D&D General Character Classes should Mean Something in the Setting

[PsyzhranV2]

I just do not like the explanation of ambient magic doing that as it makes magic bower the be all end all thing and it makes wizard egos even more annoying plus sometimes you do not need a lot of explanations for it.

Magic Sword did say that their world was shonen action fantasy inspired. Cultivating and manipulating one's qi, or otherwise using mystical techniques to enhance one's physical abilities to superhuman levels is a pretty common genre trope. It's a different "basic fantasy" for them compared to standard D&D, but it's still very much a martial fantasy - just one with East Asian cultural roots as opposed to Western European ones.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

I just do not like the explanation of ambient magic doing that as it makes magic bower the be all end all thing and it makes wizard egos even more annoying plus sometimes you do not need a lot of explanations for it.

true but it is later learned it came from space for some reason, haze about why have not watched it for some time.

but defining bards that way seem wrong somehow, it feels out of character for them.

Indeed, Magic is playing that role in this setting very intentionally-- we have plenty of settings where Martials eschew magic, or represent psuedo-normal human beings. I'm interested in exploring universal access to magic as a tonal element-- to create an anime action fantasy aesthetic, like Psy said.

I don't recall the origins of the Ten Tails or its relation to Senjutsu, I was inspired by the earlier explanation, even if it turned out to be false in the context of the series (but i think you're misremembering)

Finally, I think it works well for Bards, the game system already makes them occult casters with lots of soul and mind altering magic, as well as shadow stuff. I bridge the gap by focusing on the part of bards I really like, the scholar of esoteric lore, the lorekeeper, and on the idea that music comes from, and touches the 'soul.' Which is a popular conception even in real life.

My setting of course, might not be for you, but thats whats cool about it! It makes a statement, its drenched in the flavor I want to convey, these altered class stories are part and parcel of that.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Magic Sword did say that their world was shonen action fantasy inspired. Cultivating and manipulating one's qi, or otherwise using mystical techniques to enhance one's physical abilities to superhuman levels is a pretty common genre trope. It's a different "basic fantasy" for them compared to standard D&D, but it's still very much a martial fantasy - just one with East Asian cultural roots as opposed to Western European ones.

This is an interesting point, a lot of older Western fantasy media has a fairly bright line between magic and non-magical abilities, though if you go back to Western mythology that line disappears (and "the power of faith" gets mixed in too at some point), and certainly more recent Western fantasy, including stuff well back into the '80s, though more commonly since the '00s, has a ton more melding of magic and physical abilities, often in superhuman ways. You can see this in RPGs of course, especially in the '90s, when Shadowrun acquires Physical Adepts, or loads of stuff in Rifts. I mean, obviously Monks in 1E/Mystics in RC D&D too, but that's just direct use of the trope in a quasi-Asian context.

I guess it raises a question of whether we need a separate class that does this or whether it can just be done with archetypes within existing classes.

 

[Minigiant]

This is an interesting point, a lot of older Western fantasy media has a fairly bright line between magic and non-magical abilities, though if you go back to Western mythology that line disappears (and "the power of faith" gets mixed in too at some point), and certainly more recent Western fantasy, including stuff well back into the '80s, though more commonly since the '00s, has a ton more melding of magic and physical abilities, often in superhuman ways. You can see this in RPGs of course, especially in the '90s, when Shadowrun acquires Physical Adepts, or loads of stuff in Rifts. I mean, obviously Monks in 1E/Mystics in RC D&D too, but that's just direct use of the trope in a quasi-Asian context.

I guess it raises a question of whether we need a separate class that does this or whether it can just be done with archetypes within existing classes.

Like I said early in this discussion, there just are too many archetypes in the fighter class to tie it to a setting.

Much how the barbarian was split off it, more fighty classes should be pulled out the fighter class to refine the image of a fighter. But that's another discussion.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Like I said early in this discussion, there just are too many archetypes in the fighter class to tie it to a setting.

Much how the barbarian was split off it, more fighter classes should bepulled outthe fighter class to refine the image of a fighter. But that's another discussion.

It is another discussion but I definitely agree and I think in 1E AD&D was sort of heading in that direction - the Cavalier had also got pulled out. 2E introduced Kits as a "fix" to the issue but it didn't work very well. I think the classes you'd pull out now would be different but yeah.

I also think Fighter being so broad doesn't help D&D overall, because a peculiarly large number of the times I've seen people "turned off" by D&D relate to the Fighter engulfing too many concepts whilst not doing them much justice (over multiple editions). But that's purely anecdotal.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It is another discussion but I definitely agree and I think in 1E AD&D was sort of heading in that direction - the Cavalier had also got pulled out. 2E introduced Kits as a "fix" to the issue but it didn't work very well. I think the classes you'd pull out now would be different but yeah.

