If you were designing 5E...

[Saxony]

Perhaps if DnD is going to expand outside of repeat customers, we'll need names for abilities that actually make sense so newcomers don't need to read every fucking class to understand just what "I'm have 5 Holy Man abilities" means and someone can join up, read one class, and everyone else around the table goes "I'm good at destruction magic, I'm good at melee combat", etc. Then again, DnD isn't going any where without pandering to repeat customers... Middle ground, I guess.

Absolutely not. King's Bounty has three categories of magic: Order, Chaos, and Distortion. Summoning a giant flaming bird is "Order", but summoning a giant flaming bone dragon is "Chaos". That works fine. Magic the Gathering has schools of magic that are "Red, White, Green, Blue, and Black" - that works fine too. Heroes of Might and Magic has things arbitrarily lumped into four "elements" where "Raise Dead" is earth and "Blind" is fire. People have absolutely no problems figuring out what completely arbitrary collections of magical powers are about. You're writing the fucking magic system, whatever you say goes. If healing is Water, it's in Water. If healing is in Earth or Fire or Air instead, so be it.

We'll disagree on this point, then. I'd like the names to make some sense... because once you have 50 splatbooks, remembering everything is a goddamn chore for everyone at the table except me and the guy who's been playing since ADnD. This is coming from my desire to make 5e less complex, or at least, easier to play. Looking up things constantly = not cool in my opinion.

Defender

I agree, but that's your point.

Or to put it another way, you have an Assassin, a Berserker, a Knight, and a Paladin at the table. Do you really want them all to tell the other players "I'm good at melee combat"? What the fuck use is that?

It's actually very useful. Now the new guy knows close quarters combat is covered without needing to know what the fuck "Assassin" "Berserker" "Knight" and "Paladin" mean. Look, I agree we should have cool vague names like "Holy Templar". "Long Range Striker" isn't fun. "Frenzied Berzerker" is fun. But a few useful names would be nice too. Like "Order of he Bow Initiate" instead of "Seeker of the Misty Isle". So the guy who hasn't read that particular book has a good idea what you are.

Do you really think it's in any way helpful for them to tell the rest of the players that they are "good at melee combat"? Of course not! Not only is it not interesting, it isn't even tactically useful.

You are a dumb ass. "I can take people in melee combat" is very pertinent information. Is it interesting? I dunno. You need to know it because DnD is the Fantasy Combat game. Knowing how (or if) people are good at killing people is useful.

Much better for the Knight to tell the other players that he is a Knight and has a bunch of combat abilities from the Chivalry List.

But some cool names would be good. People like that. Games should have things people like.

Two words. Middle. EarthGround. A name both useful and cool sounding. Or usefully name the feats and the title you get sounds fun. Whatever.

[Winnah]

When I mentioned archetypes being more important than power source, I was not referring to Jungian archetypes, or 'iconic' D&D class roles.

I was trying to say that a class should not be a mere description of role and power source. Nor should a class be created just to fill a perceived vacancy. I'm all for expanded class lists, but if there is very little, or no difference between an Seeker and a Ranger, for example, then one of them needs to go.

To give an example of what I meant by archetype, take the Knight class. Knight is a fairly recognisable term. You say this to people, and they will be able to get a mental picture of a Knight. Even so, the term is fairly flexible. All Knight's may be expected to have an espoused code of conduct, skill at arms and to ride a horse. But...

Basic battle magic and a (pet) magical mount, you have the makings of an Eldtritch Knight.

A knowledge of and willingness to perform some underhanded tactics in battle, you have the makings of a Blackguard or Black Knight.

A working knowledge of Necromancy and some undead pets, you have the makings of a Death Knight or Bone Knight.

All are members of the same 'class'. They may advance differently and may become unrecognisable as Knights over the course of a campaign, but at chargen, they can all be easily lumped together into the Knight class, despite their varied extra talents.

I hope that was more coherent.

[shadzar]

Perhaps if DnD is going to expand outside of repeat customers, we'll need names for abilities that actually make sense so newcomers don't need to read every fucking class to understand just what "I'm have 5 Holy Man abilities" means and someone can join up, read one class, and everyone else around the table goes "I'm good at destruction magic, I'm good at melee combat", etc. Then again, DnD isn't going any where without pandering to repeat customers... Middle ground, I guess.

yeah, damn NASCAR for pandering to NASCAR fans, jsut think what they could do if they got rid of all those lefthand turns and did something other than drive around. it might actually get new cutomers to revitalize the sport by adding new stuff.

oh wait.. no it wouldn't! a niche works with its fans because they like the niche...expanding outside the niche not only doesnt interest those not already interested in the niche, but loses even those repeat customers.

