If we have specialities, why do we need a plethora of classes?

[ferratus]

I don't really want to get into it, but I don't wholly agree here. I think it held for some cases. But swordmages played differently from wardens,

Oh, I don't doubt that they played differently, but that was certainly because of the powers. If you had given the swordmage the ability to nail people down with the Warden's grasping mark, and added some arcane fluff to it, it still would have felt right. If you had given the warden some tree striding or earth moving abilities in order to use the swordmage's mark, that would have felt right too.

All the defenders had a mark ability, all strikers did ranged or melee damage to single (or very few) targets, all controllers forced movement and took away actions and all leaders healed. So there could have been a lot more swapping of powers and builds between the classes and it still would have worked. It is not hard to imagine a fighter-esque warden who takes fighter powers, but keeps his "nail down everything that moves" central mechanic. A bit more difficult to see the other way of course, but that's the flavour text of power sources rather than of classes.

The powers also had things that interacted with the class to make them play differently that didn't really need to happen. Take the artful dodger's mobility. If the mobility powers hadn't been based on charisma, thuggish rogues or even assassins could dipped in to the rogues powers be a little more nimble, and the result still would have worked.

Going back to Defenders, I can take completely refluff the Swordmages' Aegis of Shielding as a form of barkskin, the warden's grasping mark*, the Paladin's Divine Challenge as Call Lightning, and the fighter's weapon challenge* just because I use a big club. Then you could take powers from each of these classes, and by in large it would still work if you were allowed to use the same ability score for all. It would also, with a little flavour refluffing, still look like a druidic fighter. The powers reinforced the build of that class, this is true, but it is easy to see that they could have stood on their own.

Now is this mixed class going to play exactly like each of the four classes? Nope. But the more powers you choose of one class or another, the more it is going to play like that class. Powers, to put it simply, are simply more important for mechanical differences than the class itself.

*(Apologies for getting the terms wrong, but hopefully I'm understandable, I've already sold my 4e books. I remember Paladins and Swordmages because I liked them better.)

 

[Ratskinner]

What if I want to play a paladin type that's a sharpshooter? A fighter seems like a nice class to start with, and I'll just take the sharpshooter speciality and we're set.
<snippage> If only there was some way I could make this whole ordeal easier, such as simply choosing the paladin class and the sharpshooter speciality.

I guess I would respond in a few ways.

Firstly, if there's a unique mechanical schtick to Paladin that would put in on par with the other classes...I have no problem with having a Paladin class. However, it needs to be more than just a dual-specialty, if that's the case. Mechanically, I couldn't tell you what that schtick is, yet.

Secondly, <Zoidberg>it sounds like you're trying to sneak a little something extra into the character maybe?<Zoidberg> (see below).

Thirdly, what's iconic? The character concept? or the fact that its a class? If you can still be the Shining Armor/Gods-driven thing-that-is-a-Paladin, what difference does it make? Sure, maybe that's a Fighter with the Crusader specialty nowadays, but so what?

Fourthly, think multiclassing. I know its not a very satisfying response, but its also there.

Fifthly, that variety thing swings both ways. If Paladin is a specialty, then you can have Wizard-x-Paladins, and Rogue-x-Paladins. Maybe your arrow-shooting Paladin is Ranger-x-Paladin.

Classes like the ranger and the paladin are very iconic to D&D, and I'd wager that for a lot of people they're even a dealbreaker. Sure, you can give players the option of creating them with specialities and backgrounds, but then you're robbing them of potential flavor and customization. I can create a decent ranger or a paladin using a fighter, a background and a speciality, but without them as base classes, I can't create a ranger or a paladin with unique background and unique specializations. I can't create a ranger with the thief background or a paladin with the lurker specialization. I've spent my potential customization (background/theme) to create a bog standard ranger/paladin.

Perhaps that's because a Ranger or Paladin (and many of the "also-ran" classes) in previous editions has already got that specialization baked in. Of course, whether that's true or not depends on what you consider important for these classes. If you take all the mechanical and story oomph of a traditional Ranger or Paladin, squeeze it into a 5e class, and then get to take a background and specialty in addition to that...then no.

So the real question is: "What makes a Paladin a Paladin?" How much, and what parts, of a traditional paladin are in Background, and how much in the implicit Theme, and what's there for the class? Personally, I like [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s answer best so far. A Paladin is best at being the hero, the boyscout, the selfless defender of goodness. Now, make that work mechanically, and you've got yourself a class. (Or maybe its a specialty...prolly depends on how it ends up working, I guess.)

 

[slobster]

Going back to Defenders, I can take completely refluff the Swordmages' Aegis of Shielding as a form of barkskin, the warden's grasping mark*, the Paladin's Divine Challenge as Call Lightning, and the fighter's weapon challenge* just because I use a big club. Then you could take powers from each of these classes, and by in large it would still work if you were allowed to use the same ability score for all.

Yes, all of that is true, but what that means is that fluff can be divorced from mechanics. I don't find anything to disagree with there!

But the Aegis of shielding is a class ability limited to swordmages, so my point is that, in 4E rules, swordmages play differently than wardens do. You could take the swordmage, change nothing about its mechanics, and reflavor all of its abilities to be primal. You could change the class background to be identical to wardens. You could turn them into a primal defender, just like the warden.

Yet the class would still play differently from wardens, because the mechanics are still different.

That's all I'm saying, and I want 5E to do this as well. Classes should be mechanically distinct from each other, because I always have the option of changing around the fiction of how they work to match my own campaign objectives.

 

[Victim]

At this point, most of the specialties barely do anything. Unless you're a rogue, the Sharpshooter specialty basically only helps at mook sweeping and other corner cases. Put a fighter with that specialty and one simply good at using a bow in a lot of fights, and the difference won't be noticeable.

