Strip "Background" out of classes

[spudspotato]

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.

Thinking more on the issue, as a basic rule I don't want (nor do I expect) themes named after old classes. Fighter/Ranger/Scout I wouldn't want taking the place of a ranger. But I'd rather see Ranger/Sharpshooter/Scout or Fighter/Sharpshooter/Scout Fighter/Two-Weapon/Scout etc.

 

[Remathilis]

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.

Exactly.

I am literally mystified as to why so many people want to get rid of iconic D&D classes like paladin or ranger. I want versions that themes can customize, not to turn some wilderness background and archery theme into a knockoff ranger...

 

[Li Shenron]

Backgrounds are a different thing than "cultural backgrounds", they are about "what you do in the background of adventures".

In fact, what the heck could be an "asian" background in terms of skills?

I'm not even sure in fact that "barbarian" would work so well as a background...

In fact we now have seen a "commoner" background (what do you do off adventuring? pretty much a normal job), a "priest" background (you administer a cult), "soldier" (I am employed in an army/local militia), "sage" (I study books), "knight" (I am a noble, I stay in the court, go to banquets and tournaments).

ALL the above could work in an asian culture! And ALL of the above (perhaps with some issues with the "knight") could work in a barbaric tribe.

 

[Fifth Element]

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.

And presumably the response each time you explain this is: "Okay, which classes are iconic then?"

It's not like "iconic class" is a precise term. Ask a dozen players which D&D classes are iconic, and you'll get at least 10 different lists. Now, surely some few classes will appear on all the lists, but how many? Fighter, cleric, rogue and wizard? Remember that rangers and paladins were subclasses of fighters for a very long time.

What I'm saying is, your statement is too general to be of any real use in making decisions with respect to game design.

 

[Sadrik]

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.

You are very good at drawing up straw man arguments. Either option works and by their admission they would like to see either option work. If a group wants to play with only the common classes (F/C/W/R) they should be able to do that. I personally would like to see 10-12 classes that do not mechanically step on the toes of the other classes. I would like to see the backgrounds stripped out of them, so that I can decide on the background. I would like to see the feat system lensed through the themes to create niche classes.

I want to play a fighter/woodsman, a rogue/woodsman, and a ranger/woodsman. The important thing here is that they should all feel mechanically different, but they should all have a similar backstory... guy from the woods who can survive out in the forest. These should all feel much different in backstory from a fighter/investigator, a rogue/investigator, and a ranger/investigator.

 

[Minigiant]

And presumably the response each time you explain this is: "Okay, which classes are iconic then?"

It's not like "iconic class" is a precise term. Ask a dozen players which D&D classes are iconic, and you'll get at least 10 different lists. Now, surely some few classes will appear on all the lists, but how many? Fighter, cleric, rogue and wizard? Remember that rangers and paladins were subclasses of fighters for a very long time.

What I'm saying is, your statement is too general to be of any real use in making decisions with respect to game design.

Those subclasses of the past are classes today. And even then, you'd want to be able to make several versions of them anyway.

According to the wiki, it's Assassin, Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Magic-User/Mage/Wizard, Monk/Mystic, Paladin, Psion/Psionicist, Ranger, Shaman, Sorcerer Thief/Rogue, Warlock, and Warlord/Marshal.

Now I don't know if all of them can fit in the first group of books as full base classes but they should appear in some form by name and have various builds.

 

[Sadrik]

Backgrounds are a different thing than "cultural backgrounds", they are about "what you do in the background of adventures".

In fact, what the heck could be an "asian" background in terms of skills?

I'm not even sure in fact that "barbarian" would work so well as a background...

In fact we now have seen a "commoner" background (what do you do off adventuring? pretty much a normal job), a "priest" background (you administer a cult), "soldier" (I am employed in an army/local militia), "sage" (I study books), "knight" (I am a noble, I stay in the court, go to banquets and tournaments).

ALL the above could work in an asian culture! And ALL of the above (perhaps with some issues with the "knight") could work in a barbaric tribe.

You make an excellent point. As I recall there was a kit called outsider that basically captured everyone from outside your culture. I could see something like that again. Cultural backgrounds do seem valid, but you are right that backgrounds seem more like professions as presented currently. And it is kind of a cop out to just say outsider. At the same time though, do we really want to see the detail of backgrounds something like Kara-tur priest as opposed to heartlands priest. It could be that culture, could be an optional add on to backgrounds which changes starting languages, and perhaps swaps out 1 skill for another, and perhaps gives a drawback too, illiterate for instance. Either way it is tricky.

 

[steeldragons]

You make an excellent point. As I recall there was a kit called outsider that basically captured everyone from outside your culture. I could see something like that again. Cultural backgrounds do seem valid, but you are right that backgrounds seem more like professions as presented currently. And it is kind of a cop out to just say outsider. At the same time though, do we really want to see the detail of backgrounds something like Kara-tur priest as opposed to heartlands priest. It could be that culture, could be an optional add on to backgrounds which changes starting languages, and perhaps swaps out 1 skill for another, and perhaps gives a drawback too, illiterate for instance. Either way it is tricky.

Waaay over thinking and analyzing and hoping...if you ask me/my humble opinion.

Take the backgrounds for what they are intended to be. Your place in the world and what you do/did when you weren't adventuring. That's all. A few skills...and a trait (from what I hear recently).

You are attributing much to much importance on "the Background." Again, imho.

A dozen characters could all have the same BG..even the same Theme...and still be a dozen different distinctive characters.

 

[BobTheNob]

Exactly.

I am literally mystified as to why so many people want to get rid of iconic D&D classes like paladin or ranger. I want versions that themes can customize, not to turn some wilderness background and archery theme into a knockoff ranger...

I am on your side. Rangers are good.

That said....shhhhh. Count to ten. Relax.

I was of the position that the Class/Background/Theme approach could have covered off the ranger (paladin too for that matter). Why? Because good design requires people to be open minded. New ideas can bring revolution, but if we close our minds, nothing ever changes. Does that apply this time around? Well, I kept my mind open to the idea, and eventually, after considering all positions, decided the ranger is its own class. Hurah! No change this time around, but at least I considered the possibility.

Its not the fact that I have come to the conclusion that the ranger should be its own class that makes me happy. Im happy that I kept my mind open and listened to all arguments.

I understand the position of others and respect their right to their opinions

This quote earlier

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

I will give you the benefit of the doubt that this was a mis-type and its was the position of the "crowd" you didnt like, and not the crowd itself.

 

[Fifth Element]

According to the wiki, it's Assassin, Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Magic-User/Mage/Wizard, Monk/Mystic, Paladin, Psion/Psionicist, Ranger, Shaman, Sorcerer Thief/Rogue, Warlock, and Warlord/Marshal.

Not sure what wiki you're referring to, but it seems you're listing every class that has appeared in a Player's Handbook as a base class, barring illusionist. Wait, no, because you have the psionicist and shaman in there. What is this list supposed to be?