PDA

View Full Version : How to divide classes for the WarCraft universe?



RedWarlock
2013-03-23, 10:42 PM
I'm working up a WarCraft-setting game for my players after I've finished my current Eberron campaign. The rules tweaks will be *somewhat* extensive, mostly taken from the 3e/PF base (equal parts of either) and a bit of 4e/5e thrown in to good effect.

I'm working up a new set of base classes, designed to represent the possibilities of characters in the WarCraft universe (this isn't just a straight take on WoW, nor will I be drawing anything more than vague ideas from the d20-WarCraft and d20-WoW-RPG books, though I do own them). The idea is to take all of the character concepts and create a workable framework that involves a minimum of shoehorning. (Like for instance the way any ranged character in WoW lore is shoehorned into being a Hunter class, despite most of them lacking any prominent animal companion. Meanwhile Rexxar, a Beastmaster who originated the lore concept of the beast companion, isn't even a functional Hunter because he's a melee two-weapon fighter, a style which isn't even viable in the game as of now.)

I watch all the fighter-fix threads, and the wizard-fix threads, and I'm trying to keep things balanced to a degree. General goal is tier 3-ish, though some of this will also be addressed with my changes to the base ruleset, the skills, and the spells. It's a big mess of changes, which really can't be described easily, but this is one place to start in.

I'm trying to figure out how I want to divide the classes. Do I make a single Warrior class, or distinct Soldier, Berserker, etc classes. Do I make a single Arcanist, or break it apart into Mage, Warlock, Necromancer?

Multiclassing will make this interesting. I'm not going to use 3e multiclassing, instead I've got this idea for basically having you earn your main class levels like normal, but then if you're, let's say, a level 5 rogue and you want to gain a level in mage, instead of waiting until you have the XP for level 6, you spend 1k XP and gain the class features of a level 1 mage, taking the gestalt-style better-of bonus numbers between rogue and mage for that first level. If you did this when you would've otherwise gained level 6, you probably have enough to gain two or three levels of mage, and get a headstart on the class features and casting. (I also plan on changing how BAB and save bonuses accrue, so don't over-think this part.)

So, right now, these are my various concepts:

Warrior (generic fighter class, merged Soldier/Berserker, does not coexist)
Soldier (defensive fighter class, with some group-tactical options)
Berserker (offensive fighter)
Warlord (leader-type, possibly merged into soldier or warrior, or better represented through skill such as Command)
Mount Rider (knight or other mounted concepts, main features boosting mount for combat)
Rogue (urban/assassin type, mostly staple, might absorb the Scout below)
Scout (wilderness/ranged type, one half of WoW's Hunter)
Primal (feral type, beast companion main feature, other half of WoW's Hunter)
Arcanist (merged Mage/Warlock/Necromancer/etc, does not coexist)
Mage (elemental spells and general magic)
Warlock (demonic magic, bound demon as significant class feature)
Necromancer (undead minions & more)
Death Knight (shares components of Necromancer. Could be condensed into fighter/arcanist multiclass w/feat assist)
Paladin (could be multiclass priest/warrior, or distinct.)
Priest (staple class whether condensed or spread class list)
Shaman (elemental magic, totems, spirit pacts)
Druid (nature/energy spells, might merge Shapeshifter into this)
Shapeshifter (shapeshifting portion of WoW's Druid, or could be merged into druid in some way. Shares some concepts with Primal.)
Adept (simpler NPC class caster, modeled on Warlock. Includes at-will blast attack (focused onto appropriate energy type), and uses spell list shared with whatever specific caster being emulated. Staple idea of my system.)
Brute (simple NPC heavy-hitter; optional)
Bandit (simple NPC sneak; optional)
Felblood (demonic traits, demonic corruption and enhancements, primarily used as a multiclass)
Dragonblood (draconic traits, allows for dragonspawn/drakonids, plus maybe shapeshifted dragons, rarely)

So, what d'you guys think?

