Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 evilprincesssasha Jul 19, 2011 23:05:07	What will become of classes like the Invoker and Warden? R they archetypes or will they be subclasses from here on? R they not stron enough to stand alone or what? What will they become? Invoker becomes a wizard sub? Warden becomes a primal fighter? I think these classed are awesome; even icons of 4E. Sad to see them demoted.
#2 evilprincesssasha Jul 19, 2011 23:37:37	And let's not forget avengers!
#3 Alex_ Jul 19, 2011 23:41:31	Every new edition seems to have kept the Wizard, Rogue, Cleric, and Fighter classes.  Everything else is up for grabs, and it's rather hard to predict which classes are going to full classes and which ones are going to transform into other options.
#4 Garthanos Jul 19, 2011 23:53:21	And let's not forget avengers! The hand of god guiding your mighty blade!!!!!! no not to be forgotten interesting in both flavor and its mechanics... without playing hand jive with resource management.
#42 kev777 Jul 20, 2011 14:28:12	Personally I dont see why people get their undies in a bunch when they play a class based game and see too many limitations. in your proposed system powers dont need to be ballanced against a small group of powers for any given class they need to be ballanced against every single other power in the game.   Another point, your system also has imposed limitations, what if i want to create a wizard that has one of each damage type?  at least hoe you presented it I cannot because I can only choose so many keywords.  The concept I presented is just that.  It isn't perfect and it was just to illustrate what I had in mind.   But even in the example I gave you could still select Evocation and 4 other power sub categories when creating a new class.    The class template concept I outlined doesn't indicate how many powers you get to cast.  It just limits your selections.    Now there could be hundreds of Evocation spells in the game and I never defined how may powers you could select at each level.
#43 Herrozerro Jul 20, 2011 14:30:53	Personally I dont see why people get their undies in a bunch when they play a class based game and see too many limitations. in your proposed system powers dont need to be ballanced against a small group of powers for any given class they need to be ballanced against every single other power in the game.   Another point, your system also has imposed limitations, what if i want to create a wizard that has one of each damage type?  at least hoe you presented it I cannot because I can only choose so many keywords.  The concept I presented is just that.  It isn't perfect and it was just to illustrate what I had in mind.   But even in the example I gave you could still select Evocation and 4 other power sub categories.    The class template concept I outlined doesn't indicate how many powers you get to cast.  It just limits your selections.    Now there could be hundreds of Evocation spells in the game and I never defined how may powers you could select at each level.        In your previous example you mentioned a fighter with the fire keyword, I had assumed that means he can only select fire powers. either way, im still not seeing any advantage over the current system, it seems to present more of an illision of less limits.  There still are limits you just pick them now. I still think the issue is going to ballance all of the powers against all the other powers to make selections meaningful.
#44 kev777 Jul 20, 2011 14:32:17	I would make a list of powers for each class with a short description.  Make a few other lists by category (by Power Source, by Role, By Sub Cateogry,  etc).  Finally, put all the power descriptions at the back of the book.  You've just described exactly how spells were organized in 3rd edition.  And picking 3rd ed. spells is a way, way less inuitive and vastly more complicated process than picking 4e powers. I agree that powers should have more keywords to help with categorization if nothing else, but breaking the walls between classes makes things more complicated, not simpler. Yes I took previous editions categories and used 4e power sources as an example of how to categorize the powers, but it doens't have to be done that way
#45 Herrozerro Jul 20, 2011 14:34:42	Personally the furthest I would want to go away with classes in dnd is gamma world.
#46 Mand12 Jul 20, 2011 14:36:21	The specific extra categorization isn't relevant.  What you're suggesting is to break a clear and thoroughly established categorization, that of classes.  You've still not shown how breaking that categorization makes things better, when the entire premise hinges upon applying categorization in order to help the selection process.
#47 MartianAlien Jul 20, 2011 14:41:59	I feel like the invoker should be folded in under cleric, I just feel like it makes sense, two chain wielding mostly magic using divine classes, just feels right to me.  However I also really thought that the warlord belonged under the fighter archetype so that shows how intune I am with the guys up at WoTC. I seem to recall someone from R&D (can't recall exactly who, pretty sure it was either Rodney T. or Mike M.) saying in a forum post that if it hadn't already been done as its own class, under the Essentials-subclass paradigm the Warlord would have been a Fighter subclass rather than its own class. I'd assume they'd do the same with Invoker (and a few others as well).
#48 kev777 Jul 20, 2011 14:42:39	Personally I dont see why people get their undies in a bunch when they play a class based game and see too many limitations. in your proposed system powers dont need to be ballanced against a small group of powers for any given class they need to be ballanced against every single other power in the game.   Another point, your system also has imposed limitations, what if i want to create a wizard that has one of each damage type?  at least hoe you presented it I cannot because I can only choose so many keywords.  The concept I presented is just that.  It isn't perfect and it was just to illustrate what I had in mind.   But even in the example I gave you could still select Evocation and 4 other power sub categories.    The class template concept I outlined doesn't indicate how many powers you get to cast.  It just limits your selections.    Now there could be hundreds of Evocation spells in the game and I never defined how may powers you could select at each level.        In your previous example you mentioned a fighter with the fire keyword, I had assumed that means he can only select fire powers. either way, im still not seeing any advantage over the current system, it seems to present more of an illision of less limits.  There still are limits you just pick them now. I still think the issue is going to ballance all of the powers against all the other powers to make selections meaningful.  Yes there would have to be rules governing the power levels and capabilities of each power by its level and role.    Hopefully it would be more balanced in the end.
#49 kev777 Jul 20, 2011 15:14:03	The specific extra categorization isn't relevant.  What you're suggesting is to break a clear and thoroughly established categorization, that of classes.  You've still not shown how breaking that categorization makes things better, when the entire premise hinges upon applying categorization in order to help the selection process. There is already a class bloat problem with 4e.  Therefore, suggesting that it is a thoroughly established categorization can't possibly be correct.   What I would like to do is redefine what components make up a class and categorize all the powers available.  The reason is that I want to make it easy to make new classes and to make power selection more thematic. In 4e there are many base attributes that each class shares.    The 4e Classes restrict you by role, power source, weapons and armor, and to some extent flavour.   In my version you're not restricted by role, but everything else is the same.    You just have more powers available to you and you can make any type of character you want.    You could make a fighter who was a Leader or you could make a fighter that had a few powers from each role.  It wouldn't matter.   Your theme could be anything. It might be role based, power source based, damage based, area attack based, etc...   The major difference is that I would have rules that govern how classes are created. New classes could be created on the fly with ease and would remain balanced.
#50 Mand12 Jul 20, 2011 15:15:21	There's a class bloat problem in 4e?  What do you mean?  Do you mean there are too many classes?  Or too many things within a class? Too many classes is something to which I say:  "impossible" Too many things within a class is improved by breaking the walls between classes...how?
#51 kev777 Jul 20, 2011 15:21:05	There's a class bloat problem in 4e?  What do you mean?  Do you mean there are too many classes?  Or too many things within a class? Too many classes is something to which I say:  "impossible" Too many things within a class is improved by breaking the walls between classes...how? what do you consider to be the wall between classes?
#52 Mand12 Jul 20, 2011 15:23:55	There's a class bloat problem in 4e?  What do you mean?  Do you mean there are too many classes?  Or too many things within a class? Too many classes is something to which I say:  "impossible" Too many things within a class is improved by breaking the walls between classes...how? what do you consider to be the wall between classes?   "The set of powers that I can choose when I create a Ranger" being disjoint from "The set of powers that I can choose when I create a Fighter"
#53 kev777 Jul 20, 2011 15:47:24	There's a class bloat problem in 4e?  What do you mean?  Do you mean there are too many classes?  Or too many things within a class? Too many classes is something to which I say:  "impossible" Too many things within a class is improved by breaking the walls between classes...how? what do you consider to be the wall between classes?   "The set of powers that I can choose when I create a Ranger" being disjoint from "The set of powers that I can choose when I create a Fighter" Well I think some of those powers should be cross functional.   A two bladed fighter slayer and a two bladed ranger might have some of the same powers to chose from.   Why have two sets of powers for the same fighting style? I think that a ranger should have access to martial melee, martial ranged, and primal as power sources with light armor restrictions. A fighter should have access to all martial powers and no weapon and armor restrictions.
#54 Garthanos Jul 20, 2011 16:16:53	As a note, Avengers aren't new, but just very obscure. They appeared in 2nd edition. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_alternate_... Did somebody also mention warlords werent either.. they just came in to there own
#82 Tony_Vargas Aug 02, 2011 3:37:02	To put into perspective, Rogues get 16 encounters to choose from at level 1, Wizards (Mage, Bladesinger or Arcanist) have 17 encounter powers (daily powers for Bladesingers) to choose from at level 1, and Fighters have 18 encounter powers to choose from.  That's wayy to many options for attacking.  Keep it down to 2-3 attack powers relevant per build per level choice (meaning, for the Rogue who has 4 true builds, that should be no more than 12; while the Fighter, who has five builds, shouldn't have more than 15).  That's prettymuch in the ballbark for the Rogue and Fighter, each is just a little high.  For the Wizard, if you count each school as a build, that'd mean upwards of 30 powers, wouldn't it?
#83 Luis_Carlos Aug 02, 2011 4:45:08	Classes are one of the sacred cows of D&D and other fantasy rpgs. A optional system of classes could be posible but it would be d20, no true D&D. One of the main ideas of D&D is PCs of diferent classes have got a specialization, with strong and weak points, and players help each other like a team to compensate. When I create a PC by my imagination I want a different heroe, and the no classic core classes is one of my favourit part of D&D. The idea of archetype or kit (AD&D) isn´t bad but.. I would like some concepts are classes and no subclases. I wish knight or gladiator like complete class with own mechanic game. Necromancer can be a subclass of wizard, but it was a complete class from "heroes of horror". Lurker (complete psionic), beguiler (PH II 3.5 ed) or spellthief (complete adventurer) can be a subclases of rogue, hexblade and swashbuckler (complete warrior) can be a warrior subclass and and .. but there are a lot of ideas I would like like classes (shadow assasin, shaman, witch/warlock, mystic, crusader/templar, samurai, ninja, sohei.)... A good class isn´t only a different list of powers and skills. It´s a different style of game and its special background. A true core class has got it own identity. Dragonfire adept from Dragon Magic was different but it wasn´t too popular (was it?)... but Binder from Tome of magic was a very charismatic class, a really good idea. Binder doesn´t deserve be only a warlock subclass.
#84 Marandahir Aug 03, 2011 20:07:47	And cool thing here:  As I said, all races should get Racial Utilities.  Looks like WotC decided that tooo.  ;)
#85 ralath62 Aug 03, 2011 22:36:51	Too many classes is something to which I say:  "impossible" +1