Backgrounds, Specialties, and the other classes

[dirklancer]

Sorry if someone mentioned this in another thread, but I wanted to get some other thoughts on what I was pondering with the new playtest packet.
First off, I am in the camp of really enjoying the overall direction of 5E, and the character creation rules only helped to reinforce that. I really like the additions of the backgrounds and specialties, and it somehow manages to have depth but remain simple at the same time. But as I was making up some test characters with the new rules, something occured to me. Are classes other than the basic four going to suffer or even be necessary with backgrounds and specialties in place?
I made up a fighter last night based on a ranger character I had played in a long running campaign, and with the Dual Wielder specialty and a homebrew Wildlander background (Animal Handling, Natural Lore, and Stealth as skills and a Forrage trait that allows the character to find food by spending time in places with sufficient plant and animal life), as well as Sharpshooter theme, I had recreated him pretty well. Once we know more about multiclassing, a level or two of cleric or driud and I have a solid ranger right there. I think you could easily make up a good paladin with a priest or fighter and the right mix of background or specialties, and an assassin would be simple for a rogue.
Truth be told, a lot of the classes outside the core four are just hybrids anyway, allowing you to get a mix of powers and abilities without having to multiclass. And some are just variations in theme of one of the core four (druid/cleric, wizard/sorcerer). But do you think backgrounds and specialities will take away the uniqueness of the other classes? Or do you think some of the other classes are even necessary as separate entities, or would they be better handled as specialties?

 

[Remathilis]

Short answer: No.

Long answer: Only if you want poor-man's versions of each class. A druid isn't just a cleric with a wolfie-pal. He has unique armor, weapons, spell lists, powers, restrictions, and outlook. A ranger is more than a dual-wielder with survival as a skill; he is a tracker, ambusher, skirmisher, survivalist, and part-time druid (who is not a nature cleric). You can't begin to fit "monk" or "bard" into four feats over nine levels (unless your point is to reduce them to shadows of their former power) and that doesn't EVEN begin to address alternate methods of doing the same thing (sorcerer spontaneous casting vs. wizard vancian vs. warlock at-will).

Further, it robs me of the ability to multi-class or the ability to customize my own class (to make a paladin with the slayer specialty or a magic-user/druid), and if I turn off backgrounds and themes, I lose access to all classes but the core four again.

No Thank You. Assassin, Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Warlock, Warlord, & Wizard in the PHB.

 

[dirklancer]

Personally I would prefer all of the standard classes as well because that is a vital part of D&D to me, but I am hoping there will be a stronger sense of theme for them in 5E. For example, I want a ranger who focuses far more on being a survivalist/ ambusher/ tracker and if someone wants him to be an archer or a two-weapon fighter, that is where specialties fit in. That way the base role is something distinct and it differentiates a ranger from a fighter with the right combo of fighting styles, background, and specialties. Like a ranger who is a master of setting traps and ambushes or one who has a loyal animal companion who compliments his own abilities.

 

[nightwalker450]

With a Necromancer Specialization already in there... An animal companion specialization shouldn't be too far behind.

 

[1of3]

No Thank You. Assassin, Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Warlock, Warlord, & Wizard in the PHB.

We had this topic a few times already and I wholheartedly endorse your list of classes. I think, except for Warlord, the devs already mentioned working on all of them. (If Warlord as a class has been hinted at, I'd be very happy btw.)

Still, we might see some things that used to be classes at one time or another be demoted to spec or background. It already happend with the Knight (background) and the Necromancer (spec). And I think that was a good call in both cases.

Some classes that might make sense keeping as classes for further products:
- Avenger
- Warden
- Psion
- Swordmage/Duskblade/Bladesinger...

Some classes that would make good specs:
- Spellthief
- Soulknife

 

[Moon_Goddess]

Well, Wizards cast spells and there is still a Magic User Specialty, so it seems to me that we can have a Ranger have a animal companion class feature and yet still have a animal companion speciality.

In fact, I really hope there is a weakened form of every class as a speciality, so if you don't want to do full multiclass you can pick up a minor bit of a class.

 

[Minigiant]

To me, you only can create certain mechanical archetypes of the non classic 4 class. You can make the 4e ranger with the playtest but nothing close to the 3e or earlier ranger. You can mimic the martial monk not the mystic monk. It is unknown it BGs and Specs will encompass the scope needed to partially copy certain aspects. I personally don't think they will and you'll only be able to do watered down versions.

Then there is the fact that using BGs and Specs to copy classes takes up most of their customization options.

either way I see it as a moot point as the other class met okey will appear.

 

[Shroomy]

I guess it depends on what unique things the D&D Next version of the other classes bring to the table.

 

[Li Shenron]

I made up a fighter last night based on a ranger character I had played in a long running campaign, and with the Dual Wielder specialty and a homebrew Wildlander background (Animal Handling, Natural Lore, and Stealth as skills and a Forrage trait that allows the character to find food by spending time in places with sufficient plant and animal life), as well as Sharpshooter theme, I had recreated him pretty well.

I think there is some truth in what you say, but your example sounds to me like a scout rather than a Ranger which in my heart is always tending to the supernatural (but I can understand others don't like this).

Strong character concepts are not unlimited, after the bunch of most popular concepts the others tend to be less different from each other and somewhat repetitive. If the game gives a lot of character material through optional stuff like feats and skills, it might be possible to cover your concept with them rather than having a full class, just like you say...

But I would not worry because if you also have a Ranger class, then you'll just have one more way to represent your concept, i.e. more variety which is a good thing. And I would bet that a whole class will be "more Ranger" than the Ranger you can design in the method above.

 

[dirklancer]

I think there is some truth in what you say, but your example sounds to me like a scout rather than a Ranger which in my heart is always tending to the supernatural (but I can understand others don't like this).

Strong character concepts are not unlimited, after the bunch of most popular concepts the others tend to be less different from each other and somewhat repetitive. If the game gives a lot of character material through optional stuff like feats and skills, it might be possible to cover your concept with them rather than having a full class, just like you say...

But I would not worry because if you also have a Ranger class, then you'll just have one more way to represent your concept, i.e. more variety which is a good thing. And I would bet that a whole class will be "more Ranger" than the Ranger you can design in the method above.

Actually I was trying to make a simple ranger analog with the given playtest materials, and it did create a good, playable character. But it just got me thinking, hence the post. With the general direction of things, I am sure once we see the othee classes I am sure thwy will be solid and offer enough variety with more backgrounds and specialties. But I also agree that there are a few classes from previous editions that could be handled by specialties.