Strip "Background" out of classes

This is exactly what I dislike about the "theme eats class" crowd...

Scenario A:
Two guys want to be rangers. They select the ranger theme, the fighter class, and the scout background. They're both rangers; and both mechanically exactly the same.

Scenario B:
Two guys want to be rangers. They both select the ranger class, but one takes the archer theme and scout background, while the other takes the guardian theme and commoner background. They're both rangers; but one is adept are archery and sneaking and the other is a local hero devoted to guarding his allies from dangerous monsters.

I'm probably in your "theme eats class" crowd, but I don't think about it in knee-jerk terms. I look at it and ask "What, mechanically, would distinguish this class?" If the answer isn't clear, or is "not much" then I look to themes and backgrounds. For me, the advantage is the same as your scenario B. The question, in each case, is not whether you can create the class with BG + theme, but whether thats what's best for the game.

So, for me, Assassin is the easy target. Sorry, Assassin lovers, but I just don't see enough to deserve a full class. Especially when its just soo juicy as a theme to combo with the other classes.

Ranger, IMO, is on the fence, if only because he seems poorly-defined when considered over his history. "He's woodsy"...well that part of Ranger definitely sounds like a "Woodsman" background to me. (Which is definitely not to imply that I think Druid = Cleric + Woodsman.) Its when I get to rest of Ranger that things get fuzzy. "Two Weapon Fighting"....that seems very Theme-like to me, but Fighter + Woodsman + TWP ≠ Ranger. Especially if we go with a Ranger as a "lightly armored" combatant.

Going the other way. If Ranger is a class...what is its reduced form? Seems like maybe a d10 HD, medium armor, some kind of Favored Enemy thing. Woodsman still makes better sense as a background, but maybe the Ranger has a spiffy rider about tracking or something. As far as weaponry goes...maybe we can finally divorce Ranger and TWP. The recent editions had Rangers choosing between Archery and TWP...put those in themes and we're good to go.

Then you can still have your flexibility, swapping in and out other Backgrounds and themes. You just don't get to "double up" on such things for free. Still, a lot of it depends on what you choose as the essential elements of the Ranger class. If Favored Enemy is part of the Woodsman theme...well I think that's not so good.

I think one thing to recognize about these types of discussions is that for all the more specialized classes, some of their fluff and mechanical flavor is likely going to migrate into BGs and themes. Which, I think is great.

EDIT/PS: The more I think about it, Ranger should probably be a class as I described...the tracking/enemy bits are the most specific Rangers-only bits. The rest goes out into BG + themes for recombination with other classes.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Again a very strong straw man argument.

entrepreneur.jpg


My point is that three famous classes from 1e were turned into kits and lost all identity in the name of balance.

The only way "theme eats class" would work is to make things like smite evil, barbarian rage, bard song, or death attack equal to herbalism, reaper, ambusher, and arcane dabbler. Right now, I really doubt that if slayer and barbarian are put against each other, that reaper is really all that better than some form of barbarian rage. Its hypothetical sure, but I'D be willing to buy off things like favored enemy or lay on hands for the cost of a feat.
 

The more I think about it, Ranger should probably be a class as I described...the tracking/enemy bits are the most specific Rangers-only bits. The rest goes out into BG + themes for recombination with other classes.

I have come to this realization for a different reason. The ranger has been a class in every edition. I really think if you consider multi-classing options it really has very little reason to be around. I mean what mechanically will this class bring to the table that is different than a rogue or fighter?
Sneaky
Skilled
Fights good

The only thing I can think of to make it valid is to give it some variant on sneak attack based on their hunting/tracking/exploration/investigation/insight abilities.
 

I have come to this realization for a different reason. The ranger has been a class in every edition. I really think if you consider multi-classing options it really has very little reason to be around. I mean what mechanically will this class bring to the table that is different than a rogue or fighter?
Sneaky
Skilled
Fights good

The only thing I can think of to make it valid is to give it some variant on sneak attack based on their hunting/tracking/exploration/investigation/insight abilities.

I think that's it right there. Although, I think his "skillsy" attribute will likely disappear and get turned turned into tracking/favored enemy class attributes. The sneaky part...that depends on what backgrounds they provide. "Woodsman" might not be very sneaky, but "Scout" probably would.

