Strip "Background" out of classes

[Minigiant]

Well then what is a ranger at its heart then? If it is tied to a guy who runs around in the forest only, then that is weak. If he is only a tracker/hunter I could buy that, however I still think that is narrow. To me I think of them as a lightly armored warrior type who excels at doing specialized tasks (tracking, hunting, sword play, archery, banditry, horsemanship) I guess the bottom line is a more skillful fighter. Fighters strongly focus on armor and weapons and lightly on all other stuff, the ranger is opposite. Decouple the wilderness background and you can have urban rangers, bounty hunters, sailors, investigators, and on and on. If they can only have a wilderness background everything has to go through that prism. Not unplayable, just more limited.


Yes, elementalists, shaman, spiritualist, town elder, naturalist, scholar, I don't know. Uncoupled from a wilderness background it really frees it up, to be a lot more diverse though. Don't get me wrong I think a wilderness background makes a ton of sense for the class, but I dont want to be limited by it.




I know I really like that.

Bottom line is I don't want to be limited to the city rogue and the wilderness ranger, I want a wilderness rogue and a city ranger.

I don't think you have to worry about that yet.

Druids can hopefully change with spell choice to make any type of nature type: animals, plants, death, life, elements, spirits.
Rogues seem to be very customizable.
And possibly the same with ranger. I doubt they will be so narrow in scope.

 

[spudspotato]

I want backgrounds stripped out of class, but I could see people angry when certain classes aren't actually classes anymore. IE what we've always thought of as the barbarian class becomes "CLASS: Fighter BACKGROUND: Barbarian (or savage or nature or whatever they call it) THEME: Berserker". I could see pregen "archetype" characters listed in the PHB to show that barbarians or druids or whatever other classes would be cut still exist. So there were pregenerated characters that fit roles like a knightly fighter, sage wizard, old-school barbarian and druid, armored cleric, etc.

 

[Remathilis]

I want backgrounds stripped out of class, but I could see people angry when certain classes aren't actually classes anymore. IE what we've always thought of as the barbarian class becomes "CLASS: Fighter BACKGROUND: Barbarian (or savage or nature or whatever they call it) THEME: Berserker". I could see pregen "archetype" characters listed in the PHB to show that barbarians or druids or whatever other classes would be cut still exist. So there were pregenerated characters that fit roles like a knightly fighter, sage wizard, old-school barbarian and druid, armored cleric, etc.

This is exactly what I dislike about the "theme eats class" crowd...

Scenario A:
Two guys want to be rangers. They select the ranger theme, the fighter class, and the scout background. They're both rangers; and both mechanically exactly the same.

Scenario B:
Two guys want to be rangers. They both select the ranger class, but one takes the archer theme and scout background, while the other takes the guardian theme and commoner background. They're both rangers; but one is adept are archery and sneaking and the other is a local hero devoted to guarding his allies from dangerous monsters.

 

[steeldragons]

This is exactly what I dislike about the "theme eats class" crowd...

Scenario A:
Two guys want to be rangers. They select the ranger theme, the fighter class, and the scout background. They're both rangers; and both mechanically exactly the same.

Scenario B:
Two guys want to be rangers. They both select the ranger class, but one takes the archer theme and scout background, while the other takes the guardian theme and commoner background. They're both rangers; but one is adept are archery and sneaking and the other is a local hero devoted to guarding his allies from dangerous monsters.

Soooo...what's wrong with scenario B?

I also don't very much mind, at all, the concept of a "default/pregen/icon/basic" ranger that doesn't have any theme or background at all that is available for the "core/basic" game sans modules...and then, for those that do want to include bgs/themes, then scenarioB, I think, is exactly how it/they ought to work.

 

[Remathilis]

Soooo...what's wrong with scenario B?

I also don't very much mind, at all, the concept of a "default/pregen/icon/basic" ranger that doesn't have any theme or background at all that is available for the "core/basic" game sans modules...and then, for those that do want to include bgs/themes, then scenarioB, I think, is exactly how it/they ought to work.

I want Scenario B. I think that's what we're going to get. I DON'T want four core classes and twelve "themes" to simulate the classes of ages past.

