Classes as Method and Approach

[Minigiant]

As I read the design goals of the fighter, rogue, and wizard and the blogposts of the designers; I am getting the feeling that the main role of the class aspect of your character is to determine the primary method and approach to obstacles and hostile situations.

Gone is the default flavor of a class. Classes no longer seem to be what you are but how you do it. Sure most thieves in most worlds will be rogues and most arcane adventuring scholars will be wizards but they don't have to be. Most of the direct flavor will be from background and theme. The wizard is no longer a smart old guy who is a master of the all the arcane spellcasting arts, the wizard is just a person who uses arcane Vancian spells.

Classes are the now the primary method and approach from getting from Situation A to Situation B. Background and theme might (probably will due to balance) give you a secondary method of getting from A to B.

A: A lord who doesn't want to spend resources helping you.
B: A helpful lord

A: Being on this side of a locked door
B: Being on That side of the door

A: 10 hostile goblins
B: No hostile goblins

A: In the elf village
B: in the dwarven city

When you have your current situation (A) to a preferred situation (B), your class JUST determines how you prefer to do it.

Primary: Use your class

1. Use strong Combat ability and Natural toughness (Fighter)
2. Use indirect and maybe shady schemes and tricks, and Additional skills (Rogue)
3. Cast powerful magic to remove or bypass issues (wizard)
4. Use decent combat ability and more subtle healing and enhancement magic (cleric)

Secondary: Use your background, theme, and ability scores

So now I wonder about the methods and approaches of the classes outside of the core four. Some are straightforward like the assassin. The assassin just kills people and if killing someone doesn't work, they must lean on their background and ability scores. Hostile goblins? KILL the goblins. Indifferent lord? KILL the lord's brother and scare him into helping. Locked door. KILL the lock. Can't KILL the lock and don't have knock prepared? Lean on your background and ability. Fail at Open Lock and the door Bash? Lean on your allies.

But what about the classes like monk, paladin, ranger, warlock, etc? I'm sure the design team has plans for these and the playtest will tell them if we like the methods and approaches they choose.

But the main thing a class brings is the method and approach to challenges. If you want to make a mobile warrior, you have to choose how well your character fights. If he or she is supposed to extremely skilled at fighting, you have to choose fighter (or barbarian, ranger, assassin, or monk) as those classes are straight up battlers. A caster is either subtle and supportive for cleric or powerful and versatile for wizard (or maybe repetitive and indirect for warlock or whatever they do for the sorceror for the sorceror).

When you make the adventurer who solves problems with his fists, you have to choose how he uses his fists. Is he an excellent brawler who can pick up any weapon for when he can just punch through things (fighter)? Does he employ dirty tactics and additional skills to set up a suckerpunch (rogue)? Does he enchant his body with magic to boost his punching strength? Is his real method of doing things is via carefully chosen spells and the fist thing a method he really sucks at but likes using (wizard)?

The major effect on the game may be how we evaluate our characters. You can't just jump to a default class for an idea. You must choose how your character really does things.

For example, I had a character named Two-Eyes Thomas. He was a thief who fought up close with anyone who disrupted his entering attempts. If I were to remake him for 5E, I must discover his real method of doing things. Is he a fighter-thief and beat up or threaten to beat up anyone in his way to the chest? Or does he employ additional skills and dirty tactics on any obstacles he meets as a rogue-thief? Or was he a fighter/rogue who was a half decent fighter who cheated and used skills when an obstacles was too dangerous for his weak frame?

Anyway, discuss if you think I am right with my assessment.
Or if you agree with the methods and approaches being hinted at by the designers. Or if you like the change from a full archetype to a method delivery system for classes.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Good post, must spread XP, yada, yada, yada.

I think you may be on to something, but I'm not sure we will be able to tell for sure until we see a few more of those secondary/mixed classes. By the time we have the paladin and ranger, I think we'll have a pretty good idea. Then again, the paladin could end up as a glorified fighter/cleric, and bust the concept. Or they could even go with something fairly pure along the lines you say, for the core four, but then back away from it on the hybrids (likely to their detriment, but you never know until you see it).

I also think the legacy issues that paladin, ranger, monk, assassin (blech!), etc. bring to the table are inevitably going to either compromise such a design, lead to a breaking away from the tradition of the class, or both. That is, we can't have a consistent class scheme that honors the tradition of all the PHB (1) classes in all version, because there was never any consistent scheme behind those classes in the first place. You might be able to do it by filling in holes (such as a cleric/rogue hybrid class), but I doubt it.

Funny enough, the whole thing would be a lot easier to do if some of those classes could be brought in as something other than classes. I think paladin and assassin both work better as themes than classes.

 

[am181d]

A: A lord who doesn't want to spend resources helping you.
B: A helpful lord

Fighter intimidates. Rogue bluffs. Cleric uses diplomacy. Wizard casts Charm Person!