What I previously described as 'feats' can be called Class, while what I'm currently calling Class can be called 'Archetypes'.
Like how AD&D had that chart that said "Rogue: Thief, Bard" and "Fighting (or was it Man at Arms?) Fighter, Ranger, etc."

Warrior, Wizard, Priest, Rogue

• Warrior
  • Fighter
  • Ranger
  • Paladin
• Wizard
  • Mage
  • Specialist

[hogarth]

5e should go back to wizard, cleric, thief, fighter to start.

In an ideal world, there wouldn't be a class for "stabby guy wearing light armor" and a class for "stabby guy wearing any armor". That's dumb. But then again, that's D&D.

[echoVanguard]

5e should go back to wizard, cleric, thief, fighter to start.

In an ideal world, there wouldn't be a class for "stabby guy wearing light armor" and a class for "stabby guy wearing any armor". That's dumb. But then again, that's D&D.

I'm interested why you believe this to be the case, Hogarth. A lot of players seem very attached to the idea that a character who performs straightforward, martial combat should be a different class than a character who performs skirmish-based ambush combat.

echo

[CapnTthePirateG]

Hey, if we can have "wizard who does every magic ever", why not 1 class for "dumb fuck with stick?"

[Ferret]

Hey, if we can have "wizard who does every magic ever", why not 1 class for "dumb fuck with stick?"

I prefer "Guy Who Loses at Level 9". But that's just me.

[hogarth]

5e should go back to wizard, cleric, thief, fighter to start.

In an ideal world, there wouldn't be a class for "stabby guy wearing light armor" and a class for "stabby guy wearing any armor". That's dumb. But then again, that's D&D.

I'm interested why you believe this to be the case, Hogarth. A lot of players seem very attached to the idea that a character who performs straightforward, martial combat should be a different class than a character who performs skirmish-based ambush combat.

As Cap'n T points out, if you have a fighter and a thief class, you're taking a small list of possible abilities ("stuff an action hero can do") and slicing it into two even smaller pieces.

[tzor]

Wow. So your response to the fact that people were viscerally offended by 4e dropping the base classes down to 8 to the point where they refused to even try the game until the PHB 2 had come out and doubled the number of classes... is to drop the number down to 5? Because obviously people got angry at the reduced class number, so the only thing that will placate them is an even more reduced class number.

If I were designing D&D, I would rather have something that comes across as signifcantly play tested from day one and the best way to do that would be to minimize the number of classes (which also reduces the testing requirements). Now how I would do that would be the key factor. I would come up with three zones of D&D, "Beginner" "Basic" and "Advanced." Beginner would come up with a minimial set of classes that are damn easy to play. While publically the idea would be for the new player, the idea would be to test the rules at this point, not the classes. Basic would have a minimum set of classes that most players would tollerate. Advanced would be the equivalent of essencials, although any rule changes would only apply to classes specifically in the Advanced rulebook, so that Basic characters can play side by side with advanced without having to have the basic players get the advanced book. (Preventing the players from basically vetoing anyone else from getting an advanced book because they don't want to have to change the rules in their current books.)

It's a novel idea, I'll grant you (because it has never worked this way in the past) but every edition needs at least one new idea.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I do think that there should be some easily grokked 'Beginner Class' that is just basically a temporary placeholder class for people new to the table or with absolutely no tactical sense (Trevor, your grandma, some jock passing by) can just pick up and play.

Said class will have the following criteria:

• The game goes out of its way to de-legitimize this class for general play. Meaning that they need a cap on levels, DM approval, and a knowledge that the class is not allowed for official functions like RPGA or Living Faerun or whatever the fuck.
• The class is simple. It's desirable for them to only have 2 or 3 things to do during a round because the player is still trying to get the hang of shit like 'how do I flank with people' and having to go down a complicated list of powers is confusing.
• The class should be mostly on the rails. You can provide some minor decisions like whether they want a feat that will make them run faster or block harder, but these kinds of things are much more limited. If a class has more than 4 choices to make then you need to scrap it and start over.
• The class is more generically powerful than the other classes. Basic game theory states that the fewer options you have the less effective you'll be (not to mention that these people are probably not going to play your character optimally) so you need to account for that. You also need to account for people not getting upset if Trevor wants to play because he's dragging the average party performance down.
• The class has no transparency with any other 'non-beginner' classes. No multiclassing in either direction, no plundering powers or feats, etc..
• The class can't be a VAH. DMF is okay, but they need some kind of phlebtonium. Otherwise it'll raise uncomfortable questions like 'why can some asshole with a regular sword hit harder than my paladin who has a magical sword and is empowered by Pelor's angels'. In fact to best grease the wheels of the class it should have a factor of a high degree of randomness or arbitration to getting the abilities like 'Chosen One' or 'Sorcerer'.
• Ban experienced players from taking the class, ever, unless it's a situation like someone from out of town showing up and only having 4 hours to play with the group before they have to head to a business meeting.
• In addition to external capping it needs some kind of internal capping as well. You need a rule such that if someone earns more than two levels in the class they can't advance any further and need to take levels in a 'real' class. So someone can go from level 5 to level 7 or level 1 to 3, but not 1 to 4 or 5 to 8.

[RadiantPhoenix]

Let's call it the fighter. Take that name out of circulation for other things.

[echoVanguard]

I'm interested why you believe this to be the case, Hogarth. A lot of players seem very attached to the idea that a character who performs straightforward, martial combat should be a different class than a character who performs skirmish-based ambush combat.

Hey, if we can have "wizard who does every magic ever", why not 1 class for "dumb fuck with stick?"

As Cap'n T points out, if you have a fighter and a thief class, you're taking a small list of possible abilities ("stuff an action hero can do") and slicing it into two even smaller pieces.

But as Cap'n T also points out, the real problem with that is that you have one class which does everything. If you don't have Cast-Every-Spell Wizards, you don't need Stab-Every-Which-Way VAHs. It's also important to point out that just because classes aren't optimal in flavor and balancing doesn't mean they don't have value as thematic character identities. Berserkers and Assassins can and should be different character classes, even if neither of them uses magic.

echo

[hogarth]

But as Cap'n T also points out, the real problem with that is that you have one class which does everything. If you don't have Cast-Every-Spell Wizards, you don't need Stab-Every-Which-Way VAHs. It's also important to point out that just because classes aren't optimal in flavor and balancing doesn't mean they don't have value as thematic character identities. Berserkers and Assassins can and should be different character classes, even if neither of them uses magic.

What ability do you think an "Assassin" should have that a "Fighter" or "Thief" should not be allowed to have?

[RadiantPhoenix]

What ability do you think an "Assassin" should have that a "Fighter" or "Thief" should not be allowed to have?

The ability to learn Death Attack at a lower level than a 'fighter' or 'thief'

[shadzar]

What ability do you think an "Assassin" should have that a "Fighter" or "Thief" should not be allowed to have?

The ability to learn Death Attack at a lower level than a 'fighter' or 'thief'

"first-use" doesnt work...just ask WotC in regards to Magic artwork and Dragon Magazine Archive....

nobody likes to play "i got it first and you didnt."

that kind of thing shouldnt be a part of the game, if a "death attack" exists it should be available to all that can use it at the same time.

an assassin is just a mercenary hired for a specific task, not unlike any adventure in D&D....fighter and thief included.

[echoVanguard]

What ability do you think an "Assassin" should have that a "Fighter" or "Thief" should not be allowed to have?

First off, I don't think ability exclusion is the point of a class - ability inclusion is. If I'm a fighter, that doesn't actually prevent me from casting magic in any edition - I can multiclass or take additional class features (feats, etc) to let me use magic in various ways. This doesn't change the fact that the classic fighter is pretty much an intrinsically non-magical class. This changes your question to "what abilities should Assassin grant you that Fighter or Thief do not" - the answer is obviously an instant-kill attack of some kind.

The real question, though, is what are classes, really? Ideally, classes are a sort of predefined identity that you can apply to your character in order to set up a series of basic assumptions about what your character is good at. You expect a fighter to be good at fighting, a thief to be good at stealing, and a ranger to be good getting along in the wilderness. You expect a necromancer to be good at casting death-related spells, and you expect a healing cleric to be good at casting healing-related spells. The general problem is not that some of our class definitions are too narrow, but rather that some of our class definitions are too broad. "Using Magic" is an entirely too inclusive talent for a class to be good at, as is "Channeling God Power".

echo

[Lago PARANOIA]

EV -- that's ignoring the problem of opportunity cost. No (reasonable) game will let you have every ability at the same time. Even if you do have an ability kludge like Shadowrun or MnM we should still expect that a full-on Mage or Flying Brick should have an overall package that is distinct from someone dabbling in it.

So yes, even if you declare that being a Fighter or Thief doesn't prevent you from having one of Fireball, Lightning Bolt, or Haste it prevents you from having all at the same time. So the more accuration question we now need to ask is: what does being a Fighter or a Thief give you that makes up for you not having all three of those abilities?

[CapnTthePirateG]

Plus it's stupid to have "well, the assassin got death attack first, but the fighter has it, so why the fuck do we have two classes that do the same thing?" And I could easily see fighter getting an instant-kill along with thief - at their core, they're just guys who hit things with sticks. Thief is kind of a silly thing to have in a game with assassins, because they operate so similarly (hide, stab dude when he's not looking) and the game is very much about combat. I'd say they share enough of the same design space so that we could combine them.

Hell, we could split up the mage classes into "Necromancer," "Deceiver" "Mindslaver", "Shapeshifter" and so on, and they'd still have enough shticks to easily compete with a combination of the rogue, fighter, knight, samurai, and all the other "dumb fuck with stick" classes.

[Lago PARANOIA]

You guys pretty much know what combination of classes I support. And frankly I think that a lot of them kludge too much together a bit to begin with (Magus/Swordmage versus Warlord with a side order of Wizard). But I don't dare go to the presses with less than twelve classes, because people are irrational and easily distracted and they won't determine the number distinct stories you can tell with the rulesets--but they WILL count the number of classes and go '4E is less diverse than 3E D&D!' even though at low levels at least that's not true.

That should be like the number one rule of human psychology (and thus advertising): uniformed people cannot see more than one link of causality.

[RadiantPhoenix]

Well, I had 14 classes in my write-up, with at least two kits in the DMG...

[shadzar]

on assassins and why they left D&D as a specific class....

Zeb Cook answers why assassins were removed from AD&D for 2nd edition

[echoVanguard]

Plus it's stupid to have "well, the assassin got death attack first, but the fighter has it, so why the fuck do we have two classes that do the same thing?" And I could easily see fighter getting an instant-kill along with thief - at their core, they're just guys who hit things with sticks. Thief is kind of a silly thing to have in a game with assassins, because they operate so similarly (hide, stab dude when he's not looking) and the game is very much about combat. I'd say they share enough of the same design space so that we could combine them.

There's nothing wrong with those ideas - some systems do have Assassin as a subclass of Thief, for example - but the fact is that when you take that particular type of design path, you're sacrificing theme for clarity. And sometimes, that's OK. If you want to have one Fighter ur-class with subclasses for Soldier, Knight, Thief, Samurai, and so on, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, but the cost you pay is that those subclasses lose some of their identity. If that's a price you're willing to pay, then by all means, feel free to take that route.

Hell, we could split up the mage classes into "Necromancer," "Deceiver" "Mindslaver", "Shapeshifter" and so on, and they'd still have enough shticks to easily compete with a combination of the rogue, fighter, knight, samurai, and all the other "dumb fuck with stick" classes.

This is an entirely different problem with magic-using classes being too powerful, and you probably want to use an entirely different solution to resolve it.

that's ignoring the problem of opportunity cost. No (reasonable) game will let you have every ability at the same time. Even if you do have an ability kludge like Shadowrun or MnM we should still expect that a full-on Mage or Flying Brick should have an overall package that is distinct from someone dabbling in it.

Yes, but there are many different ways to accomplish that.

So yes, even if you declare that being a Fighter or Thief doesn't prevent you from having one of Fireball, Lightning Bolt, or Haste it prevents you from having all at the same time. So the more accuration question we now need to ask is: what does being a Fighter or a Thief give you that makes up for you not having all three of those abilities?

Well, historically, it meant better armor class, better close-range combat potential, and a smaller reliance on limited resources. The problem, however, is that a supplemental part of the magic-users' power system (Spells) suffered from very, very poor balancing and quality control and eventually eclipsed the class ability lists of all other class types, including the above.

echo

[fectin]

A while back, I speculated on how to structure a new product line. It was apparently uncontroversial, because I got very few comments.

At that point, I suggested leading with a single "core" book, with four (non-vancian) classes, the ruleset, only spells referenced in the book, and a dozen or so iconic monsters. I think that gets around the entire question of "how many classes should there be?" It gives you the easy entry of very few classes, and you can simultaneously have a wide range of core classes when you publish the PHB.

[shadzar]

sounds like the blue box Basic...cept it had vancian.

[Username17]

If you are going for class reductionism, then it's insulting to have a Warrior and a Rogue class. If you're going for a plethora of classes, then you have both of those and also a knight and an assassin and soldier.

As to what is different, it's like taking different base classes in 4e. In addition to whatever actual maneuvers you personally select, you get a certain basic set of stuff based on the class you've chosen. Also, you get a different hat. The Thief gets Treasure Hunter and Combat Looting. The Paladin gets Aura of Courage and Lay On Hands. The Assassin gets Poison Use and Death Attack. And so on and so forth. Also: the Thief gets a bonus to Reflex and the Paladin gets a bonus to Will Defense.

And yeah, eventually you get high enough level that you really don't give a fuck about Combat Looting as an attack, because the regular maneuvers you have make people drop stuff just sort of incidentally. But by then you qualify for Prestige Classes and you become a Soulstealer (for Soulsight and Steal Soul) or a Dream Catcher (for Dreamspeaker and Dream Eater). And if you went Dream Catcher, you'd end up with less Reflex Defense and more Will Defense. That sort of thing.

-Username17