D&D 5E D&D Next Blog: Beyond Class & Race

[TarionzCousin]

This may be the best 5E article/blog/interpretive dance yet.

Simplicity for those who want it; complexity and choice for the rest.

 

[WheresMyD20]

Nonweapon Proficiencies and Background Skills beg to differ. They might be marked as Optional, but they were there.

Be that as it may, the point still stands that the system worked just fine without them.

 

[tlantl]

Check out the 3.0 DMG p.91-p.92 (someone with the 3.5 DMG can tell you if it is there and the page). There is a variant starting at the bottom of page 91 for Skills with alternate Ability Scores. It, specifically, mentions Climb using dex instead of strength and using Ride (modified by Wisdom) to Appraise horses.

It's in a side bar on page 33 of the 3.5 DMG.

 

[Dungeonosophy]

i'm not sure what kind of d&d you'd be playing if you didn't ever deal with skills.

becmi d&d

 

[Dungeonosophy]

Backgrounds and Themes so far

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]So far we have:[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Backgrounds:[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Thief[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Soldier[/FONT]
“[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]mystical warrior” (magicky) (or is this a Theme?)[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Themes:[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Pub-crawler[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Commoner[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Noble[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Knight[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Planetouched[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Deva[/FONT]
Avenger
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Sharpshooter[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Slayer[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Lurker[/FONT]

Did I miss any?

Perhaps some of the Themes from early reports would now be considered Backgrounds.

 

[Dungeonosophy]

Some of these names are "demoted" from being full-blown classes in earlier editions. A whole 20 levels of flavorful class abilities are being distilled into skill and feat pre-gen packages.

Knight (3e)
Noble (Dragonlance 3e)

There's no inherent reason--other than space limitations--why these couldn't be given full class treatment in 5e. I recognize the designers can only fit so much into the core 5e PHB.

A similar process in 2e "demoted" the Assassin, Barbarian, Cavalier, Thief-Acrobat, and Monk into kits, losing much crunch and flavor.

 

[Thalionalfirin]

I'm not sure what kind of D&D you'd be playing if you didn't ever deal with skills. Feats I can take them or leave them provided there's some form of customization. But skills are well...the other two pillars of the game, I don't think it'd quite be D&D if you ran the whole thing off the 6 ability scores.

1e (and prior) worked perfectly fine without a codified skill system. Granted, the Wilderness Survival Guide and the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide introduced non-weapon proficiencies but those were completely optional and we never used them.

I guess techincally the thief skills in 1e could constitute a skill system... but that's kind of a stretch.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Some of these names are "demoted" from being full-blown classes in earlier editions. A whole 20 levels of flavorful class abilities are being distilled into skill and feat pre-gen packages.

Knight (3e)
Noble (Dragonlance 3e)

There's no inherent reason--other than space limitations--why these couldn't be given full class treatment in 5e.

Um, I have a few. For example: Those don't deserve to be full classes, as they are perfect examples of things which should be themes or backgrounds rather than full classes.

Also, it's not like they went "you know the Knight class? That's a theme now." No, they just went "If you want your fighter to be thematically a knight, you can take this theme rather than have it be a separate class for some reason."

Also, it's not like any class ever had a whole 20 levels of flavorful class abilities.

A similar process in 2e "demoted" the Assassin, Barbarian, Cavalier, Thief-Acrobat, and Monk into kits, losing much crunch and flavor.

Again, those made perfect sense to be kits (except monk, which they changed back; and Assassin, which is debatable).

What is a Thief-Acrobat but a Thief with some acrobatics skill? What is a Cavalier but a Fighter or Paladin who owns a horse? What is a Barbarian but an angry Ranger? Actually, why should "barbarian" exist as a class at all when it is obviously a cultural thing, and you should have some people of "barbarian" tribes who are magic-users, or thieves? Makes more sense to make it a theme or background.

 

[YRUSirius]

"Themes" are nothing else than the "sub-classes" from D&D Essentials (slayer, knight) or the builds from classic D&D 4E.

"Backgrounds" are kinda like the 4E themes but without powers.

Feats seem to have replaced 4E powers and 3E feats, because they will provide the fighter with new "maneuvers" and class features (think battle guardian, brutal strike). The 5E feats will be grouped under these new themes.

New players can just chose the theme they want and they will get specific feats at specific levels. Think fixed feat tree. Battle Guardian -> level 1. Superior Battle Guardian -> level 3. Weapon Spezialisation -> level 5.

Advanced players will be able to mix feats from different themes from their class. Or even multi-class into other classes and mix the feats from their themes.

I like it.

Question is if the feats under the themes are a feat tree for the advanced players too or not. Say if they have to take the first feat of the "slayer" theme or not to get the 2nd feat, etc.

-YRUSirius

 

[Dungeonosophy]

Also, it's not like they went "you know the Knight class? That's a theme now." No, they just went "If you want your fighter to be thematically a knight, you can take this theme rather than have it be a separate class for some reason."

I agree that the demotion of some classes into themes isn't malicious.

Also, it's not like any class ever had a whole 20 levels of flavorful class abilities.

That's true.

Um, I have a few. For example: Those don't deserve to be full classes, as they are perfect examples of things which should be themes or backgrounds rather than full classes. [...]

Again, those made perfect sense to be kits (except monk, which they changed back; and Assassin, which is debatable).

What is a Thief-Acrobat but a Thief with some acrobatics skill? What is a Cavalier but a Fighter or Paladin who owns a horse? What is a Barbarian but an angry Ranger? Actually, why should "barbarian" exist as a class at all when it is obviously a cultural thing, and you should have some people of "barbarian" tribes who are magic-users, or thieves? Makes more sense to make it a theme or background.

This kind of thinking retroactively justifies whatever decisions Zeb Cook and the 2e design team actually made. It's not enlivened thinking, because I sense if TSR had made the Bard into a Rogue kit and kept the Barbarian as a 2e core class, then one would be saying now: "this made perfect sense...why should the "bard" exist at all...?".

Yet I do recognize that, as a distillation of all previous iterations, the 5e PHB, for organic reasons, is going to "boil down" some of the names into sub-class options.

I'm only pointing out an elephant in the room. The WotC designers are talented enough to take any class/profession name and turn it into a full-fledged 4e or 5e class. Ultimately, the decision isn't a design limitation, but a space limitation.