I also think Fighter being so broad doesn't help D&D overall, because a peculiarly large number of the times I've seen people "turned off" by D&D relate to the Fighter engulfing too many concepts whilst not doing them much justice (over multiple editions). But that's purely anecdotal.

I feel that in the current class/subclass paradigm, the fighter being one class is fine, but I feel that many of the subclasses are pretty flavourless too. I think they could be more thematically specific. 'Champion', 'Battlemaster?' These are pretty damn vague.

 

[cbwjm]

I feel that in the current class/subclass paradigm, the fighter being one class is fine, but I feel that many of the subclasses are pretty flavourless too. I think they could be more thematically specific. 'Champion', 'Battlemaster?' These are pretty damn vague.

That's one of the things I like about the two subclasses. I can make things like a knight, a pirate, a grizzled soldier, or master archer using either of these subclasses because they're vague enough to be able to easily be used for so many concepts that subclasses like rune knight, or psi warrior don't fit well for.

 

[Minigiant]

It is another discussion but I definitely agree and I think in 1E AD&D was sort of heading in that direction - the Cavalier had also got pulled out. 2E introduced Kits as a "fix" to the issue but it didn't work very well. I think the classes you'd pull out now would be different but yeah.

I also think Fighter being so broad doesn't help D&D overall, because a peculiarly large number of the times I've seen people "turned off" by D&D relate to the Fighter engulfing too many concepts whilst not doing them much justice (over multiple editions). But that's purely anecdotal.

To pull it back into the discussion, I'm pondering going the magic user path for fighters in my next campaign. MUs used to be all arcanists until it was split into wizards, sorcerers, and warlocks based on origin of power.

I am pondering doing the same with Fighters.

Fighters are the technical weaponmasters who learn the martial techniques to mast the art of war. They might learn magic, runes, or psionics to supplement their martial training.

Champions are sorcerers of battle. Scions of great martial bloodlines, distant descendants of deities or monsters, or reincarnations of great heroes who have naturally occurring physical and mental prowess that translates to martial skill.

Hexblades are the warlocks of war. Great warriors bonded with patrons by pacts, these warriors are blatantly supernaturaly influenced.

Barbarians are warriors who channel spirits of nature, elements, ancestors, divinity, or tribal totems. These spirits grant a rage which strengthens and fortifies them.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

That's one of the things I like about the two subclasses. I can make things like a knight, a pirate, a grizzled soldier, or master archer using either of these subclasses because they're vague enough to be able to easily be used for so many concepts that subclasses like rune knight, or psi warrior don't fit well for.

The issue for me with those two is that they're both half-arsed. Neither of them can really decide if they're generic or not.

Battlemaster is a particularly interesting one because it's a poorly-designed and counter-intuitive class, that, nevertheless, on paper or in the hands of a more experienced player, with sufficient short rests (often not the case though) is quite powerful/effective. It's the sort of mess that could only happen at the beginning of an edition when people don't really know what they're doing and don't know which mechanics are going to full pan out and which won't.

(As an aside, making short rests 1 hr and gain you little/nothing back for many classes but long rests 8 hours and gain you everything for everyone, including a total HP reset - though only a 50% HD reset is pure boneheaded early-edition silly business. As time goes on it increasingly looks like short rests should have been shorter and long rests shouldn't have reset HP like that. Also every class should have something to gain from a short rest, not just HD usage. But again that's another thread.)

To pull it back into the discussion, I'm pondering going the magic user path for fighters in my next campaign. MUs used to be all arcanists until it was split into wizards, sorcerers, and warlocks based on origin of power.

I am pondering doing the same with Fighters.

Fighters are the technical weaponmasters who learn the martial techniques to mast the art of war. They might learn magic, runes, or psionics to supplement their martial training.

Champions are sorcerers of battle. Scions of great martial bloodlines, distant descendants of deities or monsters, or reincarnations of great heroes who have naturally occurring physical and mental prowess that translates to martial skill.

Hexblades are the warlocks of war. Great warriors bonded with patrons by pacts, these warriors are blatantly supernaturaly influenced.

Barbarians are warriors who channel spirits of nature, elements, ancestors, divinity, or tribal totems. These spirits grant a rage which strengthens and fortifies them.

What you're outlining sounds pretty cool, I have to admit.

 

[Minigiant]

What you're outlining sounds pretty cool, I have to admit

I never liked the idea of the peasant prodigy who trains for a month and noble knight who trains for a year being the same class. The D&D level ranges dome offer enough room for that.