The Coming Classes [Archive] - Wizards Community

The Coming Classes [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
MerrikCale
09-29-07, 09:06 AM We know that 4e will initially have around 8 to 12 classes including something called a warlord. They have also said that every year or so a new book will be published that will include additional base classes. Richard Baker has already designed a class called the Swordmage (which basically exchanges armor for defensive spells)

The question is will there be FR classes. the Swordmage is the titled of a coming Richard Baker FR book. Will the FRCS have FR specific base classes like a Bladesinger?

I hope so
Drew1369r
09-29-07, 09:17 AM It would be so awesome if they took some of the 2ed kits and turned them into base classes... bladesinger, battlerager...

Quit getting my hopes up Merrik
MerrikCale
09-29-07, 09:26 AM It would be so awesome if they took some of the 2ed kits and turned them into base classes... bladesinger, battlerager...

Quit getting my hopes up Merrik

I have always wanted a Bladesinger base class. I have always though each world should have its own base classes, like the artificer of Eberron
ravennight
09-29-07, 11:07 AM I can't decide whether I like the Bladesinger class better as a prestige class or a base class, but I do think that filling out the prereqs for some of the prestige classes that are more common in the realms can be a pain and require more progress in the base classes than is appropriate for characters' power levels.

There really haven't been any mentions of bladesingers writing scrolls, having familiars or using any of the wizard feats, except for possibly metamagic, so having them take wizard/sorcerer levels seems silly to me. The same could be said for the spellsinger, I suppose, and other classes. So that would be a good argument for them being base classes that don't offer item creation feats and familiars as bonuses.
MarkusTay63
09-29-07, 01:22 PM I think there should ONLY be four (5 with psi) base classes. People can then chose the 'path' to follow, or continue on in the generic class. Think about it - all fighters need to learn the basics, as do mages, etc. Fighters could then proceed down different 'combat styles' paths, while a mage could learn different 'traditions' for casting magic.

In this way, everything we need to play could come out in the initial core books, with the more advanced options included in future splatbooks. You'll never buy a splatbook again and say "Damn, I would have made one of those!" Everything becomes a choice down the road. This is what the PrC system SHOULD have been, and what it sounds like it may just become in 4e.

As far as I'm concerned, EVERYTHING beyond the basic four should be a PrC (or path, in the new jargon).
MerrikCale
09-29-07, 01:26 PM As far as I'm concerned, EVERYTHING beyond the basic four should be a PrC (or path, in the new jargon).

But we know 4e is not that. In fact, they are pretty much telling us that w'll eventually have as many base classes
Suin Bahhar
09-29-07, 03:05 PM Hmm I dont know. Several sepparate classes like bladesinger, battlerager, shadowthief, zhentarim scout base classes could start to clutter the system. If many base classes are added they require lots of their own tables and crossreferencing racial abilities. We need more info IMHO.
GothicDan
09-29-07, 03:30 PM I have ALWAYS wanted exactly what Markus has described.

We are most wise, aren't we, Markus?
MerrikCale
09-29-07, 11:29 PM I have ALWAYS wanted exactly what Markus has described.

We are most wise, aren't we, Markus?

Its a great idea. But WoTC won't follow a course that limits the number of books they can sell with new base classes. They are already talking about not having the druid and bard in the new PHB. Do ya think they'll be in the PHB2 sure to come out in 2009?
Dimensional_Drifter
09-30-07, 07:42 PM Not having druid or bard as base classes!? ugh... please tell me that the changes won't be THAT extreme.
Meldread
09-30-07, 08:32 PM I'm in agreement with you, Markus on how the base classes should work.
Straploknight
09-30-07, 09:27 PM Four base proffesions with plenty of feats and skills and you could make everything your heart desires.

Of course that opens the system up for alot of abuses, although I wonder if feats could work like skills, you could have class feats and cross class feats and maybe even racial feats (the third catagory could be very expensive in terms of purchasing feats outside your race/class)
MerrikCale
09-30-07, 09:57 PM Not having druid or bard as base classes!? ugh... please tell me that the changes won't be THAT extreme.

