D&D 5E D&D Next Q&A (11Oct)

[mlund]

"There are a people in the Frozen North whose warriors fight with unbridled fury, who can withstand crushing blows, and who scatter the opponents before them like leaves in the autumn wind. These warriors -- and others who have embraced this style -- have come to be called 'Barbarians.'"

That's way too setting-specific - presuming geographical and cultural features that are completely unnecessary and obviously linked to Backgrounds (where you came from) that don't need to be married to classes (what you do now).

"There are many types of ascetic in the world, pursuing enlightenment and existential truth in distant, often dismal, places. A certain portion of those who train themselves in these monasteries leave, and become adventurers.

That's way too narrow and obviously violates the separation of Background and Class outlined in the article - again imposing "where you came from" onto "what you do now."

Lets not get too tied up in what words have to mean what. Classes are more than just generic ability sets to be slapped onto anyone who happens to come along. Perhaps they'll mandate that each Barbarian choose a tribe, so even if you're a Noble, you've clearly spent time among the savages.

So much for Dwarven Battleragers and the like - I guess they just have to seek out some humans in furs to learn how to flip out in combat while using an ax. Marrying class to background so flippantly is just terrible design.

Perhaps they'll mandate that each Monk choose a monastery, so even if you're a Thief, you've clearly spent some time on the path to divinity.

Or they could require a core philosophy, belief, or virtue - similar to how a Paladin requires a Code.

Tethering the game mechanics more tightly to some in-world practice is a goal for this edition, and while not every DM may require that a prospective barbarian character literally spend time out in the wilds with Conan, having that link by default is a nice way to inject character by default.

Or, hey, they could be consistent with what they are already doing with things like the Knight (was a 3.5 class, Unearth Arcana super-class [Cavalier], and an Essentials build), Thief (AD&D class, Essentials build), and Thug (4E build) Backgrounds being independent of class - even if commonly associated.

The core take-away from the relevant part of the article should be that class is far less about what you did back then (that's background), and far more about what you do now.

Background: "I was trained as a squire and acolyte to the Templars of Bahemut."

Class: "I uphold the Code of Tyr, Lawgiver. May he strike me down should I ever falter."

Background: "I was orphaned at a young age and grew up on the streets, doing anything I had to to avoid starvation."

Class: "I walk the Path of Open Hand. If you persist in your violence I shall have to take certain steps to restore a peaceful harmony to this land."

If a class starts to stray away from "what you do" and into "where you came from" too deep then it needs to be reigned in. The class shouldn't care whether you spent dozens of years in rigorous training in the perfect environment, were ordained to this task by prophecy, or are just some sort of savant. That's not what Class is about for an Adventurer.

- Marty Lund

 

[I'm A Banana]

That's way too setting-specific...That's way too narrow...

They've already gone on record as saying that, outside of the Core 4, the other classes can be more specific and narrow. They've talked about Rangers being a particular organization, forex.

It's a pretty solid idea to me, since class is archetype, not just ability set.

Also, none of this invalidates backgrounds that go against the grain. You want to be a Thief who is also a Monk? Or a Noble who is also a Barbarian? Sounds like an interesting story. Did your monk get kicked out of the monastery for stealing a holy relic? Did your noble's family get decimated by barbarian hoards, leaving you to be married off to one of them as a way to preserve a tenuous alliance? Or maybe your Thief discovered religion, or your Noble is a barbarian-king who learned the ways of the court to rule the kingdom from the inside?

Nothing in either of those dictates that you necessarily have a particular background -- just that whatever else happened, so did this.

So much for Dwarven Battleragers and the like

Sez who? Perhaps there's a clan of dwarven barbarians as well. Or maybe "dwarven battleragers" (whatever they look like in NEXT) aren't actually of the Barbarian class, though they have similar abilities.

There's nothing here that mandates anything that restrictive.

If a class starts to stray away from "what you do" and into "where you came from" too deep then it needs to be reigned in.

Just because you also trained as a monk doesn't mean you also aren't a guttersnipe or a commoner or a noble or a thief or whatever. Folks have all sorts of lifestyles before they join a monastery.

Just because you also trained with the barbarians doesn't mean you also aren't a socialite or an entertainer or an engineer or whatever. Folks have all sorts of lifestyles before they're forged in the wilderness with the brutes.

Those counter-intuitive backgrounds make for interesting stories, and there's nothing that would forbid them in the more-specific fluff of a given class.

 

[mlund]

They've already gone on record as saying that, outside of the Core 4, the other classes can be more specific and narrow.

More specific and narrow in their niche - what they do and how they operate - is fine.

More specific and narrow in their origin options? That's completely unnecessary.

They've talked about Rangers being a particular organization, forex.

Yes. That's what you do now. You could have an origin where you didn't sign on that dotted line until the moment you joined the class (at level 1, or maybe higher). Maybe a prior member of said organization was fatally wounded saving you and placed a signet ring in your hand and made you swear an oath, Green Lantern style. Then again, maybe you spent years training under this organization.

That distinction shouldn't matter for the purposes of the class, but then mean everything to the background of the character.

Also, none of this invalidates backgrounds that go against the grain.

It certainly limits them. What if I want to play a Martial Artist who never stepped foot in a monastery? What if I learned Kung Fu by doing nothing but watching? What if I developed a variant of the Iron Fist Style from a misspent youth street fighting?

AD&D / 3E Monks say you can't. In fact, being a Chaotic or Neutral character based on lifestyle, personality, and origin means you can't advance in the Unarmed Martial Arts and Stunts the Monk has monopolized. It's a clear illustration of the problems with marrying a class to a background. The other one is the original Unearthed Arcana barbarian.