Waker
2013-03-23, 11:23 PM
Unless it has been changed since I stopped playing, isn't the WoW class system basically designed around a group of base classes augmented around the skill trees? You could build the classes and then modify them based on the archetype you choose. An example could be the Mage; the Fire and Frost archetypes share many of the same spells, but have access to different class powers to empower their respective elements.

LordErebus12
2013-03-23, 11:25 PM
So, right now, these are my various concepts:

Primal (feral type, beast companion main feature, other half of WoW's Hunter)

So, what d'you guys think?

Im game :P

Also, have you viewed my pf class the wild shaper (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=223766)? could offer some unique ideas for the shapeshifter/primal

LordErebus12
2013-03-23, 11:40 PM
I'm trying to figure out how I want to divide the classes. Do I make a single Warrior class, or distinct Soldier, Berserker, etc classes. Do I make a single Arcanist, or break it apart into Mage, Warlock, Necromancer?

So, what d'you guys think?

So do you intend to break them apart? like archetypes or as seperate classes?

I favor the archetype style, create a base class and offer three types of class archetypes.

Warrior = Soldier, Beserker, Hunter
Arcanist = Mage, Warlock, Necromancer
Priest = Druid, Cleric, Shaman
Beast Master = Tamer, Rider, Primal (second pick)
Shifter = Animals, Insects, Plant types (my first pick).
Rogue = Swashbuckler, Scout, Bard
Defender = Paladin, Bloodknight, Death Knight

Felblood and Dragonblood might fit in shifter, too.

RedWarlock
2013-03-24, 12:14 AM
Unless it has been changed since I stopped playing, isn't the WoW class system basically designed around a group of base classes augmented around the skill trees? You could build the classes and then modify them based on the archetype you choose. An example could be the Mage; the Fire and Frost archetypes share many of the same spells, but have access to different class powers to empower their respective elements.
I'm not planning to recreate WoW's exact mechanics or structure, the idea here is to recreate the flavor of the different power-concepts and organizations. Some of these are tied closely to the WoW classes, others are entirely unrelated because WoW is a computer MMO unable to handle more complex concepts than tanks/DPS/healers, and they're hesitant to create mechanical overlap. (like because we have the Death Knight class, we'll never see a necromancer class, because they want to keep unique spells for each class, and the DK ate from the necromancer's plate.)

I know a few prior 'brewers that have made direct adaptations of the Mage, Shaman, and DK, but those exact-recreations are what I want to avoid, because I'm not making WoW-the-RPG, I'm making the full breadth of the WarCraft setting for my players to explore, not constrained by the limits of MMO game design.


Im game :P

Also, have you viewed my pf class the wild shaper (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=223766)? could offer some unique ideas for the shapeshifter/primal

So do you intend to break them apart? like archetypes or as seperate classes?

I favor the archetype style, create a base class and offer three types of class archetypes.

Warrior = Soldier, Beserker, Hunter
Arcanist = Mage, Warlock, Necromancer
Priest = Druid, Cleric, Shaman
Beast Master = Tamer, Rider, Primal (second pick)
Shifter = Animals, Insects, Plant types (my first pick).
Rogue = Swashbuckler, Scout, Bard
Defender = Paladin, Bloodknight, Death Knight

Felblood and Dragonblood might fit in shifter, too.
Yes and no, that's where I'm asking. If I merged down, it'd be archetype-ish splits, like mage/warlock/necro under the general Arcanist. But in the WarCraft world, those three powers are closely linked, related. Others, not much, or at all. They also need to share a general mechanical basis.

Let me break it down for you:


Warrior = Soldier, Beserker, Hunter
Yes, for the first two, but Hunter is too conglomerate of a concept already. It's a scout/primal mix, nothing to do with the warrior types.


Arcanist = Mage, Warlock, Necromancer
Pretty much, but here's where the archetype idea has problems. The reason these are closely linked is because arcane magic is inherently neutral at best, and distinctly evil at its worst. A warlock is just a mage who has no fear of being outcast by the other mages, and so taps into the darker powers of the Twisting Nether, including making pacts with demons. Likewise, a necromancer is someone who uses dark magics which are shunned by civilized society.