From what I can gather, the PHB will have the following classes: Fighter, Ranger, Paladin (can have all levels), Barbarian, Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Rogue, Cleric and something called a Warlord.

We also know there will be additional classes as new books come out. Richard Baker has already stated he will release the Swordmage. Presumably, the druid, bard, and monk will be released eventually.
SgtAnjay
09-30-07, 10:41 PM With clerics the only "priest"-y class you better be able to customize the ever living crap out of it....
Fabius Maximus
10-01-07, 08:29 AM From what I can gather, the PHB will have the following classes: Fighter, Ranger, Paladin (can have all levels), Barbarian, Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Rogue, Cleric and something called a Warlord.

We also know there will be additional classes as new books come out. Richard Baker has already stated he will release the Swordmage. Presumably, the druid, bard, and monk will be released eventually.
I rather think the druid, bard and monk will be talent trees (or something similar) for the Cleric, Warlord and Fighter classes.

The should have made PrCs out of Bard, Ranger and Paladin, though.
MerrikCale
10-01-07, 08:28 PM I rather think the druid, bard and monk will be talent trees (or something similar) for the Cleric, Warlord and Fighter classes.

The should have made PrCs out of Bard, Ranger and Paladin, though.

That would be OK if they had any intention of limiting the number of base classes but it doesn't seem that they do
johnkretzer
10-02-07, 03:07 AM From what I can gather, the PHB will have the following classes: Fighter, Ranger, Paladin (can have all levels), Barbarian, Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Rogue, Cleric and something called a Warlord.

We also know there will be additional classes as new books come out. Richard Baker has already stated he will release the Swordmage. Presumably, the druid, bard, and monk will be released eventually.

I think the Warlord is the fighter's new name.

I though Talen tree were supose to cut down on the number of base classes?

Personaly I never minded lots of base classes...though haveing Warlock in 4th fills me with dread...I dislike the class because to me it is what the sorcerer is.
Suin Bahhar
10-02-07, 07:43 AM Personaly I never minded lots of base classes...though haveing Warlock in 4th fills me with dread...I dislike the class because to me it is what the sorcerer is.
I am slowly suspecting the warlock to replace the sorcerer too...
Diffan
10-02-07, 08:20 AM I am slowly suspecting the warlock to replace the sorcerer too...

From what i've read, the sorcerer will be in 4e, just might not make the 1st PHB as well as the Druid, Monk, and Bard.
Fabius Maximus
10-02-07, 08:24 AM No, both of them will be in the PHB.

Damn, too late. ;)
Suin Bahhar
10-02-07, 08:52 AM I am really looking forward to the new fighter of 4ed. I hope for even more versitility and oomph. :)
Diffan
10-02-07, 09:05 AM I am really looking forward to the new fighter of 4ed. I hope for even more versitility and oomph. :)

As am I. They're saying that a Dwarven fighter is going to be different than say an elven one. Probably emphasizing brute strengh and endurance to gracefulness and finesse respectfully. It's something that feats could accomplish, but having it build into the class is far more effective, freeing up your feats for bigger and better things.
Suin Bahhar
10-02-07, 09:10 AM Agreed. I wonder what elven evasion means. Dwarven resilience gives a bonus to fortitude defence and will defense vs spells; maybe elven evasion gives a bonus to reflex defense? I think I'm on to something here...
Diffan
10-02-07, 09:29 AM Agreed. I wonder what elven evasion means. Dwarven resilience gives a bonus to fortitude defence and will defense vs spells; maybe elven evasion gives a bonus to reflex defense? I think I'm on to something here...

