Forums DS 4

[DS4_PlayerGuide] Section 2: Classes

Subscribe to [DS4_PlayerGuide] Section 2: Classes 19 posts, 13 voices

 
Avatar fallenakriel 72 posts

Put your entry or description flavor for the following races here.
1. Templar
2. Fighter
3. Rogue
4. Ranger
5. Cleric
6. Warlord
7. Wizard

 
Avatar tarlyn veladorn 3 posts

Don’t forget about…Psionic.

 
Avatar yancke 54 posts

I think there is a place for a Paladin in DS. Think Martial templar.
Are the rest( drood, barbarian, bard) being passed over?

 
Avatar xredjasonx 2 posts

Shouldn’t there be Gladiator class?

 
Avatar pennarin 193 posts

PHBII and, I believe, Dragon Magazine, will introduce fake classes one can multiclass into. Such classes cannot be taken per say as a class, but exist only to provide paths in which one can foray for a while.
Gladiator could be such a fake class, so could templar knight, etc.

 
Avatar xredjasonx 2 posts

I liked how in 2nd Edition, gladiators had profficiency with many weapons.

 
Avatar hendell 120 posts

There is already a fake Gladiator class, it is on the Thread in DS4 called Gladiator, on my list it appears near the top of the second page of threads that will function well enough as an example of what the Gladiator should be with no additional material beyond the PHB needed.

 
Avatar pennarin 193 posts

We haven’t seen such an official fake class yet, but I suspect it will have standard class features, but a limited number of at-wills, encounters, dailies, and utilities, so as to make the job of creating such classes easier on the designers…and incidentaly on the fans as well.
If so, we’ll be able to create half a dozen fake classes in short order, to cover many of our special DS needs.
On a side note, I’m leaning towards having certain classes disappear altogether from the list availlable to players and be relegated to monster stat blocks, like templars. Opinion?

 
Avatar hendell 120 posts

Templars as monsters is a fitting thing for both DS and 4E it is a bit of a risk in terms of player response, and it does artificially force the players to be against the Sorcerer Kings. DS is less prone to playing ‘evil’ games in, and even then the evil PCs will likely want to be replacements for the Sorcerer Kings rather than working for them. I for one think it is worth the risk, also the simplicity of the monster entry required for each Templar will open up the option of making unique data available for each rank of Templar and perhaps even for each Sorcerer King’s unique High Templar’s if we want to go into the detail level that requires.

 
Avatar Aran 22 posts

I think losing iconic classes like the Templar will start to make it feel less like Dark Sun.
Perhaps we should start by determining the power sources we want to have available, and then subdividing the classes we want to include by power source and party role?
Psionics, for instance, could work for Psychic Warriors (Defenders), Wilders (Leaders), Soulknives (Strikers), and Psions (Controllers).
Sorcerer Kings certainly provide power to Templars. Under one variant (xlorep’s), Paladins also draw their strength from them. Druids and Rangers both call on the Spirits of the Land. Clerics, as far as I can see, are the only ones that are dependent on the Elemental planes directly. We could probably squish most of these together under a common ‘Divine’ heading, giving Rangers back Combat and scrapping Paladins like it used to be – but it would add immensely to the flavour if we separated them out; this does, however, leave Clerics in a bit of an empty space.
Warlords are interesting in that I think they’re a new addition that’s an excellent fit for the setting. I vote to keep them.

 
Avatar zardnaar 181 posts

I think bumping Templar to an NPC monster” is a great idea and replace with Warlord. The paladin can be renamed Templar Knight or somehting like that.

 
Avatar Aran 22 posts

Am I honestly the only one who’s going to miss playing a templar? This makes me sad.
Also, what’s the stance on bards?

 
Avatar zardnaar 181 posts

I only saw a couple of Templar POCs used in hte original setting and in 3.5. They were a pain in the ass in both games and mechanically tying aot of their abilities to their city state sucks i the PCs travel alot which mine tend to in every campaign or RPG we play. In Star Wars for example they usually have a nice space yachet armed to the teeth with a kickass hyperdrive. In D&D they often have a caravel or wander alot.

 
Avatar zardnaar 181 posts

I’m a big beleiver in less is more as well. Star Wars Saga only has 5 classes for example and is bnetter mechanically than both 3.5 and 4th ed IMHO.

 
Avatar Dudelander 2 posts

Honestly I don’t think there needs to be much work done with classes. In 4th edition classes largely represent training, not background. A gladiator would simply be a martial class that fought in arenas.
As for clerics and templars, there is not much that needs to be changed. There just needs to be a channel divinity feat for each element and each sorcerer king. No big deal.
The only trouble maker is defilers. That could be handled with feats or and additional class feature for arcane classes.

 
Avatar Saul 1 post

How about Druids for the Elemental aspect, and Maybe Dune Trader

 
Avatar iceman 2 posts

I have to agree, they need to keep all of the original classes! IT was what originally got everyone hooked! Plus it makes sense in the game. They should add some of the other Psionic hybrids similar to Sorak in the Tribe of One as well as the Wind Singer and Fire Cleric Caelum and his brother. All good classes that make sense with the scene of Athas.

unless the Scene is changing, I agree with brining metal up to rare or hard to mind but not Scarce. In all desert civilizations in historical Earth, metals have been hard to mine but not scarce. Even in Dune, metal was, again hard to locate and mine but not the scarce or major lack of. I would support the Obsidian usage, but metal should be a little easier to come by especially when building Pyramids and the like…

 
Avatar Elibus 2 posts

Personally, I think that by adding some features to the fighter class, they could make a great Athasian gladiator. In a similar way, the paladin would nearly be a perfect fit as a templar, especially now that paladins are not dependant on alignment.

I hope that something is done for the bard, although I suspect that the assassin may be able to be used as an Athasian style bard. Especially, since most of the idiosyncratic parts of the bard are now done completely though role-play and through mechanics.

Lastly, I believe metal needs to stay exactly how it was in the old box set. The lack of metal was defining for the setting. Other civilizations/story settings may not have been this way, but that’s why Dark Sun sticks out so much-It’s different.

 
Avatar Sutekh 4 posts

You can certainly introduce Bards into the setting quite easily. They could be a class that can actually read and write (remember the majority of people cannot in DS), or they make use of their oratory to be very good lore keepers. The verbal tradition of history is very much alive and well in Darksun.

As to Icemans post up above, Metal IS scarce in Darksun. Thats the point. The world has been used, abused, and thrown away. Metal was consumed , the earth was plliaged. What few mines are left are mostly played out. The mines of Tyr being the perfect example of mines which produce very small amounts of iron because in all honesty their load producing years were hundreds of years previous. The average weapon is made from Stone/Bone/ Wood. At the time of the original boxed set, they are producing even less which is hurting the other city states. Kalak is building his ‘new pyramid’ and needs his slaves there

Also Pyramids were made out of Stone, not metals. There may have been some metal incorporated into some Pyramids but Im guessing that was not a very common occurance at all. Giving Metal implements to slaves? Now thats funny….

Forums DS 4