It is beginning to look like I'm going to enter another edition of D&D without having finished work on my own custom system. Le sigh. More and more, I realize that my GMing suits D&D, and my custom adventures suit it too.
But that doesn't mean I can't fiddle with things. One way I can make my home games stand out from others is to alter the class matrix. In D&D, some classes are very broad (Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard), while others are very specific (Bard, Paladin, Ranger). The thought I had would be to remove the classes that are fairly unique to D&D and replace them with my own; in D&D3E, Oriental Adventures did this and it created a different feel.
My setting uses a common elemental magic system. It has grown from the classic 5 element Greek/Japanese spread (Air, Earth, Fire, Water, Aether) to adding 4 subelements (Cold, Lightning, Metal, and Wood). The primary casters can access all of the elements (specialization is their choice), but what if the hybrid classes only used one?
I'm looking for suggestions on ideas; broad enough to be classes, but they don't have to be drawn from common fantasy archetypes. I may even go so far as removing core casters as well (like the Druid), and may be heavily redefining the difference between Cleric and Wizard (or, rather, I might switch from a Priest/Mage duality to a Sorcerer/Wizard duality).
Throw things on the whiteboard, see what sticks. Thanks all.
Quote from: XeviatI realize that my GMing suits D&D, and my custom adventures suit it too.
I'm a little curious what you mean by this. What about D&D's mechanics suit your play style? What do you feel it does better than any other system, such as, say, FATE, GURPS, SenZar, or whatever?
I've often been a little frustrated with the D&D way of doing things, so I'd like to hear (your opinion of) some of the advantages.
Quote from: XeviatThe primary casters can access all of the elements (specialization is their choice), but what if the hybrid classes only used one?
By "hybrid," do you mean a gish-type class? I like the idea of an elementalist/martial class with elementally focused powers. Sort of like a 3.5e Warlock, I guess, although I think that the powers should be buffs and other things that would help gishes, rather than the Warlock's mediocre blasts.
Quote from: XeviatI might switch from a Priest/Mage duality to a Sorcerer/Wizard duality
You could always do what D&D Next does (or did, I haven't really kept up with the latest playtests) and combine the Priest/Mage and Sorcerer/Wizard duality, so that you have one class of spontaneous divine casters and another class of prepared arcane casters. Assuming, that is, you want to keep the "arcane"/"divine" distinction in any form that resembles what D&D does. (I'd argue that it's not really necessary)
Quote from: XeviatThrow things on the whiteboard, see what sticks. Thanks all.
Anyway, my big recommendation is probably a refrain you've heard from me before, but hey, here it is.
Fighters that aren't crappy. This is a huge problem in D&D 3e and its derivatives, but I think it can be partially avoided if there is some effort made to perhaps consolidate Fighters and Rogues, or do something else to give the guy who is good at dealing damage a lot of usefulness outside of combat, as well. I mean, the name "Fighter" implies that the guy is going to fight, but a lack of any really useful class powers (except a pile of mediocre feats) and a total dearth of skill points condemns the Fighter to marginal roles at relatively low level.
- Magical healer/blesser (divine or otherwise) that doesn't double as a heavily armed warrior-lite or a treehugger.
- Shapeshifter that actually is all about shapeshifting, and not spellcasting. And that isn't lycanthropic either.
- Trickster/gadgeteer that uses all manner of fantastical (but non-magical) devices and performs amazing stunts. Think Batman.
Just throwing some old stuff I use to use for 3.5e and have since lost (yay me!), how about these:
Warlock/Maho-Tsukai (with a couple tweaks to make the life-stealing thing more useful)
Monk-Paladin Gish
Cleric/Ranger (Think Kagome-ish from Inuyasah [please don't hit me for the reference![)
And another idea....
Juju Voodoo Shaman!!!!!
And some general slots to keep filled:
Thumper
Survivalist
Tank
Healer
Magic Dude
Sneak
Gishes Galore!
Quote from: sparkletwist
Quote from: XeviatI realize that my GMing suits D&D, and my custom adventures suit it too.
I'm a little curious what you mean by this. What about D&D's mechanics suit your play style? What do you feel it does better than any other system, such as, say, FATE, GURPS, SenZar, or whatever?
I've often been a little frustrated with the D&D way of doing things, so I'd like to hear (your opinion of) some of the advantages.
I'm not sure if it's the mechanics, or if it's something about leveled and class-based systems. I have not liked skill-based, no level systems, and I like class collections (even going so far as having class be a recognizable element in the world). I like the simulationist aspects of 3E, even though I liked the gameplay of 4E more. Perhaps it is that I feel more in control of balance in D&D.
Quote from: sparkletwist
Quote from: XeviatThe primary casters can access all of the elements (specialization is their choice), but what if the hybrid classes only used one?
