Rogue schemes and other classes

[Tehnai]

I was reading about the rogue's schemes in the Wired.com article and started thinking "What if this is the way classes are going to be built?".

Every class would have its set of base abilities (The fighter getting more damage/extra attacks or whatever, cleric getting spellcasting and turn under, and so on) and then would have a set of other abilities based on chosen "subclass", which would have a different name depending on the class.

A fighter could have "Styles", a wizard would choose a "school", we already know rogues choose a scheme and clerics, a domain.

We could extrapolate that to other classes too!

Druid -> Circle
Paladin -> Pledge
Warlock -> Pact
Assassin -> Contract (I dunno)
Bard -> Tradition

And so on, and so forth.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I would not make it a design principle. If you restrict yourself to such things, you make the game inflexible.

Druid circle sounds good. Assasin contract not so. Assasin guild is better.
4e essentials has it abut right: every class uses those design principles or a ariation therof that thematically fits the class.

 

[Tehnai]

Well, the exact wording doesn't matter. What I'm saying is that I'm seeing a sort of "sub-class", or hell, "kit", approach to class building.

I'm not against the idea myself, as long as it's made clear that it won't meddle too much with the "core" of the class. And, of course, I'd be pleased if it was easy to make my own.

The biggest disadvantage I can think of is how many "important decision" you end up making at character creation. I mean, you try and talk about your character when you have to introduce him as a "High (subrace) Elven(race) Ex-criminal(background) Explorer(theme) Rogue (class) charlatan (scheme)"

That being said, it might be tied with class complexity. Simple classes wouldn't have a "kit" to choose (fighter, for example), whereas classes of medium complexity would choose a kit defining some aspect of the character (schemes would define the rogue's skill specialties, domains would define how a cleric fights and what spells he uses), and complex classes would have to be finely tuned (the wizard dedicating some spell slots to at-will spells, others to more powerful vancian magic)

 

[DEFCON 1]

I'm not seeing schools, domains, maneuvers or schemes as "kits", so much as ways to categorize the different mechanics those four classes (wizards and their spells, clerics and their prayers, fighters and their combat exploits, and rogues and their tricks) have as part of what they do.

There are whole heaps of spells that wizards (and the wizard subclasses like the warlock and sorcerer) can use as their primary game mechanic. And those spells get divided up based upon what they do and how they are done. So the life/death spells go into the necromancy "school", the magical compulsion spells go into the enchanting "school" etc.

My guess is that they are taking all the stuff that rogues do (anything that used to be rogue abilities, or Trained skill use that only rogues could accomplish, along with probably a lot of monk stuff) and divide them up and categorize them into "schemes". So things that are acrobatic related-- like climbing sheer surfaces, slow fall, and uncanny dodge would all fall into the burglar scheme. Anything related to bluffing people or things-- like Disguise or using magical items as another class would all fall into the charlatan scheme. Anything to do with opening locks and chests, finding and disarming magical traps, and such would all fall into the thief scheme. Anything that has to do with camoflauge, scavanging for food, setting up deadfalls, not making tracks would all fall into the scout scheme. Etc. etc.

This way... now that all these special rogue tricks are categorized... the other classes that might use some of these things (but not all) could just receive access to certain schemes (rather than having to create long lists of abilities each and every time.)

Monks would have access to the Burglar scheme (in addition to probably some fighter maneuvers). Rangers and Druids would have access to the Scout scheme (in addition to probably some cleric prayers of the nature domain). Bards would have access to probably the charlatan scheme and one or two wizard schools. And so on and so forth.

Makes all the sense in the world to me.

 

[Klaus]

I was reading about the rogue's schemes in the Wired.com article and started thinking "What if this is the way classes are going to be built?".

Every class would have its set of base abilities (The fighter getting more damage/extra attacks or whatever, cleric getting spellcasting and turn under, and so on) and then would have a set of other abilities based on chosen "subclass", which would have a different name depending on the class.

A fighter could have "Styles", a wizard would choose a "school", we already know rogues choose a scheme and clerics, a domain.

We could extrapolate that to other classes too!

Druid -> Circle
Paladin -> Pledge
Warlock -> Pact
Assassin -> Contract (I dunno)
Bard -> Tradition

And so on, and so forth.

You mean like Clerics choosing domains, Wizards choosing schools, Paladins choosing Virtues, Assassins choosing Guilds, Warlocks choosing Pacts, Druids choosing Seasons, Barbarians choosing Homelands, Witches choosing Covens, Fighters choosing Weapons...

