Reviewing the Martial Classes from DC20 (currently on Kickstarter). Spoiler: they are very good Art from: CC0 Wind in the field by RetSamys on DeviantArt
Good videos. Fighters no longer have fighting styles since 0.7, but they now have something called adaptive tactics which gives them a certain buff depending on which weapon they are wielding.
6:01 So there was a Paladin in previous alphas but was removed in 0.6. It will be replaced by the Spellblade (which was a stretch goal) in 0.8. DC has confirmed Paladin will be a sub-class of the Spellblade
I knew Paladin was previously intended to be included. I'm curious how it turns out as a subclass, especially since 'spellblade' does not sound like it has much of a divine or crusader feel to it, on face value.
Monk is not complicated, at level 1 you have your Stamina Points pool, and 2 stances, since you will play level 1 for a bit since it is actually good a player would get used to that, and level 2 adds the Ki Points pool, which can be used for 3 special moves. Meaning at level 2 you are a Basic Martial with Stamina Pool, you have 2 stances, and 1 extra pool with 3 special moves, that is just 3 simple things, not complicated Stances are simple, you pick 2 stances, those are essentially your monks fighting style, not wild shape, each fighting style is named after an animal because it takes aspects similar to that animal, but the monk is always in one of these 2 stances they have access to, so if you have a mobility stance and a battle stance then you can swap between the 2 to assist in combat, it makes the monk incredibly unique, it is very intuitive and is probably what people expect when playing monk. Karate Kid doesn't turn into a crane to crane kick, however a Druid monk would be hilarious, you should play that some time, Druid with Stances there is an argument for Stamina points being "complicated" but since it is a core feature for all martials, then all martials are complicated, and the system is decently intuitive overall
You're absolutely right about it being something an experienced player could track. It's manageable. My point is mainly to illustrate that monks are a more cerebral, thinking, class that a fighter or barbarian. That comes through both through the addition of Ki, and through the choice of stance to use. I don't mean to say that complexity is "bad". It's simply that the Monk has a greater number of options and decisions available to them by way of their class features. Also--don't tell anyone this--I may have missed the fact that you do not have access to all the stances, and instead only learn 2 at level one.
I'm still nervous about DC20 having too many classes... possibly falling into 3e character sheet madness. At very least we see the want for features to "do cool stuff" without being supported by very reasonably explained causality (rangers automatically gaining lore after fighting something.. no time investment, no skill check?), especially in a lore-agnostic sort of way. I really hope the community can support DMs imposing some limitations for their campaigns to survive
Well, the thing about rangers gaining knowledge after fighting something, is that it's not lore agnostic. If you want your character abilities to be completely divorced from the lore and flavor of the character, DC20 is not the right game for that. As far as there being too many classes... I fully support GMs limiting class selection. Especially if X class is only available in X country, etc.
@@ModularGames There's some shades/degrees to the concept of classes being able to provide a balanced mechanic which can be applied flexibly. You already see a lot of the potential applications in, say, the Cleric class... deity being quite possibly being left up to an agreement between player and DM in all sorts of creative ways. Some people discuss the power source of a Cleric possibly being a philosophy, some of it being the church itself or a belief structure... could be one's own inner nature or emerging RNA/DNA which contains a nifty power source which the PC would need to navigate a relationship to. Meanwhile, the rules exist to contain and balance that situation and development with the rest of the setting and group. On the other hand if, as in 2nd Edition DnD for example, Paladins need to be exactly Paladins and follow a very specific purpose in the setting, following the moral code actually being something which balances their power... then that's very cool, for that setting. DC20 doesn't go as far as 2nd Edition D&D. Paladins aren't what they once were. It seems though that the answer being chosen by types of players like optimizers is to make more crunchy classes and subclasses. Add more feats, etc... when a little bit of imagination goes a long way without making the entire game about the character sheet (instead making the character sheet work for you). "Not the right game for that" seems tragically dismissive, to miss the point, and to serve misplaced priorities. I see a lot of potential in DC20 to provide exactly what I've described without needing all the classes they plan to release in expansions and magazines. It is, as you've said, pretty flexible in its possible use and encourages "creativity and thinking outside the box"
@@hellsente7826 I apologize if I came off as dismissive. DC20 *is* very flexible. What I wanted to point out is that DC20 is made specifically to represent the flavor and feeling of the 'class fantasy' as part of the mechanics. The dungeon coach talks about that in his own class videos, and it's something that DnD (for example) does far less. Given that the class fantasy is an integral part of the mechanics of each class's granted powers, it would be expected that separating the two would not be as easy as in other games. All that being said... it is sometimes surprising how two very different character concepts can utilize similar or identical features... including when those features were explicitly designed to represent something different.
Very interesting. 🙂👍🏻 Looking forward to more DC20 videos. 😊
should be at least one more from me coming this monday
Good videos. Fighters no longer have fighting styles since 0.7, but they now have something called adaptive tactics which gives them a certain buff depending on which weapon they are wielding.
