PDA

View Full Version : What classes would you choose?



BardicDuelist
2008-03-31, 08:55 AM
I got into an interesting discussion at my local gaming shop the other day. Many of the people were unhappy about the classes that have been chosen for 4e (note, this is not a complain about 4e thread). We go to talking about the classes that we would pick and what we would do with them to make the game more interesting.

We agreed to set it at eight classes. In general, two per party role was considered a good idea, as it gave options to every player somewhat equally.

Here's what I came up with (after the ">" are talent trees):

Party Role: Tank
For this, I gave each class three different talent trees. For each, one of these is very specialized (Cavalier and Brawler). I would also make them useful outside of combat (gasp!).

Knight
I felt that the fighter was too bland and undefined. This represents a well trained warrior. I would give him some ToB like maneuvers, with a selection similar to the Crusader or Warblade, but be less reliant on this type of mechanic so as to not be a mage. I would also lessen the alignment restrictions.
>Cavalier
Pretty self explanatory.
>Champion
This would focus on a particular fighting sytle (a single weapon, unarmed, or combination of two weapons) and give bonuses with that.
>Hoplyte
This would focus on the use of the shield and tactics in combination with allies (shield-wallesque, etc.)

Barbarian
While the knight would be realitively defensive (being more a meatshield), the barbarian would be more offensive (more of a beatstick). This represents more of an untrained warrior.
>Brawler
A grappler, and improvised weapon fighter.
>Beserker
Rage, charge, everything you expect a barbarian to be.
>Totem
Uses animal totems to gain access to special maneuvers.

Party Role: Mage
I went with only two talent trees here, because that's all I could think of.

Wizard
It's a classic icon of D&D and a huge fantasy trope, so an obvious decision here. I would definately give a per round, per encounter, and per day mechanic and make him not teh uber.
>Generalist
Gains bonuses and special actions for using different spells in combination with each other.
>Specialist
Focuses on a single school (and gains spells and abilities from only that school), but can use abilities in ways a generalist couldn't even imagine.

Bard
As the other mage, I wanted somthing with a realitively open flavor (the warlock does not have this, IMHO), but that was entirely different from the wizard (unlike the sorcerer). My favorite class seemed to fit perfectly in this probably unexpected niche. Much of the mechanic would resemble Monte Cooks UA bard more than the bard we have now. Songs or speaches would replace spells.
>Marshal
Bolsters allies with masterful oration, excells at pushing allies in the midst of battle.
>Minstril
The wandering musician trope. Uses songs to begile or enthrall enemies.

Party Role: Priest
I wanted to get away from the pirests being better fighters than the tanks, and I wouldn't penalize for healing as I don't think a party at full HP for the start of every encounter really unblances thing (quite the opposite, actually).

Cleric
Again, an Icon of D&D.
>Divine Champion
Focuses on a specific aspect of his diety's portfoilo.
>Cloistered Scholar
Like an archivist (without the broken "I can learn any spell!"). Sort of...
>Hospitlar
A battle field healer and buffer (no self only buffs, but buffs could be used on self).

Druid
The druid would still be able to heal, but his talent trees would reflect the things which differentiate him from that.
>Shapeshifter
Less melee oriented than wild-shape. Would have to choose from a specific set of shapes, rather than any monster publised, and would gain bonuses from resembling that shape (not become exactly like it mechanically). Will gain partial manefestation, etc.
>Shaman
The most spell-casty talent, it focuses on the elements of nature and spirits.
>Beastmaster
Calling and influencing different types of monsters (mostly animals and magical beasts).

Party Role: Skirmisher
The skirmishers are all two things: skillmonkeys and oppertunists. They can fight, but not like the tanks. Their strenghts in combar lie in the fact that they can debuff, ourmaneuver, or provide support fire. Outside of combat, thier skills keep the party alive.

Rogue
Really, an Icon of literature in general. Of the two skirmishers, he is more urban in scope. They are all skillmonkeys, so their talents reflect what they do in combat
>Swashbuckler
Agile and charisimatic fighter.
>Thief
Backstabbing, undoing the straps on an opponent's armor, and other fun tricks.
>Sniper
Crossbow oriented, focuses on stealth and precision.

