G
Guest 6801328
Guest
Just thinking out loud here, but doing so is more fun when somebody can hear you....
As the Ranger debate always illustrates, "class" seems to encapsulate multiple facets of an archetype in ways that make it impossible to design classes using a single-inheritance model. E.g., the "stealthy woodsman" archetype could inherit from Fighter, Barbarian, Rogue, Ranger, and even Druid.
It seems to me there are multiple dimensions we are trying to model with the single dimension of "class", and while two dimensions is still not a perfect fit, two might at least improve the situation.
What if concepts like "Woodsman" were turned into a template that were applied on top of any class, so that class became two choices from a matrix? (In theory the matrix could be incomplete; the "Druid Knight" for example might not be allowed, but my aesthetic preference would be for all options to be both viable and permissible.)
Where I struggle is in coming up with a decent list of these templates. Woodsman is the easy one, and as many people have pointed out, "Barbarian" is really something that should be applicable to any class. Barbarians, after all, have sorcerers and priests and thieves just like other cultures do. But after Woodsman and Barbarian, what are some other good ones? Knight? Noble? Tradesman? Tomb-raider? Warl....never mind.
They are starting to sound like Backgrounds.
Background already is a dimension, although it's currently a shallow dimension. So one option might be to simply make Backgrounds beefier, with more significant abilities that have a greater impact on mechanics. The thing I don't like about this is that I think there would probably be far fewer total backgrounds...but maybe not? I'm honestly torn on whether I think it's better to combine them, or keep Backgrounds as they are.
Pros of Using Backgrounds as Templates:
- Reduces number of major chargen decisions
- Avoids some redundancy since the concepts are somewhat similar (e.g., is "Outland" a Background or a Template?)
- Fewer structural changes
Cons of Using Backgrounds as Templates:
- Harder to create a well-designed Template than a Background, which means there would probably be fewer Backgrounds
- Corollary to the above, but adding a "ribbon" choice, from a large number of choices, just means that the overall matrix of available concepts is much greater.
Regardless of whether or not Backgrounds are used, what would these templates look like? My inclination is that they would not have abilities that unlock at specific levels the way classes do, but would have features that are all gained immediately, some of which scale with level. Some examples:
- Knight: increase your armor proficiency by one step. (Which might mean class armor proficiencies would be reduced one step.)
- Woodsman: difficult natural terrain does not reduce your movement
- Barbarian: Rage (redesigned so that it also boosts spell-casting and other things)
- Soldier: some kind of tactical warlord-y thing
Etc. etc. etc.
I could keep going, but I'm interested in your responses.
As the Ranger debate always illustrates, "class" seems to encapsulate multiple facets of an archetype in ways that make it impossible to design classes using a single-inheritance model. E.g., the "stealthy woodsman" archetype could inherit from Fighter, Barbarian, Rogue, Ranger, and even Druid.
It seems to me there are multiple dimensions we are trying to model with the single dimension of "class", and while two dimensions is still not a perfect fit, two might at least improve the situation.
What if concepts like "Woodsman" were turned into a template that were applied on top of any class, so that class became two choices from a matrix? (In theory the matrix could be incomplete; the "Druid Knight" for example might not be allowed, but my aesthetic preference would be for all options to be both viable and permissible.)
Where I struggle is in coming up with a decent list of these templates. Woodsman is the easy one, and as many people have pointed out, "Barbarian" is really something that should be applicable to any class. Barbarians, after all, have sorcerers and priests and thieves just like other cultures do. But after Woodsman and Barbarian, what are some other good ones? Knight? Noble? Tradesman? Tomb-raider? Warl....never mind.
They are starting to sound like Backgrounds.
Background already is a dimension, although it's currently a shallow dimension. So one option might be to simply make Backgrounds beefier, with more significant abilities that have a greater impact on mechanics. The thing I don't like about this is that I think there would probably be far fewer total backgrounds...but maybe not? I'm honestly torn on whether I think it's better to combine them, or keep Backgrounds as they are.
Pros of Using Backgrounds as Templates:
- Reduces number of major chargen decisions
- Avoids some redundancy since the concepts are somewhat similar (e.g., is "Outland" a Background or a Template?)
- Fewer structural changes
Cons of Using Backgrounds as Templates:
- Harder to create a well-designed Template than a Background, which means there would probably be fewer Backgrounds
- Corollary to the above, but adding a "ribbon" choice, from a large number of choices, just means that the overall matrix of available concepts is much greater.
Regardless of whether or not Backgrounds are used, what would these templates look like? My inclination is that they would not have abilities that unlock at specific levels the way classes do, but would have features that are all gained immediately, some of which scale with level. Some examples:
- Knight: increase your armor proficiency by one step. (Which might mean class armor proficiencies would be reduced one step.)
- Woodsman: difficult natural terrain does not reduce your movement
- Barbarian: Rage (redesigned so that it also boosts spell-casting and other things)
- Soldier: some kind of tactical warlord-y thing
Etc. etc. etc.
I could keep going, but I'm interested in your responses.