Splitting them into archetypes means very little crossover, creating walls when when they are supposed to be very easy to wander between. It's supposed to be very easy to get lost in the greater power of the dark arcane magics. This is perhaps better represented by different classes sharing the same point-resource or stacking spell-slot progression, depending on how I develop it. Making it archetypes is exactly the opposite of what's needed.


Priest = Druid, Cleric, Shaman
NO, dear god, no, they are NOTHING related. Priests are entirely distinct from druids and shaman, they have no common powers and entirely different structures. This isn't just 'generic divine caster' like D&D, this is entirely different functions, class features, and mechanics. In 4e terms, they're each a distinct power source.


Beast Master = Tamer, Rider, Primal (second pick)
Shifter = Animals, Insects, Plant types (my first pick).
Your own class-choice bias is spreading these out WAAAY too much. Beastmasters have a direct connection to their companions, but Riders are nothing like this, no shared basis at all, it might as well be an entirely distinct class. Rider is in my list primarily for mechanical reasons, because the mount needs more mechanical support to make it viable, it needs investment beyond a single feat could provide (and I'm trying to avoid using PrCs entirely).

Shifter is not distinct in the WarCraft lore enough to be a distinct class if we're merging that much. If we're dropping numbers this far, it's one subset of the Druid's powers, nothing more. Remember, this is lore-based, not a player wishlist. :P


Rogue = Swashbuckler, Scout, Bard
Bards do not exist in WarCraft. Swashbuckler is scant.


Defender = Paladin, Bloodknight, Death Knight
Closer, but still a bit sparse. The Bloodknights are one racial variant of paladins, Blood Elf only, and not mechanically distinct from Paladins in any way. Even the lore puts them as under the same power-source by another mechanic.


Felblood and Dragonblood might fit in shifter, too.
Really not. Felblood under a stricter class list would just be a series of feats. Dragonblood not even that.

Waker
2013-03-24, 12:43 AM
Well, as it stands you've got quite a task ahead of you then. You've got 23 individual classes listed in that first post. Even if you didn't go with the chassis/archetype role, you should still consider coming up with a few chassis to speed up the class creation time. Even if there are a few major differences between them, would you agree that there are many commonalities between a Mage and a Necromancer or a Paladin and Death Knight? Compare the same with a Wizard and a Sorcerer who share a D4 HD, same BAB and saves and skill points, though differing on skill list, casting mechanic and spell acquisition.
In any event, you'll probably end up having to post the classes individually and let the Playground critique them, making big, bold posts stating that you are basing it around the lore of Azeroth rather than the mechanics found in the MMO.

Hawk7915
2013-03-24, 01:14 AM
If this is the route you go, wouldn't it make more sense to hack things up based on actual power source, and then work on specializations/talents/powers/whatever to actually capture a specific class or skill set? Something like...




"Warriors" - (the ways of fighting with weapons, wearing armor, using your fists, and employing military tactics. Specializations could lead you obviously to Warriors, but also to the different kinds of warriors: Warlords versus Knights versus Berserkers, as well as to some aspects of Rogues and Monks)

"Skilled Heroes" (sneakiness, ranged combat proficiency, stealth, subertfuge; also invention, alchemy, and engineering. Leads you to the rest of Rogues and a lot of what the Hunter class is about, but also gives you Alchemists and Tinkerers: many major lore characters are described as such as their combat style and not just profession).

"The Earth" (Shapeshifting, summoning animals, tracking being in tune with Elune/The Earth Mother: Druids, some Hunter stuff)

"The Light" and its inverse Shadows (Holy and mental/psychic magic, strength of will, healing and protection, telepathy and psionics. The domain of Priests and Paladins)

"The Elements" (Manipulating primal fire, earth, air, and water for a variety of effects, as Shamans and Monks do in the game)

"The Arcane" (Ancient arcane lore, tied strongly to Dragon Aspects, maniplating arcane, frost, fire, and force; altering time itself. Would cover the Mage class)

"The Fel" (I'm going to do a no-no and mash up demonic burning legion stuff that Warlocks and Demon Hunters do with the necrotic, scourge-empowered stuff that Death Knights and Necromancers do)

=================
So we have seven basic sources of power. I'm thinking, in a vein similar to the Legend system developed on these very forums, that you come up with three or four "Tracks" per power source, and then allow folks to choose a power source and swap out one track from it for one track from any other source. So, for a most basic example...

"Warrior Path" - Weapon Mastery, Berserking, Defender (three tracks)

"The Light Path" - Shadow Magics, Holy Wrath, Holy Mercy

A nice, simple, no-frills Warrior could just take "The Warrior" path, and have talents from all three trees. To make a paladin in the vein of Uther, you'd take the "Warrior" path and drop Berserking to pick up "Holy Mercy" from "The Light". To make one more like, say, Tirion, you might take "The Light" and then drop Shadow Magic to snag "Weapon Mastery". Keep your talent tracks simple (like a dichotomous choice at certain levels for each track), and you don't even have much to keep track of.

That's a lot of late night rambling, but I hope it helps!

RedWarlock
2013-03-24, 01:55 AM
Well, as it stands you've got quite a task ahead of you then. You've got 23 individual classes listed in that first post. Even if you didn't go with the chassis/archetype role, you should still consider coming up with a few chassis to speed up the class creation time. Even if there are a few major differences between them, would you agree that there are many commonalities between a Mage and a Necromancer or a Paladin and Death Knight? Compare the same with a Wizard and a Sorcerer who share a D4 HD, same BAB and saves and skill points, though differing on skill list, casting mechanic and spell acquisition.
In any event, you'll probably end up having to post the classes individually and let the Playground critique them, making big, bold posts stating that you are basing it around the lore of Azeroth rather than the mechanics found in the MMO.

23 is just the sum total of ideas. Some of those are mutually exclusive, like if I do arcanist then there would be no mage/necro/warlock, etc.

Here's my absolute minimum list:


Warrior
Rogue
Tinker!
Primal
Arcanist
Priest
Shaman
Druid
Adept


And if I went as spread out as I find logical (no racial sub-variants as distinct classes, for instance):


Bandit (Martial)
Berserker (Martial)
Brute (Martial)
Mount Rider (Martial)
Rogue (Martial)
Scout (Martial)
Soldier (Martial)
Warlord (Martial)
Tinker! (Engineering)
Mage (Arcane)
Warlock (Arcane/Fel)
Necromancer (Arcane/Shadow)
Death Knight (Martial/Shadow)
Paladin (Martial/Light)
Priest (Light)
Shaman (Elemental)
Druid (Natural)
Shapeshifter (Natural)
Primal (Natural)
Felblood (Fel)
Dragonblood (Arcane)
Adept (varies)


Let's see, if I winnow down the list.. The Bandit and Brute are NPC classes that just make life easier. They'll be minimal-choice options that would be best for handing to new players, with automatic mechanics that don't need active decisions. They could go anywhere.

Felblood and Dragonblood are more optional as well, because they're basically draconic and demonic traits encapsulated into a class. (dragonblood might come back out later, based on the below.)

The Warlock *could* be a re-skin/archetype on the Primal, swapping up everything beastly/natureish for demonic traits (basically consuming the Felblood's role) and trading the beast companion for a bound demonic minion, and adding demonic spells to any Arcane casting. (to make this work, the Primal would probably get minor, d20-ranger/paladin-esque nature-magic casting, which is swapped out for arcane/fel casting that boosts the existing arcane.) Likewise, the Necromancer could do the same, with undead traits and an undead companion, adding necromantic spells. This re-skin could be a functional copy, or an exclusionary archetype; but either way you're not going to see much crossover between types. This also means you could add this overtop of an arcanist-Adept as easily as a Mage specifically.

(Actually, for that matter, if we break the concept down into a 'Companion Class' chassis, with selectable sub-flavor for beasts, demons, undead, or, yes, even non-primal trained mounts, it could absorb the Rider. You would have to trade out just about everything else about it to make the Rider functional too, but if we're going this far in making the Warlock/Necro/Primal swappable, this comes just as far. Though by that point, you might be able to multiclass into the other versions anyway, even thought they're archetypes of the same thing, because DKs would need to be able to be both mounted warriors AND have the WoW-esque Unholy Ghoul minion.)

