Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 MacEochaid Sep 14, 2014 20:50:01	I say classes, but I mean "builds" and classes.    From 4E I'm thinking of the following   Ardent Artificer Avenger Battlemind Blackguard Bladesinger Druid - Sentinel Psion Sentinel Shaman Swordmage Vampire Warden Warlock - Elemental Pact Warlock - Gloom Pact Warlord Wizard - Witch Wizard - Sha'ir   Do people feel these need to come back? Would some be better just as subclasses like the Oath of the Anicents Paladin as Warden, or do they need a whole new class like the Artificer. Could some of these be accomplished with feats? I feel like Ardent could be a Feat at the end of the day, giving a few wild emotional psionic abilities.
#2 Serenityvalley Sep 14, 2014 22:41:55	I am hoping for a true Swordmage Class because it far to hard to get low level teleportation in the EK sub
#3 Marandahir Sep 14, 2014 22:53:04	Wizard - Witch is very adequately represented by Warlocks, especially those with the Archfey as their Patron.  Bladesinger is quite adequately represented by Eldritch Knight (the key point was casting spells at the same time as striking with weapons); and the Eldritch Knight also has the Weapon Bond feature from the Swordmage, while use of Abjuration Spells supposedly should emulate the Aegis feature.  I think both of these are adequately represented.  Warden has been wrapped into Paladin Oath of the Ancients.  Whether you think that's good enough of a representation is up to debate; some would say that the Warden's shapeshifting abilities were thematically more "OP" and deserve to be higher level features.  Others feel like it's too little too late.  Either way, I would say the chief reason people play the Warden, to be a healing, green knight archetype, is covered by the Oath of the Ancients, and their Warding feature also is a calling to the Warden.  I wouldn't put it on the list for needing representation.  Classes are going to have different mechanics from edition to edition. Warlord is a Battlemaster option, maybe with a feat or two.  It's adequately represented.   Avenger is in the same boat as the Warden – it's a Paladin option; Oath of Vengeance, which very adequately represents the class.  It might be nice to have a no-armour variant feature for Paladins, though! Blackguard is coming with DMG as the "Oathbreaker Paladin". You put Sentinel Druid on the list twice.  It DOES need translating though; a pet-subclass Druid Circle is very necessary.  Similarly, a more Shamanic Druid Circle would be nice, though the Shaman's invincible conjuration companions need to be worked out in a way that they're not so OP.  Psionic Classes probably should come as subclasses of some of the core ones – Battlemind or Psychic Warrior as a Fighter subclass; Soulknife as a Rogue subclass; Psionic Monks; Ardent as a Paladin subclass; Psion should really be broken into Charismatic innate Psionic Sorcerer subclass and cerebral meditative intelligent Wizard subclass.  Artificer probably needs its own class, though it's in a weird spot: the Transmuter Wizard does a lot of what Artificers like to do, but lacks all weapons equipment.  I can't really see the Artificer though being a Wizard subclass (steps on Transmutation school benefits, and it would want Abjuration and Conjuration and Evocation and Necromancy school spells as well), and I can't see it as a Fighter or Rogue subclass akin to the EK or AT; it needs to cast better than that.  I think Artificer might do well being the Arcane Half-caster, akin to the Ranger and Paladin, now that the Bard is a full-caster.  It could be considered most analagous to a Ranger: strong proficiencies in weapons, tools, and exploration skills, access to healing and support spells, and a smatterings of utility casting beyond that as well.  They both occupy the Fighter-Rogue-Caster fusion space; therefore, I really can't see the Artificer being a full-caster like the Bard unless it sacrifices one of the warrior or skilful elements in either build (akin to how College of Lore Bards are more skillful while College of Valour Bards are more gishy).  And Artificers really are less of a broad category of similar characters like Bards who could be extremely different from Bard to Bard as much as they are real combo-characters that share a lot in common.  I don't really see some Artificers being especially more warrior-focused while others especially more skills-focused. Gloom Pact, Elemental Pact, Dark Pact, Vestige Pact, and Sorcerer-King Pact Warlocks are all missing, yes.  Of course, you forgot the last 3 (especially poor, misunderstood Dark Pact, which has nothing to do with the Gloom Pact; Dark Pact is with entities of the Underdark, Gloom Pact with Dark Lords of the Shadowfell/Ravenloft).  We'll likely get SK-Pact in a DS splatbook; the others I hope we get soon.  Wizard- Sha'ir is essentially a Warlock with an Elemental Patron who has taken Pact of the Chain (to get a Gen familiar).