Ranger
A total fantasy trope thanks to a certain set of books. Beat up the scout and stole his stuff still, and so is also a skillmonkey.
>Beastfriend
Animal companions and influencing animals (but different from the druid). Tracking and hunting fall here.
>Scout
Highly mobile fighting.
>Archer
Twang, you're dead. Bow focued, obviously. Uses either precise shots or fast shooting.

What do you think and what would you choose for core classes (please limit to eight)?

SuperPanda
2008-03-31, 09:38 AM
Curiously enough it would seem, other people had mostly the same idea as you, though I redefined the rolls very differently it was because I was working on a specific setting.


I recently set about designing my own setting specific rulebook for use with friends (when I had finished and playtested in I was going to put it up on one of the forums) set in a world which was not my own to begin with. I am a big fan of Final Fantasy Tactics. The long of the story short, I've had problems with my players owning and pulling things from too many books to keep track of in the past (many of which I don't have access to or haven't heard of before) and with minimum knowledge.

Be it for 3rd or 4th edition I was going to define eight core classes on the same party rolls as you listed and came up with similar results (priest and mage being the only difference).


My list:

The front line:

The Squire (Knight at higher levels): Your front line tactical fighter who is more likely to knowledge of the terrain and military training to overcome his enemies that pure brute force. A heavily armed defender with crowd control abilities (through Attack of Opportunity and effects akin to Iron Guard's Glare from ToB). Reflected the nobility.

The Berserker: Essentially a barbarian with a name change, the setting I was working on had to "wild" element so instead of city vs wild classes I had noble versus commoner classes. Reflected the commoners.

> Basically the same as your set.

The Skirmishers:

The Rouge: Again pretty much like standard, some touches of ToB for a high mobility sneak attacker and flanking partner, still the skill monkey of the group. Reflected the commoners.

The Scout: A class which already favors ranged characters being retailored for a ranged specialist. Best of the ranger and Scout. Reflected the Nobility.

The Supporters and Leaders:

The Priest: Essentially a cloistered cleric, not much to really change here, like you looked to maximize healing and buffing abilities but still keep combat functionality (not to the level of the martial classes though). Single target healing and buffing primarily. Reflected the nobility

The Bard: Completely reworked with a concept for bardic song I've not yet to play test. The Bard replaces spells with an updated song list which allows them to heal and buff in an AoE (area of effect) making them a primary "caster" and a strong rallying point. Reflected the commoners

The casters:

The Wizard (I named it Scholar to fit the setting): The battlefield control caster, the wizard would specialize almost exclusively in the save or suck spells with limited direct combat options, they provided control of the area in a fight. Represented the nobility

The last is really my own class, but is based on the Wu Jen. Basically it was the equivilent of an elementalist combat sorcerer, the damage spell mage (but with the spells reworked so that the path was worth looking at).



So in the end, I moved Bard to the "healer, Leader" role while I moved something like a druid with list full of attack spells to the caster roll.


Martial: defense or offense
Skirmisher: front line or ranged
Supporter: Single target or AoE
Caster: Control or damage


Each option for a given category should be capable of doing both listed, but be better at their primary and able to do something in another category well enough to fill a gap (but not replace) a character from it.

That is my theory base anyways, I am currently working on compiling all of my "fluff" work for the project before I even look at classes or if I will stay 3.x or move to 4.0.

Draz74
2008-03-31, 09:58 AM
I'd go the next step and limit my selection to three classes: Mage, Rogue, and Warrior. Then have all the more specific options be talent trees.

BardicDuelist
2008-03-31, 10:17 AM
I'd go the next step and limit my selection to three classes: Mage, Rogue, and Warrior. Then have all the more specific options be talent trees.

Priest?

Also, the talent trees can be mixed within a class to a greater degree than one can mix class features through multi-classing (although I would like a way to multi-class casters without completely nerfing them).

