Excited About Race / Class / Theme

[Knightfall]

If Warlord gets turned into a theme, I demand rangers and barbarians do as well.

Fair is fair.

I could live with barbarian as a theme; it might be a little harder to accept ranger as one, however.

 

[trancejeremy]

I could live with barbarian as a theme; it might be a little harder to accept ranger as one, however.

I think Barbarian would work very well as a theme.

Ranger probably not, since it's so specific, but some other classes, like Assassin would make more sense as themes.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Barbarian as a theme, yes. Berserker (which is what barbarians should have always been called) I am not sure.

 

[Knightfall]

I think Barbarian would work very well as a theme.

Ranger probably not, since it's so specific, but some other classes, like Assassin would make more sense as themes.

I have no problem with Assassin as a theme. That way you can be a fighter-assassin or a rogue-assassin or a wizard-assassin, etc.

In truth, any class, subclass, kit, prestige class, or paragon path that could be applied to any of the basic class archetypes could conceivably be a theme -- as long as its focus is broad.

Amazon comes to mind. How many 2e classes had amazon kits. Noble as well. Peasant Hero anyone?

Cavalier could definitely work as a theme.

Savage could work; however, barbarian has always been the D&D name, so I doubt it will be renamed.

Warlord. Yes.

Warlock wouldn't work; it's too specific, IMO. In fact, when you start to get into arcane and divine nomenclature, it gets a lot tougher. For example...

Can paladin be a theme? Can you be a wizard-paladin? A rogue-paladin?

What about sorcerer?

Now, elementalist, on the other hand, would be an excellent choice for a theme even though you'd have trouble applying it to non-spellcasters. But, imagine a fighter-elementalist. How could that work?

Lots and lots of roleplaying potential.

 

[Aldarc]

I believe you meant "relegated", but I don't think that's accurate. Conceptually, a member of any class could reasonably fit the common language definition of the word "warlord". Trying to manufacture an entire set of mechanics to fit that name didn't work. Adding a few charisma-based benefits onto any character interested in tactical leadership might be better.

Since they've noted that themes aren't class specific, illusionist won't be one. Trickster, maybe.

Couldn't the same be said for a "fighter" or "barbarian" or "thief"?

 

[Number48]

I picture the Race + Class + Theme as being of equal importance, both thematically and mechanically. I think it was already mentioned that you could focus on Theme when leveling. I would like to see Class focus on damage and Theme focus on non-combat. Didn't they say something about skills being more tied to Theme than Class?In my 5E, Themes would have levels that went at the same time as Class. I could, in fact, get behind a system where Race leveled, as well. Thus you would be lvl. 3 Dwarf Fighter Noble, not a Dwarf Noble, lvl. 3 Fighter.

I'm wondering how close this is going to match my own proposed design and how much I'm going to like it.

I think the ability to focus on either Race, Class or Feat as you level will be in the form of Feats separated out into those categories. That kind of separation can really help a player focus on the kind of game he's actually in to help make the choice between improving combat or non-combat stuff. I also think that Feats won't be a necessary part of being your class, you won't have to take all combat feats if you're a fighter. Feats were put out there as something that gives more options, not more damage.

 

[Knightfall]

Another theme idea: Two-weapon Master

That way, the ranger doesn't get forced into being the default two-weapon specialist.

Plus, archer.

Ranger-archer; fighter-archer; rogue-archer; cleric-archer. Etc.

Or, with multiclassing...

Ranger/rogue-archer

 

[BobTheNob]

If Warlord gets turned into a theme, I demand rangers and barbarians do as well.

Fair is fair.

Yep. Especially the barbarian...I never really liked that a cultural background had been turned into a class

Mind you, overbake this analysis, you wont have many classes left (Fighter, Rogue, Cleric and mage basically)

 

[Ichneumon]

Themes are an ideal home for character concepts which have appeal, apply across a broad range of character types, and don't quite work as classes or never gained the necessary traction.

Knight is a good example of an archetype which is immediately recognizable, difficult to make a decent class out of, but would work great as a theme. I think Witch falls into the same category, as does Gladiator.

I'd be happy to see Assassin as a theme, but I personally think Barbarian works best as a class. Seer or Mystic appeal as more caster-friendly themes which could still work with non-casting classes. As for 4e classes that could be introduced as themes, I'd pick Avenger, Shaman, and Sentinel (Essentials druid).

 

[The Human Target]

I could live with barbarian as a theme; it might be a little harder to accept ranger as one, however.

I think Barbarian would work very well as a theme.

Ranger probably not, since it's so specific, but some other classes, like Assassin would make more sense as themes.

Yep. Especially the barbarian...I never really liked that a cultural background had been turned into a class

Mind you, overbake this analysis, you wont have many classes left (Fighter, Rogue, Cleric and mage basically)

You can look at a ranger as just being a guy who's awesome at outdoorsy stuff, maybe gets a bonus against some enemies, is better at tracking, etc.

I'm not saying you should do it, but I think a lot of the classes are really twists on basic classes plus very specific flavour and "skill" selection.

You could make the Barbarian into the Savage or Trbal or Berserker theme. Ranger into... Ranger or Woodsman or Scout. Warlock and Sorcerer into theme's for wizards. Paladin for fighters or clerics.

Its all in where you want things to belong really and how important something is to you.

If you don't add the complication of a divide between arcane and divine magic, and assume every class has both in and out of combat skill, you basically have two classes. Magic guy and Not Magic Guy.