:thinks: That's a good possibility. I read in an playtesting article that weapons will have different functions besides just a different damage die and crit threat mods. For example, we have a home-brew rule that lets us use an immediate action to set a pike/polearm/spear against a charge instead of readied actions.
Suin Bahhar
10-02-07, 09:51 AM Making weapons feel different mechanicly gives them an more interesting game use. I really hope swords will feel like the versitile weapons they ought to be. I understand this will be reflected in the range of maneuvers and tricks one can learn with a sword. The sword has acces to the broadest range of combat tricks, like deflective parries, disarms, sundering and cleaving. A spear would be more limited to distance like mechanics such as set to recieve a charge, ignoring shield ac. An axe would serve the sunder and destroy defenses role, a knife the slice and twist, a club the bash and stun etc.
The_Shaman
10-02-07, 12:36 PM I wouldn't miss the speed differences of earlier editions, and I'd also like to see more range differencs. For example, a dagger is much easier to control and swing around than a halberd, and presuming the same degree of expertise it should allow for more attacks or at least quicker ones. OTOH, each weapon has an optimal range of use - the axe may be a great weapon, but if an opponent is practically touching you it might be somewhat inconvenient.
MarkusTay63
10-02-07, 05:29 PM I have ALWAYS wanted exactly what Markus has described.

We are most wise, aren't we, Markus?But of course. :D

Four base proffesions with plenty of feats and skills and you could make everything your heart desires.Exactly.

Not having druid or bard as base classes!? ugh... please tell me that the changes won't be THAT extreme.A Druid becomes a priest specalizing in Nature, whereas a Cleric is a priest that focuses his talents on combat. A Bard is a Rogue with musical talent. A Monk becomes a fighter that gets dex bonuses for going unarmored, and can take feats to give him the unarmed strike benefits. WTF is the Barabarian Class? You can't do that with a warrior and feats in Rage?

You want a Ranger? Multiclass as a fighter/Druid

You want a Paladin? Multiclass as a Priest/Fighter

Swadhbuckler becomes a Rogue/Fighter

Want a Yogi? Go fighter (unarmed)/Psion

Etc, etc, etc...

By providing Feats that are only available with two classes as pre-requisites, we can re-create anything we want without all the unneccessary clutter of extranneous base classes.

Turn all of the old 2e speciality priests into PrCs, and the Specialist Wizards into them as well.

We don't need more classes, we need BETTER RULES!
18DELTA
10-02-07, 06:32 PM The barb will probably be a racial talent in 4E. Only one race gets rage in SWSE, that is the wookie. Rage +2 attack, +2 damage, 1 time a day. 1 feat makes it +5 attack, +5 damage. Another feat lets me rage 2/day, yadda yadda yadda.;)
WizO_Autumn
10-02-07, 08:42 PM There is a board just for discussion of 4e and Forgotten Realms! I'm moving this there.

There are also boards for woes, so let's leave them out of this thread.
Bluenose
10-03-07, 04:21 AM But of course. :D

Exactly.

A Druid becomes a priest specalizing in Nature, whereas a Cleric is a priest that focuses his talents on combat. A Bard is a Rogue with musical talent. A Monk becomes a fighter that gets dex bonuses for going unarmored, and can take feats to give him the unarmed strike benefits. WTF is the Barabarian Class? You can't do that with a warrior and feats in Rage?

You want a Ranger? Multiclass as a fighter/Druid

You want a Paladin? Multiclass as a Priest/Fighter

Swadhbuckler becomes a Rogue/Fighter

Want a Yogi? Go fighter (unarmed)/Psion

Etc, etc, etc...

By providing Feats that are only available with two classes as pre-requisites, we can re-create anything we want without all the unneccessary clutter of extranneous base classes.

Turn all of the old 2e speciality priests into PrCs, and the Specialist Wizards into them as well.

We don't need more classes, we need BETTER RULES!

Out of curiosity, how are you going to make a bladesinger? I really like the principle you're using for this, but there's things that become hard to do. A bard would have to combine "rogue" with "arcane caster" abilities, and have a talent tree for music. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it would need some multiclassing to make it work.