For the sake of Fighters and a few rogues..you really want TWF to be a theme. Same with Archery....so those prolly won't be the core of the class. The Woodsy part is pretty obviously better as a Background so that you can combine it with other classes. So what's left? Superior Tracking and Favored Enemy stuff. So, if you want that, rather than the straight up combat superiority of the fighter, you take a ranger.

That being said. It may be that they eventually move the name ranger from the class. Name the class "Tracker" or "Hunter". "Ranger" would then be the particular build of "Tracker - Woodsman - TWF\Archery." Ideas like "There will be a default build for each class". Were floating around a while ago, but seem to have died down.

The idea was floated that Fighters may end up with two themes...if that's the case...making a Ranger class becomes a very hard argument, IMO.
 

Of course, if you can remember the other 10 classes, I'm all ears...:)
I don't have the books in front of me, but there were two in the core PHB (paladin and ranger), two more in the DMG (arcane archer and blackguard), and more than a dozen in the "Complete" books (hexblade, spellsword, duskblade, knight of the chalice, etc., etc.) They were all essentially the same class: "guy who uses swords and spells."
 

I don't have the books in front of me, but there were two in the core PHB (paladin and ranger), two more in the DMG (arcane archer and blackguard), and more than a dozen in the "Complete" books (hexblade, spellsword, duskblade, knight of the chalice, etc., etc.) They were all essentially the same class: "guy who uses swords and spells."

Well Vecna, if you go by THAT definition, Bards and Elven Wizards could qualify.

I have a REALLY hard time thinking paladin, ranger, and duskblade are similar enough to really be interchangeable. Paladins and rangers don't get their spells till later, and only have a few weak spells (at 1/2 caster level) and really rely on a few supernatural or extraordinary abilities plus fighting. Whereas the duskblade is built to gish; spells at first level, ability to wear armor and cast, and cast-and-attack powers. No comparison, except on the most superficial level.
 

My point is that three famous classes from 1e were turned into kits and lost all identity in the name of balance.

I agree that some identity was lost for those classes, but I would argue that it wasn't done for balance reasons. Rather, I believe it was done to push most impetus for having subclasses into a more modular structure. Less expansive class list, more flexible options for developing a character, addition of ways for characters to be partly mechanically the same while also being different (same kits + different classes or same classes + different kits).

The barbarian, as the new kid on the block, wasn't considered iconic enough to keep its identity... at least until the Complete Barbarian's Handbook came along - probably in response to customer demands. The monk, originally intended to be an appendix and barely workable in 1e form, simply didn't make the cut outside of OA. And the assassin fell victim to the same thing as the barbarian, ultimately, lack of need to be a specific class rather than an aspect of the character that could be class independent.

I think 2e had some good ideas in it. That some kits were underwhelming or uneven, particularly early on, was unfortunate (that cavalier kit was MUCH better than most others in perks). But I don't necessarily think the structural change was wrong-headed. Making barbarian a modifier for fighters, paladins, or rangers rather than an entity on its own wasn't a bad idea.
 

There is a problem with this idea; it was tried once before!

2nd edition turned a bunch of classes into kits during the early years of of the Complete Handbooks. The idea was akin to this; why make a dozen new classes when you could just flavor the current ones via kits. Thus, classes like cavalier, barbarian, thief-acrobat, assassin, and monk all became kits. Some of them didn't translate too well...

[sblock=Barbarian 2e]Special Benefits: Barbarians are impressive because of sheer strength, intensity, and animal magnetism; this gives them a +3 reaction adjustment bonus in certain situations.
Whenever the barbarian character achieves a reaction roll of 8 or less (including Charisma and racial bonuses), you subtract the modifier. That is, if the reaction is positive at all, it will be even more positive than it otherwise would have been.

That was only one of several takes on the barbarian in Complete Fighter. You left out the following

Beast Rider: "The Beast-Rider is a warrior in a clan or tribe (usually, a barbarian tribe) which has a strong affinity for one type of animal.

Berserker: This is the rager. Note in the Role Section that it states in "In
his tribe, the berserker has a special role"

Savage: Described as even more primitive than the Barbarian and Berserker

Wilderness Warrior: This can be the barbarian with favored terrain.

