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

[Remathilis]

I really hate quoting myself, but since this is the same argument over again...

Short answer: No.

Long answer: Only if you want poor-man's versions of each class. A druid isn't just a cleric with a wolfie-pal. He has unique armor, weapons, spell lists, powers, restrictions, and outlook. A ranger is more than a dual-wielder with survival as a skill; he is a tracker, ambusher, skirmisher, survivalist, and part-time druid (who is not a nature cleric). You can't begin to fit "monk" or "bard" into four feats over nine levels (unless your point is to reduce them to shadows of their former power) and that doesn't EVEN begin to address alternate methods of doing the same thing (sorcerer spontaneous casting vs. wizard vancian vs. warlock at-will).

Further, it robs me of the ability to multi-class or the ability to customize my own class (to make a paladin with the slayer specialty or a magic-user/druid), and if I turn off backgrounds and themes, I lose access to all classes but the core four again.

No Thank You. Assassin, Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Warlock, Warlord, & Wizard in the PHB.

 

[slobster]

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?

Sounds good. I know that I want to have wizards, sorcerors, warlocks, psions, specialists, wild mages, summoners, shugenja, artificers, and more all in the same game. I also know that, the business being what it is, splatbooks will eventually supply them in spades. But I have no problems with a few core classes being robust enough to encompass all likely archetypes in the fictional world without using different mechanics. Seems like a win-win, to me.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

Actually, the minor class features and differences jumped those classes up tiers or usefulness in 3.0/3.5. Especially with core, as the core fighter then was so terrible compared to anything else.

 

[ferratus]

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.

A paladin never could heal someone back to full health with an action, unless there was a HUGE level disparity between them. I can certainly see a paladin speciality power that gives you 2 hp of healing per hit die with an action that involves you touching the person. I can also see a feat granting you a single spell from another class.

For the ranger, why would insta-charming a bear be considered a powerful ability? That's been a handle animal check for two editions now, and charming animals isn't nearly as powerful as charming people or monsters. As long as the animal is of your hit dice or lower, it can certainly be a speciality power.

As for cleric transforming into a T-Rex, we could always do that in third edition with a spell. Wizards can do it too, if you prefer your druids as being specialty wizards instead (some do).

 

[GX.Sigma]

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.

Because people want to be able to take ranger as a class, and use their background and specialty for other things.

Because many people will play without backgrounds and specialties.

Because the ranger class is iconic to D&D, and people expect to see it.

Because the ranger will have unique mechanics that will not be the same as the fighter mechanics.

Because the ranger is flavorfully distinct from the fighter; the fighter being a formally trained warrior, and the ranger being a hunter, stalker, and protector.

 

[ferratus]

Actually, the minor class features and differences jumped those classes up tiers or usefulness in 3.0/3.5. Especially with core, as the core fighter then was so terrible compared to anything else.

Then why could I build a fighter that could, with enough feats, do the paladin's smiting damage every round? A paladin's mount was not much better than any other horse, especially since you had no feat slots to learn how to ride it properly. A paladin's healing was good for stabilizing, but you had to stop attacking what was eating the party to do it. By the time you got spells, they were generally too minor to make much of a difference.

So yeah, they had their uses... but made them more useful than the fighter? I find that a little hard to swallow.

But the increased skills and minor powers that made the ranger and paladin different could be covered by the speciality. Make up a 1st level fighter with the acolyte speciality and the healer background, and it will be like your 1st level Paladin from the 3e era never left.

 

[ferratus]

Because the ranger will have unique mechanics that will not be the same as the fighter mechanics.

Because the ranger is flavorfully distinct from the fighter; the fighter being a formally trained warrior, and the ranger being a hunter, stalker, and protector.

As I said in my OP, those two points are the only reason I'd accept the Ranger as a new class. If the Ranger does not fulfill those two requirements, then you can keep your Ranger. I already got one.

 

[Minigiant]

A paladin never could heal someone back to full health with an action, unless there was a HUGE level disparity between them. I can certainly see a paladin speciality power that gives you 2 hp of healing per hit die with an action that involves you touching the person. I can also see a feat granting you a single spell from another class.

For the ranger, why would insta-charming a bear be considered a powerful ability? That's been a handle animal check for two editions now, and charming animals isn't nearly as powerful as charming people or monsters. As long as the animal is of your hit dice or lower, it can certainly be a speciality power.

As for cleric transforming into a T-Rex, we could always do that in third edition with a spell. Wizards can do it too, if you prefer your druids as being specialty wizards instead (some do).

My points is there is no evidence that you can simply slap a specialty or background on a character who can't do it already and suddenly have a fighter befriend purple wurms within a hour or make the rogue into the main healer and buffer.

Now if the later specialties are more powerful, then fine. But ATM, specs and BGs are just minor tweaks. And the difference between a ranger and rogue, a paladin and cleric, or a barbarian and fighter is not minor tweaks to some people.

 

[ferratus]

Originally Posted by Remathilis

Short answer: No.

Long answer: Only if you want poor-man's versions of each class.

See, whereas I think I've been getting the poor man's version of a full class for many editions now, and I'm tired of it. I can already make the poor man's version with specialities and backgrounds that look like 3e class, so I want something more.

 

[ferratus]

My points is there is no evidence that you can simply slap a specialty or background on a character who can't do it already and suddenly have a fighter befriend purple wurms within a hour or make the rogue into the main healer and buffer.

You are confusing the Wizard (with charm monster on the purple worm) with the Ranger, and Cleric (the main healer and buffer) with Paladin here. Nobody is doubtinbg the Cleric's and Wizard's place at the table. They are called the big 4 for a reason, in that they have a defined role in the game. The rogue is the skilled one, the Cleric is the healer and buffer, the Wizard is the spellcaster, and the Fighter is the defender and slayer.

Now if the later specialties are more powerful, then fine. But ATM, specs and BGs are just minor tweaks. And the difference between a ranger and rogue, a paladin and cleric, or a barbarian and fighter is not minor tweaks to some people.

If WotC wants to convince me of that, they have to do a better job than people have done so far. Because a ranger and paladin are just minor tweaks in D&D. With backgrounds and specialities available for minor tweaks now, there is a lot less for classes to do. So they better start justifying their existence and coming up with something better. I can already play the Ranger that is just a minor tweak of a fighter.