Reasons to have paladins and rangers as classes

[Abstruse]

You keep using that term. I do not think it means what you think it means.

A theme is a collection of feats built around a specific role or function. That's all it is, feats. The healer theme is a collection of feats that enhance healing. It doesn't give the PC access to cure spells, or lay on hands, or access to rituals. Likewise, the lurker give you some feats that improve hiding, but doesn't give you sneak attack.

If we decide to make barbarian, or ranger, or paladin a theme, then we decide that its class features are nothing more than feats. Since feats are technically unbound from themes (you can customize your own theme) then I can now build a wizard with lay on hands, or a rogue with barbarian rage, or an cleric who has bard songs. Worse, you can mix and match until my fighter has smite evil, barbarian rage, and death strike. Are we willing to make such class features feats anyone can take?

Except feats have a long history of giving powers and the developers have stated that several classes which have multiple unique abilities will be themes, like Avenger and its Oath of Enmity power. Giving a berserker rage ability would be trivial. First level feat - Rage ability. Third level feat - Fast movement. Fifth level feat - Improved rage ability. Seventh level feat - Remove negatives from rage ability. So on.

There are also classes in other editions where the majority of class features were feats they got for free. For example, the ranger from 3.x/PF - Track and either Two-Weapon Fighting/Improved Two-Weapon Fighting or Point-Blank Shot/Precise Shot. And 4e had an absolute ton of feats that granted powers, which are normally granted by class abilities.

 

[Remathilis]

Except feats have a long history of giving powers and the developers have stated that several classes which have multiple unique abilities will be themes, like Avenger and its Oath of Enmity power. Giving a berserker rage ability would be trivial. First level feat - Rage ability. Third level feat - Fast movement. Fifth level feat - Improved rage ability. Seventh level feat - Remove negatives from rage ability. So on.

There are also classes in other editions where the majority of class features were feats they got for free. For example, the ranger from 3.x/PF - Track and either Two-Weapon Fighting/Improved Two-Weapon Fighting or Point-Blank Shot/Precise Shot. And 4e had an absolute ton of feats that granted powers, which are normally granted by class abilities.

Which doesn't answer my question: is lay on hands equal to a feat? Would you rather take Lay on Hand or Herbalist?

 

[Abstruse]

Which doesn't answer my question: is lay on hands equal to a feat? Would you rather take Lay on Hand or Herbalist?

Is +1 to attacks and +2 damage and strength modifier auto-damage on a miss equal to a feat? Because that's what the Slayer themes give apparently. I'd say that's worth lay on hands. It also depends on what lay on hands looks like.

Is the Oath of Enmity power worth a feat? Automatically getting advantage on melee attacks against one target in combat and being able to pick another one when that enemy dies? Because that's pretty much what the ability was in 4e and it's also been stated that avenger's going to be a theme. Imagine that on a rogue with its scaling sneak attack damage.

Fact of the matter is we don't know exactly how much a theme contributes to a character. We know nebulously that some AC, attack, and damage bonuses are coming from themes. We know they're giving feats. Other than that, there's a lot of stuff we flat out don't know about when it comes to themes and probably won't know until they tell us or release the character generation rules.

 

[Remathilis]

Is +1 to attacks and +2 damage and strength modifier auto-damage on a miss equal to a feat? Because that's what the Slayer themes give apparently. I'd say that's worth lay on hands. It also depends on what lay on hands looks like.

WHAAA???!?

+1 attack and +2 damage is from the Fighter Class. Its a CLASS FEATURE, not connected to theme. The damage is listed under Class:Fighter. All Slayer does is give you the Reaper feat, and then the Cleave feat at 3rd. If you swapped Slayer with Guardian, all that would happen is you swap two feats.

Go re-read the blog posts on themes so that you get they're nothing more than a collection of feats, and then decide if they're balanced against the current feats on the Playtest sheet.

Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible

The same approach to backgrounds also applies to themes. At heart, a theme is a feat-delivery system. Choosing a theme identifies the way you play your character. Your class will suggest a theme, but we expect you to choose whatever theme you like. The suggested theme for a fighter might be Slayer, while the suggested theme for a wizard might be Mystic. As a fighter, I can swap out Slayer for Guardian so I can do a better job protecting my allies. As a wizard, I can swap out Mystic for Lurker, and be all sneaky and stuff. Again, the theme works to help refine your choices, not constrict them. You can swap out feats from your theme for different ones or build new themes, assembling feats found in other themes.

Now, I will ask again nicely. Do we want All class features of the ranger, bard, druid, paladin, monk, barbarian, sorcerer, warlock, warlord, assassin, avenger, and god-knows-what-else classes to just be a bunch of feats any fighter, wizard or rogue can take?

If you answer yes, we want very different D&D Next games and I'm afraid we've come to loggerhead...

 

[Minigiant]

I personally think that any feature that is long, is complicated, or has a major impact on the game cannot be a theme by itself.

So you can't have a spell as a feat without a class to refer to it. Sneak attack can't be in a theme without a rogue class existing. Favred enemy and Rage are too big to simply be in themes as feats.

 

[Remathilis]

I personally think that any feature that is long, is complicated, or has a major impact on the game cannot be a theme by itself.

So you can't have a spell as a feat without a class to refer to it. Sneak attack can't be in a theme without a rogue class existing. Favred enemy and Rage are too big to simply be in themes as feats.

Additionally, we are reminded that Themes (and Backgrounds) need not be used and the game will still play. Currently, making X class a theme means that without the themes setting on, one cannot play that class. We need to remember that.

 

[Minigiant]

Additionally, we are reminded that Themes (and Backgrounds) need not be used and the game will still play. Currently, making X class a theme means that without the themes setting on, one cannot play that class. We need to remember that.

That too.

If Barbarian stuff (Rage) is a theme, You can't be a barbarian when themes are off.
If Paladin stuff (Lay on hands, smite) is a theme, You can't be a paladin when themes are off.
If Ranger (track, wild empathy) is a theme, You can't be a ranger when themes are off.

 

[Abstruse]

WHAAA???!?

+1 attack and +2 damage is from the Fighter Class. Its a CLASS FEATURE, not connected to theme. The damage is listed under Class:Fighter. All Slayer does is give you the Reaper feat, and then the Cleave feat at 3rd. If you swapped Slayer with Guardian, all that would happen is you swap two feats.

Don't make me dig through Mearls's Twitter account or the Q&A transcripts to find the quote that directly contradicts you where the lead developer for the game states unequivocally that there are attack and damage bonuses in the dwarf fighter pregen that come from both the fighter class and the slayer theme. I will if you force me, but I really have other far more productive things I could be doing with my time.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I thought we all collectively agreed that we would never again mention the Dhampir Vryloka Vampire...

I think it's relevant to conversations like this, because it shows the benefits of doing essentially the same thing in a few different ways. And that it isn't bad design or bad logic to do so. As long as that's true, it opens up the space of having "wilderness warrior" to many different sections of the game, and lets them all exist happily alongside each other.

Also, that example makes my argument for me. Why do you need a race, class, and feat track (and probably a background and theme if I dug a bit deeper) to do essentially the same thing - play a vampire? It's really silly and has been a point of ridicule for 4e.

Well, your question can be answered with the obvious: because different people will be attracted to that archetype in different ways. Some will want to play an elf vampire, some will want to play a vampire wizard, some will want to play an elf wizard who is also a vampire, and then folks like me will want to play a TRIPLE VAMPIRE ALL THE WAY ACROSS THE SKY.

And that might be silly (I certainly trumped up the absurdity of it when I played Kiki), but silly can be fun, too. And it certainly doesn't HAVE to be silly.

And on top of all that, none of it really addresses the issue of why the ranger needs to be its own class? "I want to make a half-pixie half-gnome ranger/barbarian!" isn't a good enough reason and at my table is a good way to get punched. And this is coming from the guy who played a 3rd Ed half-orc bard with a 9 Charisma because my DM wouldn't let me re-roll a set of stats where my dump stat was a 5 and my highest roll was a 13.

Meh. My philosophy is that fun trumps all, so if someone really is excited about their ridiculous character concept, I'd rather embrace it than imagine my game about adults pretending to be elves is somehow SERIOUS BUSINESS. But like I said, it doesn't HAVE to be silly. A ranger with a trapper background and the tempest theme is just going to be VERY ranger-y. A fighter with the trapper background and the tempest theme is just going to be quite a bit ranger-y. A druid with the commoner background and the archer theme might render the distinction academic. There doesn't have to be just one way to make a ranger.

I did want to call out the passage above as a tangent, because I see the problem there as not what we have been discussing, but rather that sticking weapon styles onto classes creates all kinds of problems all by itself. We don't need liberal use of different classes to avoid the ranger ban killing the TWF option. We need TWF option totally separate from class (whether feats, themes, whatever), and then classes can go be as niche or overlap as the system otherwise warrants.

I basically agree, but I don't think this means that classes need to be redefined.

Again, look at the rogue. There's nothing there that can't be handled with a theme or a background. There's no NEED for the rogue class. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be a rogue class. Classes can just be a particular package of abilities that you could also find in other areas of the game.

Rather than ask "Is this Needed" we could better spend our time asking "How can we make this class unique, flavorful, and dynamic?" Because honestly, we're noting getting a PHB without a paladin, so lets make him the best class he can be...

Flavorful and dynamic, yes. Unique...eh...yes and no. Any character might wield divine magic for a god. Any character might mount a horse. Any character might train in heavy armor and martial weapons and shields. Any character might heal with a laying on of hands or get bonuses to their saves. Any character might challenge foes and detect evil.

A paladin might just be a particular combination of these abilities in one chunk.

They might get some particularly unique way or style of it. It's not necessarily especially D&D, but I'm fond of subsystems, so I like to see lots of 'em. Forex, I could see a paladin subsystem that encourages players to "play chivalrously": They get bonuses for rushing headlong into the jaws of evil, and can stay longer than most others there, helping to protect others (forex, you get extra damage on a charge, extra to-hit bonuses against creatures identified as EEEEVIL, and extra defenses against creatures who are trying to mob or flank you). That's a new mechanic idea supporting the same concept.

Especially in a game that values modularity, a class need not be especially unique. They should have a strong identity, but you don't need to be unique for that.

 

[jadrax]

Don't make me dig through Mearls's Twitter account or the Q&A transcripts to find the quote that directly contradicts you where the lead developer for the game states unequivocally that there are attack and damage bonuses in the dwarf fighter pregen that come from both the fighter class and the slayer theme. I will if you force me, but I really have other far more productive things I could be doing with my time.

Its Sunday morning so I have nothing productive to do with my time. Such a quote does not exist from the 1st May onwards.

Although 'We sort of hid the first rules module in the current playtest - remove themes and/or backgrounds and hit dice = old school style game.' does imply that everything about Themes is revealed on the character sheet so you can remove them.