It's a good idea!

 

[UngeheuerLich]

On the other hand, your characted could be called:

High Elven Rogue (Charlatan)

Kit: Explorer
Background: Ex Criminal

And everyone knows what you can do.

Instead of:
I am an Elf, but chose to live in cites and train in the longsword instead of the bow. I am also a rogue who specializes in social skills and dabbles in magic a bit. I have skilled diplomacy and use magic device.
I also took the tracking feat and the walk over difficult terrain feat and my other skills are open locks and pick pockets.

So maybe having strong packages will help the narative quite a bit.

And I am not against your Idea. It is just, that it should be possible to make classes, that just don´t have such a struture.
Although I could imagine a fighter taking the "knight", "footsoldier" or "swashbuckler" kit. Those could also be themes.
Maybe those schemes and domains evolved originally out of backgrounds and themes, that were too class specific and restricted creativity.

The more I think about it, the more I like the Idea. Having a kit/path whatever built in many classes allows themes to be more flavourful. You don´t have to pick "mage specialization" as a theme.

On the other hand, It may well happen, that at first level you either chose a theme OR a kit. Or schemes are rolled into themes but are rogue specific.
Or maybe most classes don´t have such a feature, and only the rogue, as his fokus is exploration and improvisation has the benefit of having a theme and a scheme.

But this could as well end in:
Because of the question: "Why can´t my fighter be a charlatan... ", schemes are specific themes, anone can take, but the rogue gets a bonus theme at first level, that must be frome the scheme list.

 

[Tehnai]

Well, I'd be happier if fighters could remain jack of all trades, when it comes to weapon choice.

But the different class "builds" of 4E weren't a bad concept (for me, the problem with 4E was power structure, but I digress).

It's nice and compartmentalized, and allows for easy multiclass options and such.

 

[Tehnai]

On the other hand, your characted could be called:

High Elven Rogue (Charlatan)

Kit: Explorer
Background: Ex Criminal

And everyone knows what you can do.

Instead of:
I am an Elf, but chose to live in cites and train in the longsword instead of the bow. I am also a rogue who specializes in social skills and dabbles in magic a bit. I have skilled diplomacy and use magic device.
I also took the tracking feat and the walk over difficult terrain feat and my other skills are open locks and pick pockets.

So maybe having strong packages will help the narative quite a bit.

And I am not against your Idea. It is just, that it should be possible to make classes, that just don´t have such a struture.
Although I could imagine a fighter taking the "knight", "footsoldier" or "swashbuckler" kit. Those could also be themes.
Maybe those schemes and domains evolved originally out of backgrounds and themes, that were too class specific and restricted creativity.

The more I think about it, the more I like the Idea. Having a kit/path whatever built in many classes allows themes to be more flavourful. You don´t have to pick "mage specialization" as a theme.

On the other hand, It may well happen, that at first level you either chose a theme OR a kit. Or schemes are rolled into themes but are rogue specific.
Or maybe most classes don´t have such a feature, and only the rogue, as his fokus is exploration and improvisation has the benefit of having a theme and a scheme.

But this could as well end in:
Because of the question: "Why can´t my fighter be a charlatan... ", schemes are specific themes, anone can take, but the rogue gets a bonus theme at first level, that must be frome the scheme list.

No reason a fighter couldn't use a ressource of some sort (feat, level, whatever) to multiclass and get access to Charlatan. In the same was a thief could dip into Cleric to gain a domain.

I feel like schemes and domains might answer the "how you use your abilities?" question rather than "what are your abilities?". Both the thief and the charlatan get access to sneak attack, but the thief hides and finds the perfect time to strike whereas the charlatan makes a faint, or the ninja throws a smoke bomb, or whatever. The same goes with the cleric, they are both smiting in the name of their god, but one of them is shooting lasers and the other is smashing with his hammer.

 

[Minigiant]

To me, everything doesn't NEED a specialization.

Rogues need schemes because it is the skill monkey class. It needs to have a way to both get more skills and let players choose which skills they get.

Assassins are assassins. They just kill and the base assassin is the same regardless of who he or she is. The customization is in background and theme. The Viper clan are Noble background and Slayer theme. The Guild of the Black Crow are Solider and Sharpshooters. The Red Ninjas are Thief and Lurkers.

 

[Remathilis]

The could very well be a "generalist" scheme as well, a jack of all trades type deal...