The Fighter's Identity
Backgrounds are just what skills you have. Themes are just what feats you get. The fighter would continue to be the blandest class that can't do anything that anyone else couldn't.
Tony Vargas
Legend
Depends on where you draw the line and how far you're willing to go in bringing the fighter up to par. Part of the problem with the fighter is that there is great resistance to giving it, well, anything. "The Fighter is best at fighting" is balanced by "the fighter sucks at everything else and gets no interesting or useful abilities." That really limits customization, even if you do give him 'bonus feats' (extra theme) and feat taxes.
The solution to that problem is not to complain about it (like I just did - good one, Tony), but to embrace it. Allow that the game needs a baseline, optionless, all-combat punching bag and that its name must be "Fighter" and move on to other martial classes that /can/ fulfill all the archetypes the benighted fighter can't.
The sacrificial meatshield fighter could be the heavy armor melee tank. It's adequate for that. It could take a Defender bonus Theme and a "Doesn't suck quite so much at something" Background and regular Theme and call it a day.
The classes that step up and take the archetype-filling slack could be novel or from prior PH1s.
Let's start with the Warlord. As a ground-up 'leadery' class, like the Cleric, it wouldn't need to blow it's Theme on basic abilities to support a party. It could have an Inspiring Word that works like the Cleric's Healing Word spell but taps a HD instead of simply giving you a d6. A little more healing in return for facing the limitation of daily HDs. It could have an aura or a commanding presences to grant bonuses. Aside from that it could be an AEDU class much like it was in 4e, with all kinds of teamwork-oriented Exploits. It could even have a shtick involving followers somehow. That covers plenty of more socially-adept martial archetypes, including noble warriors such as Knights that the vanilla fighter can't quite live up to. It also shouldn't be married to an armor or weapon mix, it could be a heavy-armor, lead-from-the-front cavalier, or a nearly non-combatant back-line tactician who might plink with a light ranged weapon or defend himself in melee, but mostly gives orders.
Then we could take the Ranger and make it martial, with an option in druidiness via Theme instead of automatically a third-rate caster and full-on Grizzly Adams. The Ranger would be a light-armored Archer with excellent damage potential and lots of Exploration-apropriate abilities. The TWF thing could go away for all I care. If it must be a Ranger thing, it is a perfectly reasonable backup style for an archer - as would be a lighter weapon & buckler, which could be given some support for those wanting a less Di'tzzy ranger. That covers archers, woodsy types, delvers, possibly seamen (swashbuckler?), bandits and modestly-light-armored warriors. Role wise, it'd be suitable for strikerization.
I don't dare suggest dragging the Rogue too far from it's Theify roots, so I guess a skillful/quick light-armored martial character is called for, too. This could be a martial artist of some sort, with or without weapons and without blatant cultural allusions. It could also replace the monk, but that's not going to happen anymore than replacing the Theif with something combat-oriented is going to. Rather than SA, this character measures up with sheer skill, hitting easier and being harder to hit than he should be, and using skill, intuition, and daring to defeat stronger foes. This class should really dive whole-hog into the 'maneuvers' routine, and, as it's not a PH1 class, could be saved as an add-on for use with the Tactical Module. This class should have potential in both social and exploration pillars. Role-wise, it could be suitable for making a controllerish build. Maybe melee-oriented with exotic reach weapons. It covers all sorts of fighter archetypes that aren't so into armor, including the always hard-to-do-in-D&D 'Duelist.'
CleverNickName
Limit Break Dancing
I guess that would depend on whether or not the rules (or the DM) allows you to take more than one theme. (shrug) Multi-class, multi-theme, whatever.
So far, yes. But what if in the next playtest, both are expanded? Backgrounds could be expanded to include skills, bonus languages, and weapon proficiencies...Themes could be expanded to include feats and special abilities...I think that would be awesome. I'm going to keep my fingers crossed for it.
Last edited:
Even so, it still means that to play some 'Iconic' D&D classes, you have to use a Theme up that could have been used one something else.
Take all the people that complain about Feat Taxes, swap the word Feat for Theme and I think you will be able to approximate the scale of the issue for people. Even more so if to play a 'Ranger Archer' you have to wait for level six, while a 'Fighter Archer' can be done at level one.
I think it would just be a repeat of when 2e tried it, I.e. overturned pretty quickly due to lots of loud demand.
FIGHTER
Class gives you armor and weapon prof's, d10 HD, and
-1st lvl: +1 to hit and damage, +1 every other level (+2 @ 3rd, +3 @ 5th, etc. to +5 max @ 9th)
-2nd lvl: 2 extra attacks ("Fighters Surge") +1 every 2nd level (3 @ 4th lvl, 4 surges @ 6th, etc. to max of 6 Surges @ 10th level)
-X lvl: something to do with gaining Advantage in various situations or bonuses to initiative or whatever.
They can choose any Background and any Theme they want.
PALADIN
Class gives you armor and weapon proficiencies, d10 HD, and
-1st lvl: +1 to hit and damage, +1 every other level (to max of +5 @ 9th), extra d8 of damage against undead, demons and devils.
-2nd lvl: Aura of Protection (10' diameter per level) offers +1 to all saves within aura, attacks from evil creatures within aura are all at -1. Duration of the Aura is 1 round per level + Wis. mod.
-3rd lvl: "Detect Evil/Harm/Opposing [whatever/however they'll term it]" and "Smite Attack" once per day, +1 per lvl over 3rd.
-4th lvl: Aura of Protection is now +2 to ally saves and attacks and -2 to enemy attacks.
-5th lvl: Channel Divinity once/day +1 every other level above 5th (2 @ 7th, 3 @ 9th, etc.) The Divinity may be used to perform either of the following abilities: Turn Undead (as Cleric 3 lvls lower than Paladin) or Lay on Hands (2hp healing per Paladin level).
Backgrounds...any, I guess.
Themes: Guardian, Healer, Slayer, Crusader (extra Smiting?), Cavalier (if you want a mount, lance specialty), Domain (of worshiped deity if you want some actual spell use & better turning), 2-hd Wpn Fighter (if you want to specialize in a 2-handed weapon), Warlord (see below), etc... Themes that make sense for a Paladin.
You get most of your bells and whistles from the Class, with a few specific extra things from your Theme, but not the wide range of Theme choice like a regular "Fighter" or other broader classes would have.
In short, "Sub-classes" have a limited list of Themes to choose from, whereas, "Advanced Themes" (a la mage specialists) have a limited list of Classes to which they can be applied.
"WARLORD"
Class: Fighter - gets all of the stuff Fighters get!
Background: commoner, soldier, knight, noble, barbarian (ghengis khan?), mariner (if you want a "Pirate King" kinda guy), coupla others that make sense...like 10 or so.
Theme: WARLORD
-1st lvl: Inspiring Presence- supplies allies with 2 "temporary" HP per level. May be invoked once per day per level.
-3rd lvl: Field Medic - The Warlord is able to use a Healer's Kit to full effect (use of HD), even during a combat. Without use of a kit, a Warlord is still able to heal 2 hp/level of damage through their training and mundane means.
-5th lvl: Steadfast Assurance- allows allies +1 to saves vs. fear and confusion effects. Additional +1 every other level above 3rd (to max of +3 @ 9th).
You can possibly extrapolate from above then that, in my ideal presentation of 5e:
-the Ranger is generated rather like the Paladin, i.e. most of your stuff is Class features with specific things put into a limited selection of Themes: TWF, Archer, Beastmaster (if you want an animal companion), "Nature's Ardent" (some druidic spell use and abilities), etc...
-the "Barbarian" (as in your typical "rager" barbarian) is generated rather like the Warlord, i.e. Fighter class/Barbarian background (barbariany type skills go here)/Berserker theme (rage mechanic and whatever else combat related stuff go here).
-the "Cavalier" is similarly a Theme-based Fighter class. I would say the most archetypal would probably be something like "Fighter class/Knight background/Cavalier theme".
-the "poor man's Ftr/MU" would be Fighter class/whatever bg/Magic-user theme.
-a proper "Swordmage/Spellsword/gal with magic and a sword" would go the Warlord route, to my mind. Fighter class/limited selction of bg's for the skills/Swordmage (or whatever it's called) theme for the combat-feat stuff.
etc...
--SD
Class gives you armor and weapon prof's, d10 HD, and
-1st lvl: +1 to hit and damage, +1 every other level (+2 @ 3rd, +3 @ 5th, etc. to +5 max @ 9th)
-2nd lvl: 2 extra attacks ("Fighters Surge") +1 every 2nd level (3 @ 4th lvl, 4 surges @ 6th, etc. to max of 6 Surges @ 10th level)
-X lvl: something to do with gaining Advantage in various situations or bonuses to initiative or whatever.
They can choose any Background and any Theme they want.
PALADIN
Class gives you armor and weapon proficiencies, d10 HD, and
-1st lvl: +1 to hit and damage, +1 every other level (to max of +5 @ 9th), extra d8 of damage against undead, demons and devils.
-2nd lvl: Aura of Protection (10' diameter per level) offers +1 to all saves within aura, attacks from evil creatures within aura are all at -1. Duration of the Aura is 1 round per level + Wis. mod.
-3rd lvl: "Detect Evil/Harm/Opposing [whatever/however they'll term it]" and "Smite Attack" once per day, +1 per lvl over 3rd.
-4th lvl: Aura of Protection is now +2 to ally saves and attacks and -2 to enemy attacks.
-5th lvl: Channel Divinity once/day +1 every other level above 5th (2 @ 7th, 3 @ 9th, etc.) The Divinity may be used to perform either of the following abilities: Turn Undead (as Cleric 3 lvls lower than Paladin) or Lay on Hands (2hp healing per Paladin level).
Backgrounds...any, I guess.
Themes: Guardian, Healer, Slayer, Crusader (extra Smiting?), Cavalier (if you want a mount, lance specialty), Domain (of worshiped deity if you want some actual spell use & better turning), 2-hd Wpn Fighter (if you want to specialize in a 2-handed weapon), Warlord (see below), etc... Themes that make sense for a Paladin.
You get most of your bells and whistles from the Class, with a few specific extra things from your Theme, but not the wide range of Theme choice like a regular "Fighter" or other broader classes would have.
In short, "Sub-classes" have a limited list of Themes to choose from, whereas, "Advanced Themes" (a la mage specialists) have a limited list of Classes to which they can be applied.
"WARLORD"
Class: Fighter - gets all of the stuff Fighters get!
Background: commoner, soldier, knight, noble, barbarian (ghengis khan?), mariner (if you want a "Pirate King" kinda guy), coupla others that make sense...like 10 or so.
Theme: WARLORD
-1st lvl: Inspiring Presence- supplies allies with 2 "temporary" HP per level. May be invoked once per day per level.
-3rd lvl: Field Medic - The Warlord is able to use a Healer's Kit to full effect (use of HD), even during a combat. Without use of a kit, a Warlord is still able to heal 2 hp/level of damage through their training and mundane means.
-5th lvl: Steadfast Assurance- allows allies +1 to saves vs. fear and confusion effects. Additional +1 every other level above 3rd (to max of +3 @ 9th).
You can possibly extrapolate from above then that, in my ideal presentation of 5e:
-the Ranger is generated rather like the Paladin, i.e. most of your stuff is Class features with specific things put into a limited selection of Themes: TWF, Archer, Beastmaster (if you want an animal companion), "Nature's Ardent" (some druidic spell use and abilities), etc...
-the "Barbarian" (as in your typical "rager" barbarian) is generated rather like the Warlord, i.e. Fighter class/Barbarian background (barbariany type skills go here)/Berserker theme (rage mechanic and whatever else combat related stuff go here).
-the "Cavalier" is similarly a Theme-based Fighter class. I would say the most archetypal would probably be something like "Fighter class/Knight background/Cavalier theme".
-the "poor man's Ftr/MU" would be Fighter class/whatever bg/Magic-user theme.
-a proper "Swordmage/Spellsword/gal with magic and a sword" would go the Warlord route, to my mind. Fighter class/limited selction of bg's for the skills/Swordmage (or whatever it's called) theme for the combat-feat stuff.
etc...
--SD
Crazy Jerome
First Post
Here's the nasty, irreconcilable problem: If the creators of D&D had available and decided to use the Next concept of themes and backgrounds, we wouldn't have had the exact list of classes that we got in early D&D. But nevertheless, they didn't have those options, and thus we have this long tradition. It's like a messy divorce, and the classes are the kids. 
All those guys wanted to do was to make another character concept possible to play. Boom, here's a way to do it, slammed into the system. Some of these got refined and made it into official rules, while others never did. (We had a lot of fun with the "half-ogre" and the "duelist" from Dragon magazine. Those never went much further.) You can't go back and clean up that "design" without something getting changed--or not changed but rammed into a spot where it doesn't really fit. Ever time you make a choice here, you'll tick off a bunch of fans, no matter what you choose.
So I'm coming around to the idea that has been forming in some of these discussions, though I haven't seen it explicitly stated yet: Maybe things like the paladin need to be a class and a theme. The class is as close to tradition as they can make it. The theme is designed as clean as they can make it, and probably designed to sit on top of the fighter, or maybe cleric if that works better. Every group can decide how "paladin" is done in their game.
Since I think that most of us that fall on the "clean design" preference are also largely the ones that aren't too interested in exact labels, call the theme something else, like "champion". Just make sure there is at least one such theme that you can stick on the fighter or cleric and end up with a "paladin character".
All those guys wanted to do was to make another character concept possible to play. Boom, here's a way to do it, slammed into the system. Some of these got refined and made it into official rules, while others never did. (We had a lot of fun with the "half-ogre" and the "duelist" from Dragon magazine. Those never went much further.) You can't go back and clean up that "design" without something getting changed--or not changed but rammed into a spot where it doesn't really fit. Ever time you make a choice here, you'll tick off a bunch of fans, no matter what you choose.
So I'm coming around to the idea that has been forming in some of these discussions, though I haven't seen it explicitly stated yet: Maybe things like the paladin need to be a class and a theme. The class is as close to tradition as they can make it. The theme is designed as clean as they can make it, and probably designed to sit on top of the fighter, or maybe cleric if that works better. Every group can decide how "paladin" is done in their game.
Since I think that most of us that fall on the "clean design" preference are also largely the ones that aren't too interested in exact labels, call the theme something else, like "champion". Just make sure there is at least one such theme that you can stick on the fighter or cleric and end up with a "paladin character".
CleverNickName
Limit Break Dancing
You are right; there is no way that they can make everyone happy (just look at all of the "uproar" over the definition of hit points in this forum). Some people want only the iconic D&D classes in their games, some people want newer classes, others want to get rid of classes altogether, and some (like me) think D&D never needed more than 4 classes anyway. There will always be lots of loud demand no matter what they decide to do. I don't envy them.
My point, though, isn't about making people happy...it's about efficient game design.
Classes like Paladin and Ranger are iconic, but are they different enough to merit separate classes from the fighter? If the only difference between a Fighter and a Ranger are the feats and skills, I would rather they fold them together into a single class instead of making a copy of the Fighter class and changing its name.
If the Knight is going to be a different class, it needs to be VERY different from the fighter...different role in the game, different stats and math, different abilities and power arc, different backstory and playstyle, different strengths and weaknesses, different different different. Different like the way a cleric or thief is different. Otherwise, they will just be padding the PHB with re-fluffed versions of a class they already detailed.
Last edited:
TBH, I think efficient game design is pretty low on 5th edition's design goals.
Last edited:
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
CleverNickName said:
To me, it's pretty clear that what makes one class a "class" and what makes one class a "theme" (or "background") is pretty arbitrary.
I mean, look at the playtest rogue. Most D&D players would probably say, yeah! The rogue IS a unique class! But the playtest rogue certainly has no abilities that couldn't be in themes and backgrounds for other classes.
The same is essentially true of the fighter, or the cleric, or the wizard, too. If the goal was to "preserve page count," we could get 1 class, or even NO classes.
But that's not very "D&D."
So what takes precedence over the page count is the (somewhat subjective) idea of "What feels like D&D?"
Paladins. Rangers. Barbarians. Definitely.
Warlords. Warlocks. Assassins. Sorcerers. Eh...maybe. Most of those are mechanical tricks (more frequent magic, special healing, special attacks) first and archetypes second.
Some classes are worth spending the additional page count and design specs to make them distinct.
This is kind of subjective. And I love the promise of modularity that might allow someone to play a functionally classless 5e. But the idea that we should reduce to some arbitrary number of "needed" classes and get rid of everything else isn't very appealing to me. You don't NEED any classes. You might WANT more than just 2-4, though. You might WANT 100,000. Especially if your game doesn't use themes or backgrounds.
Similar Threads
Pathfinder 2E
What Are The Changes In Pathfinder Remastered?
