Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ratskinner" data-source="post: 5949091" data-attributes="member: 6688937">I'm probably in your &quot;theme eats class&quot; crowd, but I don't think about it in knee-jerk terms. I look at it and ask &quot;What, mechanically, would distinguish this class?&quot; If the answer isn't clear, or is &quot;not much&quot; 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. &quot;He's woodsy&quot;...well that part of Ranger definitely sounds like a &quot;Woodsman&quot; 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. &quot;Two Weapon Fighting&quot;....that seems very Theme-like to me, but Fighter + Woodsman + TWP ≠ Ranger. Especially if we go with a Ranger as a &quot;lightly armored&quot; 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 &quot;double up&quot; 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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ratskinner, post: 5949091, member: 6688937"] 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 [I]can[/I] 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 [I]not[/I] 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 [I]still [/I]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 [I]Favored Enemy[/I] 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 [U]all[/U] the more specialized classes, some of their fluff and mechanical flavor [I]is likely[/I] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification