what do do if think forgot to attach copy of
Zwj ze Skelos: Seminarium "Class Design"
Dzi drugi dzie D&D XP. Na pytania odpowiadali Monte Cook, Bruce Crodell i Robert Schwalb. Tematem gwnym byo podejcie do klas w nowej edycji. Zapis znajdziecie poniej. Na jutro zapowiadany jest szczeglnie mnie interesujcy panel, powicony linii wydawniczej. Wreszcie bdziemy mieli troch wicej konkretw.
12:39
Greg: Do you want to talk about some of the ways that this could be accomplished?
12:40
Comment From Markelhay
Classes should be less complex than 4E, but you should be able to choose a more complex character. For example, I could build a fighter who just upgrades his basic attack, and has a few powerful "special" attacks. My friend could also build a fighter, but have a variety of powers.
12:40
Comment From Tony
I think players should be able to run either complex or simple versions of the same class
12:40
Monte: Sure. So for example, if your fighter goes up a level and would normally get some bonus damage or a bonus to hit, or something simple, then maybe instead you could choose to replace that with an option or options that allow you to do some cool moves that allow you to push people around, or protect your allies a bit more, or control the battlefield a little more.
12:41
Rob: Even in the core you varying levels of complexity within each class. Even the wizard has a base starting point that is less complex than what you can get into if you opt into some of the options.
12:41
Comment From Guest
I like the variant of complexity between essentials fighters up through the maybe even 3.5 wizards. Being a dm I get players that like the simplicity of an essentials fighter (but not too disinteresting like the 3.5 fighter) but I see people that want to build classes that are very complex even if they can't make them too powerful.
12:41
Comment From Justin
I think they hit it on the head with the knight and slayer - they just need both those options from the start!
12:41
Comment From ExtendedRets
Sounds like the difference between Essentials Fighter (Knight) and Original 4e Fighter (Weaponmaster). I liked the different feel they both had.
12:41
Greg: This conversation leads into the talk of balance. Is it important that classes are equally balanced? And how does that look - would that focus on damage output and number crunching?
12:42
Monte: (Joking) The assassin, the wizard, and the warlock should all just be better than everything else.
12:42
Comment From TheCrankyMage
Different classes should have different inherent complexities. What Monte suggests is something that was brought on using kits, prestige classes, or paragon paths, but the "core" of a fighter is still the guy swinging the sword.
12:43
Bruce: We definitely want the classes to be balanced, though having things exactly mathematically balanced isn't always the goal. Different classes or different play styles will shine at different moments, though of course we want everyone to be able to contribute in the common situations like combat.
12:43
Comment From Sean
Balance is a matter of opinion. High Level Wizards should outshine everyone. They paid for it at low levels.
12:43
Comment From andy
I think its less about who has the best numbers and more about who has the most answers.
12:43
Comment From Roguewolf
I love the idea of making classes as simple or complex as you want it. Themes help with this a little.
12:43
Bruce: If the fighter is 100% damage for example, then maybe this other class is 80% damage/combat and 20% exploration, or some other mix of game elements.
12:45
Rob: You may look at a class and see that it's damage output isn't as high as another class, for example maybe the bard doesn't do as much as raw damage as the fighter. That other class will have other options, like charm person or something that fits into that class's niche and will give that class different options, but still equally useful in combat, exploration, or roleplaying.
12:45
Comment From Ben
Sorcerers should definitely come out on top. What they do, it's in their blood!
12:45
Greg: Where do you start with your design when approaching the next edition. Are you looking at all of the classes, or a specific edition version?
12:47
Monte: To start with we kind of shot at the moon, and said everything that's been in a Player's handbook 1, we want to potentially have in our new player's book. That includes things like the warlock and the warlord from 4th edition, but also includes the classes from other editions like the ranger, the wizard, the cleric.
12:48
Monte: Going along those lines we seperated things along the lines of what's common or uncommon. So for example fighters, clerics, wizards and clerics might be commmon while warlocks fall into uncommon and something like the assassin might be rare. This helps DMs determine what options they want to run in there games as well.
12:48
Bruce: It also might be the case that some of the classes labeled rare might be a bit more complex or difficult to pick up, so players could also have a gauge with how they want to pick their classes.
12:48
Comment From ilzarion
Power is subjective. Even the most powerful lich should have weak spots. Its just good fantasy that way.
12:49
Greg: What's been the most challenging class to build?
