A Scheme by any other name

[Remathilis]

After seeing the mage in Essentials, I'm legitimately shocked there isn't some school specialization in Next.

All a school needs to do is grant a bonus to a type of spell. For example
Evocation: +2 to all damage dealing spells
Necromancy: Necromancy spells do +1d6 extra necrotic damage.
Illusion: Foes have disadvantage when saving against your illusions.
Conjuration: Some bonus to summons
Transmutation: Buff spells last x2 as long.
Etc

Simple and flavorful addition. More could be added later.

 

[variant]

I just don't see a need for school specialization outside of Themes. That's the point of Themes and there is no reason a sorcerer or any other casting class couldn't specialize as well.

 

[Gold Roger]

All classes should have options inside the class. I think that's a given.

But dear gaming good, please refrain from forcing every class into the same mold.

Not every class needs to have its options at the same levels and at the same number.

Not every class should have its options organized by scheeme-like names.

Keep classes as differentiated as possible please.

 

[Kzach]

I just don't see a need for school specialization outside of Themes. That's the point of Themes and there is no reason a sorcerer or any other casting class couldn't specialize as well.

I really feel the need to differ on this point.

To me, the role of themes is a general attitude toward the business of being a PC, not the intricacies of their class.

Slayer is an attitude, sword and board is a fighter specific style. Blaster is a magical leaning, illusionist is a mage specific school.

Imagine a system where you could say to a player, "Pick a race. Now pick a background, what did he do before he was an X? Ok, cool, now pick a class. Right, now what kind of X do you want to play? Now that's done, what's his general attitude, how does he conduct himself as an X?

Race, background, class, style/scheme/school/pact, theme.

And for the picky, most of those could be customised. For the new player, however, character creation is very straightforward and modular and characters could be put together in minutes rather than hours.

Some examples:

Human, commoner, fighter, sword & board, guardian.

Half-elf, slave, fighter, dual wielder, slayer.

Dwarf, noble, fighter, two-hander, cavalier.


So in just five words you can pretty much sum up your entire character and build it entirely based on those words.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

The rogue is supposed to have more skills than non skill monkey classes. Skills are part of the class and an extra bonus. There are skills from the character's background and then skills from the type of rogue they are.

Any can be a thief.
Only a member of a "skills" class can be a thief and sage.

 

[Minigiant]

[MENTION=56189]Kzach[/MENTION]

I still themes already take up the design space you call for. You might want to play with 2 themes instead of one.

 

[Szatany]

The rogue is supposed to have more skills than non skill monkey classes. Skills are part of the class and an extra bonus. There are skills from the character's background and then skills from the type of rogue they are.

Any can be a thief.
Only a member of a "skills" class can be a thief and sage.

Nothing you're saying contradicts my idea.
Plus, how can anyone be a thief, if thief is a rogue scheme and not a background?

 

[Kzach]

[MENTION=56189]Kzach[/MENTION]

I still themes already take up the design space you call for. You might want to play with 2 themes instead of one.

Again, the two are not the same. Two themes is not the same as a theme and a specialised class-specific scheme.

Not only that, but the whole concept of two themes is just clunky and poor design. If they ended up being so lazy as to make that part of the core design of any class, that would be bordering on a deal-breaker for me.

 

[am181d]

I'm generically for this, although I think 5e is approaching "named categories that you choose between" saturation. I understand the utility of picking a background instead of feats or picking a theme instead of feats, but at a certain point, you should just say "Here are some options you can choose between for your class. If you don't want to have to sift through all of it, take the default."

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Where is the option:

For some classes, yes. But it should not feel forced...

although, i would come up with schemes for most classes

fighting style
virtue
domain
school
season/region
style
...

but still: if a class comes without a scheme, as it is fokussed, so be it. Also they should not all be forced to give the same kind of benefits.