That's the essence of a barbarian right; a bonus to reaction rolls. No d12 hp, no rage, no bonuses to speed or hatred of magic.

Well, I don't see the d12 or any othe that stuff as the essence of a barbarian.

Rage? The official 1e Barbarian did not rage. I might be wrong, but I don't recall the Barbarian in the 2e version raging either. Furthermore, there is no reason that rage should be limited to "barbarian characters with wilderness skills".

Hatred of Magic? Sounds more appropriate for a specific cultures within campaign setting or a character with a taboo but not something that applies to every barbarian. Among the various small scale societies in our history, magic is osomething that tends to be all around the people and part of their every day lives . Often there is good magic and bad magic. Good magic might help the hunt or a specific activity. It might determine the source of an illness (including the sorcerer that cast it) or heal. It may wash away the contamination from outsiders or harmful spirits. It might detect those that wield harmful magic.


[sblock=Assassin 2e]Special Benefits: Because of their training and experience with the use of poisons, Assassins also can identify poisons used by others. The base chance of doing so is the Assassin's level multiplied by 5%.
Assassins with intelligence of 13-15 get a +5% bonus on the attempt; 16-17, a +10% bonus; and 18, +15%. Further adjustments depend on how the Assassin attempts the identification: sight, smell, taste, or symptoms.
Sight means examination of the poison or poisoned article. Many poisons have a distinctive appearance, or they may have a corrosive or discoloring effect on metals, foods, etc. Identification by sight has a -20% modifier. Its advantage is that the Assassin needn't worry about poisoning himself in the process.
A poison may also be identified by its odor. This carries a -15% penalty. Furthermore, if it is an ingested or contact poison, there is a 10% chance that the Assassin will be affected by the poison, though at half strength (i.e., no effect if the saving throw is successful, and if it's not, normal save damage is applied—see the Dungeon Master's Guide, p. 73).
Taste is a fairly reliable, if dangerous, method of identifying a poison. It carries a -5% penalty. After dabbing a tiny bit on his tongue, the Assassin spits it out. There is still a chance that the poison will affect the Assassin: 25% for injected poison, 75% for ingested, and 100% for contact. The poison's effects, if any, are half strength (see above).
The most certain way of identifying a poison is by its symptom (no penalty on the attempt). The drawback of this method is of course that you need a poisoned character to examine.
An Assassin with herbalism proficiency gets a +5% identification bonus because of his knowledge of toxins extracted from plants. An Assassin with healing proficiency gets a +10% bonus in any case. These bonuses are not cumulative.
An attempt to identify a poison takes one round; be sure to keep track of time elapsed and the onset time of the poison. If one method of identification fails, the next may be tried. If none of the four produce an answer then the poison will remain a mystery to that Assassin. (The Assassin could attempt identification again after he's gained an experience level, but this is not normally of any help.)
Identification of a poison also means knowledge of its antidote (if one exists); it does not mean that the antidote is available, however. An Assassin with herbalism proficiency may attempt to make an antidote from scratch (see special rules, p. 113).[/sblock]
When I think AD&D assassin, I think poison-use. But I also think death attacks, shadow magic, hiding in plain sight, spying, and a bunch of other cool shadowy powers...

Whereas, I want the non-mystical assassin. I don't want the Assassin with Shadow Magic, Hide in Plain. A rogue or fighter with a theme works very well for this.

[sblock=Monk 2e]he principal benefit of being a Fighting-Monk is that the character receives two free weapon proficiency slots which he must use to take Specialization in one of the three styles of Unarmed Combat (Punching, Wrestling, or Martial Arts). These were described in greater detail in The Complete Fighter's Handbook, but that information also appears here, in the "Equipment and Combat" chapter. The Fighting-Monk is the only priest who can specialize in an Unarmed Combat style. He can specialize in any or all of the three styles, but he may only specialize in one of them at first experience level.
As a second benefit, regardless of what it says for the priest's class, the Fighting-Monk has a Nonweapon Proficiency Group Crossover with all five Proficiency Groups (General, Priest, Rogue, Warrior, Wizard). No proficiency he takes will cost double the usual number of slots.
The last of the Fighting-Monk's benefits is this: He doesn't have to spend all his starting Weapon Proficiency slots at first level. He can save his unspent proficiencies, and they do not "go away." Later, he can spend them at a rate of one proficiency per experience level to improve his martial arts or buy new martial arts.[/sblock]
Well, that just screams "Monk" to me; no bonus to AC, no movement, no ki-powers, not even a decent unarmed attack system