Oddly enough I could almost see a case for just three base classes. You'd have your non-caster types, with lots of feats/talents that can either increase their fighting ability, their skills, or other abilities - a shadowdancer would be perfectly practical as a talent tree with various abilities, as would a barbarian with a rage talent tree. Then your two types of caster, and there you could either go with divine and arcane caster, or with spontaneous and non-spontaneous depending on how you wanted it.
johnkretzer
10-04-07, 01:09 AM By providing Feats that are only available with two classes as pre-requisites, we can re-create anything we want without all the unneccessary clutter of extranneous base classes.

So instead have the 'unneccessary clutter of extranneous base classes' we can have the clutter of unneccessary clutter of extranneous Feats, Talent trees, and lot more PrCs...sigh the more things change the more they stay the same. :)

As I said I like being a druid as oppose to being a cleric that is into nature, or a bard as oppose to a musicaly talented rogues. But it is just opinion...but I felt a base class meant something...shrug.

We don't need more classes, we need BETTER RULES!

Wasn't this the tag line to 2nd edition with the kits? and then later Skills & Powers?
Diffan
10-07-07, 10:02 PM You want a Paladin? Multiclass as a Priest/Fighter

You realize that a cleric/fighter build doesn't even come close to the smiting power a paladin can have. It doesn't have immunity to disease or fear. It's BAB is only average and the fighter feats only slightly help the build. You most definitly have to PrC to resemble anything close to a good build. The only good points are the most simple: possible 9th level spells.

It's been my experience that clerics do 3 things exceptionally well and those are: 1) Turning Undead and using Turning Undead uses to max/empower/quicken/heighten his spells, 2) Buff the heck out of your party memebers and yourself, and 3) Heal, Heal, Heal, Heal, and uh....Heal. That's what clerics do well. Making a multi-classed fighter/cleric usually makes for a poor fighter and an average spell-caster. True the paladin's spells don't come close to that of a clerics, but neither does the cleric's combat effectivness/smiting come close to that of the paladin.

We don't need more classes, we need BETTER RULES!

And 4E is only going to make both classes better in they're respective roles. A cleric is going to do the above abilities better and the paladin is going to the the whole smiting/spiritual fighter abilities better. Clumping the non-basic classes ie: anything not fighter/cleric/wizard/rogue just makings things more difficult and complicated.
MerrikCale
10-18-07, 10:51 PM you think the swordmage sounds interesting?
Suin Bahhar
10-19-07, 08:29 AM I do. The way they were talking about making the Swordmage a magic defender class seems to be a solid character role with a good use.
I now only hope their promise of mutliclassing actually working with everything leaves enough room to make the Swordmage flavourfully and mechanicly different enough from a typical fighter/mage multiclass.
Diffan
10-21-07, 07:32 PM you think the swordmage sounds interesting?

I have no clue what a swordmage is. I didn't think it was mentioned as one of the PHB core classes. It does sound interesting and it might resemble a duskblade from the PHB II, which I also found fun to play so who knows?
MerrikCale
12-08-07, 09:37 AM I have no clue what a swordmage is. I didn't think it was mentioned as one of the PHB core classes. It does sound interesting and it might resemble a duskblade from the PHB II, which I also found fun to play so who knows?

so its a fighter that exchanges armor for defensive spells, not really a duskblade
AlexS
12-08-07, 10:16 PM I think there should ONLY be four (5 with psi) base classes.

Sounds rather like True20- there are 3 base classes: warrior, expert, and adept, covering combat, skill use and magic/psionics respectively (it's a background decision whether a character is a mage, cleric, psion, or whatever). It's easy enough to come up with the flavour of the traditional DnD classes from these. Paladins, for example, might be warriors with a couple of adept levels to pick up some healing powers and other magics.