#4 CCS Sep 14, 2014 23:25:34	Vampire - much like "elf", "dwarf", & "halfling" from the BECMI days should never have been a class. So no, it doesn't need any class translation.
#5 rampant Sep 14, 2014 23:34:24	Warlord is not a battle master option.   The battlemaster is a generalized tactical fighter, it's abilities are rather insufficiently specialized to represent the force multiplication factor of the 4e warlord. A warlord build would pretty much need to be a dedicated sub-class.   The artificer is the problematic one. It's an awesme concept with a lot of potential, but the problem is that it's really easy to mess up, and a lot depends on your magic item system.   What I would suggest is that artificers be a bit more limited than they were in 3e.    Basically they should be forced to choose whether to be construct masters, alchemists/potioneers, wandslingers, golem crafters, etc. instead of being able to do all of the above.   So for example a wand slinger might start off crafting wands, then work his way up to rods, then staves.   A golem master would start with clockworks, then homunculi, then golems.   and so on and so on
#6 Serenityvalley Sep 15, 2014 0:01:11	I would like to see an Arcane Archer/Seeker make a true come back too
#7 rampant Sep 15, 2014 0:15:32	Hopefully more seeker than 3e arcane archer.   Great concept   Half-arsed execution
#8 RCanine Sep 15, 2014 0:33:06	I *loved* the artificer concept, although I don't think the 4E version--basically Magic Weapon and some other stuff was particularly well done. I want it back. It could be a new bard college--the college of artifice or college of technology.   I found all of the psionic stuff lame, and wouldn't miss it if it were gone, but they'll inevitably do it. Some monsters exist already that have "psionics" which are just another word for spellcasting.   The Sentinal Druid was an awfully designed 4E class. I think 5E could probably do it better. That said, the predator and swarm druids from 4E are nohing like the 5E versions. I'd love to see them too.   Shaman doesn't exist, but I found that concept gimicky and lame too. Were they to do the shaman, I'd rather it looks more like the WoW one.   There are a few you missed too--the battlerager fighter is a bit like the berserker barbarian, but that could definitely be it's own thing.   The ruthless ruffian rogue was a neat idea that you can't really replicate in 5E. The runepriest was never really a fully fleshed-out class, but there's probably room for it in cleric now.   Both the seeker and the hunter ranger--controllers that used ranged/thrown weapons don't really exist in 5E, although if they were they'd probably be rolled up into ranger.   The pacifist cleric was a neat concept that made games awful to play, so I'm glad there really isn't anything like it in 5th ed.   The Wizard (as opposed to the Mage) from 4E doesn't exist--a magic generalist. I don't think you really need it though, since the spell specializations don't really narrow your options.   The invoker could be represented by the knowledge or light clerics (the less weapony ones), but it doesn't really have the same feel.
#9 thespaceinvader Sep 15, 2014 1:04:07	Swordmage, Shaman and Warlord are the three most important missing options for me, followed by Psionics in general.  Also (and it's an option 4e didn't do well either) a decent Arcane Archer.  The Seeker was OK, but was never well-designed until the VERY end of the edition and even then wasn't a patch on the Wizard.   Notably, two out of three of those are enabling leaders, which was probably the most useful innovation of 4e in terms of how the game can be played, and one which is sadly missed in 5e.   The other major missing option is functional defenders, but that's more of a system issue, than a missing-class issue.
#10 rampant Sep 15, 2014 0:54:43	I think invoker as a separate class would be a good idea.   Give him all the divine smitey spells so Clerics don't end up being overly versatile like in 3e.
#11 Arawn76 Sep 15, 2014 1:28:16	I'd like to see the Invoker make a comeback...
#12 arderkrag Sep 15, 2014 2:05:03	One to add to your list: Cavalier/Mounted Pally with growing mount.
#13 Novacat Sep 15, 2014 2:07:56	Marandahir wrote:
#14 philipnicholls Sep 15, 2014 2:23:31	while I agree that you can emulate some of the features of the Tactical Warlord with the Battlemaster Fighter, you cannot IMO emulate a Inspiring Warlord very well without going via a Valorous Bard.