A: Being on this side of a locked door
B: Being on That side of the door

Fighter breaks down the door. Rogue picks the lock. Cleric prays for a miracle! Wizard casts Knock.

A: 10 hostile goblins
B: No hostile goblins

Fighter hacks through them. Rogue sneaks up on them and takes them out one at a time. Cleric casts flame strike. Wizard casts Fireball!

A: In the elf village
B: in the dwarven city

Fighter leads the march. Rogue scouts a path through the wilderness. Cleric casts endurance buffing spells. Wizard polymorphs all the elves into dwarves!

 

[Minigiant]

Legacy would be the main issue as some classes as some are heavily hybridized. Although I don't think it will too much of a problem as another goal was stated to have each class to have an unique or signature class feature.

Also with the background/theme set up, class doesn't have to bare the burden of all three pillars anymore. Combat ability not given with class can be made up with themes/feats. And a class with no exploration and interaction features has background/skills to fill in the gap.

So the bard doesn't need to get combat features and could stick to interaction and exploration as theme can handle combat for the PC.

 

[BobTheNob]

The thing that is interesting about this is ...your dead right! Class = Methodology.

Now if we were to compare Fighter to Barbarian, really, they have a pretty similar methodology. So why are they separate classes? So far, because how they achieve the methodology has been slightly different (Bararian has slightly higher HP, Fighter better armor options, Barbarian has rage, Fighter has weapon skill) but really, when we ask the question "how do they get past that pack of goblins?" they will pretty much come to the same conclusion = cry havoc and kill em all!

So why have fighter and barbarian traditionally been separate classes? Mechanics and fluff.

Which way is right though? Well, I have my opinion, but I have already offered it up too many times and it would be redundant to repeat myself, but this does help clarify the issue.

Very good post Mini. Excellent analysis.

 

[The Shadow]

I suspect the paladin's approach is going to be smiting and laying on hands. When fighting Evil (or whatever he is championing against) he's right up there with the fighter, or perhaps even better. But against more ambiguous foes, the fighter is the best. Likewise, the paladin can heal, but he doesn't replace the cleric. I sincerely hope the paladin doesn't get spells. (Honestly, I wish the cleric didn't get spells, that it was more of a 'request a miracle' mechanic, but we know that won't happen.)

I'm just not seeing much niche for the ranger *as a class*. As some combination of background and theme, I can. I really think the barbarian belongs in that category too, as does the assassin. The paladin *could* fit here, but the class does have enough history of unique mechanics and approach that it could work as a 5e class in the mold you describe, I think.

The interesting thing about druids is that they don't seem to have a single approach that I can see. It kind of depends on how they're built.

The bard's approach is to talk and influence, and failing that to buff/debuff.

The illusionist's approach... heh, heh, heh. If he's any good, you don't even know what it was.

 

[Minigiant]

I suspect the paladin's approach is going to be smiting and laying on hands. When fighting Evil (or whatever he is championing against) he's right up there with the fighter, or perhaps even better. But against more ambiguous foes, the fighter is the best. Likewise, the paladin can heal, but he doesn't replace the cleric. I sincerely hope the paladin doesn't get spells. (Honestly, I wish the cleric didn't get spells, that it was more of a 'request a miracle' mechanic, but we know that won't happen.)

The Paladin's method could be presence. It solves problems just by being there. The Paladin shows up and the world must react. Can the lord resist the paladin's grace? Can the goblins bypass his aura? Does does just open for him?

I'm just not seeing much niche for the ranger *as a class*. As some combination of background and theme, I can. I really think the barbarian belongs in that category too, as does the assassin. The paladin *could* fit here, but the class does have enough history of unique mechanics and approach that it could work as a 5e class in the mold you describe, I think.

The interesting thing about druids is that they don't seem to have a single approach that I can see. It kind of depends on how they're built.

The bard's approach is to talk and influence, and failing that to buff/debuff.

The illusionist's approach... heh, heh, heh. If he's any good, you don't even know what it was.

Problem, Adventurers?

Assassin: KILL SOMEONE to solve the problem
Barbarian: Use Rage to solve the problem
Bard: Use performance and charm to solve the problem
Cleric: Cast spell to help solve the problem mundanely
Druid: Draw on the power of nature to solve the problem
Fighter: Draw weapon, swing it a few times, and the problem will solve itself
Monk: Look into yourself, your body and mind, for the answer to solve the problem
Paladin: Use holy presence and divine grace to solve the problem
Ranger: Use excellent perception to solve the problem
Rogue: Use skills and tricks to solve the problem
Sorceror: Force a spell to solve the problem
Warlock: Cast an invocation to solve the problem
Warlord: Make someone else solve the problem
Wizard: Cast the spell to solve the problem