It looks like my video is outdated already! Thanks for the update.
Volume was super low in this one.
Thanks for the heads up. on reviewing it again, you are right and it's pretty quiet at parts. I'll try and improve that on future videos.
6:01 So there was a Paladin in previous alphas but was removed in 0.6. It will be replaced by the Spellblade (which was a stretch goal) in 0.8. DC has confirmed Paladin will be a sub-class of the Spellblade
I knew Paladin was previously intended to be included.
I'm curious how it turns out as a subclass, especially since 'spellblade' does not sound like it has much of a divine or crusader feel to it, on face value.
Monk is not complicated, at level 1 you have your Stamina Points pool, and 2 stances, since you will play level 1 for a bit since it is actually good a player would get used to that, and level 2 adds the Ki Points pool, which can be used for 3 special moves. Meaning at level 2 you are a Basic Martial with Stamina Pool, you have 2 stances, and 1 extra pool with 3 special moves, that is just 3 simple things, not complicated
Stances are simple, you pick 2 stances, those are essentially your monks fighting style, not wild shape, each fighting style is named after an animal because it takes aspects similar to that animal, but the monk is always in one of these 2 stances they have access to, so if you have a mobility stance and a battle stance then you can swap between the 2 to assist in combat, it makes the monk incredibly unique, it is very intuitive and is probably what people expect when playing monk.
Karate Kid doesn't turn into a crane to crane kick, however a Druid monk would be hilarious, you should play that some time, Druid with Stances
there is an argument for Stamina points being "complicated" but since it is a core feature for all martials, then all martials are complicated, and the system is decently intuitive overall
You're absolutely right about it being something an experienced player could track. It's manageable. My point is mainly to illustrate that monks are a more cerebral, thinking, class that a fighter or barbarian. That comes through both through the addition of Ki, and through the choice of stance to use.
I don't mean to say that complexity is "bad". It's simply that the Monk has a greater number of options and decisions available to them by way of their class features.
Also--don't tell anyone this--I may have missed the fact that you do not have access to all the stances, and instead only learn 2 at level one.
I'm still nervous about DC20 having too many classes... possibly falling into 3e character sheet madness. At very least we see the want for features to "do cool stuff" without being supported by very reasonably explained causality (rangers automatically gaining lore after fighting something.. no time investment, no skill check?), especially in a lore-agnostic sort of way.
I really hope the community can support DMs imposing some limitations for their campaigns to survive
Well, the thing about rangers gaining knowledge after fighting something, is that it's not lore agnostic. If you want your character abilities to be completely divorced from the lore and flavor of the character, DC20 is not the right game for that.
As far as there being too many classes... I fully support GMs limiting class selection. Especially if X class is only available in X country, etc.
@@ModularGames There's some shades/degrees to the concept of classes being able to provide a balanced mechanic which can be applied flexibly. You already see a lot of the potential applications in, say, the Cleric class... deity being quite possibly being left up to an agreement between player and DM in all sorts of creative ways. Some people discuss the power source of a Cleric possibly being a philosophy, some of it being the church itself or a belief structure... could be one's own inner nature or emerging RNA/DNA which contains a nifty power source which the PC would need to navigate a relationship to. Meanwhile, the rules exist to contain and balance that situation and development with the rest of the setting and group.
On the other hand if, as in 2nd Edition DnD for example, Paladins need to be exactly Paladins and follow a very specific purpose in the setting, following the moral code actually being something which balances their power... then that's very cool, for that setting.
DC20 doesn't go as far as 2nd Edition D&D. Paladins aren't what they once were. It seems though that the answer being chosen by types of players like optimizers is to make more crunchy classes and subclasses. Add more feats, etc... when a little bit of imagination goes a long way without making the entire game about the character sheet (instead making the character sheet work for you).
"Not the right game for that" seems tragically dismissive, to miss the point, and to serve misplaced priorities.
I see a lot of potential in DC20 to provide exactly what I've described without needing all the classes they plan to release in expansions and magazines. It is, as you've said, pretty flexible in its possible use and encourages "creativity and thinking outside the box"
@@hellsente7826 I apologize if I came off as dismissive. DC20 *is* very flexible.
What I wanted to point out is that DC20 is made specifically to represent the flavor and feeling of the 'class fantasy' as part of the mechanics. The dungeon coach talks about that in his own class videos, and it's something that DnD (for example) does far less.
Given that the class fantasy is an integral part of the mechanics of each class's granted powers, it would be expected that separating the two would not be as easy as in other games.
All that being said... it is sometimes surprising how two very different character concepts can utilize similar or identical features... including when those features were explicitly designed to represent something different.
you need to increase the volume of your videos
I can't change the existing videos without re-uploading them, but this Monday's video should be better. Tell me if I get it right?