#15 Zardnaar Sep 15, 2014 2:34:07	philipnicholls wrote:
#16 Brock_Landers Sep 15, 2014 3:04:58	Marandahir wrote:
(Reply to #13) Shiroiken	Novacat wrote:
#18 arderkrag Sep 15, 2014 3:39:28	Also: Spellsword Arcane Archer Dwarven Defender
#19 Brock_Landers Sep 15, 2014 3:59:58	arderkrag wrote:
#20 Diffan Sep 15, 2014 4:54:16	I'd love to see a Shaodw Assassin akin to the original assassin in 4E. Sure the mechanics weren't very good (dare I say terrible until way later patches) but I loved the flavor and it worked well for my Tiefling character concept.    As for the Warlord, I'm not sure maneuvers are enough to really "adequately" represent the full scope of a 4E Warlord. For some, that's a good thing while others feel it doesn't go nearly far enough.    For the Warden, I don't think a sub-path of the Paladin nearly represents what I felt the Warden brought to the table in terms of thematic and flavorable effects. The class literally changes their shape into primal aspects and the Oath of Ancients doesn't come close. A better representation might be in the Druid or Barbarian class IMO.    I also converted the Factotum to 5E (and my friend did one for 4E as well) but doing so isn't particularly very difficult. So if there's any 3E classes that one doesn't think are represented in Next, it's not a difficult thing to plug-in certain features at the near-levels and go from there. Changing verbage and a few modifiers isn't difficult either.
#21 Brock_Landers Sep 15, 2014 6:08:00	Yes, one of the big selling points of 5th Ed for me is ease of converting pre-4th Ed material.
#22 rampant Sep 15, 2014 9:20:39	I don't think battle master really covers warlord, the battle master is a general purpose tactical fighter, or it at least tries to be. To cover the warlord I think we'd need a specialized sub-class for fighter.   Something with the ability to sacrifice their extra fighter attacks to their allies.   The avenger they could do one of three ways: Rogue subclass similar to arcane trickster, paladin sub-class, or it's own class. Without some sort of special mechanic to play with, I think the sub-class option would be better for avengers.   The spellsword and similar stuff could be done with the eldritch knight sub-class, however the eldritch knight suffers compared to the ranger and paladin since their spell list doesn't integrate with weapon combat nearly as well.   I think the EK either needs it's own spell list, with custom spells, whether that means it becomes its own class or not I don't care.
#23 Atheosis Sep 15, 2014 9:35:18	Warlord would make a good Fighter archetype.
#24 Lawolf Sep 15, 2014 9:56:47	The 4e defender role (fighter, paladin, etc). The 4e Chaladin (or any paladin who attacks with divine prayers instead of through strength of arms) The whole 4e primal power source (warden, barbarian, seeker). The 4e swordsage (or any caster who attacks with their spells through their weapon use). The 4e leader role (the leader role is more than just healing, it is about enabling action in combat) The 3e warlock (all at-will all the time). The 3e Tome of Battle classes (interesting maneuvers for martial PCs). The 4e assassin (blending shadow magic and martial prowess). Any 4e hybrid class (my favorits were warlock|assassin and barbarian|sorcerer)   Now for concepts that can't be recreated:   A werewolf from level 1 (werewolf theme + barbarian class). Could shift between animal, humanoid, and hybrid form multiple times. Gained regeneration when sufficiently wounded.   A human who had a storm elemental bound to their body (storm genasi battlemind). Was a great in melee, all attacks dealt lightning damage without the need of a magic weapon, could fly, and could create mini tornadoes.   A dragon cursed to live life in a human's body. (Dragonborn Sorcerer|Barbarian hybrid). Could create blasts of fire at will, had a variety of more powerful fire attacks, and some "dragon rages" that also did fire damage or added fire damage to his melee attacks. He had claws that did decent unarmed damage, could grow scales to protect himself from harm for a short duration, could breath fire, and could beat things down in melee. Eventually gained the ability to revert to his true dragon form for a limited time.   A pixie assassin|warlock who used illusion magic to trick people into believing he was a human. Could fly around the battlefield and cause mischief as well as being exceptionally deadly in combat.
#25 GladiusLegis Sep 15, 2014 10:31:35	Good riddance to the following:   4e Battlemind and Ardent: The ultimate example of cookie-cutter classes made to do nothing else other than fill the power source/role grid that plagued the latter years of 4e. 4e Chaladin: The ONLY reason this one even came about was because the 4e version of the Paladin class was a messy design to start. I'll take 5e's Dexadin being a real option over 4e's Chaladin any day of the week. 4e Assassin: I like my Assassins purely martial. The 4e Assassin also sucked at actually, um, assassinating.
#26 Brock_Landers Sep 15, 2014 10:34:49	GladiusLegis wrote:
#27 Saelorn Sep 15, 2014 10:42:50	Brock_Landers wrote:
#28 Brock_Landers Sep 15, 2014 10:53:04	Saelorn wrote:
#29 rampant Sep 15, 2014 11:08:03	So why doesn't blade pact work?   What's it missing?