Of course, it won't be a direct translation of everything that goes with a paladin according to the 3.x rules, but in True20 the mechanics are (IMO, at least) secondary to the fluffy concepts, so it may not appeal to everyone.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
MerrikCale 09-29-07, 09:06 AM	We know that 4e will initially have around 8 to 12 classes including something called a warlord. They have also said that every year or so a new book will be published that will include additional base classes. Richard Baker has already designed a class called the Swordmage (which basically exchanges armor for defensive spells) The question is will there be FR classes. the Swordmage is the titled of a coming Richard Baker FR book. Will the FRCS have FR specific base classes like a Bladesinger? I hope so
Drew1369r 09-29-07, 09:17 AM	It would be so awesome if they took some of the 2ed kits and turned them into base classes... bladesinger, battlerager... Quit getting my hopes up Merrik
MerrikCale 09-29-07, 09:26 AM	It would be so awesome if they took some of the 2ed kits and turned them into base classes... bladesinger, battlerager... Quit getting my hopes up Merrik I have always wanted a Bladesinger base class. I have always though each world should have its own base classes, like the artificer of Eberron
ravennight 09-29-07, 11:07 AM	I can't decide whether I like the Bladesinger class better as a prestige class or a base class, but I do think that filling out the prereqs for some of the prestige classes that are more common in the realms can be a pain and require more progress in the base classes than is appropriate for characters' power levels. There really haven't been any mentions of bladesingers writing scrolls, having familiars or using any of the wizard feats, except for possibly metamagic, so having them take wizard/sorcerer levels seems silly to me. The same could be said for the spellsinger, I suppose, and other classes. So that would be a good argument for them being base classes that don't offer item creation feats and familiars as bonuses.
MarkusTay63 09-29-07, 01:22 PM	I think there should ONLY be four (5 with psi) base classes. People can then chose the 'path' to follow, or continue on in the generic class. Think about it - all fighters need to learn the basics, as do mages, etc. Fighters could then proceed down different 'combat styles' paths, while a mage could learn different 'traditions' for casting magic. In this way, everything we need to play could come out in the initial core books, with the more advanced options included in future splatbooks. You'll never buy a splatbook again and say "Damn, I would have made one of those!" Everything becomes a choice down the road. This is what the PrC system SHOULD have been, and what it sounds like it may just become in 4e. As far as I'm concerned, EVERYTHING beyond the basic four should be a PrC (or path, in the new jargon).
MerrikCale 09-29-07, 01:26 PM	As far as I'm concerned, EVERYTHING beyond the basic four should be a PrC (or path, in the new jargon). But we know 4e is not that. In fact, they are pretty much telling us that w'll eventually have as many base classes
Suin Bahhar 09-29-07, 03:05 PM	Hmm I dont know. Several sepparate classes like bladesinger, battlerager, shadowthief, zhentarim scout base classes could start to clutter the system. If many base classes are added they require lots of their own tables and crossreferencing racial abilities. We need more info IMHO.
GothicDan 09-29-07, 03:30 PM	I have ALWAYS wanted exactly what Markus has described. We are most wise, aren't we, Markus?
MerrikCale 09-29-07, 11:29 PM	I have ALWAYS wanted exactly what Markus has described. We are most wise, aren't we, Markus? Its a great idea. But WoTC won't follow a course that limits the number of books they can sell with new base classes. They are already talking about not having the druid and bard in the new PHB. Do ya think they'll be in the PHB2 sure to come out in 2009?
Dimensional_Drifter 09-30-07, 07:42 PM	Not having druid or bard as base classes!? ugh... please tell me that the changes won't be THAT extreme.
Meldread 09-30-07, 08:32 PM	I'm in agreement with you, Markus on how the base classes should work.
Straploknight 09-30-07, 09:27 PM	Four base proffesions with plenty of feats and skills and you could make everything your heart desires. Of course that opens the system up for alot of abuses, although I wonder if feats could work like skills, you could have class feats and cross class feats and maybe even racial feats (the third catagory could be very expensive in terms of purchasing feats outside your race/class)
MerrikCale 09-30-07, 09:57 PM	Not having druid or bard as base classes!? ugh... please tell me that the changes won't be THAT extreme. From what I can gather, the PHB will have the following classes: Fighter, Ranger, Paladin (can have all levels), Barbarian, Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Rogue, Cleric and something called a Warlord. We also know there will be additional classes as new books come out. Richard Baker has already stated he will release the Swordmage. Presumably, the druid, bard, and monk will be released eventually.
SgtAnjay 09-30-07, 10:41 PM	With clerics the only "priest"-y class you better be able to customize the ever living crap out of it....
Fabius Maximus 10-01-07, 08:29 AM	From what I can gather, the PHB will have the following classes: Fighter, Ranger, Paladin (can have all levels), Barbarian, Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Rogue, Cleric and something called a Warlord. We also know there will be additional classes as new books come out. Richard Baker has already stated he will release the Swordmage. Presumably, the druid, bard, and monk will be released eventually. I rather think the druid, bard and monk will be talent trees (or something similar) for the Cleric, Warlord and Fighter classes. The should have made PrCs out of Bard, Ranger and Paladin, though.
MerrikCale 10-01-07, 08:28 PM	I rather think the druid, bard and monk will be talent trees (or something similar) for the Cleric, Warlord and Fighter classes. The should have made PrCs out of Bard, Ranger and Paladin, though. That would be OK if they had any intention of limiting the number of base classes but it doesn't seem that they do
johnkretzer 10-02-07, 03:07 AM	From what I can gather, the PHB will have the following classes: Fighter, Ranger, Paladin (can have all levels), Barbarian, Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Rogue, Cleric and something called a Warlord. We also know there will be additional classes as new books come out. Richard Baker has already stated he will release the Swordmage. Presumably, the druid, bard, and monk will be released eventually. I think the Warlord is the fighter's new name. I though Talen tree were supose to cut down on the number of base classes? Personaly I never minded lots of base classes...though haveing Warlock in 4th fills me with dread...I dislike the class because to me it is what the sorcerer is.
Suin Bahhar 10-02-07, 07:43 AM	Personaly I never minded lots of base classes...though haveing Warlock in 4th fills me with dread...I dislike the class because to me it is what the sorcerer is. I am slowly suspecting the warlock to replace the sorcerer too...
Diffan 10-02-07, 08:20 AM	I am slowly suspecting the warlock to replace the sorcerer too... From what i've read, the sorcerer will be in 4e, just might not make the 1st PHB as well as the Druid, Monk, and Bard.
Fabius Maximus 10-02-07, 08:24 AM	No, both of them will be in the PHB. Damn, too late. ;)
Suin Bahhar 10-02-07, 08:52 AM	I am really looking forward to the new fighter of 4ed. I hope for even more versitility and oomph. :)
Diffan 10-02-07, 09:05 AM	I am really looking forward to the new fighter of 4ed. I hope for even more versitility and oomph. :) As am I. They're saying that a Dwarven fighter is going to be different than say an elven one. Probably emphasizing brute strengh and endurance to gracefulness and finesse respectfully. It's something that feats could accomplish, but having it build into the class is far more effective, freeing up your feats for bigger and better things.
Suin Bahhar 10-02-07, 09:10 AM	Agreed. I wonder what elven evasion means. Dwarven resilience gives a bonus to fortitude defence and will defense vs spells; maybe elven evasion gives a bonus to reflex defense? I think I'm on to something here...
Diffan 10-02-07, 09:29 AM	Agreed. I wonder what elven evasion means. Dwarven resilience gives a bonus to fortitude defence and will defense vs spells; maybe elven evasion gives a bonus to reflex defense? I think I'm on to something here... :thinks: That's a good possibility. I read in an playtesting article that weapons will have different functions besides just a different damage die and crit threat mods. For example, we have a home-brew rule that lets us use an immediate action to set a pike/polearm/spear against a charge instead of readied actions.
Suin Bahhar 10-02-07, 09:51 AM	Making weapons feel different mechanicly gives them an more interesting game use. I really hope swords will feel like the versitile weapons they ought to be. I understand this will be reflected in the range of maneuvers and tricks one can learn with a sword. The sword has acces to the broadest range of combat tricks, like deflective parries, disarms, sundering and cleaving. A spear would be more limited to distance like mechanics such as set to recieve a charge, ignoring shield ac. An axe would serve the sunder and destroy defenses role, a knife the slice and twist, a club the bash and stun etc.
The_Shaman 10-02-07, 12:36 PM	I wouldn't miss the speed differences of earlier editions, and I'd also like to see more range differencs. For example, a dagger is much easier to control and swing around than a halberd, and presuming the same degree of expertise it should allow for more attacks or at least quicker ones. OTOH, each weapon has an optimal range of use - the axe may be a great weapon, but if an opponent is practically touching you it might be somewhat inconvenient.
MarkusTay63 10-02-07, 05:29 PM	I have ALWAYS wanted exactly what Markus has described. We are most wise, aren't we, Markus?But of course. :D Four base proffesions with plenty of feats and skills and you could make everything your heart desires.Exactly. Not having druid or bard as base classes!? ugh... please tell me that the changes won't be THAT extreme.A Druid becomes a priest specalizing in Nature, whereas a Cleric is a priest that focuses his talents on combat. A Bard is a Rogue with musical talent. A Monk becomes a fighter that gets dex bonuses for going unarmored, and can take feats to give him the unarmed strike benefits. WTF is the Barabarian Class? You can't do that with a warrior and feats in Rage? You want a Ranger? Multiclass as a fighter/Druid You want a Paladin? Multiclass as a Priest/Fighter Swadhbuckler becomes a Rogue/Fighter Want a Yogi? Go fighter (unarmed)/Psion Etc, etc, etc... By providing Feats that are only available with two classes as pre-requisites, we can re-create anything we want without all the unneccessary clutter of extranneous base classes. Turn all of the old 2e speciality priests into PrCs, and the Specialist Wizards into them as well. We don't need more classes, we need BETTER RULES!
18DELTA 10-02-07, 06:32 PM	The barb will probably be a racial talent in 4E. Only one race gets rage in SWSE, that is the wookie. Rage +2 attack, +2 damage, 1 time a day. 1 feat makes it +5 attack, +5 damage. Another feat lets me rage 2/day, yadda yadda yadda.;)
WizO_Autumn 10-02-07, 08:42 PM	There is a board just for discussion of 4e and Forgotten Realms! I'm moving this there. There are also boards for woes, so let's leave them out of this thread.
Bluenose 10-03-07, 04:21 AM	But of course. :D Exactly. A Druid becomes a priest specalizing in Nature, whereas a Cleric is a priest that focuses his talents on combat. A Bard is a Rogue with musical talent. A Monk becomes a fighter that gets dex bonuses for going unarmored, and can take feats to give him the unarmed strike benefits. WTF is the Barabarian Class? You can't do that with a warrior and feats in Rage? You want a Ranger? Multiclass as a fighter/Druid You want a Paladin? Multiclass as a Priest/Fighter Swadhbuckler becomes a Rogue/Fighter Want a Yogi? Go fighter (unarmed)/Psion Etc, etc, etc... By providing Feats that are only available with two classes as pre-requisites, we can re-create anything we want without all the unneccessary clutter of extranneous base classes. Turn all of the old 2e speciality priests into PrCs, and the Specialist Wizards into them as well. We don't need more classes, we need BETTER RULES! Out of curiosity, how are you going to make a bladesinger? I really like the principle you're using for this, but there's things that become hard to do. A bard would have to combine "rogue" with "arcane caster" abilities, and have a talent tree for music. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it would need some multiclassing to make it work. Oddly enough I could almost see a case for just three base classes. You'd have your non-caster types, with lots of feats/talents that can either increase their fighting ability, their skills, or other abilities - a shadowdancer would be perfectly practical as a talent tree with various abilities, as would a barbarian with a rage talent tree. Then your two types of caster, and there you could either go with divine and arcane caster, or with spontaneous and non-spontaneous depending on how you wanted it.