Soldier, Berserker, and Warlord are sort of a tenuous split, and could be selection within a single Warrior class. Not archetype-exclusions, but selections more akin to ToB maneuver selections. (This also addresses the 'Fighter problem' in that selecting down one of these paths gives goalposts for non-combat usage for the Warrior.)

Scout and Rogue are similar enough to be swaps of each other, but I think I'll leave them distinct for their mechanics. (The scout isn't the CA scout, though it has similarities. It would be more of a straight archer class, with the precision damage coming from a 'steady aim' move-action ability rather than skirmish-movement.)

Priests and shamans share minor similarities in lore. (The story 'Unbroken' describes the elements as just a prism-esque split of the Light, but class-wise they are very distinct.) Priests could worship the Light, the troll Loa, the Forgotten Shadow, the goddess Elune, or base their faith on some other power, but the important aspect I think is to say that their power is based in their faith in another power rather than the validity of that power.

Shaman, meanwhile, are directly conversant with the spirits that give them power, with an active give-and-take in the lore, ranging from offers of praise, bargaining, and even dominant actions (the tauren-cousins the taunka are harsh with their elements).

The thing that makes this hard to consider is that they all use mana, and supposedly all their casting can be connected in source. Orcish shaman before the rise of the Horde took up warlock magics, trading in one set of magics for another almost as easily as changing a coat.

This makes me consider that maybe for my system, I should use a common spell-point mechanic that is shared across power sources. Probably use a common stat, like Charisma, for bonus points. Now, these points could be invested into different methods, like a shaman might lock in certain spirit-pacts when prepping in the morning (sort of like binders and incarnum-users) to lock in certain boosts. Meanwhile a priest might select specific domains related to their respective faith, and be able to spend their points to use those spells.

Paladin and Death Knight are similar, but I want to play with how I use them. I want to have armor be inhibitive in ALL magic use, so I've got ideas for how they can maybe use their mana in a way that circumvents the typical usage, allowing them to tap into light or shadow-powered maneuvers.

Tinker! I knew I forgot something. Tinkers would be a high-skill class which would mainly be based around Engineering skill tricks, but could also be re-tweaked into alchemists. Maybe generic name of Expert? Yet another sadly-neglected concept that the MMO drops into the gutter of skills, much like the mounted warrior being dumped in favor of the Riding skill for all.


Warrior (Martial)
Rogue (Martial)
Scout (Martial)
Tinker! (Engineering)
Mage (Arcane)
Death Knight (Martial/Shadow)
Paladin (Martial/Light)
Priest (Light)
Shaman (Elemental)
Druid (Natural)
Adept (varies)
Master (varies)

Mount Rider (Martial)
Primal (Natural)
Warlock (Fel)
Necromancer (Shadow)

RedWarlock
2013-03-24, 02:36 AM
I didn't see your post until just now (took too long writing up that big analysis post). You reminded me of the Tinker, which I have edited into my previous post.


If this is the route you go, wouldn't it make more sense to hack things up based on actual power source, and then work on specializations/talents/powers/whatever to actually capture a specific class or skill set? Something like...

"Warriors" - (the ways of fighting with weapons, wearing armor, using your fists, and employing military tactics. Specializations could lead you obviously to Warriors, but also to the different kinds of warriors: Warlords versus Knights versus Berserkers, as well as to some aspects of Rogues and Monks)

"Skilled Heroes" (sneakiness, ranged combat proficiency, stealth, subertfuge; also invention, alchemy, and engineering. Leads you to the rest of Rogues and a lot of what the Hunter class is about, but also gives you Alchemists and Tinkerers: many major lore characters are described as such as their combat style and not just profession).