While I agree about lack of a decent unarmed combat system, I like my Monk as a priest. THe OA Shaman was one of the few non-core WOTC classes that I allowed and it replaced the PHB monk in my campaigns.
Personally, I want multiple types of monks (I liked the Rolemaster Standard System Martial Arts Companion for this reason)
a. divine monk (think OA Shaman that lacks the spirit companion, can turn undead and has a slightly different spell list). Instead of ki, physical prowess and combat ability is enhanced by divine spells that is combines with unarmed training.
b. a nature based monk that has no turn/rebuke, is attuned to nature, studies the movement of animals, can shapeshift and taps into nature to boost both physical prowess and combat ability
c. a spirit based monk that gains powers from spirits, turn spirits, spirit companion.
d. an arcane monk that knows arcane spells and uses arcana to enhance their abilities
e. a psionic based monk with clairvoyance, telekinesis, etc.
f. a warrior monk better at fighting than the others, versatile in more weapons, strikes vital points, strikes pressure points, dim mak, channel ki to perform feats of strength, agility, quickness, make body hard (protection), heavy (reduce bull rush), light (increased leaping, walk on surfaces with no trace, etc)
 
Last edited:

So the Ranger and their woodsiness...
If the Fighter is the guy who gets a background, two themes (one as a scheme say) and the other as a theme everyone gets.
If the rogue is the guy that gets a theme, two backgrounds (one as a scheme say) and the other as a background that everyone gets.

The ranger I see as literally as the rogue. Lightly armored, skillful, has a bonus damage ability (favored enemy vs. sneak attack). The only difference is the wilderness background. And that is easily accomplished by making one of the rogues schemes simply ranger as thief granting skills in woodsy stuff (tracking, survival etc) instead of city stuff. The ranger could easily not exist as a class, imho.

The ranger needs to exist though. To satisfy some. So what mechanically could separate the ranger from the rogue?
 

(This is far too long. TL;DR: Classes should be unique, but having a theme that speaks to the class concept as well would allow groups to decide what sort of chargen they *want* to have)

Embrace the power of "Both" :-)

Seriously... there's enough room in the design space for both approaches, and that way lies much greater flexibility.

That's not saying *every* character concept should be a class. I think that classes should only exist where it's possible to explain - in no more than two sentences - exactly what part of the design space that class does better than every other class out there. There should be one thing that every class does that no other class can *exactly* match, otherwise there's no point in it existing.

Two sentences to explain what the class is best at, and how it fits into the three parts of a game.

(These are all my takes on the classes, of course)

So the Fighter is (let's not get into an argument about whether the playtest *sample* character embodies this for you) the best pure combat class in the game. It is entirely focussed on combat.

The Rogue is a the best skill-using class in the game. It is balanced between exploration and combat, with a powerful situational attack based on the use of its skills.

The Wizard is a powerful Vancian magic-user, and the most flexible magic-using class in the game. It specialises in none of the three pillars, but can be aimed at any of them with spell selection.

The Bard can't match the fighter at combat, the rogue at skills or the wizard at spells but it is good enough at all three to fill out whatever areas a group is weak at. It is the best jack-of-all-trades in the game.

And so on.

The Ranger, I think, should be the best hunter in the game - regardless of whether that's urban, wilderness, whatever. It should be a class which is equally focussed on exploration and combat.

But the existence of that class doesn't mean you can't have a Theme that captures *some* of the archetype. You could, for instance, have a Hunter theme that gives you some mechanical benefits to capture or ambush your enemies. This would be orthogonal to the Ranger class - a Ranger might take the Hunter theme and end up particularly aimed at hunting things. But any other character could take that (or similar) themes and be "a bit like a ranger".

It's then easy for a group to decide that they want a simpler set of base classes - they could only allow the core classes, and say that a ranger is someone with a ranger-like theme, a paladin is someone with a holy warrior theme, etc.

Or they could use the full set of classes. Isn't part of the point of 5e supposed to be about making lots of different play-styles work within the same system?
 

Remove ads

Top