SP, I agree with the last part you posted on party roles. Being able to fill a gap so as to make small parties playable is somthing I think is a necessity, but not completely replacing classes is needed for balance.

Draz74
2008-03-31, 10:34 AM
Priest?

See, I never understood why Clerics in 3e are so similar to each other. Not only are they all warriors as well as casters (heavy armor proficiency, medium BAB), but they all have mostly the same spells to choose from; Domains only make a little bit of difference compared to the massive default Cleric list.

Priest of a god of knowledge (similar to the Cloistered Cleric variant from 3e)? Mage, with Wisdom-based spellcasting, and Divination spells selected. And a talent or two that gives him certain advantages representing how his magic is faith-based. (The cost is that other, non-faith based talents are unavailable to him.)

War-priest? A wisdom-based Gish (multiclass Warrior/Mage), with talents representing how his magic is faith-based, and a selection of spells that focus on combat prowess.

Priest of a trickster god? Mostly Rogue, with a couple levels dipped in Mage, Wisdom-based casting, and talents expanding his spellcasting in faith-specific ways.

In a Generic Classes system, priest really doesn't need to be a specific archetype of its own. (Heck, when you get down to it, even the idea that all priests have to have some spellcasting ability is pretty silly. You should be able to be a decent priest just by taking ranks in "Profession (Clergy)," and attributing whatever abilities you have from any class to the blessing of your deity.)

Thinker
2008-03-31, 10:36 AM
Priest?
I don't understand "priest" as a party role. What exactly does priest mean? If its just someone who casts spells to support the party, that can be a mage with a specific talent set. A priest can simply be anyone with Profession(Priest) and Knowledge(Religion). He fulfills the roles of spiritual leader, even if he himself cannot cast spells.



Also, the talent trees can be mixed within a class to a greater degree than one can mix class features through multi-classing (although I would like a way to multi-class casters without completely nerfing them).
That is where prerequisites come into play. As for 3.5e casters, make a feat or talent that allows non-class levels for determining caster level and maybe a feat to increase highest level spells castable.

I think you should define your ideas of the party roles, rather than give a few notes you jotted down about them.

BardicDuelist
2008-03-31, 10:54 AM
Well, I guess I figured it was assumed that the four roles were allready defined. By priest, I meant the role that the cleric was intended to play: Healing and support.

To me, the four roles are Iconic to D&D, and so lessening them to three would change somthing fundamental to the game. I know, I dropped the fighter, but I figured that it would make more sense than me saying: Fighter (Basically the knight with some ToB).

In the typical dungeon crawl (which is what D&D is about at its core, although it doesn't have to be all dungeon crawls) basically needs (or should need) a warrior to take and give damage; a mage for battlefield control, and debuffs (or similar things, as codifying specific purposes for the wizard's spell list has always been difficult for me); a priest (or healer, or whatever you want to call it) for buffs and healing; and a skillmonkey for the traps and taking advantage of the situation in ways the fighter can't.

Please, don't get caught up on symmantics. I couldn't think of a better word for what the cleric and druid were intended to do.

And I suppose that people are going to argue about the intents now. Eh, so much for that.

Lord Tataraus
2008-03-31, 11:23 AM
Well BardicDuelist, I would basically do the same thing as you with one exception. I would use Warlock instead of Bard except it would be more "pact magic" user kind of like the binder than the 3.5 warlock. I personally do not like bards.

On the topic of three archetypes as opposed to four, I'm on the four side. To me a mage is the blaster or manipulator, everything is offense while the priest is support and defense, buffs and divinations. If I could have it my way, no mage would get buffs, it just doesn't work for me, or any divinations, the priest types would have that and a bit of battlefield control via their god's portfolio or nature spirits in the druid's case.

Artanis
2008-03-31, 11:26 AM
Well, I guess I figured it was assumed that the four roles were allready defined. By priest, I meant the role that the cleric was intended to play: Healing and support.
Do you mean the 4e roles? Because if so, yes, they are defined, but you either changed them or flat-out got them wrong.

The roles are Defender, Leader, Striker, and Controller.