- Marty Lund

 

[I'm A Banana]

More specific and narrow in their niche - what they do and how they operate - is fine.

More specific and narrow in their origin options? That's completely unnecessary.

No one is talking about limited origin options. I'm talking about narrower archetypes. Including the idea that certain classes come from certain places/peoples/organizations in the world.

It's not shocking or new. The very first druids, monks, assassins, and even clerics all had organizations to which they belonged right out of the gate.

It's not restrictive or limited. No one's proposing a new rule whereby your background options are limited. Your ranger might be part of a particular organization, but that doesn't mean she's not also a Noble or a Sage or a Dwarf. Your paladin might be part of a particular knighthood, but that doesn't mean he's also not a halfling and a thief.

Understand this: just because certain classes are linked to certain world elements doesn't limit your character into necessarily being a stereotypical part of that world element.

If that doesn't make sense to you, I'd be happy to talk about it further. If it does make sense to you, we can all stop the Chicken Little routine about how if Barbarians are linked to a barbarian culture that means that no one can be a barbarian without a specific SAVAGE background and move on with the conversation.

You could have an origin where you didn't sign on that dotted line until the moment you joined the class (at level 1, or maybe higher). Maybe a prior member of said organization was fatally wounded saving you and placed a signet ring in your hand and made you swear an oath, Green Lantern style. Then again, maybe you spent years training under this organization.

Exactly. Barbarians and monks and paladins and rangers and assassins and whatever else can all be like that. Heck, fighters and wizards and rogues and clerics could be too, but they're making an effort to expand those classes out a bit.

It certainly limits them. What if I want to play a Martial Artist who never stepped foot in a monastery? What if I learned Kung Fu by doing nothing but watching? What if I developed a variant of the Iron Fist Style from a misspent youth street fighting?
...
AD&D / 3E Monks say you can't. In fact, being a Chaotic or Neutral character based on lifestyle, personality, and origin means you can't advance in the Unarmed Martial Arts and Stunts the Monk has monopolized. It's a clear illustration of the problems with marrying a class to a background. The other one is the original Unearthed Arcana barbarian.

And what if you wanted to have Ranger abilities and never joined up with the Rangers, right?

I'm 100% positive that these fluff elements won't be forced down your throat by WotC's fun police. In fact, it'll probably be explicitly mentioned in the DMG. Want to have that kind of monk? Okay, fine, under any DM who doesn't really give a fig, do it. Just like your Chaotic Neutral 3e Monk. Or your Lawful Evil 3e Barbarian. Or your 2e dwarven paladin. Rule Zero that noise. 5e, in being modular, I believe will be designed in such a way that these fluff ideas aren't mechanically enforced (ie: your 5e dwaren paladin won't be "unbalanced,"), so there's nothing stopping you.

It's smart to tether this by default for two big reasons, though.

1. So newbs have a narrative and archetype to jump onto. Give someone new to D&D a "Brawler" class without any context and they'll often shrug and not care. Give them a "Monk" class tethered to kung-fu archetypes and ideas of asceticism, and you've got anyone who likes Bruce Lee already sketching the dragon pattern on the back of their gi. Engagement, especially for newbs, is priceless.
2. So DMs can hook NPCs and organizations into the world easily. Give a DM broad advice about how organizations can provide for interesting plot hooks and they'll often look at you slack-jawed and maybe say "duh." Give them an organization of monks complete with rivalries and competitions and you've got the plot of The Karate Kid going (only Mr. Miyagi is a halfling).

There's a few ancillary reasons, too, such as the idea that powerful abilities are secret knowledge that must be acquired via adventure (and thus cannot be gained by any old street tough), but those two reasons are the big ones, and that alone makes it a pretty good idea, IMO.

And any DM or player who is advanced at his make-believe can look at the fluff, say, "Naaah, I've got a better idea," and nix it. No problem, no risk, no issue.

 

[Kinak]

There's a few ancillary reasons, too, such as the idea that powerful abilities are secret knowledge that must be acquired via adventure (and thus cannot be gained by any old street tough), but those two reasons are the big ones, and that alone makes it a pretty good idea, IMO.

Agreed.

I like how it creates places to slot in your own flavor. If you have, say, an order of Fight Club-esque urban barbarians, it's nice to have an slot for the mechanical backing they need, even if that backing isn't explicitly provided.

Six barbarian tribes are, in essence, six ways to make barbarians fit your setting better. Giving completely bland options just bogs down character creation without adding anything to the world or the story.

And any DM or player who is advanced at his make-believe can look at the fluff, say, "Naaah, I've got a better idea," and nix it. No problem, no risk, no issue.

It's important to note that even descriptions people don't like will help this along. "I like the Blood Raven tribe mechanically, but it just doesn't work for me story-wise" means, regardless of how dumb you think the Blood Raven are, you're already engaged on figuring out a replacement story. And that's exactly where I want my players to be when they're making characters.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[thewok]

Much like a Berserker is someone who has gained the ability to tap into a powerful rage to fight. Meanwhile a Barbarian is someone of any class who comes from a barbaric cultural Background.

There is a difference between a Barbarian and a barbarian. One is a collection of abilities, while the other is a classification of people.

In the same vein, there's a difference between a Monk and a monk. One is a collection of abilities, one lives in a monastery. Just because you roll up a Scoundrel in Star Wars doesn't mean you're a scoundrel.

edit: I should say that class names are not considered in-character for me, usually. Class names are merely there to differentiate the classes. People in my campaign world might freely interchange "sorcerer" and "wizard." And "fighter" just means anyone who engages in combat.