"The Earth" (Shapeshifting, summoning animals, tracking being in tune with Elune/The Earth Mother: Druids, some Hunter stuff)

"The Light" and its inverse Shadows (Holy and mental/psychic magic, strength of will, healing and protection, telepathy and psionics. The domain of Priests and Paladins)

"The Elements" (Manipulating primal fire, earth, air, and water for a variety of effects, as Shamans and Monks do in the game)

"The Arcane" (Ancient arcane lore, tied strongly to Dragon Aspects, maniplating arcane, frost, fire, and force; altering time itself. Would cover the Mage class)

"The Fel" (I'm going to do a no-no and mash up demonic burning legion stuff that Warlocks and Demon Hunters do with the necrotic, scourge-empowered stuff that Death Knights and Necromancers do)

=================
So we have seven basic sources of power. I'm thinking, in a vein similar to the Legend system developed on these very forums, that you come up with three or four "Tracks" per power source, and then allow folks to choose a power source and swap out one track from it for one track from any other source. So, for a most basic example...

"Warrior Path" - Weapon Mastery, Berserking, Defender (three tracks)

"The Light Path" - Shadow Magics, Holy Wrath, Holy Mercy

A nice, simple, no-frills Warrior could just take "The Warrior" path, and have talents from all three trees. To make a paladin in the vein of Uther, you'd take the "Warrior" path and drop Berserking to pick up "Holy Mercy" from "The Light". To make one more like, say, Tirion, you might take "The Light" and then drop Shadow Magic to snag "Weapon Mastery". Keep your talent tracks simple (like a dichotomous choice at certain levels for each track), and you don't even have much to keep track of.

That's a lot of late night rambling, but I hope it helps!

It's something to chew on, but no, I never liked the Track system for legend, because it's never really done what I want. I want organic character growth. In Legend, you define your character concept and you're done, it's just a matter of earning your new stuff. You can trade tracks, but you lose everything prior in a track to add new concepts, which never sat well with me. Sorry, but no.

Now, breaking it down by power source, yes, I can agree with that. I had power-source tags in my previous post. Though I do divide Necromancy from Fel magic. There's enough in there for both to be distinct.

Now as for monks, yuck. I want to wait a while before I even consider that, the monk is too much retrofitted for me to even consider it now. I'll want to experience the in-game class to see what it represents for lore before I look at it for my players, and lore-wise we're a long way from seeing monks anyway.

(One other aspect of this is that my players will be playing their way through the entire plot starting with WarCraft III, then advancing through the timeline for WoW.)

LordErebus12
2013-03-24, 04:25 AM
mark me down for Tinkerer, lol.

Rion
2013-03-24, 05:03 AM
Regarding Arcanist/Mage/Warlock/Necromancer, I can easily see two different approaches to making the border more fluid.

1) There is a single Arcanist class, with Demonology and Necromancy as massive spell schools, each with more spells in them than an Arcanist can learn (without the ability to scrolls to his spells known).

The downside to this is that every ability you want a Warlock or Necromancer to have, needs to be either a spell, or a feat that requires a specific number of Demonology/Necromancy spells known. Another downside is that the border between the arcane "classes" might be too loose.

2) Every arcane class stack with each for the purposes of determining spellcasting abilities. If you really want the option to get lost in the darker side of magic, any time Mages with at least one level in Warlock or Necromancer level up, they can exchange every level of Mage they have for an equivalent number of levels in Warlock or Necromancer.

The Downside to this option is that each arcane class need to have worthwhile class ablities beyond their spellcasting.

zabbarot
2013-03-24, 10:15 PM
Would it help at all that there is an official d20 rule set for Warcraft?

RedWarlock
2013-03-24, 11:12 PM
Would it help at all that there is an official d20 rule set for Warcraft?

Not really. I own it, and don't care for it. (I mention this in the second paragraph of the first post.)

zabbarot
2013-03-25, 01:46 PM
That's what I get for skimming : /

RedWarlock
2013-03-25, 02:21 PM
No worries, I get wordy in all my posts, I guess most people skim. (Erebus is one of my own table-players, and even he skimmed it!)

LordErebus12
2013-03-25, 03:01 PM
No worries, I get wordy in all my posts, I guess most people skim. (Erebus is one of my own table-players, and even he skimmed it!)

lol, guilty of that, i am.