Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 5901298" data-attributes="member: 92511">It does, Steely Dan, sound like it could be done that way. But then, where does that line get drawn? The argument could be made that we can boil every class down to &quot;Caster/Non-caster&quot; and then use Backgrounds and Themes to create the D&amp;D class archetypes. If every &quot;performer&quot; BG is a Bard- Acrobats, fortunetellers, thespians, fire-breathers (in the circus/carnival sense, not ACTUAL fire-breathing races which are not out of the realm of possibility in a D&amp;D world. lol) I don't think I'd actually enjoy that.I think, more likely, you will still see a Bard as a class...possibly this has a &quot;performer&quot; or at least &quot;minstrel&quot; Background built-in/for free as a class feature. Then the BG's can offer more specific background stuff. And the themes, as someone mentioned, might allow for a &quot;arcane caster&quot; Bard or/vs. a &quot;Druidic caster&quot; bard or/vs. a &quot;historical loremaster/info&quot; bard, etc. And you can pile on the other themes as you increase level.As another example/further evidence of this: a recent article mentioned, again, Assassin as a full class. Imho, assassin is one of the prime examples of a &quot;class&quot; that could easily and &quot;realistically&quot; be accomplished via BG and Theme. BUT, they've said (repeatedly now) it will definitely be its own class...thus allowing, through BG and Theme, the possibilities for a thug/physical/non-magic assassin guy, the spy/disguise/espionage James Bond specialist kind of a assassin and, most probably, a &quot;shadow-magic&quot; 4e-ish caster/&quot;ninja&quot; assassin.In short, it sounds like they are sticking to the originally claimed intention of making &quot;all classes of a 1st PHB as actual classes&quot;. With BGs and Themes, this makes the &quot;variants&quot; for each of those classes nearly infinite/only subject to the player's (and/or DM's allowances of) imagination. (also meaning we don't need splat books for 101 ways to vary a Bard...or assassin...or whatever. &quot;Prestige Classes&quot; are more or less the way of the dodo, which I have no problem with. They'll probably make these books anyway...but we won't need them.)I think, on paper, it sounds great! I just hope that it doesn't become an endless list of feats and themes and abilities to tack on that becomes 1) impossibly difficult for players, new and old, to sort through/get bogged down in and 2) doesn't lead to this mish-mosh of &quot;any class appearing to be or performing as well as any other class&quot; because they take XYZ theme or bg.--SD</blockquote>

[QUOTE="steeldragons, post: 5901298, member: 92511"] It does, Steely Dan, sound like it [I]could[/I] be done that way. But then, where does that line get drawn? The argument could be made that we can boil [I]every[/I] class down to "Caster/Non-caster" and [I]then[/I] use Backgrounds and Themes to create the D&D class archetypes. If every "performer" BG is a Bard- Acrobats, fortunetellers, thespians, fire-breathers (in the circus/carnival sense, not ACTUAL fire-breathing races which are not out of the realm of possibility in a D&D world. lol) I don't think I'd actually enjoy that. I think, more likely, you will still see a Bard as a class...possibly this has a "performer" or at least "minstrel" Background built-in/for free as a class feature. Then the BG's can offer more specific background stuff. And the themes, as someone mentioned, might allow for a "arcane caster" Bard or/vs. a "Druidic caster" bard or/vs. a "historical loremaster/info" bard, etc. And you can pile on the other themes as you increase level. As another example/further evidence of this: a recent article mentioned, again, Assassin as a full class. Imho, assassin is one of the prime examples of a "class" that could easily and "realistically" be accomplished via BG and Theme. BUT, they've said (repeatedly now) it will definitely be its own class...thus allowing, through BG and Theme, the possibilities for a thug/physical/non-magic assassin guy, the spy/disguise/espionage James Bond specialist kind of a assassin and, most probably, a "shadow-magic" 4e-ish caster/"ninja" assassin. In short, it sounds like they are sticking to the originally claimed intention of making "all classes of a 1st PHB as actual classes". With BGs and Themes, this makes the "variants" for each of those classes nearly infinite/only subject to the player's (and/or DM's allowances of) imagination. (also meaning we don't need splat books for 101 ways to vary a Bard...or assassin...or whatever. "Prestige Classes" are more or less the way of the dodo, which I have no problem with. They'll probably make these books anyway...but we won't need them.) I think, on paper, it sounds great! I just hope that it doesn't become an endless list of feats and themes and abilities to tack on that becomes 1) impossibly difficult for players, new and old, to sort through/get bogged down in and 2) doesn't lead to this mish-mosh of "any class appearing to be or performing as well as any other class" because they take XYZ theme or bg. --SD [/QUOTE]

Verification