I kind of expect classes to actually be significant.

 

[GX.Sigma]

This again?

If I want to play a ranger with the playtest packet with D&D Next, I can pretty much already do it. I I just need a start with a fighter and give him a good dex. Then I need is a background that gives me spot, stealth, survival and nature lore. If I take the sharpshooter speciality, I essentially have the low-level 3.5 ranger. So... why do I need a Ranger class?

Because a Ranger is not merely a dex-based Fighter? Because that character would have formal training in combat maneuvers, and would not have animal companions, favored terrain, favored enemy, spellcasting, alertness, or tracking?

 

[ferratus]

What if I want to play a paladin type that's a sharpshooter? A fighter seems like a nice class to start with, and I'll just take the sharpshooter speciality and we're set.

In a single sentence? Swap out your fighter fighting styles and add in the paladin speciality. That's what you are pretty much doing if the paladin doesn't have a unique mechanic anyway. All the class would be is something that instead of having a fighting style, has holy smiting powers and a bit of healing instead.

Plus, like someone else said, that cuts both ways. What if I want to take ranger as a speciality if I'm a wizard? I can imagine a character concept where a wizard is a sentinel on the edge of some fey woods. I can't do it if the ranger is a class instead of a speciality/without clumsy multiclassing.

Then you have other classes. What if I want to play a priest of Odin who casts and inscribes runes (I'd call that class the Runepriest) but also is a sharpshooter? What if I also want to play a mage that specializes in creating magic items but is also a sharpshooter? Where is my artificer class?

Classes like the ranger and the paladin are very iconic to D&D, and I'd wager that for a lot of people they're even a dealbreaker. Sure, you can give players the option of creating them with specialities and backgrounds, but then you're robbing them of potential flavor and customization.

For some people not having feats and skills is a deal breaker. too, even though they provide flavor and customization. You can still though, run a perfectly good D&D game without them.

That said, I don't have problem with the existence of Rangers, Paladins, Bards, Assassins etc. as classes. I just have two assertions:

1) A flexible enough basic core game can handle the flavour of those classes without actually needing classes, with backgrounds and specialities doing almost all of the work that a new class used to do.

2) As we pretty much have our bases covered to make a pure representation of that class, we can have a full basic game ready and playtested before we worry about making unique class mechanics for Rangers, Paladins, Artificers and what not. Why have a class that looks like a subclass when you can have a new class that is interesting?

 

[ferratus]

This again?Because a Ranger is not merely a dex-based Fighter? Because that character would have formal training in combat maneuvers, and would not have animal companions, favored terrain, favored enemy, spellcasting, alertness, or tracking?

The right background would give you all the skills you need. The Magic-user speciality gives you spells and an animal companion. That's almost everything you mentioned right there.

Of course, you can also make a "Sentinel" or "Woodsman" speciality that gives you favoured terrain, favoured enemy, a couple spells, and a bonus to tracking and to spot skills. So why do we need the Ranger class for that? If the Ranger is fighting with a different set of mechanics, then we need a Ranger class.

Take the scout class in 3e. What is it's purpose? If they had made all of the scout's class abilities fighter feats, you could have just as easily done it with a fighter, or allowed the fighter to pick up some speed, archery or woodsman skills without needing to multiclass. The scout is an example of redundant design, and that's something we shouldn't repeat for 5e.

 

[Minigiant]

At this point, most of the specialties barely do anything. Unless you're a rogue, the Sharpshooter specialty basically only helps at mook sweeping and other corner cases. Put a fighter with that specialty and one simply good at using a bow in a lot of fights, and the difference won't be noticeable.

I kind of expect classes to actually be significant.

This too.

ATM, specialties and backgrounds are weak. VERY weak. I very much doubt we'll get a spec or BG strong enough to make a fighter insta-charm a bear like a ranger or let a rogue heal an ally back to full health with an action or a cleric transform into a T-Rex like a druid.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I think that they could probably eliminate half the need for additional classes if every character started with either zero, one, or two specialties--with ways to adjust for those that didn't have them. (That is, something core class specific that you get if you don't take either or both specialties.) Yet, I don't think they'll go there, not least because they want us to need more classes.

Beyond that, my ideal is that additional classes wouldn't look at "need" at all, but be more opportunistic. If they have some great idea for a mechanic that fully expresses paladin, then they make a paladin class to "showcase" that mechanic. Need is irrelevant.

That is, I have no objections to having ranger, paladin, barbarian, etc. specifically. I do have an objection to deciding that we are going to have each and every one of them, no matter what, even if they are substandard and/or better represented by specialty or other bits. For yet another slant, I object to having a "bad ranger" now just to check off that we have "ranger" when we could have a decent ranger-ish specialty (or whatever) now and leave open the option for a "good ranger" later. Obviously, that's moot if we do have the "good ranger" now.

 

[ferratus]

At this point, most of the specialties barely do anything. Unless you're a rogue, the Sharpshooter specialty basically only helps at mook sweeping and other corner cases. Put a fighter with that specialty and one simply good at using a bow in a lot of fights, and the difference won't be noticeable.

Sure, but in 3e/3.5 the abilities which the subclasses (Ranger, Paladin, Bard, Barbarian) had were generally weak in comparison to the abilities that they shared in common with the fighter. What was most important was the shared basic attack bonus and the shared feats (whether they got them as class abiltiies or not). The smite and healing of the paladin, and the spells and skills of the ranger, were both minor abilities that were tacked on a fighter shell.

Specialities can certainly carry the weight of those minor abilties, to the same degree that they are carried in 3.5. If it was good enough then (and still now given the amount who play 3.5) why isn't it good enough until we find something that is more robust and interesting as a mechanic for paladins and rangers?