By "hybrid," do you mean a gish-type class? I like the idea of an elementalist/martial class with elementally focused powers. Sort of like a 3.5e Warlock, I guess, although I think that the powers should be buffs and other things that would help gishes, rather than the Warlock's mediocre blasts.
By hybrid, I do mean gish; like the paladin, ranger, and bard are both casters and something else. I definitely want an elementalist/martial class, but I may make 4 separate ones for each of the elements. Or not. Still uncertain.
Quote from: sparkletwist
Quote from: XeviatI might switch from a Priest/Mage duality to a Sorcerer/Wizard duality
You could always do what D&D Next does (or did, I haven't really kept up with the latest playtests) and combine the Priest/Mage and Sorcerer/Wizard duality, so that you have one class of spontaneous divine casters and another class of prepared arcane casters. Assuming, that is, you want to keep the "arcane"/"divine" distinction in any form that resembles what D&D does. (I'd argue that it's not really necessary)
I don't mean prepared vs. spontaneous for the sorcerer/wizard; I mean innate vs. learned. When I first started working on my setting as a derivative of D&D3E, I had Clerics (worshipers of ancestral spirits), Druids (worshipers of nature spirits), Sorcerers (mutants with innate power), and Wizards (scholars with learned power). I feel I may be able to combine some. I could go a white magic/black magic rout as a reasoning for why different casters have different kinds of magic, or I could go an elemental focus (ala the Shugenja of OA).
Quote from: sparkletwist
Quote from: XeviatThrow things on the whiteboard, see what sticks. Thanks all.
Anyway, my big recommendation is probably a refrain you've heard from me before, but hey, here it is. Fighters that aren't crappy. This is a huge problem in D&D 3e and its derivatives, but I think it can be partially avoided if there is some effort made to perhaps consolidate Fighters and Rogues, or do something else to give the guy who is good at dealing damage a lot of usefulness outside of combat, as well. I mean, the name "Fighter" implies that the guy is going to fight, but a lack of any really useful class powers (except a pile of mediocre feats) and a total dearth of skill points condemns the Fighter to marginal roles at relatively low level.
Definitely will not let the Fighter suck. All PCs are "magical", that's what separates them from common soldiers and guards. I want high level fighters to be like Beowulf, Hercules, and other heroes of myth and legend. I think 5E is taking a good step in having Background as a container for skills, separate from class. My differentiation between the Fighter and the Rogue, at least where combat is concerned, is that the Fighter fights straightforwardly, while the Rogue fights with trickery and/or their "skills". A fighter archer is a longbowman, raining death down on a battlefield; you can see him coming, but that won't stop him. A rogue archer is a sniper or a skirmisher, skulking or dashing around.
Quote from: Ghostman
- Magical healer/blesser (divine or otherwise) that doesn't double as a heavily armed warrior-lite or a treehugger.
- Shapeshifter that actually is all about shapeshifting, and not spellcasting. And that isn't lycanthropic either.
- Trickster/gadgeteer that uses all manner of fantastical (but non-magical) devices and performs amazing stunts. Think Batman.
I really want a robed priest as my main divine caster, so you have me with your #1.
As for a shapeshifter, it is something I will give thought too. It all depends on how I do the elements. Actually, if I make 4 gish classes, one for each element, but have them be more about becoming one with an element rather than just controlling it ... water could be a shapeshifter.
Not sure if a gadgeteer would suit my setting.
Quote from: HumaboutMonk-Paladin Gish
I'd like to hear more about this idea. My setting does have a need for religious knights; I'd like to do them differently.
Best as I can remember it mechanically, it was sort of what you'd get if you made a gestalt Monk-Paladin, removed spells, keyed everything to one attribute, and dialed it back to non-gestalt power levels. It did the healing thing, good combat, and supernatural-ish combat abilities flavored as divine blessings. As I recall, it used martial weapons (not just a handful Kung-Fu! and Ninja! weapons), and medium armor (maybe heavy....don't remember). I think I use to use them as temple guards or something to that effect. I'll try to dig through the way back machine to see if I can find any posts on a defunct website I use to frequent then.
I think if you're going for a new set of classes, it would be best to tailor them to your specific campaign, as creating a matrix of classes more broad than those that are already present is going to be tough goings at the least.
Depending on how pervasive magic is within your setting, you may want to ponder on having all classes have access to magic or at least some type of elemental abilities, seeing as those are important in the setting. Perhaps create a new matrix of your settings elements and have each class be a sensible combination of 2 elements. To make things easier, you could even say that Fire is combat, Air is stealth, Water is personal, Earth is toughness, and Aether is magic, (for example) and then just do the mixing and matching. While having a 5x5 matrix of elements would result in 25 classes (quite a bit not doubt), you could always cut ones that don't make too much sense or use the 4 sub-elements combines with others as prestige classes.
My 2 cents.
Oriental adventures, while it had its flaws, was one of the best DnD settings ever in terms of flavor because it replaced the existing classes that didn't fit with new ones that did. I am of the opinion that rules should always serve flavor and not the other way around.
As for a monk-paladin gish, what immediately occurred to me was Miko from Order of the Stick. Armed and somewhat armored but devoted and quick and agile - a hit and run style class that doesn't "tank" like the traditional monk, but is all over the battlefield, striking at one moment, healing another, living a simple aesthetic life relying on his/her faith to provide.
QuoteDepending on how pervasive magic is within your setting, you may want to ponder on having all classes have access to magic or at least some type of elemental abilities, seeing as those are important in the setting. Perhaps create a new matrix of your settings elements and have each class be a sensible combination of 2 elements. To make things easier, you could even say that Fire is combat, Air is stealth, Water is personal, Earth is toughness, and Aether is magic, (for example) and then just do the mixing and matching.
Quoted for truth and emphasized for what I feel is the most important part.
Perhaps more will come as I finally nail down exactly what each element does. I'm at a cross roads. Either there will be the main 4 elements, each with an elemental, physical, mental, and aether sphere of influence. Or I will have the main 5 elements, each with an elemental, physical, and mental. Last, I could have 9 elements (the core 5 and the 4 mixed elements), each with an elemental and a body or mind trait. I'm leaning towards the second.
As I am also considering going with a white mage (priest)/black mage (wizard) duality for the casters, perhaps splitting each element into elemental, white, and black magic would be best.
I was thinking of having 1 gish type class for each of the core 4 elements, and then have an assassin for black magic and a templar for white magic (since the priest will be robed and not an armored tank).
Then, the base fighter and rogue would have specialties centered around the elements. I've thought of more specialties for fighter than rogue, but here they are:
Fighter
Air: Dualist and Archer
Earth: Armsman (great weapon user) and Guardian (shield user)
Fire: Barbarian and Warlord
Water: Martial Artist (armed) and Tactician
Rogue
Air: Skirmisher
Earth: Ranger
Fire: Bard
Water: Thief
Note, all of these would be non-magical.
Just some thoughts.
As for Leetz's thought, and Xathan's seconding, I'm really not sure how much magic I want in the setting. One idea I have been having, taking queues from D&D4's tier system, would be to have low levels be low magic, and high levels be high magic. Even the fighter, who never studied a spell in his or her life, is a creature of magic at high levels; they can lift boulders, jump miles into the air, hold their breath for days under water, and balance on the head of a pin. In that case, non-magic classes would have access to the effects of physical and possibly mental magic. In my scheme, Fire is vitality, Air is speed, Water is coordination, and Earth is power.
Maybe create 5x5 grid with Fire, Earth, Air, Water, and Aether on the top and side, and merely going along the combinations one by one, creating classes that fit with whatever you would like each element to represent. For instance, the Fire/Earth class could be the 'barbarian' (strength and endurance), the pure Fire/Fire class would be a more traditional warrior (pure strength), while the Aether/Fire cross would be akin to a spellsword or something along those lines.
the graph wouldn't have make an appearance in any of the fluff or crunch of the setting, just something to help you out.
This is certainly a good idea. I've used this method many times to organize and sort out classes and decide what additions are just creating clutter without adding anything.
I have a related by slightly different question. Have you already defined just what each element represents in your setting? Grids and paths and such don't mean much if you don't have solid understandings of what the elements mean.
Quote from: Xeviat
Perhaps more will come as I finally nail down exactly what each element does. I'm at a cross roads. Either there will be the main 4 elements, each with an elemental, physical, mental, and aether sphere of influence. Or I will have the main 5 elements, each with an elemental, physical, and mental. Last, I could have 9 elements (the core 5 and the 4 mixed elements), each with an elemental and a body or mind trait. I'm leaning towards the second.
I think the elemental/physical/mental division works best as you do: it just feels most intuitive.
QuoteAs I am also considering going with a white mage (priest)/black mage (wizard) duality for the casters, perhaps splitting each element into elemental, white, and black magic would be best.
Is white magic/black magic just a way of providing analogies, or do you actually intend on having "white mages" and "black mages." I'd lean heavily against actually having white/black magic as actual things in the setting and system if that's what you're thinking - that seems like it'd detract far too much from the elemental theme you have going on, and I love the elemental theme.
QuoteAs for Leetz's thought, and Xathan's seconding, I'm really not sure how much magic I want in the setting. One idea I have been having, taking queues from D&D4's tier system, would be to have low levels be low magic, and high levels be high magic. Even the fighter, who never studied a spell in his or her life, is a creature of magic at high levels; they can lift boulders, jump miles into the air, hold their breath for days under water, and balance on the head of a pin. In that case, non-magic classes would have access to the effects of physical and possibly mental magic. In my scheme, Fire is vitality, Air is speed, Water is coordination, and Earth is power.
Teirs, in my opinion, were one of the very few things I liked about 4e. That division (Vitality, speed, coordination, power) makes perfect sense, although I'd swap Fire and Earth - Fire just doesn't seem like it's about vitality to me, it feel like it's much more...powerful, whereas Earth strikes me as being the more vitality-oriented elements. Unless by vitality you meant "alive" as opposed to "Enduring," in which case ignore me.
I love the idea that even non-magic classes become "magic" due to the feats they can preform at high levels - it explains some of the insane things d20 systems allow "non-magic" classes to do at higher levels. My question would be, if spells like dispel magic and antimagic field exist in your setting, would they interfere with that type of magic, or is that so innate that there's no concern of interruption, even in the strongest of antimagic?
An aside: it's been so long since your setting was mentioned beyond mechanical things that my poor sieve-like memory has forgotten some details, but have you considered using Elemental Lords in the place gods occupy in most settings? It seems to fit the magic system quite well.
I have a current placeholder for what the elements are, but I'm not 100% satisfied; maybe I'm 80% satisfied. Not all of the "spheres" seem to be equally useful ...
Currently, I have:
Air: Travel, Senses, Summoning
Earth: Protection, Artifice, Warding/Binding
Fire: Destruction, Charm, Light/Dark
Water: Transformation, Trickery, Healing/Death
Those lists are elemental, physical, mental, and aether. In that version, Aether doesn't stand alone. I'm not satisfied because I don't think Artifice is going to mean enough, warding/binding is too similar to protection, and I'm not sure summoning should be bound to one element. Also, it makes the mixed elements of lightning, metal, wood, and ice an afterthought.
Quote from: XathanI think the elemental/physical/mental division works best as you do: it just feels most intuitive.
Me too.
Quote from: XathanIs white magic/black magic just a way of providing analogies, or do you actually intend on having "white mages" and "black mages." I'd lean heavily against actually having white/black magic as actual things in the setting and system if that's what you're thinking - that seems like it'd detract far too much from the elemental theme you have going on, and I love the elemental theme.
The idea would be to have white magic and black magic as the yang and yin of each of the elements. Black magic is overt and destructive, white magic is subtle and helpful. Alternately, I could just embrace the elements and have one primary caster who focuses on pure magic, using all the elements, while having subcasters who specialize in only one element. Or just have a caster for each element, and require multiclassing to learn multiples. I guess that depends on whether I want specialists or generalists to be the norm.
Quote from: XathanTeirs, in my opinion, were one of the very few things I liked about 4e. That division (Vitality, speed, coordination, power) makes perfect sense, although I'd swap Fire and Earth - Fire just doesn't seem like it's about vitality to me, it feel like it's much more...powerful, whereas Earth strikes me as being the more vitality-oriented elements. Unless by vitality you meant "alive" as opposed to "Enduring," in which case ignore me.
I came to the decision that Fire is Vitality and Earth is Strength because of archetypical characters. Heck, just look at "Avatar: The Last Airbender", "L5R", and other asian systems that use the elements. Earth is resilient and powerful. Fire is full of life. Earth guys are big and strong; they have a lot of hp because they have a lot of meat on them. Fire guys are smaller, full of energy; they can be fast or powerful, but it's through a burning of their energy rather than a natural idea. If I end up making my own system in the end, Earth's stat would tie to HP, while Fire's stat would tie to VP, and vitality points could be used to avoid hits (temp hp basically) or to power offensive and mobility abilities.
Quote from: XathanI love the idea that even non-magic classes become "magic" due to the feats they can preform at high levels - it explains some of the insane things d20 systems allow "non-magic" classes to do at higher levels. My question would be, if spells like dispel magic and antimagic field exist in your setting, would they interfere with that type of magic, or is that so innate that there's no concern of interruption, even in the strongest of antimagic?
Likely, if I have dispel magic and antimagic fields, they would only block overt magic, not the internal magic that all high level characters would possess.
Quote from: XathanAn aside: it's been so long since your setting was mentioned beyond mechanical things that my poor sieve-like memory has forgotten some details, but have you considered using Elemental Lords in the place gods occupy in most settings? It seems to fit the magic system quite well.
I don't have otherplanar omnipotent gods; the setting has ancestral spirits and nature spirits. So yes, there are things akin to elemental lords, but also ancient trees, guardians of the forest, and the line of kings. Also, deities who are personifications of relics, like the Swords of the Five Knights.