#30 XavTango Sep 15, 2014 11:17:44	I did some of the playtesting early for 5e but haven't been following it but this thread makes me think of the Mystic Theurge and its related dual spellcasting callses from 3.x...   Conceptually classes like this can really standout and be thematic gold but in 3.x it certainl;y could be way over the top just in sheer spellcasting availability and power.   Have they addressed this in any way in 5e? If so can you break it down for me? If not has their been mention of if this is going to be introduced and how it will be regulated?
#31 Saelorn Sep 15, 2014 11:25:35	Brock_Landers wrote:
#32 Saelorn Sep 15, 2014 11:33:19	XavTango wrote:
(Reply to #29) Ashrym	rampant wrote:
#34 ChrisCarlson Sep 15, 2014 11:41:15	Ashrym wrote:
#35 smartboyathome Sep 15, 2014 11:50:19	Lawolf wrote:
#36 Timborama Sep 15, 2014 12:00:23	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#37 Brock_Landers Sep 15, 2014 12:03:05	Ashrym wrote:
#38 Brock_Landers Sep 15, 2014 12:04:17	smartboyathome wrote:
#39 Timborama Sep 15, 2014 12:26:24	Brock_Landers wrote:
(Reply to #39) smartboyathome	Timborama wrote:
#41 CetteHamsterLa Sep 15, 2014 13:35:27	The 4e Rune Priest and Shaman and Invoker are all fairly well unnacounted for.  The rune priest you could maybe do some sort of wolf totem barbarian/war domain cleric multiclass but it doesn't feel quite right. Also for all it's wonkyness I really miss the 4e hybrid class system and all the funky builds that let you pull off.
(Reply to #6) mattdm	Serenityvalley wrote:
#43 Novacat Sep 15, 2014 16:07:33	Lawolf wrote:
#44 Zardnaar Sep 15, 2014 16:29:16	Also depends if you want to focus on exact mechanics or the theme of the PC. For example.   3.5 Beguiiler=5E bard 2E Crusader= 5E war cleric 4th ed Cleric= 5E light cleric    Not every class will match up of course, 2E had something close to 300 odd priest classes or more. You can come close though but it is probably fair to only have core book classes and even there 5E has done well IMHO. If you are happy with close enough conversions it seems to work. You are not going to get the full tactical thing of 4E or the options of 3.5 though.    In terms of what you can do just comparing PHB to PHB in terms of options 5E blows 4th ed out of the water and gives 3.5 a good run for its money IMHO.
#45 Lawolf Sep 15, 2014 16:31:32	Novacat wrote:
#46 MechaPilot Sep 15, 2014 16:50:07	Lawolf wrote:
#47 Zardnaar Sep 15, 2014 16:59:57	Lawolf wrote:
#48 MechaPilot Sep 15, 2014 17:04:47	Zardnaar wrote:
#49 Lawolf Sep 15, 2014 17:18:34	I think a fighting style could work to model a 4e style defender. Maybe something like this:   Guardian Fighting Style When you take the Attack action on your turn, you can forgo one of your attacks in order to adopt the Guardian Stance until the end of your next turn. While in the guardian stance the ground within 5 feet of you counts as difficult terrain for your enemies and making an opportunity attack does not use your reaction (you can still only make one opportunity attack per turn).
#50 AshaelCervantes Sep 15, 2014 17:22:20	I liked the concept of the Battlemind and the Assassin from 4th Ed. Also, I miss a LOT of the themes from 4th ed. to be honest. But then again, I do love the new Monk and most all the classes. I would like more subclasses for the current classes though. Perhaps Avenger and Blackguard for Paladin or even Warlock (God Pact?)
#51 Zardnaar Sep 15, 2014 17:24:27	MechaPilot wrote:
#52 Lawolf Sep 15, 2014 17:32:26	Zardnaar wrote:
#53 MechaPilot Sep 15, 2014 17:40:49	Zardnaar wrote:
#54 GhostStepper Sep 15, 2014 17:41:16	Telekinesis Battlemind was awesome in 4e. I'm also looking for Artificer, Shadow Assassin, Totemist and a class that transforms into a exotic creatures for combat as a fundamental feature (sorry, low CR animal wild shape on a full caster doesn't cut it).   Oh, and Warblade as the "real" Battlemaster.
