Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
D&D Next Q&A (11Oct)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6031549" data-attributes="member: 2067"><p>No one is talking about limited origin options. I'm talking about narrower archetypes. Including the idea that certain classes come from certain places/peoples/organizations in the world.</p><p></p><p>It's not shocking or new. The very first druids, monks, assassins, and even clerics all had organizations to which they belonged right out of the gate.</p><p></p><p>It's not restrictive or limited. No one's proposing a new rule whereby your background options are limited. Your ranger might be part of a particular organization, but that doesn't mean she's not also a Noble or a Sage or a Dwarf. Your paladin might be part of a particular knighthood, but that doesn't mean he's also not a halfling and a thief. </p><p></p><p>Understand this: just because certain classes are linked to certain world elements doesn't limit your character into necessarily being a stereotypical part of that world element. </p><p></p><p>If that doesn't make sense to you, I'd be happy to talk about it further. If it does make sense to you, we can all stop the Chicken Little routine about how if Barbarians are linked to a barbarian culture that means that no one can be a barbarian without a specific SAVAGE background and move on with the conversation. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Exactly. Barbarians and monks and paladins and rangers and assassins and whatever else can all be like that. Heck, fighters and wizards and rogues and clerics could be too, but they're making an effort to expand those classes out a bit. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And what if you wanted to have Ranger abilities and never joined up with the Rangers, right?</p><p></p><p>I'm 100% positive that these fluff elements won't be forced down your throat by WotC's fun police. In fact, it'll probably be <em>explicitly mentioned in the DMG</em>. Want to have that kind of monk? Okay, fine, under any DM who doesn't really give a fig, do it. Just like your Chaotic Neutral 3e Monk. Or your Lawful Evil 3e Barbarian. Or your 2e dwarven paladin. Rule Zero that noise. 5e, in being modular, I believe will be designed in such a way that these fluff ideas aren't mechanically enforced (ie: your 5e dwaren paladin won't be "unbalanced,"), so there's nothing stopping you. </p><p></p><p>It's smart to tether this by default for two big reasons, though.</p><p></p><ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"> So newbs have a narrative and archetype to jump onto. Give someone new to D&D a "Brawler" class without any context and they'll often shrug and not care. Give them a "Monk" class tethered to kung-fu archetypes and ideas of asceticism, and you've got anyone who likes Bruce Lee already sketching the dragon pattern on the back of their <em>gi</em>. Engagement, especially for newbs, is priceless.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"> So DMs can hook NPCs and organizations into the world easily. Give a DM broad advice about how organizations can provide for interesting plot hooks and they'll often look at you slack-jawed and maybe say "duh." Give them an organization of monks complete with rivalries and competitions and you've got the plot of <em>The Karate Kid</em> going (only Mr. Miyagi is a halfling).</li> </ol><p></p><p>There's a few ancillary reasons, too, such as the idea that powerful abilities are secret knowledge that must be acquired via adventure (and thus cannot be gained by any old street tough), but those two reasons are the big ones, and that alone makes it a pretty good idea, IMO.</p><p></p><p>And any DM or player who is advanced at his make-believe can look at the fluff, say, "Naaah, I've got a better idea," and nix it. No problem, no risk, no issue.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 6031549, member: 2067"] No one is talking about limited origin options. I'm talking about narrower archetypes. Including the idea that certain classes come from certain places/peoples/organizations in the world. It's not shocking or new. The very first druids, monks, assassins, and even clerics all had organizations to which they belonged right out of the gate. It's not restrictive or limited. No one's proposing a new rule whereby your background options are limited. Your ranger might be part of a particular organization, but that doesn't mean she's not also a Noble or a Sage or a Dwarf. Your paladin might be part of a particular knighthood, but that doesn't mean he's also not a halfling and a thief. Understand this: just because certain classes are linked to certain world elements doesn't limit your character into necessarily being a stereotypical part of that world element. If that doesn't make sense to you, I'd be happy to talk about it further. If it does make sense to you, we can all stop the Chicken Little routine about how if Barbarians are linked to a barbarian culture that means that no one can be a barbarian without a specific SAVAGE background and move on with the conversation. Exactly. Barbarians and monks and paladins and rangers and assassins and whatever else can all be like that. Heck, fighters and wizards and rogues and clerics could be too, but they're making an effort to expand those classes out a bit. And what if you wanted to have Ranger abilities and never joined up with the Rangers, right? I'm 100% positive that these fluff elements won't be forced down your throat by WotC's fun police. In fact, it'll probably be [I]explicitly mentioned in the DMG[/I]. Want to have that kind of monk? Okay, fine, under any DM who doesn't really give a fig, do it. Just like your Chaotic Neutral 3e Monk. Or your Lawful Evil 3e Barbarian. Or your 2e dwarven paladin. Rule Zero that noise. 5e, in being modular, I believe will be designed in such a way that these fluff ideas aren't mechanically enforced (ie: your 5e dwaren paladin won't be "unbalanced,"), so there's nothing stopping you. It's smart to tether this by default for two big reasons, though. [LIST=1] [*] So newbs have a narrative and archetype to jump onto. Give someone new to D&D a "Brawler" class without any context and they'll often shrug and not care. Give them a "Monk" class tethered to kung-fu archetypes and ideas of asceticism, and you've got anyone who likes Bruce Lee already sketching the dragon pattern on the back of their [I]gi[/I]. Engagement, especially for newbs, is priceless. [*] So DMs can hook NPCs and organizations into the world easily. Give a DM broad advice about how organizations can provide for interesting plot hooks and they'll often look at you slack-jawed and maybe say "duh." Give them an organization of monks complete with rivalries and competitions and you've got the plot of [I]The Karate Kid[/I] going (only Mr. Miyagi is a halfling). [/LIST] There's a few ancillary reasons, too, such as the idea that powerful abilities are secret knowledge that must be acquired via adventure (and thus cannot be gained by any old street tough), but those two reasons are the big ones, and that alone makes it a pretty good idea, IMO. And any DM or player who is advanced at his make-believe can look at the fluff, say, "Naaah, I've got a better idea," and nix it. No problem, no risk, no issue. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
D&D Next Q&A (11Oct)
Top