How Many Classes Do We Really Need?
Grimmjow
First Post
i know, i was just saying that i thought that bards should have a set background, i mean a performer can come from anywhere.
Perhaps in your 5th edition proposal they do.
DracoDruid
Villager
In my oppinion, there should be only a rather small number of actual (core) classes.
Which one, I don't dare to say, because there are so many angles to get to this, but the one thing that is fact is:
If you try to get almost all possible character variants/options/playstyles/whatnot covered by classes, themes, backgrounds, and if you aim for personal freedom in character generation, you either start to create hundreds of packages/themes/whatever or allow players to create their own, and this just mean one thing:
Point-buy.
I've see this in part with the Dragon Age RPG. They started of small, with 3 classes and about 6-8 backgrounds. But they with the second book, they introduced about 12 new backgrounds. Now starting to go through all these (only 20!) backgrounds and see what they were about and received as bonuses was just cumbersome.
With very small efford, I reworked this into a point-buy system which
offers way more flexiblity in character generation than the background+class system could.
Which one, I don't dare to say, because there are so many angles to get to this, but the one thing that is fact is:
If you try to get almost all possible character variants/options/playstyles/whatnot covered by classes, themes, backgrounds, and if you aim for personal freedom in character generation, you either start to create hundreds of packages/themes/whatever or allow players to create their own, and this just mean one thing:
Point-buy.
I've see this in part with the Dragon Age RPG. They started of small, with 3 classes and about 6-8 backgrounds. But they with the second book, they introduced about 12 new backgrounds. Now starting to go through all these (only 20!) backgrounds and see what they were about and received as bonuses was just cumbersome.
With very small efford, I reworked this into a point-buy system which
offers way more flexiblity in character generation than the background+class system could.
variant
Adventurer
That's not a Ranger, that's a Fighter with a Wilderness background and Hunter theme.
Steely_Dan
First Post
Sounds like it should be a different class to me
Why, and what class?
Steely_Dan
First Post
That sounds like what they are proposing as Backgrounds, so you could take any class and slap Bard ("performer") on it.
It does, Steely Dan, sound like it could be done that way. But then, where does that line get drawn? The argument could be made that we can boil every class down to "Caster/Non-caster" and then use Backgrounds and Themes to create the D&D class archetypes. If every "performer" BG is a Bard- Acrobats, fortunetellers, thespians, fire-breathers (in the circus/carnival sense, not ACTUAL fire-breathing races which are not out of the realm of possibility in a D&D world. lol) I don't think I'd actually enjoy that.
I think, more likely, you will still see a Bard as a class...possibly this has a "performer" or at least "minstrel" Background built-in/for free as a class feature. Then the BG's can offer more specific background stuff. And the themes, as someone mentioned, might allow for a "arcane caster" Bard or/vs. a "Druidic caster" bard or/vs. a "historical loremaster/info" bard, etc. And you can pile on the other themes as you increase level.
As another example/further evidence of this: a recent article mentioned, again, Assassin as a full class. Imho, assassin is one of the prime examples of a "class" that could easily and "realistically" be accomplished via BG and Theme. BUT, they've said (repeatedly now) it will definitely be its own class...thus allowing, through BG and Theme, the possibilities for a thug/physical/non-magic assassin guy, the spy/disguise/espionage James Bond specialist kind of a assassin and, most probably, a "shadow-magic" 4e-ish caster/"ninja" assassin.
In short, it sounds like they are sticking to the originally claimed intention of making "all classes of a 1st PHB as actual classes". With BGs and Themes, this makes the "variants" for each of those classes nearly infinite/only subject to the player's (and/or DM's allowances of) imagination. (also meaning we don't need splat books for 101 ways to vary a Bard...or assassin...or whatever. "Prestige Classes" are more or less the way of the dodo, which I have no problem with. They'll probably make these books anyway...but we won't need them.)
I think, on paper, it sounds great! I just hope that it doesn't become an endless list of feats and themes and abilities to tack on that becomes 1) impossibly difficult for players, new and old, to sort through/get bogged down in and 2) doesn't lead to this mish-mosh of "any class appearing to be or performing as well as any other class" because they take XYZ theme or bg.
--SD
Steely_Dan
First Post
I totally agree with you, I want the Bard to be its own class, and not necessarily a "performer".
I also want Backgrounds and Themes (and Feats) to by purely optional in 5th Ed; I want you to be able to pick a race, a class, and off you go.