#55 TomCosta Sep 15, 2014 18:30:23	I had the same thought last week on vacation, but first I'd like to say that I really like the subclass idea. It's taking, in my opinon the substitution levels of 3.5E and Pathfinder's archetypes to the next stage, by building them into the class at the onset. In any case, here's my list (excluding non-pseudo European cultures, most setting specific, and psionics):   barbarian/thane (a bit of bard/marshall/leader) barbarian/shaman (basically a 1/3 level spellcasting subclass with a mix of druid and some warlock spells)   cleric/fill in your new domain   druid/beastfriend (kinda like the ranger subclass but for the druid) druid/hivemaster   fighter/cavalier (mounted warrior) fighter/seeker (using the eldritch knight as a template with a more unique spell list that includes more bonus action spells, though it could just as easily fit into the ranger) fighter/bladesinger aka the gish (and here I think its just making a more unique spell list more in the way that the paladin and ranger lists are set up with more bonus action spells) fighter/archer, marshall, and swashbuckler can all be made using a battlemaster with some new maneuvers and maybe some new feat options IMO   monk/mystic (1/3 level divine spellcaster) and 3 breaking my exclusion list above: monk/jordain (from FR), monk/drunken master, and monk/crouching tiger, hidden dragon   paladin/cavalier pladain/4E blackguard paladin/inquisitor paladin/CG oath of love   rogue/investigator (this one could play up the exploration and interaction rules for games that use those rules more) rogue/swashbuckler rogue/thug (although I'm on the fence on this one)   sorcerer/incantatrix (taking metamagic to the next level) sorcerer/shadowcaster (basically the shadow bloodline) sorcerer/elemental bloodlines, celestial (and other outsider type) bloodline, serpent bloodline   warlock/vestige pact (aka binder) warlock/dragon pact (aka dragon shaman)   wizard/arcanist (generalist) wizard/elementalist (air, earth, fire, water, but also cold, thunder and getting a little asian-eque, metal, wood, and maybe void) wizard/shadow   And then some classes that I think probably need to stand on their own....   antipaladin (we'll see what the DMG does, could have the standard LE version, but some other less savory versions) alchemist artificer invoker/favored soul concept (cleric with sorcerer-like spellcasting) runecaster scout/skirmisher/spell-less ranger shaman (with all the spirit calling that the most developed shaman classes have had through most editions truenamer
#56 Zardnaar Sep 15, 2014 18:38:48	TomCosta wrote:
#57 rampant Sep 15, 2014 20:00:59	therianthropes (were-beasts) are pretty tough to pull off as a class.   What I'd do is call it a special multi-class only class with limited levels since traditionally it's an altered state rather than a natural one.   Alternatively it's perfect for a 4e style theme.   One important thing for any sort of therianthrope is that there be significant upsides and downsides to all three forms, without any form being totally debillitating so that all the forms have value rather than people sticking in humn orhybrid all the time.   A dedicated many forms shapeshifter class has a problem, what's it based on? Most shapeshifters in fiction are either monstrous entities such as Samurai Jack's Aku, highly trained in magic such as Loki and derive their shapshifting power from a generalized magical education, or belong to strange and alien races like Odo, or some combination of the three. There's just a lack of a unified background for the abilities.
#58 SpedGuy Sep 15, 2014 20:11:04	I see a lot of good ideas for sub classes in the future up there; but the need for new base classes is limited I think.   Psioncs probably needs at least one base class (psion) and maybe a charisma equivalent (wilder); the rest can be subs.   Artificer will need its own class I feel, unless it can be a very very impressive sub of... Rogue?  Still seems more 'base class' to me.   A charisma based divine caster (favored soul/invoker) would also be nice.
#59 Zardnaar Sep 15, 2014 20:21:04	SpedGuy wrote:
#60 SpedGuy Sep 15, 2014 20:29:57	Zardnaar wrote:
#61 Zardnaar Sep 15, 2014 21:05:57	SpedGuy wrote:
#62 rampant Sep 15, 2014 21:47:54	Please don'tmake the psionic warrior like the eldritch knight, at the veryleast make sure its power lists synergizes with weapon users properly, like soem of the ranger and pally spells.
