Discussion: Classes

[Soup Nazi]

Why not? That's what the cleric thinks is beneficial for their spell power. The all cure cleric with destruction/death can prepare all cures, and then when they need it convert them to inflicts or death spells.

And this also makes healing not a substandard domain. Healing is substandard because clerical healing is so easy.

Very true; I agree completely.

-Nasty-

[Thasis]

Are Incarnum and the Incarnum Classes going to be incorporated?

[Ishmayl-Retired]

We're not sure yet, thasis... There's a good chance that the newest one (Tome of Magic) will find some incorporation, but we're not sure how many non-core supplements we'll be actually implementing.  It may be something best left up to the DM.

[brainface]

Why not? That's what the cleric thinks is beneficial for their spell power. The all cure cleric with destruction/death can prepare all cures, and then when they need it convert them to inflicts or death spells.

And this also makes healing not a substandard domain. Healing is substandard because clerical healing is so easy.

i think that actually works out to a more limited spell choice for the destroy-o-cleric. (there's one set of cure spells/level, there's a HOST of utility/destruction/buff spells.) i don't quess this is the spot to continue debate on that, though. ;) (i.e., a separate thread in elements and design would be. don't wanna clutter it up in here.)

[Xeviat]

We're not sure yet, thasis... There's a good chance that the newest one (Tome of Magic) will find some incorporation, but we're not sure how many non-core supplements we'll be actually implementing.  It may be something best left up to the DM.

Tome and Incarnum may be difficult to incorperate. The DM absolutely has to have the books, and so too would any player intending on using stuff from them. People who aren't wouldn't "need" to, but a general understanding of the rules is nice to know how to counter the stuff.

As for defending my cleric: How often has your cleric had to have converted all of their spells to cure spells in any given day? Currently the Healing domain stinks, this makes it good, but it doesn't make the cleric a worse healer. If they need to be a healer, take the Healing domain; clerics with the healing domain are healers (sounds simple eh?).

We can stick with the core clerc. But many have expressed that the core cleric is too powerful. This is one small way to make the cleric more flavorful, and serves as a slight power down because it forces the cleric to consider their priorities more.

[Wix of Bel-Air]

It's nice that we're discussing cleric stuff but don't you think we should shift focus over to the overall scheme of the classes?

It feels like (correct me if I'm wrong) that you want to have classes that incorporate with the city-states, empire, and totems individually rather than have all the classes available everywhere.

I think we should think of some 'core' classes (with the healing, fighting, spellcasting, rogueing, and whatever else core classes do) and then some of the 'regional' or 'tribal' classes (like totem servants, empire aristocrats, and city-state defenders, etc.).

Does someone want to express what they feel about what the 'core' classes should be? (or maybe they want all the classes available everywhere!?!)

[brainface]

yeah, i moved that discussion iunto anothr theard. sorry abouppt that. stypid keyboard.

[brainface]

(or maybe they want all the classes available everywhere!?!)

id want them all everywhere. some regions favor some classes, sure. and i'd want different regions to have different backstories for classes--a totem cleric could have a very diffent role in society than a BFG cleric. really, i dont think class roles in the theme need to be defined TOO stricktly, as i think it could limit innovation when it comes to defining individual npcs/pcs.

[Numinous]

My way of doing it is every clas should be allowed, if the players can explain it.  ie having a barbarian in the Bad-ass empire will take ome serious backstory.

[brainface]

yeah, and by the same token, an npc barbarian can originate fine in the BFG, he just has a strange backstory. prolly not many ranks in survival, either ;)

mayabe one of the empire-saint-gods was Known To Get Angry, and he's trying to emulate that.

[Ishmayl-Retired]

I'm kinda leaning towards the core classes here as well, plus possibly inventing a few new classes.

[Xathan]

I'm with Ishy  - keep the core, and make some new ones. Once we nail down what totems are what, I'll make a totem warror class, and maybe even a "totem avatar" class that would be a casting type.

[Xeviat]

I still say the ranger and the barbarian are totem warriors. Now, I can see a "Totem Warrior" PrC, similar to the Animal Lord (for rangers), and possibly something like the Bear Warrior for barbarians.

Totem Classes
Priest - Druid
Half-Caster - Ranger
Warrior - Barbarian

Empirial Classes
Priest - Cleric
Half-Caster - Templar/Paladin
Warrior - Fighter

This only leaves out the Bard, Monk, Rogue, Sorcerer, and Wizard. Depending on what caused the destruction of the Lost Empire, we may or may not have cultural leanings on the other classes.

But this is still because I think druids are the totemic priests.

[Numinous]

I'd be inclined to agree with Xeviat's presentation.  However, I still say a good enough backstory can make exceptions where needed.

[Ishmayl-Retired]

I would say we actually "borrow" and implement Monte Cook's "Totem Warrior" class and make it work with our totems.