johnkretzer 10-04-07, 01:09 AM	By providing Feats that are only available with two classes as pre-requisites, we can re-create anything we want without all the unneccessary clutter of extranneous base classes. So instead have the 'unneccessary clutter of extranneous base classes' we can have the clutter of unneccessary clutter of extranneous Feats, Talent trees, and lot more PrCs...sigh the more things change the more they stay the same. :) As I said I like being a druid as oppose to being a cleric that is into nature, or a bard as oppose to a musicaly talented rogues. But it is just opinion...but I felt a base class meant something...shrug. We don't need more classes, we need BETTER RULES! Wasn't this the tag line to 2nd edition with the kits? and then later Skills & Powers?
Diffan 10-07-07, 10:02 PM	You want a Paladin? Multiclass as a Priest/Fighter You realize that a cleric/fighter build doesn't even come close to the smiting power a paladin can have. It doesn't have immunity to disease or fear. It's BAB is only average and the fighter feats only slightly help the build. You most definitly have to PrC to resemble anything close to a good build. The only good points are the most simple: possible 9th level spells. It's been my experience that clerics do 3 things exceptionally well and those are: 1) Turning Undead and using Turning Undead uses to max/empower/quicken/heighten his spells, 2) Buff the heck out of your party memebers and yourself, and 3) Heal, Heal, Heal, Heal, and uh....Heal. That's what clerics do well. Making a multi-classed fighter/cleric usually makes for a poor fighter and an average spell-caster. True the paladin's spells don't come close to that of a clerics, but neither does the cleric's combat effectivness/smiting come close to that of the paladin. We don't need more classes, we need BETTER RULES! And 4E is only going to make both classes better in they're respective roles. A cleric is going to do the above abilities better and the paladin is going to the the whole smiting/spiritual fighter abilities better. Clumping the non-basic classes ie: anything not fighter/cleric/wizard/rogue just makings things more difficult and complicated.
MerrikCale 10-18-07, 10:51 PM	you think the swordmage sounds interesting?
Suin Bahhar 10-19-07, 08:29 AM	I do. The way they were talking about making the Swordmage a magic defender class seems to be a solid character role with a good use. I now only hope their promise of mutliclassing actually working with everything leaves enough room to make the Swordmage flavourfully and mechanicly different enough from a typical fighter/mage multiclass.
Diffan 10-21-07, 07:32 PM	you think the swordmage sounds interesting? I have no clue what a swordmage is. I didn't think it was mentioned as one of the PHB core classes. It does sound interesting and it might resemble a duskblade from the PHB II, which I also found fun to play so who knows?
MerrikCale 12-08-07, 09:37 AM	I have no clue what a swordmage is. I didn't think it was mentioned as one of the PHB core classes. It does sound interesting and it might resemble a duskblade from the PHB II, which I also found fun to play so who knows? so its a fighter that exchanges armor for defensive spells, not really a duskblade
AlexS 12-08-07, 10:16 PM	I think there should ONLY be four (5 with psi) base classes. Sounds rather like True20- there are 3 base classes: warrior, expert, and adept, covering combat, skill use and magic/psionics respectively (it's a background decision whether a character is a mage, cleric, psion, or whatever). It's easy enough to come up with the flavour of the traditional DnD classes from these. Paladins, for example, might be warriors with a couple of adept levels to pick up some healing powers and other magics. Of course, it won't be a direct translation of everything that goes with a paladin according to the 3.x rules, but in True20 the mechanics are (IMO, at least) secondary to the fluffy concepts, so it may not appeal to everyone.