Defenders defend the party, usually by beating the hell out of the enemy or otherwise making it a very, VERY bad idea to try to hit somebody else.

Strikers kill things.

Controllers...well...control things, and generally have plenty of firepower to go with it.

Leaders provide support and extra healing, usually by, again, beating the hell out of things.

ALL the roles have plenty of firepower. Fighters, for example, can deal a hell of a lot of damage if they are so inclined, and even when acting as a Defender they deal out plenty of pain to the enemy.


As an illustration of the Fighter:

Goblin: Screw this, this guy has plate. I'm going after the ambiguously-gendered Elf in a Dress who's shooting fireballs at us.
Kobold: Good idea.
Fighter: You know, you guys really should be hitting me instead of the Wizard.
Goblin: Feh. *tries to walk past the Fighter*
Fighter: *cuts the Goblin in half* See what happens when you ignore my advice?
Kobold: Uh...I think I'm just going to keep hacking at the Fighter then.
Fighter: Now you have the idea!

Indon
2008-03-31, 11:33 AM
Role: Melee Combat
These classes primarily engage in melee combat. They deal more damage than any other class but are potentially vulnerable to the greatest variety of attacks.

Fighter - A skilled and disciplined warrior who follows one or more martial styles.
This class would be similar to 3'rd edition Fighters, Barbarians, Marshals, and Knights, among others.

Mystic - A combatant who draws upon magical or semi-magical powers in order to engage in close combat.
This class would be similar to 3'rd edition Monks, Druids, and various "gishes", among others.


Role: Ranged Combat
These classes primarily engage from a distance. They deal strong damage in relative safety, but are much less effective in close quarters.

Ranger - A patient hunter who strikes his targets from afar.
This class would be similar to 3'rd edition, well, Rangers, and other ranged classes.

Warmage - A spellcaster who has focused his efforts towards destroying his opponents.
This class would be similar to 3'rd edition Warmages, and other blaster-casters.


Role: Support, combat
These classes provide indirect combat capabilities to a party, such as healing, enhancement, and weakening the opponents.

Wizard - A spellcaster who has focused upon more subtle magics, to undermine and enfeeble his enemies and aid his allies.
This class would be similar to the 3'rd edition "Batman" Wizard, as well as having elements of other debuff classes.

Cleric - A fighter who has been blessed with divine powers to bolster and heal his allies and strike righteous fear into his enemies.
This class would be similar to 3'rd edition's "Cleric-Zilla" stereotype, as well as having powers similar to Marshal auras.


Role: Support, general
These classes provide a mix of contributions in combat, and often have a particular specialty that does not involve combat.

Rogue - An expert who can engage in melee or ranged combat, and is skilled at both setting and disarming traps.
This class would be similar to the 3'rd edition Rogue, Scout, and various trap-making classes.

Bard - A jack-of-all-trades with both ranged capabilities and subtle mind-influencing magic that is usable both in and out of combat.
This class would be similar to the 3'rd edition Bard, Beguiler, and other enchantment-oriented spellcasters.

Thinker
2008-03-31, 11:43 AM
Well, I guess I figured it was assumed that the four roles were allready defined. By priest, I meant the role that the cleric was intended to play: Healing and support.
I would consider Healing a subset of support. The four roles are obviously not defined since people have different opinions on what each one should do.


To me, the four roles are Iconic to D&D, and so lessening them to three would change somthing fundamental to the game. I know, I dropped the fighter, but I figured that it would make more sense than me saying: Fighter (Basically the knight with some ToB).
I don't think "Priest" is iconic to DnD. Why not use the term Leader, Supporter, etc? It fills the same role without being necessarily tied to religion and gives a good launch-point for the Marshall or Bard idea.


In the typical dungeon crawl (which is what D&D is about at its core, although it doesn't have to be all dungeon crawls) basically needs (or should need) a warrior to take and give damage; a mage for battlefield control, and debuffs (or similar things, as codifying specific purposes for the wizard's spell list has always been difficult for me); a priest (or healer, or whatever you want to call it) for buffs and healing; and a skillmonkey for the traps and taking advantage of the situation in ways the fighter can't.


