Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Abstruse" data-source="post: 5939653" data-attributes="member: 6669048">And that's where my argument about variation comes in. Is there enough variation in the archetype of the "ranger" or "paladin" or whatever that it needs to have those theme/background options open in order to cover all the ground?What makes a ranger a ranger and how far from that core idea of a ranger can you get and still meet that archetypical definition of a ranger? If my character can track, can survive in the woods, and is a good archer (or two-weapon fighter); is that a ranger, or is there more to it? Either way, how far from that ideal can you stray and still be a ranger?Here's an example where I say "no": Assassin.An assassin is someone who uses stealth and guile to kill quickly. There is a lot of variation to that, but at its core, that's what an assassin is. If I put a theme like "Slayer" on the rogue, it still feels like an assassin of the "quick kill and fade" style. It's someone who hides in the shadows and leaps out to strike doing the most damage possible as quickly as possible to avoid a counter-attack. If I put a theme like "Thief" on the fighter, it still feels like an assassin of the "hitman" style. It's someone who uses skills and stealth to track a target and gain advantage while standing toe to toe until they're dead. If I put a theme like "arcane dabbler" on the rogue, it feels like a mystic ninja style assassin. And so on. I can create all the main variations of an assassin without needing a class to do so. I also cannot find a way in which the "assassin" archetype would benefit more by being a class than a theme or build type. There's nothing that's part of the core identity that's left out. Anything else is purely roleplaying or background - You give me gold and I kill someone. There's just not enough variation on what is and isn't the archetype of "assassin" to justify that being a class.Here's an example where I say "yes": Warlord (for the record, I had to be convinced on this one)A warlord is a martial fighter who takes a leadership and support role, not as effective in combat but able to provide allies with much-needed bonuses and aid. Is this class unique? Yes, it covers ground that feels thematically different from both the cleric and the fighter. If you give the warlord the ability to give other characters actions or make them focused on handing out advantage as well as an option to use mundane healing during combat ("spend an action and use of a healing kit to allow an adjacent ally to spend hit dice"), then the warlord feels completely different from the cleric and fills an entirely different role. It also feels different from the fighter as it can do things that the fighter cannot do.Does this class have enough room for variations? Yes, depending on what themes they end up with. You can build your warlord to lead from the front, doing damage himself while aiding others. You can build one that leads from the rear, pointing out weaknesses in the enemy lines while dealing out an occasional blow. You can play a warlord that stands back from the fighting entirely, focused solely on aiding allies like the gentlemen officer stereotype the British Empire loved so much. You can focus on aiding your allies or demoralizing your enemies. There's a lot of room to play around here.That's what I'm trying to do with the other classes. What makes a monk unique from an acrobatic unarmed fighter? What makes a paladin different from a warpriest-style cleric? What makes a ranger different from a woodland archer build fighter or rogue? And how many different variations of those classes can you make using themes that are still at their core a monk, a paladin, a ranger, etc.?</blockquote>

Verification