Mike Mearls has recently discussed the three pillars of the game: combat, exploration, and interaction. I've been thinking about what distinct classes bring to these different areas. Classes clearly come with built-in combat powers, no question. Since its difficult to build a class that might have a clear role in each area of the game, I'm not sure its worth it to balance everything out. Its also probably not possible to divide each of these areas up, such that classes represent one (i.e. combat) while backgrounds, themes, races, kits, or whathaveyou represent another. But it wouldn't be a bad idea to call out what classes might bring to each situation.
Let's look at the traditional cleric and ranger.
The cleric's combat role is pretty easily summed up. He wears armor and whumps things, but he's not a specialist, just competent. His spells provide healing and support in combat as well. In exploration, he can gain divine guidance, so he's a generalist there as well, but needs to divide generalist resources between the distinct areas. In terms of interaction, most clerics probably have either strong personalities (charisma) or insight (wisdom), perhaps both. So they're natural diplomats. But their generalist support skills could also shine here.
The ranger, on the other hand, is a scout, hunter, naturalist, or giantslayer. He's probably competent in combat, just like the cleric. Except for one or more specialized aspects (archery or another specific fighting style, a favored enemy, etc.), where he's a specialist. In exploration, he handles tracking, navigation, and creature lores. In terms of interaction, he's pretty limited. Individuals might be cunning, insightful, or magnetic, but nothing about the class supports that.
Traditionally, D&D doesn't end up having a lot of class-support for specific non-combat powers, except in terms of proficiencies and skills (and spells, of course). Clerics would get one type of proficiency/skill access, and rangers another. For better or for worse, some mechanics should support the non-combat roles, and do it better than the skill systems of recent editions have. I'd like to see the skills divorced from classes more, except where the individual class might specify them. So clerics should get insight or diplomacy options/benefits, while rangers should have wilderness exploration benefits.
In the same way, wizards (as in the magic scholar types) might get should have bonuses to lores. Warlocks (as in pact-forging magic users), on the other hand, might have a class bonus to bargaining. Fighters might have a bonus to military training knowledges or local area knowledges (including heraldry, streetwise, or tactics) whereas warlords (captains, marshals, or whathaveyou) would have a bonus to leadership, tactics, or military training (they're trained to be leaders, whereas fighters are trained to be guards and soldiers). Non-combat class features like this will really help to distinguish the feel of the classes, and this is particularly true if the game uses a broader number of base classes (in the 15-20 range, basically third edition+) so that warlocks and sorcerers and wizards (for example) play less like three variants of a magician and more like distinct classes.
Obviously, this is going to require some broader skills than the 4e system, and perhaps developing some skill areas a bit more so that different classes can excel in them, as well as possible class-specific features. Without a leadership skill, how can warlords benefit from it? To some extent this may be a bit forced: the military lore skill might only exist so that a warlord can have it. But if the list is kept small and provides good coverage, the fact that there's a military skill on the list might lead more games to use it, whether it gets them past enemy troop formations, fire a balista, or know how to craft the right illusion to fool their enemies.
I'm not quite sure what these explortion or interaction-based class features should look like. But I'd like to see them in the game somehow.
Let's look at the traditional cleric and ranger.
The cleric's combat role is pretty easily summed up. He wears armor and whumps things, but he's not a specialist, just competent. His spells provide healing and support in combat as well. In exploration, he can gain divine guidance, so he's a generalist there as well, but needs to divide generalist resources between the distinct areas. In terms of interaction, most clerics probably have either strong personalities (charisma) or insight (wisdom), perhaps both. So they're natural diplomats. But their generalist support skills could also shine here.
The ranger, on the other hand, is a scout, hunter, naturalist, or giantslayer. He's probably competent in combat, just like the cleric. Except for one or more specialized aspects (archery or another specific fighting style, a favored enemy, etc.), where he's a specialist. In exploration, he handles tracking, navigation, and creature lores. In terms of interaction, he's pretty limited. Individuals might be cunning, insightful, or magnetic, but nothing about the class supports that.
Traditionally, D&D doesn't end up having a lot of class-support for specific non-combat powers, except in terms of proficiencies and skills (and spells, of course). Clerics would get one type of proficiency/skill access, and rangers another. For better or for worse, some mechanics should support the non-combat roles, and do it better than the skill systems of recent editions have. I'd like to see the skills divorced from classes more, except where the individual class might specify them. So clerics should get insight or diplomacy options/benefits, while rangers should have wilderness exploration benefits.
In the same way, wizards (as in the magic scholar types) might get should have bonuses to lores. Warlocks (as in pact-forging magic users), on the other hand, might have a class bonus to bargaining. Fighters might have a bonus to military training knowledges or local area knowledges (including heraldry, streetwise, or tactics) whereas warlords (captains, marshals, or whathaveyou) would have a bonus to leadership, tactics, or military training (they're trained to be leaders, whereas fighters are trained to be guards and soldiers). Non-combat class features like this will really help to distinguish the feel of the classes, and this is particularly true if the game uses a broader number of base classes (in the 15-20 range, basically third edition+) so that warlocks and sorcerers and wizards (for example) play less like three variants of a magician and more like distinct classes.
Obviously, this is going to require some broader skills than the 4e system, and perhaps developing some skill areas a bit more so that different classes can excel in them, as well as possible class-specific features. Without a leadership skill, how can warlords benefit from it? To some extent this may be a bit forced: the military lore skill might only exist so that a warlord can have it. But if the list is kept small and provides good coverage, the fact that there's a military skill on the list might lead more games to use it, whether it gets them past enemy troop formations, fire a balista, or know how to craft the right illusion to fool their enemies.
I'm not quite sure what these explortion or interaction-based class features should look like. But I'd like to see them in the game somehow.
No comments:
Post a Comment