details, but rather to get you to look at what the core of a class or character concept really is and use the classes that exist to figure out how to make it work with nothing more than new subclasses and possibly a multiclass.[/QUOTE]
Right, and it's been determined that most classes can't be done by doing that. Most fluff stuff can't be recreated by mixing classes (for instance, bard+paladin does not equal warlord) and mechanically the subclass is an addition to what one of the 12 existing classes can already do, so the only old classes that can be represented by a new subclass are ones with play that overlaps with a current class. Which is what, stuff like soulborns that are martials with an additional system tacked on, eldritch knight style? That's pretty much the only thing I can think of.

Knaight

2015-01-03, 04:11 PM

level one pcs, probably fighters. With the apropiate backround.

So you can't actually play them for any length of time, and even at the first level it's a kludge. Skills don't get better, the entire class system is denied, so on and so forth. I don't call that an example of the class system working for the character concepts.

Shadow

2015-01-03, 04:19 PM

So you can't actually play them for any length of time, and even at the first level it's a kludge. Skills don't get better, the entire class system is denied, so on and so forth. I don't call that an example of the class system working for the character concepts.

The class system works perfectly fine for that. Just pick any class at all, probably Bard or Rogue for Expertise availability.
You're a non-combatant, so combat doesn't matter. As combat doesn't matter, class doesn't matter either.

Knaight

2015-01-03, 04:21 PM

The class system works perfectly fine for that. Just pick any class at all, probably Bard or Rogue for Expertise availability.
You're a non-combatant, so combat doesn't matter. As combat doesn't matter, class doesn't matter either.

Having actual inability in combat is important to the character. They should specifically not be getting a bunch of weapon proficiencies, or spells, or hit points. This is trivially easy with most skill based systems, where you just assign combat skills to extremely low values. D&D actively doesn't support it.

Shadow

2015-01-03, 04:27 PM

Having actual inability in combat is important to the character. They should specifically not be getting a bunch of weapon proficiencies, or spells, or hit points. This is trivially easy with most skill based systems, where you just assign combat skills to extremely low values. D&D actively doesn't support it.

Refer to the (legitimate and realistic) clause in the OP.
Obviously this entire premise is to work within the bounds of DnD's system. If you want a different system, go play a different system.

Baptor

2015-01-03, 04:28 PM

I'm really confused as to what we are arguing about here.

If it's that we now have just about everything across the three rulebooks we need to create new races, classes and subclasses not specifically addressed in the core material (such as Goliath race, Psion class, Alienist subclass of Sorcerer) then I heartily agree.

If it's that you can make a reasonable facsimile of a race/class/subclass using only the existing rules that mirrors what that race/class/subclass could do then I heartily agree.

If it's that you can make anything you want out of simply applying minor tweaks to existing mechanics (making a true Psion from the Wizard class as a subclass only) then I would have to disagree. True, you can accomplish most things. I am sure you can make a Deepwood Sniper sublcass for the Ranger if you wanted easily enough. But some things would require an overhaul to make right.

RedMage125

2015-01-03, 04:32 PM

Yep, that about makes sense. Fluff should be similar, or changed if appropriate, gameplay should have what was interesting about the class in previous editions in a way that works with 5e.
Right, but you keep arguing about nitpicking mechanics, as opposed to being open minded about how the similar fluff can give a class the same FEEL, even if the mechanics are radically different.

Arguing that psions didn't prepare spells is very relevant - psionics is not magic, and making it work like magic robs it of its point.
So use Sorcerer as a chassis instead. Spell Points + Sorcery Points together form a caster with a very similar feel to Power Points.

No, it really isn't. It creates a divine character that also plays music and has another list of arcane spells (power sources don't matter rules wise, but they do fluff - no-one would like it if wizards got their spells from the gods, for instance), a completely seperate feel from the warlord and a different playstyle (boosting/healing/leadership mechanics are entirely divorced from melee, come entirely from two spell lists and music). That is not in any way a recreation.
Only if you can't divorce mechanics from fluff. You can re-flavor the magical healing as something else, the singing as a motivational speech, and so on.

Just like in 4e, one could make a Final Fantasy style Red Mage by doing a Hybrid Sorcerer|Warlord, take Hybrid Talent for Armor Proficiency and Arcane Implement Proficicency in Heavy Blades. Reflavor the Inspiring Word as actual healing magic and Boom! Red Mage.

Right, and it's been determined that most classes can't be done by doing that. Most fluff stuff can't be recreated by mixing classes (for instance, bard+paladin does not equal warlord) and mechanically the subclass is an addition to what one of the 12 existing classes can already do, so the only old classes that can be represented by a new subclass are ones with play that overlaps with a current class. Which is what, stuff like soulborns that are martials with an additional system tacked on, eldritch knight style? That's pretty much the only thing I can think of.
Who determined that? You? When you can't look past the default fluff of a class and insist that everyone else be as locked into that mindset as you are?

On an earlier point you made to me, it's worth noting that clerics and paladins are not necessarily that similar. Paladins do not get their power from gods like clerics do. A Paladin can be an atheist and still have paladin powers. 5e Clerics, however, are bound to deities. At least by default fluff.

The point of Binder mechanically was the ability to switch out your abilities from day to day, and that may be the only thing that matters to you. By the way, 4e Binders could not do that. But flavor-wise, the Binder was a person who learns to contact enigmatic entities and make an exchange for power. That sounds a lot like a Warlock to me. Warlocks have different abilities based on patron, and they can still switch up their spells and invocations every time they level. Vestige Pact Warlocks in 4e could, when using certain powers, switch up which passive benefit they received, but could not switch up his entire power suite from day to day. A Great Old One Warlock could flavor certain spells (and even SLAs from Invocations) as boons from various vestiges, and only use them when he calls on that vestige. Any spell he chooses not to use is a vestige whose power he did not call on that day. Thus can the Binder be done in 5e with an existing class. Although it could perhaps be better if a new Warlock pact could be made, the overall feel of it could be done with a little re-fluffing.

Feldarove

2015-01-03, 04:38 PM

I realize this is kinda not following along, but I really hope psion (or psionics) gets its own class treatment. I would hate to see it become an archetype.

As far as a non-combatant....couldn't you just play a wizard who only takes spells that help him do whatever the heck he does. Like be a merchant....

I am sure this is an easy one, but just to keep things lively:

Professional Wrestler!

Z3ro

2015-01-03, 05:33 PM

No, it really isn't. It creates a divine character that also plays music and has another list of arcane spells (power sources don't matter rules wise, but they do fluff - no-one would like it if wizards got their spells from the gods, for instance), a completely seperate feel from the warlord and a different playstyle (boosting/healing/leadership mechanics are entirely divorced from melee, come entirely from two spell lists and music). That is not in any way a recreation.

For as much as people love to change fluff, I don't understand why the bard can't at least partially emulate a warlord. I mean, the joke is they shout wounds closed; bards can chant to cast healing spells, I really don't see a difference.

Vortling

2015-01-03, 06:01 PM

What about the Dragonfire Adept? Specifically the mechanical niche it occupies rather than the "rawr, I'm dragony" fluff.

Demonic Spoon

2015-01-03, 06:01 PM

For as much as people love to change fluff, I don't understand why the bard can't at least partially emulate a warlord. I mean, the joke is they shout wounds closed; bards can chant to cast healing spells, I really don't see a difference.

Some of Bards' signature features include Jack of All Trades and Expertise, things that don't really make a ton of sense at advancing the idea of a warlord. Magical secrets makes zero sense for a warlord. Finally, the bard spell list has some support spells, but is heavily oriented towards enchantment.

to have a class actually feel like its own thing, it needs its own abilities which make that class distinctively good at something. Gimping the Wizard class by removing half of what makes it good and refluffing the magic source does not make a good psion. Taking the Bard or the BM fighter and cutting out all of the many bits of it that don't fit with a Warlord does not make a good Warlord.

Gov. Sandwiches

2015-01-03, 07:25 PM

So based on reading this thread, am I to understand that a Fighter/Wizard would be better than Eldritch Knight?

mr_odd

2015-01-03, 07:25 PM

So based on reading this thread, am I to understand that a Fighter/Wizard would be better than Eldritch Knight?

They're different characters for different means.

Eslin

2015-01-03, 09:12 PM

For as much as people love to change fluff, I don't understand why the bard can't at least partially emulate a warlord. I mean, the joke is they shout wounds closed; bards can chant to cast healing spells, I really don't see a difference.

One's an arcane spellcaster based around versatility, the other's a noncaster based around in-combat leadership?

The only thing they really have in common is the leadership aspect - the way they go about things is completely different, it'd be like saying you can emulate a warlock with a ranger because they're both strikers.

Z3ro

2015-01-03, 09:25 PM

One's an arcane spellcaster based around versatility, the other's a noncaster based around in-combat leadership?

The power-source is just fluff. Warlord never made sense; mundane mid-combat healing that isn't magical is nonsensical. Whatever you considered this, whether it be motivation, bandages, whatever, just refluff the casting as that.

As far as role, the bard (thanks to versatility) actually has a lot of support/leadership options. From inspiration dice, to combat inspiration to certain spells like heroism, they certainly make passable in-combat leaders, better than any other class. I'd probably add 3 levels of battlemaster, mostly for commander's strike, and you have a great battlefield general.

I don't see why a monk can't at least partially emulate a wizard, they can sort of featherfall and teleport or throw fire.

Agreed, I don't see why monks can't either. At least we agree on something.

Demonic Spoon

2015-01-03, 10:08 PM

As far as role, the bard (thanks to versatility) actually has a lot of support/leadership options. From inspiration dice, to combat inspiration to certain spells like heroism, they certainly make passable in-combat leaders, better than any other class. I'd probably add 3 levels of battlemaster, mostly for commander's strike, and you have a great battlefield general.

And what do you do with all of the class features that don't make sense for a nonmagical battlefield general? Just play without them?

While we're at it, how about we nix the barbarian class, and say that anyone who wants to play a barbarian should just take a great weapon fighter and roleplay getting really angry when he fights?

Shadow

2015-01-03, 10:23 PM

And what do you do with all of the class features that don't make sense for a nonmagical battlefield general? Just play without them?

Which class features don't make sense?
Bardic inspiration certainly does.
Jack of All Trades could be part of what makes him such a good general.
Same goes for Expertise.
Song of Rest makes perfect sense.
Font of Inspiration only makes him better still.
Countercharm could be fluffed as him calling out and rallying his troops to not succumb to magical trickery.
Magical Secrets even works if you choose your spells appropriately.

Hmmmm....... I guess that's all of them. Looks like it fits the theme just fine.

Gov. Sandwiches

2015-01-03, 10:28 PM

My opinion is that if just the name of the class doesn't give your average PnP gamer an idea of what the class does, then it's fluff.

Z3ro

2015-01-03, 10:28 PM

And what do you do with all of the class features that don't make sense for a nonmagical battlefield general? Just play without them?

What abilities that don't make sense? Expertise? Well, battlefield generals would use their skills (like persuasion and perception) a lot, so being really good at them makes sense. Countercharm? You shout at your friends until they shake off a magical affect. There's really not a lot that can't be worked in (a don't take spells that don't fit, you have enough of a selection).

While we're at it, how about we nix the barbarian class, and say that anyone who wants to play a barbarian should just take a great weapon fighter and roleplay getting really angry when he fights?

I've always thought barbarian was probably the most redundant class, right up there with sorcerer.

Gov. Sandwiches

2015-01-03, 10:29 PM

As far as the bard debate is going, the College of Valor seems to basically be Warlordesque.

Eslin

2015-01-03, 10:37 PM

The power-source is just fluff. Warlord never made sense; mundane mid-combat healing that isn't magical is nonsensical. Whatever you considered this, whether it be motivation, bandages, whatever, just refluff the casting as that.
Is it? Get a level 10 fighter, have him shot by, say, 20 bugbears - to survive he'll probably need to use second wind to heal himself, but once he does he'll be walking around functioning perfectly with twenty arrows sticking out of him, and to get back to full health he'll need to nap (or at least take it easy, maybe sit there reading a nice book) for an hour.

HP itself is nonsensical, having a warlord restore it is no worse than what already exists.

As far as role, the bard (thanks to versatility) actually has a lot of support/leadership options. From inspiration dice, to combat inspiration to certain spells like heroism, they certainly make passable in-combat leaders, better than any other class. I'd probably add 3 levels of battlemaster, mostly for commander's strike, and you have a great battlefield general.

Agreed, I don't see why monks can't either. At least we agree on something.
No, you have a character with a bunch of features they're not using because they don't fit the theme. You have a character casting spells to achieve most of his actual leadership - which is fine if you want to play it, it just goes against the point of having a warlord in the same way that you can't imitate a barbarian by making a warlock.

As far as the bard debate is going, the College of Valor seems to basically be Warlordesque.
Or, alternately, a valor bard is a full spellcaster with the basic martial package added (extra attack+proficiencies), a bunch of enchantment and illusion spells and the ability to pick up spells from anywhere at mid-game. It's warlordesque in the same way that it's paladinesque or rangeresque - it's a 5e bard, it can sort of pretend to be anything, doesn't mean it's a replacement for an actual warlord.

Which class features don't make sense?
Bardic inspiration certainly does.
Jack of All Trades could be part of what makes him such a good general.
Same goes for Expertise.
Song of Rest makes perfect sense.
Font of Inspiration only makes him better still.
Countercharm could be fluffed as him calling out and rallying his troops to not succumb to magical trickery.
Magical Secrets even works if you choose your spells appropriately.

Hmmmm....... I guess that's all of them. Looks like it fits the theme just fine.
Well... no, it doesn't. Imitating a warlord with spellcasting is like imitating a fighter with spellcasting - completely against the point.

Demonic Spoon

2015-01-03, 11:35 PM

What abilities that don't make sense? Expertise? Well, battlefield generals would use their skills (like persuasion and perception) a lot, so being really good at them makes sense. Countercharm? You shout at your friends until they shake off a magical affect. There's really not a lot that can't be worked in (a don't take spells that don't fit, you have enough of a selection).

Many characters use skills frequently; expertise is reserved for archetypes that should be exceptionally good at skills.

"Don't take spells that don't fit" is absurd. So a player is supposed to gimp their own character simply because 80% of their possible spell selection doesn't make any sense? They're only supposed to take spells that they can refluff as totally-not-spells?

I've always thought barbarian was probably the most redundant class, right up there with sorcerer.

So then what would your ideal class list be, then? Because if you eliminate every class that you could hypothetically get a vaguely-similar-ish feel with a different class, that's probably going to leave you with fighter-wizard-cleric-rogue-druid. Except a druid is basically just a nature domain cleric, so nix the druid.

AugustNights

2015-01-04, 02:48 AM

It seems there is a lot of focus on mechanically emulating former class features in earlier editions.
I don't believe that's the point of this thread, I get the impression it's an attempt to explore all of the Archetypes and Tropes that are available to players with 5e, as is.
And, as far as I can see, 5e has done an excellent job of covering many if not most of the bases there.
If you want a binder that binds like 3.5, why not just import 3.5 binding?
If you want a 4.e warlord, and absolutely insist that it couldn't be done as a subclass for Bard/Fighter/Paladin, why not write it up yourself?
5.e doesn't seem to unfriendly towards homebrew and porting old rules.

Continuing the game

* Gambler/Huxter type, probably an easy bard subclass with some heavy wildmage influence. (Or, hell, just a wild mage.)
* Blue Mage ala Final Fantasy could probably be a Monk subclass (for the Rage/Enemy Skill type Blue Mage) or a Sorcerer Subclass (for the spell type Blue Mage)

Eslin

2015-01-04, 02:57 AM

It seems there is a lot of focus on mechanically emulating former class features in earlier editions.
I don't believe that's the point of this thread, I get the impression it's an attempt to explore all of the Archetypes and Tropes that are available to players with 5e, as is.
And, as far as I can see, 5e has done an excellent job of covering many if not most of the bases there.
If you want a binder that binds like 3.5, why not just import 3.5 binding?
If you want a 4.e warlord, and absolutely insist that it couldn't be done as a subclass for Bard/Fighter/Paladin, why not write it up yourself?
5.e doesn't seem to unfriendly towards homebrew and porting old rules.

Except in a lot of cases the mechanics were an important part of what made a class fun - the binder, warlord, dragonfire adept etc were interesting because they did different things, and the 'if you want one that retains its unique attributes then homebrew or import it' argument makes no sense.

Why both including classes in the PHB? What's the point of having a druid or paladin when we can just make our own or import a previous one? Why buy the books at all, surely you can just invent your own roleplaying system?

Whatever you decide to answer that question with is my response to your binder/warlord thing.

newguymatt

2015-01-04, 03:04 AM

A jack-of-all trades who is distrustful of magic.

Eslin

2015-01-04, 03:06 AM

A jack-of-all trades who is distrustful of magic.

Half elf rogue with one level of ranger, grab the skilled feat. 12 skill proficiencies ought to do it.

newguymatt

2015-01-04, 03:20 AM

Except in a lot of cases the mechanics were an important part of what made a class fun - the binder, warlord, dragonfire adept etc were interesting because they did different things, and the 'if you want one that retains its unique attributes then homebrew or import it' argument makes no sense.

Why both including classes in the PHB? What's the point of having a druid or paladin when we can just make our own or import a previous one? Why buy the books at all, surely you can just invent your own roleplaying system?

Whatever you decide to answer that question with is my response to your binder/warlord thing.

You seem to have a strong feeling that the guides don't provide enough "guidance" for your taste. I don't know when you started playing this game, but I can tell you from experience that the diversity available now by RAW is exponentially better than it was. I know that that doesn't make it right, but perhaps you can see that many older people here can't quite understand your point of view. I don't meant to unjustly presume that you are young, or to make a fallacious appeal to authority, but this game that at one time, had very sparse and restrictive rules when compared to the most recent offering. From what I have read, it seems that you may be interested in a PHB and a DMG that have several hundred extra pages in them. With a little patience, and some additional products, I'm sure 5e will get there, just like all the other recent additions. Wanting more is very human. Thank goodness we all have our imaginations to fill in the gaps while we wait.

newguymatt

2015-01-04, 03:26 AM

Half elf rogue with one level of ranger, grab the skilled feat. 12 skill proficiencies ought to do it.

Wow. That was quick. You clearly know this game better than I. I don't have the guide in front of me. Is that 2 for race, 2 for background, 4 for rogue, 1 for ranger, and 3 for skilled? Do you think it would be better with one level of rogue or one level of ranger?

Also, i'm trying to create an NPC investigator/detective type. Any suggested rogue variants that play into this; lawful character that wouldn't fit too well into the rogue archtype...

Wait. Is this hijacking?

Eslin

2015-01-04, 03:30 AM

Wow. That was quick. You clearly know this game better than I. I don't have the guide in front of me. Is that 2 for race, 2 for background, 4 for rogue, 1 for ranger, and 3 for skilled? Do you think it would be better with one level of rogue or one level of ranger?

Also, i'm trying to create an NPC investigator/detective type. Any suggested rogue variants that play into this; lawful character that wouldn't fit too well into the rogue archtype...

Rogue works fine as an investigator, there's nothing in the rules saying a rogue can't be lawful. Use expertise to gain double bonus on persuasion, investigation, insight and perception (start with insight and persuasion, I would assume), just because you're a rogue doesn't mean you have to be a thief.

Though that said, the thief archetype does make a lot of sense for a skilled investigator who gets hands on, consider going with that and refluffing it as special training (chasing suspects across rooftops, sneaking in the back to investigate etc...)

newguymatt

2015-01-04, 03:35 AM

I like it. In my head, this was a stodgy NPC who was a paper pushing know-it-all whose efficiency brought fear to the hearts of criminals everywhere. In truth, however, were he just a paper pusher, it is hard to imagine his investigation, stealth, intimidation, or perception skills would be up to snuff. Better a retired beat-cop whose wisdom with age has made him that much more dangerous.

Eslin

2015-01-04, 03:38 AM

You seem to have a strong feeling that the guides don't provide enough "guidance" for your taste. I don't know when you started playing this game, but I can tell you from experience that the diversity available now by RAW is exponentially better than it was. I know that that doesn't make it right, but perhaps you can see that many older people here can't quite understand your point of view. I don't meant to unjustly presume that you are young, or to make a fallacious appeal to authority, but this game that at one time, had very sparse and restrictive rules when compared to the most recent offering. From what I have read, it seems that you may be interested in a PHB and a DMG that have several hundred extra pages in them. With a little patience, and some additional products, I'm sure 5e will get there, just like all the other recent additions. Wanting more is very human. Thank goodness we all have our imaginations to fill in the gaps while we wait.
Better than it was when? It definitely isn't better than it was back in 3.5, but 3.5 had years of content to use, while there is only one sourcebook for players at present - it'll take time to get there. There's no point pretending you can make a binder out of a warlock subclass when you clearly can't, however.

I'm not sure where you're getting any of this. The only thing that the PHB didn't have that it should have was the warlord (which was in the 4e PHB and they said would be in the 5e one) and a bunch more proofreading, I'm perfectly happy to wait for new releases as long as there's a book of martial options relatively soon. As new releases go, this is basically third edition but simpler with more options and better balance, we've got a perfect foundation upon which to rest more stuff.

Once more - when did I state I was unsatisfied with the choices for building a character? It's not what it will be, but expecting a bunch of sourcebooks right out of the gate is unreasonable, getting things right takes time. You couldn't make a psion right out of the gate in any other edition either, this thread is about whether you can make one with existing material or whether it could be created as a subclass to an already existing class. Which you can't and it can't.

newguymatt

2015-01-04, 03:58 AM

Better than it was when? It definitely isn't better than it was back in 3.5, but 3.5 had years of content to use, while there is only one sourcebook for players at present - it'll take time to get there. There's no point pretending you can make a binder out of a warlock subclass when you clearly can't, however.

I'm not sure where you're getting any of this. The only thing that the PHB didn't have that it should have was the warlord (which was in the 4e PHB and they said would be in the 5e one) and a bunch more proofreading, I'm perfectly happy to wait for new releases as long as there's a book of martial options relatively soon. As new releases go, this is basically third edition but simpler with more options and better balance, we've got a perfect foundation upon which to rest more stuff.

Once more - when did I state I was unsatisfied with the choices for building a character? It's not what it will be, but expecting a bunch of sourcebooks right out of the gate is unreasonable, getting things right takes time. You couldn't make a psion right out of the gate in any other edition either, this thread is about whether you can make one with existing material or whether it could be created as a subclass to an already existing class. Which you can't and it can't.

I suppose I wasn't being fair. You never said better when. I played quite a bit with the first edition, and also 2nd edition. Those versions provided so many less options and so many more restrictive rulings. I grew up either working around rules that I didn't like or creating content when I could. As young as I was, I didn't have money for any supplementary material and there was no internet. Almost everything had to be homebrew. I didn't really start playing again until recently, and am astounded by how much more material is available, how flexible everything is, how many class variations there are in the PBH, and how much space the DMG dedicates to creating worlds/spells/monsters/items. So it isn't you. I am projecting my sense of overwhelming joy at how much more is provided in contrast you your legitimate comments regarding some of the flaws. My apologies.

Logosloki

2015-01-04, 07:20 AM

Wow. That was quick. You clearly know this game better than I. I don't have the guide in front of me. Is that 2 for race, 2 for background, 4 for rogue, 1 for ranger, and 3 for skilled? Do you think it would be better with one level of rogue or one level of ranger?

Also, i'm trying to create an NPC investigator/detective type. Any suggested rogue variants that play into this; lawful character that wouldn't fit too well into the rogue archtype...

Wait. Is this hijacking?

If you are giving investigator npcs class levels then rogue makes the most sense. With the exception of most thin blue line shows most cops seem to be expert skulkers, lockpickers, climbers, know-it-all...

The thief sub-class is just begging to be the officer with a past.

Feldarove

2015-01-04, 10:37 AM

This thread has really derailed from the original challenge. A lot of the concepts being posted aren't being responded to, just bickering now.

Shadow

2015-01-04, 10:43 AM

This thread has really derailed from the original challenge. A lot of the concepts being posted aren't being responded to, just bickering now.

None of them have really been responded to for at least a page and a half or so, because people would rather bicker than get creative and open their minds at all.

I mean, when they aren't happy with a spell point variant wizard with special tradition features and a modified spell list.... because it still prepares spells....
Or when they agree about what a Warlord is and what he does, but is unhappy with a character created which fills that role and does the same things.... because of minor details and fluff....

If they'd rather nitpick over fluff and exact details to such a point that they will be happy with absolutely nothing but an exact rebuilding of every single class then I'm not going to bother. There's no pleasing them so there's no point in the exercise. They're going to continue to argue no matter what.

AstralFire

2015-01-04, 11:21 AM

I mean, if it's not working for some of us, it's not working. For me, a significant part of the point of psionics is that they are completely divorced from the vancian/slot fluff. I'd accept playing a kludge refit of the Wizard or Sorcerer if I was burning to play a Psion or a Wilder and didn't have another option, but I wouldn't consider the niche fulfilled.

Psionics are Different has been true in every single edition, even 4E. It IS a defining characteristic of the system.

Similarly, I can think of ways to play -a- Warlord via Fighter with some bard mechanics, but I wouldn't necessarily recommend that for all the concepts that have been represented by Warlord or White Raven.

Rfkannen

2015-01-04, 11:33 AM

Lets just agree for everyone to disagree on the warlord and psion. Now lets get on with some more concepts that need to be seen if they could be done!. Ill start by reposting something that noone responded to.

Well since I have the anima beyond fantasy book right in front of my face, the summoner.

pathfinder did this well.

another good example is lucy from fairy tale

I always like the idea of a character that spends there time and summons up a big guy to crush the enemy. Not realy a spellcaster, more of a guy completly focused on the summoning.

I suppose a wizard would work, but to me it just seems like as a wizard you are more focused on magic as a whole, and aren't realy focused on your summoning.

Now you tottaly could make a summoner, conjuration wizard 20, cleric 20. Not that hard, but on the other edge that would just be makeing your ranger a druid 10 fighter 10 in my eyes. It can do most everything a ranger can, it just feels wrong somehow.

I don't think they will or should make a summoning class, though. It makes me said to say it but summoning wizards will have to do.

other concepts?

horizon walker.

alchemists

I was going to say inquisitor but that would realy just be a dex based paladin of vengense, or maybe a ranger. Not sure which

planar shepard

shikigami from bleach?

non magical healing surgeon.

favored soul/oracle.

I do however agree with you, and think that pretty much any concept can be done with the current classes and a I love it. Still would be nice for some more though, I mean you could just get rid of the ranger, barbarian, and rogue and put them into fighter, but I still like haveing those 3.

AstralFire

2015-01-04, 11:38 AM

Favored Soul is extremely easy. That's p. much going to be a bard or a sorcerer mod. Oracle is tough.

Shinigami from Bleach I don't see working at all. They are way too varied and also far too high powered.

Horizon Walker's an easy subclass for ranger picking up a few new spells on their list and one new ability or so.

Maralais

2015-01-04, 12:12 PM

Good grief, the thread is filled with people arguing for the sake of arguing.

The way I see the premise of the thread is this: if I'm a player who'd like to play any character concept, could I do that? I don't give a toss if my concept is "too paladinesque to be its own class", or "its fluff is too varied to make sense". I just want a build that could emulate my concept, and I am ready to suspend my disbelief (for rules, fluff, etc.) to same degree to do it. Because that's what a character concept is anyway. My idea of a mage might be an almighty God who can unmake reality with one word, but I'll limit it with mechanics to fit it as a Wizard. If your idea of fitting a concept to a class is anything more limited than this, then you're a party-ruiner who's just arguing against 5E due to some unreasonable hate, or proving yourself right.

Now, following this idea, I'd like to ask how one could create a Bender from Avatar: the Last Airbender series. The elemental control spells tended to be both too varied and overpowered to emulate it in previous editions, hence there were many homebrew methods to play them in 3.5.

AstralFire

2015-01-04, 12:15 PM

No one here is arguing against 5E. There is argument against the notion that every concept they want to play in 5E which has been adequately represented by previous editions, is adequately represented in 5E by slight adjustments to the current classes...

Now, following this idea, I'd like to ask how one could create a Bender from Avatar: the Last Airbender series. The elemental control spells tended to be both too varied and overpowered to emulate it in previous editions, hence there were many homebrew methods to play them in 3.5.

Uh, the elemental monk subclass...? This kind of seems like the behavior you were just arguing against, actually. Everyone has different ideas of what they're striving to get out of a particular concept. I would probably be okay with the elemental monk subclass this edition, even though Monk of Four Winds would have been inadequate for me in PF, but they both represent a martial artist using elemental attack of multiple types.

Maralais

2015-01-04, 12:41 PM

Uh, the elemental monk subclass...? This kind of seems like the behavior you were just arguing against, actually. Everyone has different ideas of what they're striving to get out of a particular concept. I would probably be okay with the elemental monk subclass this edition, even though Monk of Four Winds would have been inadequate for me in PF, but they both represent a martial artist using elemental attack of multiple types.

I hadn't looked at that one. I appreciate the input!

RedMage125

2015-01-04, 06:38 PM

Is it? Get a level 10 fighter, have him shot by, say, 20 bugbears - to survive he'll probably need to use second wind to heal himself, but once he does he'll be walking around functioning perfectly with twenty arrows sticking out of him, and to get back to full health he'll need to nap (or at least take it easy, maybe sit there reading a nice book) for an hour.

HP itself is nonsensical, having a warlord restore it is no worse than what already exists.
Only if you view hit points as meat, which, you know, they specifically are not.

No, you have a character with a bunch of features they're not using because they don't fit the theme. You have a character casting spells to achieve most of his actual leadership - which is fine if you want to play it, it just goes against the point of having a warlord in the same way that you can't imitate a barbarian by making a warlock.

I think the point he was making was to re-flavor the "spells" as something else. Hence my comment about not being able to divorce mechanics from fluff.

That said, there are very few spells outside of healing and buffs (like Heroism or Enhance Ability) that could be easily flavored as purely inspirational and non-magical.

Or, alternately, a valor bard is a full spellcaster with the basic martial package added (extra attack+proficiencies), a bunch of enchantment and illusion spells and the ability to pick up spells from anywhere at mid-game. It's warlordesque in the same way that it's paladinesque or rangeresque - it's a 5e bard, it can sort of pretend to be anything, doesn't mean it's a replacement for an actual warlord.
Well, since there is no "actual" Warlord in 5e, we don't have to worry about adherence to some standard, do we?

Well... no, it doesn't. Imitating a warlord with spellcasting is like imitating a fighter with spellcasting - completely against the point.
The point is that it could work to emulate the concept, changing only fluff, not that it's a 100%-perfect-in-every-detail way replacement for the way the class was done before.

Now, following this idea, I'd like to ask how one could create a Bender from Avatar: the Last Airbender series. The elemental control spells tended to be both too varied and overpowered to emulate it in previous editions, hence there were many homebrew methods to play them in 3.5.

Someone on the wizards boards did it well for 4th edition and it worked great/ (http://community.wizards.com/content/forum-topic/2897861)

archaeo

2015-01-04, 07:09 PM

No one here is arguing against 5E. There is argument against the notion that every concept they want to play in 5E which has been adequately represented by previous editions, is adequately represented in 5E by slight adjustments to the current classes...

I think it's helpful, in a conversation like this, to stop associating mechanics with fluff entirely and to look at the collection of features and abilities in a vacuum. Then, there are no Fighters or Wizards, there are just boxes of mechanics, which the DMG more or less tells you can be mixed and matched together to put together something new. For example, "Spellcasting" has nothing to do with spells and everything to do with a collection of powers that can be used n times a day and affect xdy of HP. "Wild Shape" doesn't need to be seen as a Druid becoming an Animal; it's just a PC that, 2/day, can take on the stats and HP of some other block of numbers. A Beast Master just has another character which has its own box of math. Etc.

All you get from the PHB is that the boxes of mechanics have been playtested and given the WotC Seal of Approval. Otherwise, assuming that you put together your own box of mechanics using the system's expectations about a given PC's power at a given level, you're doing fine. I personally tend to think that it doesn't take a lot of work to pull mechanics apart and build something new, since we have a plethora of benchmarks one can use to compare a new class to those playtested by WotC.

AstralFire

2015-01-04, 07:16 PM

I think it's helpful, in a conversation like this, to stop associating mechanics with fluff entirely and to look at the collection of features and abilities in a vacuum. Then, there are no Fighters or Wizards, there are just boxes of mechanics, which the DMG more or less tells you can be mixed and matched together to put together something new. For example, "Spellcasting" has nothing to do with spells and everything to do with a collection of powers that can be used n times a day and affect xdy of HP. "Wild Shape" doesn't need to be seen as a Druid becoming an Animal; it's just a PC that, 2/day, can take on the stats and HP of some other block of numbers. A Beast Master just has another character which has its own box of math. Etc.

All you get from the PHB is that the boxes of mechanics have been playtested and given the WotC Seal of Approval. Otherwise, assuming that you put together your own box of mechanics using the system's expectations about a given PC's power at a given level, you're doing fine. I personally tend to think that it doesn't take a lot of work to pull mechanics apart and build something new, since we have a plethora of benchmarks one can use to compare a new class to those playtested by WotC.

I don't think divorcing mechanics from fluff is always ideal; it really works well in some situations, in others, it feels forced. I was a prolific homebrewer all through 3.x, and I've done quite a number of overhauls, and some of those "file the numbers off" mechanics switches I did I felt worked very well; others felt very hollow.

I've spent the entire day pretty much working on a rebuild of the Oracle from PF, and I'm not happy with it yet, even building it entirely on known mechanics.

I'm not saying that people cannot or should not be happy with that particular angle on creating more flavor and more classes, but it really doesn't work for everyone, and quite a few of us I'm sure have tried it before.

archaeo

2015-01-04, 07:35 PM

I don't think divorcing mechanics from fluff is always ideal; it really works well in some situations, in others, it feels forced. I was a prolific homebrewer all through 3.x, and I've done quite a number of overhauls, and some of those "file the numbers off" mechanics switches I did I felt worked very well; others felt very hollow.

I've spent the entire day pretty much working on a rebuild of the Oracle from PF, and I'm not happy with it yet, even building it entirely on known mechanics.

I'm not saying that people cannot or should not be happy with that particular angle on creating more flavor and more classes, but it really doesn't work for everyone, and quite a few of us I'm sure have tried it before.

What is missing that makes these overhauls feel "hollow"? What exactly is lacking, mechanically, from these classes? Apologies for the obtuse questions, but this seems very unclear to me; if you have recreated a class to accomplish what you want, what remains missing that causes the whole enterprise to fail?

Eslin

2015-01-05, 12:15 AM

Only if you view hit points as meat, which, you know, they specifically are not.
Then it should be fine that a warlord can restore them.

Well, since there is no "actual" Warlord in 5e, we don't have to worry about adherence to some standard, do we?
We really do. There's no psion in 5e, but there's definitely a standard for what one should be. If there was no druid yet, there'd be a standard of full spellcasting and wild shaping.

The point is that it could work to emulate the concept, changing only fluff, not that it's a 100%-perfect-in-every-detail way replacement for the way the class was done before.
Except it doesn't change only fluff. The crunch is important to how a class works - the difference between a warblade and a fighter is almost entirely crunch, for instance, fluff wise they're completely interchangable.

Eslin

2015-01-05, 12:21 AM

I think it's helpful, in a conversation like this, to stop associating mechanics with fluff entirely and to look at the collection of features and abilities in a vacuum. Then, there are no Fighters or Wizards, there are just boxes of mechanics, which the DMG more or less tells you can be mixed and matched together to put together something new. For example, "Spellcasting" has nothing to do with spells and everything to do with a collection of powers that can be used n times a day and affect xdy of HP. "Wild Shape" doesn't need to be seen as a Druid becoming an Animal; it's just a PC that, 2/day, can take on the stats and HP of some other block of numbers. A Beast Master just has another character which has its own box of math. Etc.

All you get from the PHB is that the boxes of mechanics have been playtested and given the WotC Seal of Approval. Otherwise, assuming that you put together your own box of mechanics using the system's expectations about a given PC's power at a given level, you're doing fine. I personally tend to think that it doesn't take a lot of work to pull mechanics apart and build something new, since we have a plethora of benchmarks one can use to compare a new class to those playtested by WotC.

You're mostly right, but wild shape is where it falls down - it's inextricably animal related, even if you say you're turning into a moldable form that takes the stats of the animal of your choice or something you're still having it animal related. Some mechanics (action surge) can be instantly reskinned if you want, but plenty of others (like wild magic) have fluff and crunch very intertwined. A big one is spells - we have a discrete spellcasting system that we know how works, if you give someone 9 levels of casting and they're tossing lightning and turning into dragons then saying it isn't magic isn't going to work.

archaeo

2015-01-05, 01:59 AM

You're mostly right, but wild shape is where it falls down - it's inextricably animal related, even if you say you're turning into a moldable form that takes the stats of the animal of your choice or something you're still having it animal related.

Why? I mean, you'd have to take into account the limitations -- no "spellcasting" until level 18, for example, and the HP pool system -- but why should it have to be animals? In a futuristic campaign, why can't it just be using nanomachines to become different kinds of robots? This doesn't seem like an insolvable problem at all.

Edit: why should it even need to be changing forms? Maybe you're some kind of spirit shaman, you pull spirits from the ether and manifest them. You're a martial artist who uses different techniques that inhibit your "casting" but grant you added stamina. You just color in the lines, in other words. It's not hard.

Some mechanics (action surge) can be instantly reskinned if you want, but plenty of others (like wild magic) have fluff and crunch very intertwined. A big one is spells - we have a discrete spellcasting system that we know how works, if you give someone 9 levels of casting and they're tossing lightning and turning into dragons then saying it isn't magic isn't going to work.

Obviously, you pick some subset of the wider spell list, completely refluff the spells as whatever you want, and limit it with the same "casting" mechanic. It's still gamist, but so are superiority dice, so, you know, whatever. With Wild Magic, you'd just find some other reason for random events to happen; it'd be the hardest thing to refluff in the book, maybe, since you'd probably want to rewrite the table, but it seems totally possible. As a bare mechanic anyway, it's "Whenever you do x action, roll a d20. If you roll a 1, roll a d100 and do what it says on this table."

Knaight

2015-01-05, 04:01 AM

Edit: why should it even need to be changing forms? Maybe you're some kind of spirit shaman, you pull spirits from the ether and manifest them. You're a martial artist who uses different techniques that inhibit your "casting" but grant you added stamina. You just color in the lines, in other words. It's not hard.

There's more to mechanics than just having stat changes. The core of the mechanic is that in setting the character turns into an animal, which has a lot of implications beyond a few attacks. There's the implications for stealth that don't exist for someone like the martial artist (a raccoon up on a tree can spy on a group that knows they're there; it's a little harder for some martial artist who happens to get more dextrous), there's implications for traversal that come with becoming a bird or fish, there's a whole bunch of things.

That applies to a lot of mechanics. Names can be easily refluffed in just about every case, but one of the effects of something like fireball is an actual ball of fire in the setting. While it might be viable to refluff a sorcerer into someone with some high technology gear if you pick the right spells and have the fireball be something like an incendiary, there are a lot of effects that would be damage in an area that don't really work so well.

archaeo

2015-01-05, 09:07 AM

There's more to mechanics than just having stat changes. The core of the mechanic is that in setting the character turns into an animal, which has a lot of implications beyond a few attacks. There's the implications for stealth that don't exist for someone like the martial artist (a raccoon up on a tree can spy on a group that knows they're there; it's a little harder for some martial artist who happens to get more dextrous), there's implications for traversal that come with becoming a bird or fish, there's a whole bunch of things.

No. A Druid, twice per day, gets a new stat block with a CR based on their class level, along with a few other stipulations that are entirely based in mechanics. How you choose to fluff the effects of that stat block are unimportant for the purposes of this discussion; we're talking about magic, why shouldn't a martial artist be able to fly using magical martial nonsense? Hell, isn't that exactly what people are asking for in numerous other threads?

Naturally, the extent of your refluffing is going to be grounded in your ability to suspend disbelief. But there's absolutely nothing grounding the mechanics to the "turning into an animal" fluff beyond tradition and familiarity.

That applies to a lot of mechanics. Names can be easily refluffed in just about every case, but one of the effects of something like fireball is an actual ball of fire in the setting. While it might be viable to refluff a sorcerer into someone with some high technology gear if you pick the right spells and have the fireball be something like an incendiary, there are a lot of effects that would be damage in an area that don't really work so well.

You're not drilling down far enough. It's just a 3rd level spell that does 8d6 damage to multiple targets; one assumes it gets two extra damage dice compared to what's recommended in the DMG because the downside to the spell involves it being a fiery explosion that is difficult to use with precision. It could be a high-tech rifle thing, sure, but it could just as easily be a martial combatant dipping into their reserves to leap across the battlefield with such blinding speed that they attack everything in a 20-foot radius, you have to make a dex save to take half damage from the onslaught, and the speed of the attack makes it a fire-elemental effect. Or, you know, it could be just a different take on conjure barrage, which practically is a martial fireball already (and suggests that you subtract damage dice for increased area of effect, etc.).

This also ignores the dozens of spells it would be very easy to refluff completely without needing to change the mechanics at all, or the simple act of reorganizing a specialized spell list into a group of class features. 5e already does that, after all, with the numerous classes that get spell-like abilities that presumably aren't being "cast" in the same way that a Wizard does it.

* * *

I'm not trying to say these are trivial exercises; they require some thought and finesse. But, if you accept that 5e is fundamentally a bucket of playtested mechanics you use to play make-believe elf games, I see no reason not to leverage those mechanics in whatever way makes it possible to have the most fun make-believe elf games possible.

AstralFire

2015-01-05, 09:19 AM

What is missing that makes these overhauls feel "hollow"? What exactly is lacking, mechanically, from these classes? Apologies for the obtuse questions, but this seems very unclear to me; if you have recreated a class to accomplish what you want, what remains missing that causes the whole enterprise to fail?

This is part of an excerpt that I wrote for my players on Wizard casting, incorporating what I understand about the principles of Vancian casting.

To be a wizard is to understand the universe's most basic and fundamental principles. The knowledge is taxing on one's very mind; the fractal symmetries and complexities are simply are too profound, too exacting for a tiny animal brain to completely grasp. So what a wizard does — their most elementary of magic — is create strange words that are infused with magic itself. Once read by a mind capable of comprehension — however briefly — the letters literally fly off the page, through the eyes and into the host mind.

The words themselves have life, once imbued with these cosmic principles. It is a horrifying sensation for a wizard to undergo at first, sharing their mind with another, one that they have created but do not understand. If they wish to memorize a spell for flame, that spell rests behind their eyes and turns everything they see into flame. Burn, sear, cinder, crisp, ash, smoke, blaze. The greatest part of training to be a wizard is not in learning to read the magic, but in learning to create a wall against the word and prevent it from shaping one's mind in its own image.

To become a wizard is no trivial task. To be a wizard is even less so.

With this in mind, it becomes logical that you can cast and "forget" spells when they are cast (in 3E and before) or rearrange them on a daily basis. Without this flavor, it doesn't make sense, because it fails to map to any popular conception of 'Wizard'; Harry Potter can cast Wingardium Leviosa as long as he doesn't get tired, as far as we know.

Psionics, however, is a lot closer to magic as we generally see it outside of D&D; you have an internal power source and you don't simply forget how to do your tricks. Any trick that a Jedi can do, they can vary up and down in intensity in fine-grained amounts. Getting better at the Force intrinsically includes that. You do not get the ability to use Level 9 Telekinesis if you don't also have the ability to use most of the levels from 1 through 8. Simply heightening a single spell doesn't work; heightening typically doesn't scale enough to keep it a viable tactic, and most viewers would make the assumption that if the Emperor could have made himself a more effective fighter by replacing telekinesis and lightning with wish at no added effort to learn on his part, he would have done so.

If you made a single spell scaleable to that degree, it would be an extremely strong pick, so you would have to prevent it from being accessed by other classes via feats and class features, which ultimately leads into problems of creating new mechanics again, but this time at a part they spent effort to keep smoothly modular -- spells -- rather than the part where modularity is merely a variant rule.

Then there's the issue of fine control. Spell slots are a step closer to representing sheer magical power than they used to be, and I think a psionic adaptation could actually keep spell slot mechanic over a power point mechanic without too much issue, though it'd be non-ideal. But where a wizard who happens to like force would be just fine throwing in a meteor swarm at high levels to get the job done, most Jedi shouldn't ever have that as an option unless it's a power they've been developing for a long time. What they should have the ability to do is almost everything conceivable with telekinesis -- manipulating objects from range, dealing damage, combat maneuvers, throwing objects, blocking attacks, catching allies. Spells do not have prerequisites. And they shouldn't, because that would go against how they're supposed to work, like computer code for the brain. I don't need Office Suite 21 to upgrade to Office Suite 22; at most I need their common dependencies (an operating system and libraries).

3.5 Psionics accomplished this with an extremely crunchy, easy to use system with high granularity that granted you few powers but a large variety of options for those powers. I would imagine a 5E Psionics would do similar by returning to power points, but ditching the heavy crunch augment system for a series of examples as benchmarks. e.g. "if 1 power point spent, open a door or something similar; if 3, crush a door or manipulate difficult mechanisms; if 5, heads asplode" or something similar.

RedMage125

2015-01-05, 09:18 PM

Then it should be fine that a warlord can restore them.
I'm confused. This is my point that it is fine that a Warlord can restore HP.

My point, to which you were responding, was in regards to your "example" of why hp is ridiculous. A Fighter who takes damage from 20 bugbears with bows does NOT have 20 arrows sticking out of him. If he's still above 1 hp, he has NONE, but perhaps has some scratches or shallow cuts.

That's by the default rules, anyway. My personal rules take one step of complexity further. Ever since 4e (and even when I was running 3.5 games after 4e came out), I have used the "bloodied" condition to describe creatures. Namely because I refuse to let players on to monster hp, although when a creature is at one or two hp, I will sometimes describe it as "on its last legs" or something. At any rate, until a creature is below half hp, it has not been harmed. Once "bloodied", it has suffered some close calls and minor wounds. My one exception is that a critical hit is always a physical strike. So your Fighter with 20 arrows would only have one sticking out of him if one was a crit (which, if we're assuming 20 hits, is statistically likely).

At any rate, Hit Points are not meat, and have not been for a long time. The 3.5e ruleset has mention of this in the PHB, page 145. I can't cite page numbers, but I do seem to recall something similar in older edition books.

We really do. There's no psion in 5e, but there's definitely a standard for what one should be. If there was no druid yet, there'd be a standard of full spellcasting and wild shaping.
Oh really? What "standard" can you OBJECTIVELY point to that must be adhered to for the psion? A psicrstal? Not all psions had those, and they were only in 3rd ed. Specialization in one of 6 disciplines? Because that wasn't in every previous edition. Unless you mean Power Points? Because Spell Points work the same way, and a re-skinned sorcerer works perfectly well in that regard. Power Points are something synonymous with psionics in D&D, so I think we can agree that a psion must somehow use them.

The Warlord, however, does not have a long history in D&D. It only existed in ONE edition, 4e, and although it was thematically similar to a 3.5e class (the Marshal), it could do things the Marshal could not, like heal, and give up his attack to grant one to an ally. Both could give bonuses to skill checks, possibly even initiative checks.

On the subject of what I was responding to when you wrote this, the Valor Bard could re-flavor his inspiration as something other than singing. It takes a Bonus Action, doesn't need to be music. If spell selection is limited to spells with subtle, non-ostentatious effects like Healing Word, Cure Wounds, Heroism, and cantrips like Blade Ward and True Strike, a Valor Bard could be a good Warlord, especially if multiclassed with a Battle Master Fighter. Just re-flavor his spells as inspiration or something else. They don't "need" to be flavored as magical effects.

Except it doesn't change only fluff. The crunch is important to how a class works - the differrence between a warblade and a fighter is almost entirely crunch, for instance, fluff wise they're completely interchangable.
Changing a spell called Healing Word into a non-magical "Inspiring Word" that also takes up a bonus action and has the same effect IS changing fluff and not crunch. The Crunch is that a limited per-day resource is used, a Bonus Action is required to use it, there is a specified limit to range, and hit points are restored. That's it. That's what we're saying. Anything beyond that, such as it being a magical effect, is fluff. Warlords in 4e had some abilities that were limited on a daily basis (everyone did, really), so the fact that the Bard's spell slots are limited should not be something that interferes with the internal consistency of making a Valor Bard/BattleMaster Fighter into a "warlord". Really all it takes is taking care when selecting spells (stick to things that are buffs that don't require flashy, visual effects, such as Heroism, Healing Word, or Enhance Ability, avoid spells like Thunderwave, Disguise Self, etc.) so that they can be re-flavored as non-magical.

It's not about a player "gimping" their character. There are plenty of good spells that could be used, and obviously a player would only choose this kind of path if they wanted to play a character that was a Warlord.

Abithrios

2015-01-06, 02:43 PM

What about the Dragonfire Adept? Specifically the mechanical niche it occupies rather than the "rawr, I'm dragony" fluff.

The 3.5 warlock and dragonfire adept were very similar mechanically. The fact that the breath weapon was (Su) no longer makes a mechanical difference.

Old -> New:

Breath weapon -> new cantrip.
Breath effects -> new invocations
Invocations -> spells and other invocations
Misc.-> new "pact", pact boon, etc.

As long as there are enough good options, it will become possible to make a dragon themed character without needing to shoot lasers from your fingers and without crippling yourself mechanically.

The result should be about as close to the original as the warlock is to its 3.5 version.

Knaight

2015-01-07, 04:42 AM

No. A Druid, twice per day, gets a new stat block with a CR based on their class level, along with a few other stipulations that are entirely based in mechanics. How you choose to fluff the effects of that stat block are unimportant for the purposes of this discussion; we're talking about magic, why shouldn't a martial artist be able to fly using magical martial nonsense? Hell, isn't that exactly what people are asking for in numerous other threads?

Naturally, the extent of your refluffing is going to be grounded in your ability to suspend disbelief. But there's absolutely nothing grounding the mechanics to the "turning into an animal" fluff beyond tradition and familiarity.
Mechanics aren't just numbers, there are qualitative aspects. The qualitative part of the wild shape mechanic is the transformation into an animal, and changing that isn't just refluffing, it's house ruling. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, but that's a substantially different thing than using all of the mechanic and refluffing it.

