Defining Classes/Making the cut...

[steeldragons]

I'm spinning this off of the "Classes of 5e (now with 90% less speculation)" thread.

As posted by Aldarc

My biggest worry with having too many classes is class redundancy caused by a lack of clear conceptual vision for each class or flexibility within classes. The D&D Next design team really needs to sit down and force themselves to question everything about the conceptualization of classes. If they are including clerics, they need to ask "What is a cleric? What makes a cleric? How do clerics conceptually differ from other classes? What justifies the existence of clerics as a class?"

I am so intrigued with this, I thought I'd make this separate thread for exploring just this.

I am leaving out the "What makes a...?" question.
1) Because I think it meshes a bit with "How are --- conceptually different from other classes?"
2) I feel it might get into the mechanical minutia that just begs for arguments and edition citations, which is not what these questions are designed to answer. If the only difference of "what makes a ---" is its mechanics, then that doesn't seem to be enough, imho.
and 3) Really is/could be answered in "fluff/flavor" terms which, I feel, then would be narrowing of perceptions of the archetype...which I think should be kept broad to facilitate whatever the player wants to do with the class and, again, lead to undesirable disagreement.

So...for the purposes of this thread: Take a class and answer these basic but poignant questions.

Try to keep it brief...if it can't be done in, say 1-3 sentences...ok, let's make it 4 (since I know once we move into more specialized classes more specific details might be necessary)...if it can't be done in 4 sentences or less it might be worth questioning the validity/importance/necessity of making that separate class.

1) What is a ---?
2) How do --- conceptually differ from other classes?
3) What justifies the existence of --- as a class?

It would be my contention that a class that can not answer these questions really has not business a) being a class in the first place or b) at least getting relegated to some supplemental material, but not appear in the initial release.

I responded, in the previous thread, with Aldarc's example. So, to get things started:

Cleric:
-"What is a...": a Divinely-powered caster class. A devout priest of their faith imbued with powers above and beyond the lay "follower".
-"How do they differ from other classes?": They are divine and casters in origin. They are "connected" to their deity in a way few other mortals will ever experience.
-"What justifies...": Every culture from the most primitive to the most civilized has a conception/system of religion, an afterlife, and greater powers more or less generically referred to as "the gods." Clerics are the intermediaries for these cultural/societal beliefs in "civilized" cultures and organized religions.

G'head. Pick a class, run with it.

And Happy Sunday, all.
--Steel Dragons

 

[Raith5]

I will start with the Assassin.

1) I think the assassin is class that is built around stealth, disguise, evasion, quick attacks at range or close melee. They are a class that could be considered a subclass of the rogue, but is probably more combat orientated and probably more of a lone wolf in the sense that it could target individuals in non-combat situation for money, political or religious reasons (remembering that assassins have a religious aspect in the real world).

2) Aside from overlapping with the rogue, I think they overlap a bit with the avenger. Despite their connection with shadow power source in 4th ed I still see then as a martial class - maybe with some magical tricks and the use of poisons.

3) The only thing that justifies this class is that they are seriously cool!

Personally I dont think they should be a distinct class - I would like to see them as a more combat orientated option for a rouge that contrsts with a skills orientated thief, etc