For core PHB classes --> sorcerer and warlock

[Sadrik]

We already saw what "let's make classes generic and assume players/DMs will add the flavor when they reskin them". Thats what 4E did, and people had a crap attack about it.

I see fourth edition as the opposite of what your saying. It was heavily scripted. It had way too many options.

In the way fifth edition has been set up, classes should be generic and backgrounds very specific with lots of flavor. Implemented properly most people would be happy with this I think. Have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Salamandyr]

I have a feeling that things like Warlock Patrons and Deities will be used as examples, but they'll be tailorable. Change the name of the fey patron to whatever you like, but the fey warlock isn't going to differ much.

I'm sure this is the way they'll do it.

However, I wouldn't mind getting even more generic, and leaving out deity and patron names altogether. That way we can avoid another 5 years of profound internet discussions about what the Raven Queen is really like.

 

[slobster]

So my argument is not that I do not want there to be a scripted backstory. I don't want it to be nailed to only one scripted backstory.

I admit I'm a little confused by statements like this. How could they "nail" a backstory to a class so firmly that you, as GM, couldn't replace it in its entirety at your whim?

 

[Sadrik]

I admit I'm a little confused by statements like this. How could they "nail" a backstory to a class so firmly that you, as GM, couldn't replace it in its entirety at your whim?

Allow me to elucidate. When the fluff is so pronounced that the mechanics are driven by it. For instance, the Ranger being tied to an organization and being only from the forest. The warlock especially is very tied to its backstory remarkably even more so than the cleric. It strikes me as odd. I can see the idea of a pacts as a theme or background even, one that could be tied to a cleric, druid, wizard, or sorcerer. In my opinion, if it is so specific that it makes sense as a prestige class then it doesn't need to be a base class, it needs to be a theme or background.

 

[VinylTap]

I think this is an important issue to the design team. They want to tell a story, and not just give a frame work of ad-libs you can fill in. The presentation of this is going to be really important, and I hope they are aware of that. But at the end of the day, they want to give people who don't have 20 hours a week to soak into world building something tangible.

WOTC are expecting people to use their tools freely (as far as re-fluffing etc is concerned), but if they don't present it in the right way, its a level of freedom that won't sit well with a lot of people. There's a lot of people who will be given a ranger -themed warrior and won't ever be happy with it. No matter how robust the system for that ranger-flavoured warrior is. Some people won't be happy until they see their preferred class given the full treatment. But that's the stuff of a future module.

This problem will be biggest with the core rule set and will get less and less of an issue as they fill out the system with modules... if anyone's still paying attention.

 

[slobster]

Allow me to elucidate. When the fluff is so pronounced that the mechanics are driven by it. For instance, the Ranger being tied to an organization and being only from the forest. The warlock especially is very tied to its backstory remarkably even more so than the cleric. It strikes me as odd. I can see the idea of a pacts as a theme or background even, one that could be tied to a cleric, druid, wizard, or sorcerer. In my opinion, if it is so specific that it makes sense as a prestige class then it doesn't need to be a base class, it needs to be a theme or background.

I suppose if the ranger had a bunch of stuff like "only usable in the forest" and "only usable while hiding in a tree", then I would see where you are coming from. But the sorcerer and the warlock's fluff is not nearly so integrated with their mechanics. If you want to change the example ranger's abilities so that they have nothing to do with the forest, you could concievably run up against realism and balance issues. Changing the warlock's power source from eldritch pacts to the power of love and friendship poses no such obstacles.

So I agree with you in the general sense that backstory and mechanics shouldn't be entirely interleaved. This is D&D, you need to leave the door (and as many windows as you can) wide open for GM futzing-about. I don't think the playtest classes pose any problems in that regard, though.

 

[Remathilis]

Rem, you seem to be making my point here. Ultimately there has to be some mechanical interest. But there doesn't have to be a scripted backstory to each of these classes. I as the DM want to write that scripted backstory myself. Or I want the designers of a setting to write that backstory. I would not mind if the backstory was presented as an option next to the class. This way everyone would be happy. It would also allow the classes to be fundamentally modified by a different setting. So my argument is not that I do not want there to be a scripted backstory. I don't want it to be nailed to only one scripted backstory.

Not seeing it.

A wizard has a scripted backstory. He was taught by someone who knew magic how to cast spells from dusty tomes. He spent so much time in magical study he never learned to use weapons or wear armor. Eventually, he left his mentor and became an adventurer.

You can change "mentor" to "wizard school" if you want, but you have a scripted backstory right there. It explains how he and his textbook gained the power to blow up goblins. You can customize it with a background if you like, but in the end the core classes still spell out your origin to some degree.

Ultimately it comes down to tastes. If you only use D&D for greyhawk or forgotten realms, Having an easily accessible backstory written directly into the character class is good for you but not for everyone. For instance, if you do Ravenloft or dark sun or the myriads of other settings that people play that are not encapsulated in the scripted backstory being so far presented in the players handbook it can be frustrating.

Ravenloft in 2e had no problem with removing the paladin, bard, and druid classes in Domains of Dread. Dark Sun had absolutely no problem banning the divine power source in 4e. To make a core that would account for both require the PHB have no paladins, bards, clerics, or druids.

Really this seems like a nonissue almost, because they have provided a huge bonus to all of us in the form of backgrounds and specialties. This is an area where everyone can be happy. This is an area where they can draw upon strong scripted back stories. I would not have a problem with this. As the quintessential D&D setting is Greyhawk. Make most of the backgrounds and themes applicable to that setting. Have these presented in the PHB, along with all the Greyhawk gods and any other setting considerations.

Not this again...

Backgrounds and specialties =/= classes. You can't build a meaningful warlock using the wizard class, 3-4 skills and 5 feats.

I see fourth edition as the opposite of what your saying. It was heavily scripted. It had way too many options.

In the way fifth edition has been set up, classes should be generic and backgrounds very specific with lots of flavor. Implemented properly most people would be happy with this I think. Have your cake and eat it too.

4e told me to refluff a ranger as a rogue so I could use a shortbow.

And classes shouldn't be generic. You can buy a dozen fantasy heartbreakers with generic classes. Heck, D&D even made some for 3e. Seriously, if D&D classes are going to be so vague and generic that the terms are meaningless titles given to specific builds of generic abilities, make Next Classless and be done with it.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I love the specificity of the current warlock. If you want to work with the DM to come up with a new fey patron who steals your shadow instead of giving you warts, go ahead - but part of the appeal of these new classes is how much flavor they deliver in the class features.

 

[tlantl]

I think we're going to see something similar to what they did with the sorcerer and warlock when the wizardly traditions are presented.

I'm betting this is where the specialties for mages will come from and i'd assume that they will come with some pretty specific back story elements. Especially since in all of the seminars I've watched they make it a point to say that everything they do in developing this game is story driven, everything they do has a basis in the game world. All of this stuff being bandied about as fluff is what is driving the character design.

People who have issue with this will not be pleased. The good thing is that nothing is concrete in that in-world story. I don't like how they describe the way an orc tribe works, but since the orc as a monster works mechanically in game I don't have to use their description I can use my own. But if they didn't give me that background to start I'd have more work to do when I create encounters and write the plot. (The players write the story.)

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I love the specificity of the current warlock. If you want to work with the DM to come up with a new fey patron who steals your shadow instead of giving you warts, go ahead - but part of the appeal of these new classes is how much flavor they deliver in the class features.