Warrior: Take and deal damage.
Mage: Battlefield control.
Priest: Buff.
Skillmonkey: Find traps, be opportunistic.

Warrior and Mage are fine. The problem with Priest is that very few people want to stand back and essentially do nothing while everyone else actually accomplish things. Likewise, "finding traps" is a very niche ability. Why not have better ways to use the skills than other people to support the opportunism? In its current incarnation, being good at skills only goes so far.

I would support only having three classes with talents to flesh out their roles.

Indon
2008-03-31, 11:50 AM
The problem with Priest is that very few people want to stand back and essentially do nothing while everyone else actually accomplish things. Likewise, "finding traps" is a very niche ability.
If you'll note my (remarkably similar) model of the roles you note, I roll together healing and battlefield control into a single support function. Similarly, my 'niche ability' characters have niche abilities that apply both in and out of combat (though in terms of raw power in combat, they wouldn't be as able to excel, they would certainly not be 'standing on the sidelines').

Draz74
2008-03-31, 01:29 PM
Well, I guess I figured it was assumed that the four roles were allready defined. By priest, I meant the role that the cleric was intended to play: Healing and support.

To me, the four roles are Iconic to D&D, and so lessening them to three would change somthing fundamental to the game.

I think it's more fun, though, when nobody is doing only "support." Support should be something some characters specialize in on the side of some other role.

The 4e Leaders, Clerics and Warlords, still seem to be "warriors who do support on the side." I mean, almost all their special abilities are tied to supporting their allies, but since WotC knows that nobody wants to be just a healbot or buff-bot, they had to answer the question, "what else should the Cleric and Warlord be doing while they heal their party?" And the answer seems to be "hit stuff." Which I think is rather bland ... what happened to the "cloistered cleric" archetype of character? Oh, right, it might infringe on the Controller role. And since the Leader role is a whole separate category, we can't have that.

Me, I'd rather have Defenders, who give up some of their Defender abilities to select some supporting powers; and some Controllers who give up some of their Controlling abilities to select some supporting powers; and even some Striker-types who give up the edge of their Striking abilities to fill the support role.

I agree that there's something iconic in D&D about having a support-character in the party. But if the Support role abilities (e.g. healing) are powerful enough to be useful, and any character can pick them up through talent trees, then, in a party of four adventurers, there will still generally be the support role represented. So the party, IMHO, has lost none of its iconic flavor. It's just more flexible. Now the party can have "Fighter, Wizard, Rogue, and War-Priest," or "Fighter, Wizard, Rogue, and tricky jack-of-all-trades supporter," or "Fighter, Wizard, Rogue, and Pious Praying Priest of Mighty Miracles." (Only, you know, "Fighter" can also be "Knight" or "Barbarian," "Rogue" can also be "Ranger" or "Factotum," etc.)

The idea of dropping the Support role as a separate class is clearer if you look at what abilities aren't a function of talent trees for a character. In the system that I'm trying to create, the only abilities that do depend on class are:

Fighting Level Progression (a.k.a. BAB)
Caster Level Progression
Vitality Points (a.k.a. HP)
Skill Points
(sometimes) Save progressions
Bonus Feat at Level 1


It's hard to see where a Supporter class would differentiate itself from the other three, on the basis of these stats alone. I guess it could be done -- in fact, I have some Prestige Classes in my system that are kind of like the classic Priest. (Medium BAB, medium caster level, not too many skill points.)

This 3-classes idea does have some historic precedent. It's originally based on Unearthed Arcana's Generic Classes System (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/genericClasses.htm).

* * *

If I drop the whole "generic classes" crusade, and you tell me there have to be 8 base classes in 4e, and you ask which one's I'd pick, then here's the answer:

I'm pretty pleased with the selection they've made.

In fact, all I'd really do is rename two of them. I'd call the Warlord "Marshal," if only so there aren't two base classes starting with "War-"; and I'd call the Paladin "Crusader." (Because the actual word Paladin should be reserved for a Paragon Path, exclusive to Good characters.)