I want MOAR options, not less!

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I don't think most classes will even have Skill bonuses from class features.
Only one of the current four playtest classes have skill bonuses from class.

In 5E you get Skills from background.

Background is already stripped from classes.
Unless the class requires a certain skill or is envision as a skills class, you don't think you will skills from class features.

In fact, mechanically the rogue "scheme: thief" looks like a second beckground, probably chosen from a restricted rogue-appropriate list (like 3e fighter feats). I still hold out the hope that the thief "scheme" is available as a background for non-rogues.

 

[Minigiant]

In fact, mechanically the rogue "scheme: thief" looks like a second beckground, probably chosen from a restricted rogue-appropriate list (like 3e fighter feats). I still hold out the hope that the thief "scheme" is available as a background for non-rogues.

I believe I heard Mearls say in some video of a some con that the thief is just another backgrounds. Scheme might be a special list of backgrounds.

And in some blog months ago introduced thief as a background fighters and wizards can get.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

This is exactly what I dislike about the "theme eats class" crowd...

Scenario A:
Two guys want to be rangers. They select the ranger theme, the fighter class, and the scout background. They're both rangers; and both mechanically exactly the same.

Scenario B:
Two guys want to be rangers. They both select the ranger class, but one takes the archer theme and scout background, while the other takes the guardian theme and commoner background. They're both rangers; but one is adept are archery and sneaking and the other is a local hero devoted to guarding his allies from dangerous monsters.

Or, to play devil's advocate, scenario A2:
Two guys want to be rangers. They both select the ranger theme (I guess for tracking and favored enemy-type abilities), but one selects the fighter class and the spy background, while the other selects the rogue class and the woodsman background. They're both rangers; but one is a ruthless urban bounty-hunter and the other is a skilled sniper at home in the woods.

Personally, I think the ranger works better as a class than a theme, but it's misleading to suggest that a ranger theme would preclude any flexibility.

 

[Minigiant]

This is exactly what I dislike about the "theme eats class" crowd...

Scenario A:
Two guys want to be rangers. They select the ranger theme, the fighter class, and the scout background. They're both rangers; and both mechanically exactly the same.

Scenario B:
Two guys want to be rangers. They both select the ranger class, but one takes the archer theme and scout background, while the other takes the guardian theme and commoner background. They're both rangers; but one is adept are archery and sneaking and the other is a local hero devoted to guarding his allies from dangerous monsters.

I think I explain this very thing at least twice a week on RPG forums.


There should be enough customization options to make several versions of every iconic D&D class.

That being said, the actual class part should not be extremely barren and stripped down or they will be boring.

And they shouldn't be filled with TOO many options as it causes analysis paralysis.

 

[Minigiant]

Well then what is a ranger at its heart then? If it is tied to a guy who runs around in the forest only, then that is weak. If he is only a tracker/hunter I could buy that, however I still think that is narrow. To me I think of them as a lightly armored warrior type who excels at doing specialized tasks (tracking, hunting, sword play, archery, banditry, horsemanship) I guess the bottom line is a more skillful fighter. Fighters strongly focus on armor and weapons and lightly on all other stuff, the ranger is opposite. Decouple the wilderness background and you can have urban rangers, bounty hunters, sailors, investigators, and on and on. If they can only have a wilderness background everything has to go through that prism. Not unplayable, just more limited.

According to the blog entry, the ranger is a warrior skilled in hunting and tracking that is attuned to nearby animals. It isn't my "favored definition" of the class but whatever.

To me it sounds like they are setting up rangers as light armored warriors with track, a damage bonus, and a viscous pet animal. If that is true then...


Wilderness/Ranger/TWF= 3.0E Ranger
Commoner/Ranger/Sharpshooter= Classic Hunter
Acrobat/Ranger/Assassin= Rooftop assassin with bird scout
Soldier/Ranger/Slayer= "Cowboy Cop" detective
Knight/Ranger/Magic User= Mighty Morphin Power Ranger

[/QUOTE]
I know I really like that.

Bottom line is I don't want to be limited to the city rogue and the wilderness ranger, I want a wilderness rogue and a city ranger.[/QUOTE]

I want it too.