Originally Posted by toapat
Talking to Grod over a rather ignorant Fighter homebrew has reminded me of something highly critical you have to address:
Each class needs to have their own personal dedicated Storytelling Niche/Archtypal Framework. One of the significant problems in 3.5 is the number of classes doing the same thing. ACFs have their place, in order to give options for the execution of a concept or role. having a hundred classes for that is not the way though. PF kinda toyed with this concept, but their archetypes being implemented post-core instead of pre-core resulted in things like paladin being worthless as anything more then a healgod
Mmm. Personally, I dislike putting too many roleplay restrictions on classes, be they implicit or explicit. A certain amount of restriction is inevitable-- you can't use the wizard class to be a master swordsman-- but you should be able to play a barbarian as a cursed-but-noble warrior, a savage berserker, a trained warrior who pushes himself into a perfectly-focused fighting state, or what have you.
For me, each base class should have its own distinctive mechanic. Barbarians get rage, and associate rage-based powers and abilities
. Paladins get smite and lay on hands, and abilities that build off that. Warblades get maneuvers. Fighters get, I don't know, dice pools
. Playing a different base class should be a different experience. It doesn't have to be a complete subsystem, but a distinctive, overarching thematic power or two.
Quick class ideas:
Barbarian: Noble Berzerker
Ranger: Relyable master at arms/ Aragorn (Mixed in with Fighter)
Paladin: Knight-Errant. Light of the people
Knight: Knight in Shining Armor
Priest: Preacher of the faith, healer (cleric kinda steps (with a Mobile Launch Platform) on paladin's toes)
Mage: Learned Caster, Limited (as in to a theme, or to a school) in spells known
Sorcerer: Wild Caster, could have a Warlock (Trade for spellcasting) ACF
Druid: As usual, but no pet
classes i cant find space for:
rogue: kinda the same space as ranger
fighter: too much mechanical overlap with ranger
Why "noble" barbarians? I would reverse your evaluations of fighters and rangers. Otherwise, something like that, yeah.
I've actually been toying with the notion of "savage" classes verses "civilized" classes. It seems to me that there are an awful lot of classes that can be paired up along those lines. Barbarians vs Fighters. Wizards vs Sorcerers. Clerics vs Favored Souls. And so on.
Originally Posted by toapat
Another thing needed: A solid glossary. Having the systems worked out is only half the battle, you have to make sure that you reinforce those systems with RAW in such a way that issues like Battle Blessing affects all spells you cast in 3.5, not just those cast from paladin spell slots or that are on the paladin spell list
I... organization is good, yes. I'm not sure what your complaint here is, though, other than "remember to edit."
-- The Simple Tabletop Roleplaying System; my attempt at a generic rules-light system.
Giants and Graveyards
: My collected 3.5 revisions-- houserules, class fixes, ban lists and more.
The Fixed-List Caster Project
: my attempt to create classes in the vein of the Dread Necromancer for all relevant aspects of magic. (Now a part of the larger Giants and Graveyards collection)