Actually, I guess I'm still skeptical about the Cleric too. I'd rather have him be less of a warrior, and have more specific abilities based on his particular deity. (If he worships a war deity, his deity-specific powers could turn him into a bit more of a warrior again.)

koldstare
2008-03-31, 01:49 PM
I'd go the next step and limit my selection to three classes: Mage, Rogue, and Warrior. Then have all the more specific options be talent trees.

play elder scrolls much?

Draz74
2008-03-31, 02:01 PM
play elder scrolls much?

Not at all, actually. :smalltongue:

Lairship
2008-03-31, 03:20 PM
I haven't put a huge amount of thought into this, but for core classes I'd like something like this:


Soldier ~ A basic, easy to play Fighter class with maneuvers and a selection of feats for using different weapons, sword & board, two weapon fighting, pole-arms, archery, quick attacks vs. hulking brute styles. It does not have to be on par with wizards at level 20, but fun and versatile.

Martial Artist ~ As the monk, without the eastern priestly flavour. It would have "sacred paths" or talent trees. These can be multi-classed (multi-talented?) into at any time.
"Wrestling Mastery" that uses grappling, locks, pins, throws and some dirty tricks like eye poking.
"Open-Hand Mastery" that uses unarmed fighting, defensive vs. offensive stances, punchin' and kickin'.
"Acrobatic Mastery", you know, tumbling, jumping, bouncing off walls, back-flips, landing on giants shoulders, sliding down banisters.
"Weapon Mastery" that grants a bunch of near-magical skills for Martial Artists, things like using oars or other objects as weapons, being super fast with your sword or wielding oversized weapons.

Scoundrel ~ Not just a rogue, but also a bluffing con-man and lucky gambler. Generally plays like a rogue + scout + beguiler. Sneak attack!

Lord ~ A simple supportive and social class, basically, marshal + paladin + better bard. Diplomatic, buffs others, as auras of courage, fear ect. While the player doesn’t have to be a noble to play a Lord, I think a medieval game needs a bit of upper-class flavoring in the fluff.

Ranger ~ The ranger as is, a tracker that lives in the wilderness, with a better animal companion and a bit of the barbarian thrown in. Another simple class to play, like a wild Soldier.

Mages ~ The Mage is the biggest change to the system, now a Mage is anyone that weilds magic. In order to gain the class the character (pre or during game) must make a pact with or feed off a otherworldly being. Because I'm sick of magic coming from nowhere.

Wizard ~ The classic class, mostly the same, wizards gain their magic by binding the elemental spirits of the universe, from flames to stars, into spoken and written words. They gain foes in the form of savage fey and elemental spirits.
Witch ~ The opposition of the wizards, witches gain their power by letting elemental spirits ride them, pass through them. They cast at will, at far more powerfully than wizards, but at the cost of health and sanity. Over time they gain elemental traits, such as iron teeth and green skin.
Heralds ~ Chosen by a god to spread their ways, they have powers related to their patron deity. At high levels they become a "angel" of the god, whatever that may amount too. They must stick to their code and obey their god.
Sorcerer ~ By making a pact with a demon, dragon or fey, they can wield strange powers, but the contract is very binding and is full of loop-holes for the fey to exploit. Though powerful, it is the most likely to get the sorcerer killed.
Oracle ~ Often unasked for, a gift from fate itself, a low level oracle can see into the past of a object by touching it, at high levels stop time. They can also cast curses that are long lasting.
Psion ~ Mastery of the mind, this is the only Mage that powers her own magic. Not as powerful as the others, extremely versatile.
Bokor ~ By making pacts with ghosts, a bokor can learn to project her soul, raise corpses as slaves, gain knowledge from the dead ect. The bokor is perhaps the path to lichdom.

Edit: Made things clearer.

Magnificence
2008-03-31, 03:48 PM
Lairship, that stuff is really neat! As always your best ideas are off the top of your head.
As for me?
Meatshield
Blaster Caster
Healbitch
Skills Monkey
:biggrin: