D&D 5E All classes should be broad enough to be split into subclasses

[kerleth]

I've seen the terms "ultimate classes, ultimate equipment, and the like" as published books. Is that what you pulled that from, or is it some sort of homebrew ultimate classes?

 

[Drowdruid]

Re: Ultimate Classes

Ultimate Classes is a homebrewed by Szatany & Others versions of 3.x Ed Classes. It is divided into 5 categories:
Ultimate Adaptation (Adventurer, Bard, Monk, Prodigy, Vessel)
Ultimate Devotion (Cleric, Druid, Incarnate, Paladin, Scourge)
Ultimate Evolution (Gadgeteer, Mentalist, Nexus, Psion, Psycker, Wilder)
Ultimate Power (Conjurer, Deceiver, Magus, Necromancer, Sorcerer, Wizard)
Ultimate War (Barbarian, Fighter, Gunslinger, Knight, Ranger, Skirmisher, Vortex)

URL: http://www.thecbg.org/wiki/index.php/Ultimate_Classes:Main_Page

 

[Celebrim]

Still, a Background (by the current rules) does NOT work, because it is based on skills and they are not good to define a barbarian culture. Perhaps the Survival skill fits, but that's it. You can push Natural Lore and maybe even Intimidate but then you start missing the point that if "barbarians" is a culture, they just CAN'T all be experts at the same skills...

Wait a minute... I said Barbarian is a 'background'. I did not say that Barbarian is s culture, because it isn't. 'Druid' is an implied culture, but Barbarian is a culture only to the extent that you fall into the trap of 'Barbarian' equals 'Norse Berserker', which was clearly never the original intention of the class. The background 'Barbarian' actually encompasses many many cultures with often highly differing cultural beliefs and values.

Since 'Barbarian' as a word only means, "Foreigners that I consider more primitive than myself", in a setting, the background "Barbarian" can encompass all sorts of things. Conan as the archetypal 'Barbarian' is a primitive mainly in the sense that his people are considered primitives by the more urbane dwellers of the South and that as such, he is racially and culturally distinct from them. Given a presumed steel age quasi-medieval setting, the 'Barbarian' background can refer to people coming from virtually any more primitive culture, from stone-age peoples to iron age nomads to fringe groups who've managed to retain their independence and some sembelence of their earlier tribal culture. This background could be inspired by sub-saharan Africans, Arab tribesman, Polynesian seafarers, new world civilizations like the Mayans, Aztecs, or Incans, medieval Scots, medieval Norse or ancient Gauls or Britons, steppe wanders like the Scythians, Huns, Mongols, iron age Germanic peoples like the Vandals and Visigoths, Celts, pre-Kingship Jewish peoples, North American or Austrialian aboriginals, headhunters from New Guinea, the Maori, or any number of other groups which at one time or the other neighbored more 'advanced' civilizations.

And note that 'advanced' is quite properly in scare quotes here. Because the quality of Norse and Scythian metal work was very good, the Mongols had more advanced command and control and logistics than the Europeans, and stone age Polynesians and Norse exceeded their neighbors in sea faring techology and skill. Nonetheless, all fit into the notion of 'Barbarians' and 'barbarian hordes' and cultures inspired by them are likely to be the 'barbaric' cultures of a given world from which the 'barbaric' background fits.

Now, within these cultures it is easy to see that one class or race does not cover the background. There are pirates, bandits, thieves, artisans, scholars, priests, nobles, magicians, merchants, herdsman, farmers, and more in such cultures. Sure, they may be rather more adapted to self-sufficiency, life in the wilderness and enduring the rigors of travel than their more civilized kin, but beyond that there is little we can that they have in common. The most common class among barbarians in my game world isn't Barbarian - or even its homebrew Generic cousin Fanatic; it's Hunter. Hunter is the generic version of Ranger, stripped of its unnecessary mystical aspects. The second most common is probably Explorer, a generic wander/adventurer class. Fanatics don't even show up in every barbaric culture (though they are common), just the ones that maintain special warrior cults (Norse, Maori, Jewish, Gaul, and Aztec inspired cultures come to mind).

My current opinion is that Barbarians should be a human subrace.

A human subrace? In addition to bordering on offending people sensitive to racial slights, intended or not, the big problem I have with that is putting a Maori inspired peoples and a Norse inspired peoples in the same subrace and just calling it good.

The only downside is that in some settings you might want to put dwarves and other races into the barbarian tribes mix.

In my current campaign, the barbarians nearest to where the PC's have been adventuring are all Elves.

I don't think we need this in the core...

Remember what I said about making mistakes as a designer in assuming that everyone that wants to play your fantasy game also wants to play in your setting? It sounds to me in this discussion that you are increasingly not designing for a fantasy game which would suit everyone who has been playing D&D over the last 30 years, but which suits your particular setting specificly.

 

[Drowdruid]

I have idea how differently name defining feature of the Ranger (Favored Enemy/Environment is little clumsy name).
Ranger: Hunting Grounds (because grounds its not only terrain but also prey)
1. Hunt For The Goblins
2. Hunt For The Dragons
3. Hunt In The Tundra
4. Hunt In The Forest
Similar isn't it?
[MENTION=84383]kerleth[/MENTION] below:
I think the best idea in this matter have Orzel who posts at WotC forum, and that indeed give you not numerical bonuses but tactical bonuses who counter tactics used by monsters (for example your Illithids) or improve your tactics used in specific terrain.

 

[kerleth]

But what do they do? The generic "if it's a that creature, you are better at it" or "if you're here, you're better at stuff" always seemed limited and poorly designed IMHO. What about something more like the horizon walker in 3.5. It got special abilities that had a thematic link to their terrain. Or a hunt for the Illithids not giving a bonus to damage versus Illithids, but instead giving a bonus to intelligence saving throws and the ability to know when people are being controlled by a charm like effect.

 

[Remathilis]

Rangers should be dictated by their terrain. You can have Forest rangers, urban rangers, planar rangers, mountain men, etc.

Abilities:

* Bonus to damage foes. I'm willing to go OS and say +1 damage/level vs chosen foe. Choose a foe every 5 levels.
* Terrain focus: Advantage to track, sneak, survival, spot when in proper terrain. Choose a terrain every 3 or 4 levels.
* Spells: Get some druid spells at mid-level.
* Movement: Rangers get bonuses to movement based on favored terrains (bonus to land speed, climb bonus, swim speeds, crowd movement).
* Surprise bonus. Rangers aren't surprised so easily.

Between favored enemies and favored terrains, there should be enough to keep rangers busy.

1.) Ranger foe types should be broad: dragon and dragon-kin, humanoids (all S/M foes), Giants (Ogres and up), Undead, Fey, Lowlifes (vermin, oozes, etc) Planar (demons, elementals, etc) and Constructs.
2.) Terrains can include: Aquatic, Plains, Forest, Plain, Mountain, Swamp, Arctic, Desert, Urban, Planes, Jungle.

 

[kerleth]

That is pretty much the ranger I have customarily seen, and probably the one I'll see again. It could stand a lot of improvement in my opinion. If the creature groups are broad and explicit enough, you won't have any "But it says in this fluff text right here that they were created by Illithids!" moments. And yet a generic bonus is just boring. Same for terrain. How much more awesome would it be if your "Cavern" ranger got a limited ability to see in the dark, or locate things by sound. What if the "Desert" ranger could do without water for long periods and had greater resistance to heat and cold (a desert night can actually be really chilly in some places. Has to do with the lack of moisture and cloud cover, I believe). What if the "Dragon/Dragonkin" Ranger got the ability to shoot a creatures wing to hobble it's flight. So on and so forth.

 

[Drowdruid]

Here i give you link to blog containing samples of ideas of Orzel for Rangers:
http://community.wizards.com/orzel/blog/2012/10/05/rangers_for_all_editions

 

[Li Shenron]

I'm not sure you're right here. Suppose you could have a small suite of barbarian backgrounds, but then...how many can you think of that make sense for adventurers? Our standard Barbarian Warrior, maybe Shaman/Witchdoctor,...then what? Barbarian Chief? What other barbarian types could/would be adventurers? Barbarian Merchant?...how is he different from regular merchant dude? Barbarian Peasant?....still a Commoner IMO. If you really want to play one of these preliterate outliers, then the game is better off letting you kitbash a custom background rather than put all the possibilities in the game for everyone else to ignore.

...

I am not sure if you're now thinking I was suggesting multiple barbarian backgrounds, but I wasn't... I was suggesting NO barbarian backgrounds at all, and instead to consider a barbarian human subrace.

So then you can have barbarian+clerics (shamans), barbarian+fighters, barbarian+rogues, barbarian+sorcerers etc. by combining it with classes and you can also have barbarian+merchants or barbarian+commoners by combining it with backgrounds.

Of course the limit of this idea is, as I mentioned already, that you cannot combine it anymore with races... you're stuck with human barbarians, and this can be wrong for many gaming groups. But notice that in 3e you had subraces such as Wild Elves for example, which were a little bit like barbarian elves.

...

A human subrace? In addition to bordering on offending people sensitive to racial slights, intended or not, the big problem I have with that is putting a Maori inspired peoples and a Norse inspired peoples in the same subrace and just calling it good.

Remember what I said about making mistakes as a designer in assuming that everyone that wants to play your fantasy game also wants to play in your setting? It sounds to me in this discussion that you are increasingly not designing for a fantasy game which would suit everyone who has been playing D&D over the last 30 years, but which suits your particular setting specificly.

On the contrary, I am trying to understand what is the common ground of traditional D&D gaming groups. Might be wrong, but IMHO when someone says "Barbarian" in a game of D&D, the first thing that comes to mind to most players is in fact Conan the Barbarian, or alternatively the barbarian invasions of the dark ages.

So I am trying to think: what are the traits that more-or-less define the most common archetype of a D&D "barbarian"?

My answer is: physical toughness, survival instinct, familiarity with the wilderness. All these may be connected with the concept of less-than-civilized tribes, on the ground that having a more primitive civilization (perhaps even being nomadic) generally forces all their people to be tougher against the hazards of the wilderness and travel.

There is another trait which defines a typical D&D Barbarian, and that is the chaotic rage, but IMHO there are quite a lot of people who have expressed their preference for rage to be separate, so that non-barbarians can have it too and not all barbarians need to be berserker by default, thus I'm leaving it out at least for the moment.

Then I think about what are the current mechanics at our disposal: class and background first. Can I use these to represent barbarians well?

I bet that 5e ultimately will have a Barbarian class, it worked well enough in the past. But if I like the idea of a barbarian tribe, clearly they can't all be barbarian-classed (at least not all single class). They can't all be barbarian warriors. It's ok in 3e, you use the Barbarian class for barbarian warriors, then you can use the Cleric class for their Shamans etc. I would prefer however that you could make a barbarian Fighter, a barbarian Cleri, a barbarian Sorcerer, by combining "barbarian" (whatever mechanic it is) with classes.

Background, I am against it. Because the mechanics of background are granting 4 skills and a Trait. Maybe if you can design a GREAT trait for a barbarian background, it would be OK. But it's the skills that leave me skeptic, because beside Survival I don't see everyone in a barbarian tribe being all good at the same skills. They are a tribe, a community, so IMO they will have people specialized at different skills. They will have their commoners, their merchants, their soldiers, their sages, etc. so it might be best if "barbarian" isn't a background so that it doesn't "lock" the choice of a background.

Thus I suggested using a subrace, why? For two reasons:

- races and subraces are the least strictly defined "character building mechanics"; we have subraces granting larger HD, weapon dice increase, ability bonuses, skills, perception improvements, and totally unique features; there is A LOT of freedom here, so we can come up with ANY defining features that is reasonably good for ALL barbarians (at least the most archetypal ones) including Norse and Maori if you want, without being stuck with 4 skills and a trait (although the trait IS free from design constraints! but it's quite too little)

- using a subrace still leaves each PC the choice of class, background and specialty to make plenty of different "barbarian" PC in the same tribe or world

 

[Ratskinner]

I sadly agree that we'll probably see a Barbarian class. So this is all probably moot anyway.

I am not sure if you're now thinking I was suggesting multiple barbarian backgrounds, but I wasn't... I was suggesting NO barbarian backgrounds at all, and instead to consider a barbarian human subrace.

So then you can have barbarian+clerics (shamans), barbarian+fighters, barbarian+rogues, barbarian+sorcerers etc. by combining it with classes and you can also have barbarian+merchants or barbarian+commoners by combining it with backgrounds.

Umm...so you are suggesting multiple Barbarian backgrounds or rather barbarians with multiple backgrounds.

Of course the limit of this idea is, as I mentioned already, that you cannot combine it anymore with races... you're stuck with human barbarians, and this can be wrong for many gaming groups. But notice that in 3e you had subraces such as Wild Elves for example, which were a little bit like barbarian elves.

So I am trying to think: what are the traits that more-or-less define the most common archetype of a D&D "barbarian"?

My answer is: physical toughness, survival instinct, familiarity with the wilderness. All these may be connected with the concept of less-than-civilized tribes, on the ground that having a more primitive civilization (perhaps even being nomadic) generally forces all their people to be tougher against the hazards of the wilderness and travel.

<snippage>

Background, I am against it. Because the mechanics of background are granting 4 skills and a Trait. Maybe if you can design a GREAT trait for a barbarian background, it would be OK. But it's the skills that leave me skeptic, because beside Survival I don't see everyone in a barbarian tribe being all good at the same skills. They are a tribe, a community, so IMO they will have people specialized at different skills. They will have their commoners, their merchants, their soldiers, their sages, etc. so it might be best if "barbarian" isn't a background so that it doesn't "lock" the choice of a background.

err... that's just it. They won't have those. Barbarians or preliterate tribal cultures (not civilizations) don't have all the specialists and division of labor that settled agricultural civilizations do. The most "barbaric" of human conditions: a hunter-gatherer family group, has only two jobs: Man and Woman. When the groups get a little bigger, they usually develop shamans of some sort. Its only after agriculture that you start to get commoners and warriors and artisans and nobles. At that point, you're not barbarians any longer. The Vikings/Norse were rapidly civilizing during the period of time we're most familiar with. As soon as you have commoners, there's no difference between a civilized commoner and barbarian commoner. So yes, at least as far as D&D's "accuracy" should be concerned, "Barbarian" should be a singular background.

One can imagine awkward sit-com like family situations during such periods. Sven the weaver (with his Artisan background) lives in the new Capitol, and deals with a number of business partners who are of other backgrounds. But look out! Things get hairy when his cousin Snorri, who still lives in the outback and keeps the old ways, comes to pay a visit. Hilarity ensues.

Let's look at our choices then: Background, (Sub)race, Class, Specialty?

Well, you've sketched out the rudiments of a background pretty well. It looks like we only need another skill or so, and a good trait. My guess for a good trait would be some kind of "roughing it" thing that lets you camp or travel better in the wilderness.

Subrace, well I'd guess the Hill Dwarf comes closest...at least it boosts your HP. However, the rest of your description above seems alien to the subrace structure as we've seen it (so far). Additionally, as you note, you'd need to make one for every race (except perhaps, some races that couldn't be barbarians.) So you have to keep remembering to do this whenever you publish a new setting.

Class...well, its likely we'll see it. I think it likely that it will have a few "no you didn't" notes about what you could learn/know from your race/background (like the 3e Barb's illiteracy.)

Specialty? Maybe the berserker part, but the rest...not so much.