Hell, maybe not even berserkers - gladiators or maybe duelists. As for redesigning them?īarbarians: Nope. Now, those classes existed in some form prior to 3e, but they weren't core classes.
Sorcerers: spellcasters who didn't need a book. Monk: expand outside of Euro-centric D&D, give people who wanted to play martial artists a character class. For the "new" classes.īarbarians: strength-based fighters who wore little to no armor. The overall philosophy behind 3e was to let anyone play the kind of character they wanted to play, which is why multiclassing was so forgiving compared to 1e/2e, why anyone could be any class, why there were prestige classes, why we had a monster CL for someone who wanted to play those monsters, all the feat and skill options, and on and on and on.įor the original classes, Wizards wanted those to remain as options. Healing can and should be done by anyone who can operate a wand of Cure Light Wounds or Lesser Vigor, it's not a role.
I feel 3.X works reasonably smoothly with Tome of Battle martials, Spellthief and/or Factotum for skillmonkey, and the specialist casters (Beguiler et al) for spellcasting. No testing of control wizards, no testing of self-buff clerics, no testing of trip fighters, etc. Or maybe occasionally spend a blasting spell slot to solve a noncombat problem.Īnd they only tested these roles for the classes. The arcane classes were intended to to be AOE artillery pieces.Or maybe occasionally spend a healing spell slot to solve a noncombat problem. The divine classes were intended to be healbots and second-tier BSFs.The skillmonkey class(es depending on how you categorize Bard) was intended to solve problems outside combat but be less able in combat.Or less facetanking but more standing in place for the ranged options. The martial classes were intended to do Big Stupid Fighter things, walking in formation and facetanking as they stood in place blending monsters.
0 kommentar(er)