#63 Tony_Vargas Sep 15, 2014 22:59:19	MacEochaid wrote:
#64 rampant Sep 15, 2014 23:48:30	Vampire like therian trope is really hard to make into a base class, too many disparate powers that maywork fine for a monster but tend to make taking up a role in a party tricky.   You could do if you pared down the vampire's base progression to the undeath, and maybe some blood drain powers, then have things like shape-shifting, hypnotism, undead minions, shado magic, blood magic, etc. be separate sub-classes so no one vamp player is too versatile.   As for shaman, let's not go around expanding the core classes spell lists just to make sub-classes fit, i see no reason sub-classes can't get tailored spell lists with spells unavailiable to the core class.    Might be safer to make it a separate class really.   Artificer is totally do able, if you don't wanna deal with the standard magic item system just have the artificer come with a built in magic item system that doesn't interact with the normal ones and the magic items are the medium for the artificer's class powers instead of being 'real' magic items. For example say a rune-smith artificer has a set number of runes he can sustain, and any over that limit force him to give up an older one. Or maybe a wandificer can only use his special abilities with wands he's crafted so they aren't like normal wands. Or maybe a construct master only gets one golem class monster at a time any extras break down if he uses a new one. Also all of those should be subclasses so we avoid the super versatile 3e artificer.   Warlord could be done as a fighter sub-class but we need a dedicated tactical leader sub-class.
#65 Ashrym Sep 16, 2014 0:11:59	Artificer is likely in the DMG or an Eberron conversion guide.  It's just non-core, or at least that's my prediction.
#66 Brock_Landers Sep 16, 2014 0:57:21	Well, the Thri-Kreen has given us a placeholder for Psionics: "Innate Spellcasting (Psionic). requires no components", uses Wis.   The Artificer could work as a wizard subclass that makes pseudo-magic items/devices, maybe something like the Clockwork Mage/Mechanician from 2nd Ed Al-Qadim.
#67 thespaceinvader Sep 16, 2014 1:43:01	Tony_Vargas wrote:
#68 Hebitsuikaza Sep 16, 2014 2:29:11	The Warlord should be redone.   Putting aside the Grognard idiotcy about emotional/psychological healing equaling or not equaling hit points, the concept of the Warlord could be boiled down like this.   It should effectively be a Cleric of swords, maybe with better weapons, and no god or holy powers.   Instead of having a huge long list of spells that it can only cast a certain number of times a day, it ought to have a smaller and more condensed list of abilities. Some of these would be things one can do instead of making a melee attack, others might trigger on critical hits or when an enemy is dropped to 0 hit points or when the character's hit points drop below half or must be activated at the beginning of a battle or gets activated after the last enemy is defeated or well.... you get the idea. Situational so that they cannot be spammed.   The list of powers needs to not be so expansive that it is confusing and hard to keep track of, but they also need to allow the character to replace the party Cleric without reducing the power of the party.   The powers shouldn't be able to do the more miraculous things a Cleric does such as being able to call down huge fire storms or light storms or summoning angels or bringing people back from the dead... but they ought to be able to mimic the more contained and focused abilities of a Cleric. Healing, increasing AC, negating hits, increasing damage, causing enemies to flee in fear or surrender, etc.   And there should somehow be a build that has powers triggering off of Intelligence and a build that has powers triggering off of Charisma. That's probably the trickiest thing.
#69 Brock_Landers Sep 16, 2014 2:37:27	Hebitsuikaza wrote:
#70 arnwolf666 Sep 16, 2014 2:53:41	I have a feeling warlord will be able to recreated as new maneuvers become available in other supplements.  Though I am not against an archetype.
#71 Hebitsuikaza Sep 16, 2014 3:22:57	Brock_Landers wrote:
(Reply to #70) Darth_Caffeineus	arnwolf666 wrote:
#73 Brock_Landers Sep 16, 2014 3:30:53	Hebitsuikaza wrote:
(Reply to #69) Diffan	Brock_Landers wrote:
#75 Brock_Landers Sep 16, 2014 6:04:15	Diffan wrote:
#76 Hebitsuikaza Sep 16, 2014 7:40:00	You really cannot do it.   Well, I checked again and you get all of 5 class features to mix into the Fighter to define the subclass.   Level 3, Level 7, Level 10, Level  and Level 18.   Now, straight off there is a huge gaping problem. You aren't anything but plain generic run-of-the-mill nothing Fighter for the first two levels. At level 1, the character has no way of taking any actions that actually USE Charisma or Intelligence. Not in a battle anyway. And since Intelligence skills are generally made up of a collection of crap that no one ever actually uses, any points your character spends towards those attributes are just totally wasted.   At levels 1 and 2 you have no method of replenishing hit points or preventing hit points from being lost in the first place, increasing ally accuracy or damage, lowering an enemy's punching power or sending them fleeing from the battlefield, increasing ally's abilities to save or make attribute checks or well... anything. Anything at all... you can't do it.   Which means that in a game starting from level 1, you will NOT be in any way or form able to offer yourself to take up the role of the Bard or Cleric or Druid in the party. No. You are the tank. The "defender". Whether that word is MENTIONED or not in the entry, everything about it supports it. It starts with the best armor and second best hit points and half the class is devoted to nothing more than being really, really good at taking a hit and attacking more and more often. At the level at which the party can least afford Wands of Cure Light Wounds or Potions of Healing or whatever... you are utterly worthless for the job that you are meant to fulfill and nothing can be done about it until level 3.   Now, at level 3 a class feature gets to be implemented. And 4 times later. With these 5 features one is going to pretend that they can entirely transform the thuggish, hit everything in sight with your giant sword while getting shot at 100 times without it leaving even much of a scratch, naturally has no mental attributes at all and either Strength or Dexterity is solely maxed out.... into a brilliant combat tactician who reads the enemies movements and communicates dangers and strategies to the team in order to devastate the enemy lines or an officer in shining armor who leads the bigger and more brutish teammates to victory by inspiring them to ignore their wounds and fight even harder?   Yeah. That's just not going to happen.   Okay, well at level 6 and level 14 there are two additional opportunities for ability improvement that no other class gets. What if we ignore the fact that we are attempting to make a class that is fundamentally unplayable until level 3 and even after that rather iffy and instead ONLY focus on level 20... and figure... "hey, why not turn those two extra attribute increases into two additional class features?" Okay... well... can you encapsulate the support abilities (just support parts) of the Bard/Cleric/Druid into 7 and only 7 features that can use either Charisma or Intelligence (or both somehow), that are on par with those classes and can be attached to a class like Fighter without being totally broken?   Jut look at the attempt of the Battlemaster.   At level 6, the Cleric can in one action heal 6 party members (himself included) 4x a day for 2d8 + Wisdom Modifier + Proficiency Bonus in hit points.Straight up, pure healing.   At level 6, the Battlemaster can in one action grant 1 nearby party member 1d8 + Charisma Modifier in temporary hit points 4x per short rest. Even if we are assuming 4 short rests a day, and that is being generous, that is pathetic and utterly worthless to everyone and since he wastes so much time doing it that it is inconceivable that it will have ever been worth doing. Particularly considering the damage monsters will be putting out at that level.   Oh, no. no... You see it is far, Far, FAR worse and more insidious than that. You see... in order for the Cleric to have healed basically the entire party 13-15 hit points he gave up 1 attack. Each time the Battlemaster chooses to give 1 and only 1 party member 6-7 temporary hit points, he gives up 2 attacks. So even if we were to pretend he had all the time in the world and could do it 3-4x as often... well, congratulations on wasting what could have been 6-8 attacks. Even if we were to just be... totally ridiculously gamist about it and say... "you know what! My temporary hit points last until the next short rest and they can exceed normal hit points! Let's just go ahead and hand them out well before we ever see battle!" Okay... well, you now wasted all your "spells" until the next rest playing guess which party members is going to get hurt! Which means if things don't go as you planned, then when trouble happens you'll have absolutely no tricks on which to draw on during an emergency. And the absolutely best case scenario is there is maybe a 50/50 chance that if you granted the HP to the right party member, they might take one more hit for the enemies to take down than they would have. But only a 50/50 chance.     Seriously... can no one actually do math and figure this very basic stuff out?
#77 h347h50 Sep 16, 2014 8:16:34	From my library of books, most of the marshal/warlord stuff started in 2E as fighter crunch from splat books. So honestly I have no issues with all this stuff going back under the umbrella of fighter sub classes or feats. However it does not need a whole class to its self.
#78 Vestras Sep 16, 2014 8:32:18	Got at a 5e table over the weekend, and went through character creation.   I think one area that will help a lot of the subclasses is to add more spells specific to a narrow few. Artificer, Bladesinger, and Eldritch Knight could all share cantrips to add elemental damage to their weapon attacks for example.      My favorite archetypes in general are the martial-meets-arcane, so Mystic Knight, Bladesigner etc, so I went with an eye towards Eldritch Knight.  Then, checking the wording and rules, I realized, nowhere in Eldritch Knight does it specify Melee Weapon Attacks! Say hello to the knock-off Arcane Archer!  The flavor isn't perfect but it is a start.    I agree that Marshal/Warlord isn't well represented, and netiher are a lot of the more entertaining 4e classes (Note: Entertaining, not necessarily good ala Sentinel and Seeker), so I really hope they get to them.    One feature of 5e that I think works in our favor here is that a spell is a spell is a spell is a spell. So adding new classes or subclasses is just a matter of a list rather than a whole swathe of development as in 4e.  And I for one would not mind seeing some rather extensive expansion into new class design space as well.      The one area I feel that 5e really isn't covering welll is with Backgrounds. they really do not bring much to the table. They are a step up from 4e backgrounds by a lot, but they are pitched to fill the Themes slot, and they just don't.  Yay free lodging, which everyone pretty much brings.... Oh hey, I know where libraries are... yay?
#79 CaptainPicard Sep 16, 2014 9:15:36	I think Artificer can work in this edition, as long as you have them produce things that are not magic items in the traditional sense.   I've been tossing around a homebrew Artificer concept, based on the fanmade WoD game Genius: The Transgression. What I've got is a class that is similar to the Warlock, with very limited spellcasting from their own spell list, which would have a few unique entries, and otherwise be a buff-heavy mix of the Cleric and Wizard lists. Then, instead of Warlock Invocations, they gain something called Formulae, which are very similar, but they cannot use directly. Instead, they create Wonders, which are items that can use the Formulae attached to them. The number of Formulae on a single Wonder would probably increase as they level. So, if there is an equivalent Formula to the Invocation Devil's Sight, the Artificer could construct a pair of night-vision goggles that allows them or someone else using them to see in the dark. The trick would be that characters other than the Artificer using the Wonders would risk dangerous or amusing malfunctions when they are employed. The two subclasses is one that tries to mitigate this and make more reliable inventions, and one that embraces it for more variability.   This probably deserves its own topic when it gets a little more mature, but I've played Artificers before and always lamented that I had to make traditional magic items instead of items matching my character's personal weird science theories.
#80 rampant Sep 16, 2014 14:08:43	I think divorcing spells from artificers entirely is worth considering.    Instead each artificer can choose 1 or 2 disciplines each of which unlocks a differen item chain, so one item chain might be wands->rods->staffs, another might be runes->sigils->wards, and as you level up you can create more items of your chain, but they don't last long without you around. Furthermore you can learn augments to customize your items so a basic wand might not do much if anything, but one with the fire and area augment launches mini fireballs, while one with the lightning and hindering augment zaps people with lightning that slows them down for a bit.   THrow in a few abilities to make the artificer the best at using their personal magical gear and viola.
#81 Zardnaar Sep 16, 2014 14:31:12	No reason why you can't have more than 1 rule for magic item creation espicially when we do not know what the magic item rules are. Artificers existed in 2E and they let you create magic items earleir than other wizards  and they used the same set of magic item creation rules. Hell 2nd ed had at least 3 sets of item creation rules you could pick from although they were all similar. If you want easy access to magic items a'la 3rd and 4E go for it, just don't blame anyone else if it breaks your game and you may even like it that way YMMV.
#82 Tony_Vargas Sep 16, 2014 14:40:45	thespaceinvader wrote:
#83 Chakravant Sep 16, 2014 15:15:48	thespaceinvader wrote:
#84 Tony_Vargas Sep 16, 2014 15:50:27	Chakravant wrote:
#85 rampant Sep 16, 2014 16:03:35	There's more to being a leader type than heals or even buffing, there's also tactical maneuvering and party co-ordination.
#86 ChrisCarlson Sep 17, 2014 6:40:45	rampant wrote:
#87 thespaceinvader Sep 17, 2014 6:53:48	Chakravant wrote:
#88 thespaceinvader Sep 17, 2014 6:55:14	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#89 ChrisCarlson Sep 17, 2014 6:58:07	thespaceinvader wrote:
#90 thespaceinvader Sep 17, 2014 7:01:06	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#91 ChrisCarlson Sep 17, 2014 7:38:20	thespaceinvader wrote:
#92 Hebitsuikaza Sep 17, 2014 7:46:20	thespaceinvader wrote:
(Reply to #4) AlHazred	CCS wrote:
(Reply to #121) arnwolf666	Tony_Vargas wrote:
#123 rampant Sep 21, 2014 0:18:33	You just stated you needed a map.
#124 Uchawi Sep 21, 2014 4:35:29	Any class from 4E, with the exception of the cleric, druid, wizard, or warlock.
#125 Tony_Vargas Sep 21, 2014 12:57:48	Uchawi wrote:
#126 sleypy Sep 21, 2014 13:09:38	Tony_Vargas wrote: