A Scheme by any other name

[Minigiant]

To all those people saying no to schemes for other classes, it seems that you're all hung up on the skills aspect. I kinda thought it wasn't needed to be said but that each class would have their own version of schemes and that they wouldn't exactly mirror rogue schemes.

The purpose of the rogue schemes is to add skills because they're a skill monkey class. The purpose of other, scheme-like, additions to classes would therefore be tailored to suit the class. For instance, a wizard 'school' would perhaps give one extra spell slot per level that can only be used for a spell of the school, and it comes at the cost of something else. A stance for a fighter might give the ability to make opportunity attacks against targets attacking allies or something.

No, we see those things as themes.

Schemes were purposely created to add skills to rogues.

I could see the same with Rangers, another skill class.

Rangers could choose a Favored Enemy and a Favored Enviroment and get skills from both.


Favored Enemy: Goblin
Perception +3
Insight +3
Sense Cheating: The ranger are immune to bonus damage granted advantage

Favored Enemy: Orc
Endurance +3
Intimidate +3
Fight by Sound: The ranger doesn't suffer a disadvantage on attacks due to poor illumination or darkness

Favored Enemy: Kobold
Find/Remove Traps +3
Open Locks +3
Mook Slayer: The ranger deals 1d6 bonus damage when outnumbered

 

[Ahnehnois]

Did Pathifinder copyright the idea of archetypes?

 

[1of3]

To all those people saying no to schemes for other classes, it seems that you're all hung up on the skills aspect. I kinda thought it wasn't needed to be said but that each class would have their own version of schemes and that they wouldn't exactly mirror rogue schemes.

No. I just think that maybe some classes will be fine with a very narrow archetype, not requiring subclassing.

Or maybe some classes do encompass a set of related archetypes but those work better in a more indirect manner via other choices.

 

[KesselZero]

Yeah, I think specialization in other classes will generally be handled by themes, since themes cover "how you adventure" per MM. So the fighter can choose the Slayer or Defender theme (from what we've seen so far) but also an Archer theme or Two-Weapon theme, etc. etc. and that gives him his variation. Similarly we've seen the Magic-User theme for wizards that gives added cantrips, and they talked about a Necromancer theme recently, so this is probably also where Pyromancer or Illusionist would live. Sounds like themes are going to give different sorts of benefits a la feats, so I agree that there doesn't need to be another level of specialization as well. Schemes for the rogue feels more like a way of letting rogue players get training the in the skills they want for their ideal rogue without having to lump everything into one generalized "Thievery" skill.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The purpose of the rogue schemes is to add skills because they're a skill monkey class. The purpose of other, scheme-like, additions to classes would therefore be tailored to suit the class.

Basically, what I think you're advocating is just grouping together the abilities and features you get from your class into distinct chunks that all tied together thematically. Which it seems to me actually already is partially in place for at least one of the other classes-- the cleric.

The abilities/spells of two clerics in the playtest ARE different, based upon the god (domain) they each serve. The Moradin spell list appears different than the Pelor, and he gets stronger armor/bigger weapons than the Pelor. I also would not be surprised if the Channel Divinity spells they get later on (past Turn Undead) are different for each domain too.

So the question then comes down to whether the wizards need their Schools highlighted at Level 1 with their spells split up that early (or whether they can just wait until taking a spell school Advanced Theme at Level 6)? And for the fighters... Mearls and Crawford have stated they are now thinking about maybe giving them a second Theme (aka more feats). Which might very well would appear under the 'Class' column (looking at the playtest character sheets) rather than the 'Theme' column. So the same way the Rogue's skills are appearing half under Background and half under Class... the Fighter's feats would appear half under Theme and half under Class.

So basically... it's possibly leaning in the direction you're advocating already.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Pathfinder does this, and it's pretty cool. Sorcerer bloodlines. Wizard schools. Cleric domains. Not every class has something like it by default, but a lot do. The Advanced Players Guide also introduces archetypes, which add a lot of variety to classes.

It's proven to be a better system than prestige classes or paragon paths for creating breadth in class choice. So, yeah, I support the idea in principle.

But, themes look like they'll be doing a lot of the heavy lifting in this department, and they may be more than adequate for the job.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I think Wizards should definitely have school specialization as part of the class without giving up their theme. I'm not sure the fighter needs some kind of subdivision (I think they should be more flexible, with decisions like "hit stuff with stick vs. interesting tactical maneuvers" and "superhero vs. warrior king" being made as they come up).

In the case of Rogue schemes, it's "what kind of rogue are you?"
With Cleric domains, it's "what kind of cleric are you?"
As for Wizard schools, those are "what kind of wizard are you?"

I want to be able to choose what kind of wizard I am, without giving up my "what are you besides just a wizard?" slot.

 

[Szatany]

NO!

Schemes are for Skill monkey classes only.
Other classes have themes, spell choice, and weapon choice that determine their variation.


Rangers, bards, and maybe monks.

I don't see how schemes are necessary at all. Looking at rogue's scheme, it seems very similar to backgrounds. Why can't rogue simply have a class feature that says: Gain one extra scheme from the following: thief, burglar, conman, etc.

 

[MoonSong]

I think Wizards should definitely have school specialization as part of the class without giving up their theme. I'm not sure the fighter needs some kind of subdivision (I think they should be more flexible, with decisions like "hit stuff with stick vs. interesting tactical maneuvers" and "superhero vs. warrior king" being made as they come up).

In the case of Rogue schemes, it's "what kind of rogue are you?"
With Cleric domains, it's "what kind of cleric are you?"
As for Wizard schools, those are "what kind of wizard are you?"

I want to be able to choose what kind of wizard I am, without giving up my "what are you besides just a wizard?" slot.

I second those feelings. I don't want to have to give up the custom part of my charatcer just to get the feeling I'm an unhindered member of my class.

I have contradictory thoughs on the matter. On one hand I really liked how the 3e sorcerer bloodline was only fluff and I was truly free to have it beeing anything I liked. On the other what pathfinder did with them was awesome, and regardless of them no longer being endless possibilities, I really liked the variety they offered on the corebook alone, but seeing what 4e did with the sorcerer I just have to think it twice, the 4e bloodlines were extremely limited in their scope and extremely limiting at the same time, they were too significant to just make them out to suit my character and at the same time they weren't good enough to differentiate between sorcerers and worse, having only two to pick from was the last straw. (I know AP added two more, but they felt very bland and limited compared to the 20+ that can be found on PF).

So I'm all for them bringing in a mechanical way to differentiate between members of the same class without having to give up your customization slots, as long as it is significant and diverse enough, if they can't do that, then I'd rather do it on my own.

 

[GX.Sigma]

The upside of making Necromancer a theme is that now you can use it for Clerics as well, and evil clerics have always been good at necromancy.

After thinking about it a bit, I don't actually have that much of a problem with a Necromancer theme--as long as school specialization is still a Wizard thing. An "Abjurer" or "Evoker" theme wouldn't make sense.

If wizard school specialization affected spell choice, and school-related themes added riders, that could work. It would help if a wizard specializing in necromancy was called a Necromancer, and the theme that gives you cool stuff when you cast necromancy spells was called Undead Master or something.