I'm not trying to say these are trivial exercises; they require some thought and finesse. But, if you accept that 5e is fundamentally a bucket of playtested mechanics you use to play make-believe elf games, I see no reason not to leverage those mechanics in whatever way makes it possible to have the most fun make-believe elf games possible.
I wouldn't consider that an apt description of 5e. It's exactly what HERO is, or Mutants and Masterminds. 5e deliberately includes a bunch of setting elements, and a bunch of inherently qualitative effects. Consider something like alter self - the fundamental thing it does is magically transform the caster. That's partially represented with quantitative mechanics, and those quantitative mechanics can easily be applied elsewhere, but it still represents a change. The big way this shows up is how the abilities are discretely packaged, often with a bunch of stuff attached (e.g. components in spells), and how they are consistently described.

Again, that's not to say that changes shouldn't be made. I'm all for house ruling things, and my preferred system (Fudge) is a borderline system building kit. I'm just saying that the level of changes suggested are frequently beyond what can be adequately described as refluffing.

archaeo

2015-01-07, 06:58 AM

Mechanics aren't just numbers, there are qualitative aspects. The qualitative part of the wild shape mechanic is the transformation into an animal, and changing that isn't just refluffing, it's house ruling. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, but that's a substantially different thing than using all of the mechanic and refluffing it.

So your real opposition to what I'm saying is one of semantics? If you want to call it "house ruling" rather than "refluffing," feel free. I tend to think that, if I keep the mechanical effects more or less identical while changing how those effects are described, I'm mainly changing fluff instead of rules. But you can call it whatever you want.

I wouldn't consider that an apt description of 5e. It's exactly what HERO is, or Mutants and Masterminds. 5e deliberately includes a bunch of setting elements, and a bunch of inherently qualitative effects. Consider something like alter self - the fundamental thing it does is magically transform the caster. That's partially represented with quantitative mechanics, and those quantitative mechanics can easily be applied elsewhere, but it still represents a change. The big way this shows up is how the abilities are discretely packaged, often with a bunch of stuff attached (e.g. components in spells), and how they are consistently described.

I think 5e does an excellent job of presenting itself as a finished game that can be played exactly like it's written, a few notable bugs notwithstanding. It works very well as a single unit, fluff and rules working together to provide an excellent high fantasy experience. I look forward to playing unedited (or very, very lightly edited) 5e for years to come.

But I also think 5e is purposefully designed to be flexible and easy to tinker with, that my proposed changes all seem in line with the DMG's expectations about creating new content, and that leaving mechanics mostly untouched while completely revamping the fluff is a good way to deliver 5e's crunch and balance with a far wider range of options in storytelling and character creation. In your terms, if I eschew and replace the qualitative, I rarely "break" the game. I tend to think more care needs to be taken with the quantitative parts of the game, if only because messing with the numbers has more consequences across the game.

I'm not really interested in defending this as "refluffing," though. If that word doesn't work for you with the changes I've described, it doesn't change the fact that it's easy to do and can add a ton of variety to a game that already has it in spades.

Knaight

2015-01-07, 08:00 AM

So your real opposition to what I'm saying is one of semantics? If you want to call it "house ruling" rather than "refluffing," feel free. I tend to think that, if I keep the mechanical effects more or less identical while changing how those effects are described, I'm mainly changing fluff instead of rules. But you can call it whatever you want.

I'm saying that you're changing mechanics, and that there are implications there regarding game balance and similar that warrant real consideration. Gaining the quantitative benefits of wild-shape while actually turning into an animal is a significantly different ability than gaining the quantitative benefits of wild-shape while not doing so. In some aspects it is significantly more powerful, in others it is significantly more inconvenient. There are a whole host of considerations that come up with something like that, which don't exist if you decide that you're using a spear with trident stats or something.

I'm just also entirely on board with changing mechanics, starting with doubling proficiency for skills and kicking saves up by proficiency across the board.

archaeo

2015-01-07, 08:51 AM

I'm saying that you're changing mechanics, and that there are implications there regarding game balance and similar that warrant real consideration. Gaining the quantitative benefits of wild-shape while actually turning into an animal is a significantly different ability than gaining the quantitative benefits of wild-shape while not doing so. In some aspects it is significantly more powerful, in others it is significantly more inconvenient. There are a whole host of considerations that come up with something like that, which don't exist if you decide that you're using a spear with trident stats or something.

You keep saying this, but you're not really giving reasons why. If I say, "Druids are now Nanobots, all of their spells must be fluffed as nanomachine tech, and the 'beast' statblocks must be fluffed as robots," how have I mechanically changed the effect of what they accomplish at the table? Indeed, how is it really any different from calling a spear a trident? It isn't "mechanics" in the sense of interacting with the game's math or its balance of class features, it's how you describe that math being put into effect.

I'm just also entirely on board with changing mechanics, starting with doubling proficiency for skills and kicking saves up by proficiency across the board.

These sound like changes that would require far more finessing of the rules than simply calling one thing by another name. Not that that's a bad thing, necessarily, but it's certainly not equivalent to saying "my Valor Bard only 'casts' 'spells' insofar as they have supernatural martial abilities" and being selective about which spells are taken to go along with that flavor.

Knaight

2015-01-07, 09:33 AM

You keep saying this, but you're not really giving reasons why. If I say, "Druids are now Nanobots, all of their spells must be fluffed as nanomachine tech, and the 'beast' statblocks must be fluffed as robots," how have I mechanically changed the effect of what they accomplish at the table? Indeed, how is it really any different from calling a spear a trident? It isn't "mechanics" in the sense of interacting with the game's math or its balance of class features, it's how you describe that math being put into effect.

The class abilities and such are primarily methods of interacting with other setting elements, some of which have codified quantitative reactions, some of which don't. Lets say there is a wildshape ability that gives +4 dex, and transforms into a small animal. A druid could use this to turn into a raccoon (or a cat in areas where raccoon aren't native, they are new world animals), climb up a wall somewhere, and overhear a secret conversation without being spotted. That comes from the second half of the ability, which isn't quantitative. A nanotech robot transformation won't be able to pull that same thing off, as they are much more suspicious and there are concerns like recording devices. That just mechanically changed what they accomplish at the table.

archaeo

2015-01-07, 09:54 AM

The class abilities and such are primarily methods of interacting with other setting elements, some of which have codified quantitative reactions, some of which don't. Lets say there is a wildshape ability that gives +4 dex, and transforms into a small animal. A druid could use this to turn into a raccoon (or a cat in areas where raccoon aren't native, they are new world animals), climb up a wall somewhere, and overhear a secret conversation without being spotted. That comes from the second half of the ability, which isn't quantitative. A nanotech robot transformation won't be able to pull that same thing off, as they are much more suspicious and there are concerns like recording devices. That just mechanically changed what they accomplish at the table.

It isn't quantitative? It has a +4 dex and, let's say, a stealth proficiency bonus. A robo-raccoon could accomplish the same thing, surely?

Obviously, you wouldn't want to jam Nano-Druid into the same setting as regular D&D junk. It's an intentionally extreme example. Presumably, it wouldn't seem "much more suspicious" in a world where robots and nanomachines were common. Taking, say, Valor Bard and making it into a martial-powered class, however, could easily work alongside vanilla classes. Extreme is fun in theory, but a much lighter touch can be used to gently refluff classes to accomplish some of the more common complaints about the system's class options.

Also, in a world where Druids are a known quantity, wouldn't a sufficiently suspicious individual tend to look askance at the local wildlife? If an NPC in some futuristic setting where Nano-Druid makes sense would be worried about "recording devices" and the like, wouldn't the equivalent NPC be industrious about eliminating the nearby animal population to make it easier to shoot suspicious raccoons on sight?