Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kannik" data-source="post: 8951285" data-attributes="member: 984">To be clear (and clearly I wasn't! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> ), I'm not advocating for the 9 square grid coverage of each role and power source being covered... or that some square isn't covered twice or covered in different ways from different classes.  (Also, it's also likely not an actual 9 square grid, but that's a very strong element in architectural theory/history/design, so I went with it... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> )Rather, what I'm looking at is how, from 1e onward, certain classes have a thematic/profession flair to them, with abilities to support it, while others do not.  Look at the fighter in 2e -- the whole class fits on less than a page, and a good chunk of that is the followers table for what happens at level 9.  There's nothing else to them.  Yet the Ranger (my go-to example for this) gets bits on tracking, on interacting with animals, on creature hunting, and so on.  Druids get a whole thing on their organization and ethos.  Because of that, it is both limiting but also can get confusing and narratively weird.  What if you want to have a band of wilderness scouts who protect the villages and the forest?  Do they all need to be the Ranger class to be a Ranger?  Why couldn't a veteran cleric in that group be as adept at survival and tracking as the "Ranger" Ranger?  I like the capabilities that come with groups like the Rangers or Druids (and the flavour too, though that needs to be left so that the DM can customize it for their world/campaign), and don't want all classes stripped down with nothing to replace them.  Which is what 4e PHB did, in many ways -- there's almost no Ranger-esque riders to the Ranger class anymore, instead the class is really detailing a skirmishing dual-wielder or archer.So my suggestion, which at first might seem counterintuitive, is to go full bore and strip every class down so they are all focused on their powers (and rename ones like the Ranger that have historical identities), AND also very much add another layer to cover that second layer of capabilities and flavour, such as being a Ranger, as a profession/calling.   Thus, you'd have something like your Power/Class (HP, HS, Defenses, Weapon/Armour proficiency, some abilities, and your AEDU-ish powers), and your Profession (Skills, additional non-encounter based abilities, perhaps some additional U powers on a separate track).  To that I would also follow the now-common idea to split up what's traditionally covered in Race into Parentage/Ancestry (no ability score modifiers, but a few flavorful abilities (like dragonbreath) tied to the physiology), and your Past (which including culture and backgrounds, skills and perhaps an ability).  Then one can include Theme, Paragon Paths, and Epic Destinies.But back to classes, yes, very much I agree we do not need to hit every combo of every type, and only once.  With this redesign the resulting list of classes would hit their intended marks really well while being even more evocative/flavorful in how they use their power sources.  And I think there's an advantage to adding on the extra layer of a profession/role in the world, separate from their role in the party/encounter.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification