D&D 5E Strip Background out of subclass

[Minigiant]

I don't see the problem with backgrounds in subclasses.

But I don't like both complexity and background both in subclass. Getting your expertise die should have no affect on whether your PC is simple or complex.

 

[pemerton]

I agree about the knight and the gladiator, to me they are both more like backgrounds, or knight becomes a title that has to be earned through game play (that's another issue).

I totally agree about the knight. I think the fighter subclass should be called the "defender" and the knight should once again be a background. Knighthood is a title. It's a social thing, and it shouldn't be limited to just fighters. There's no good reason why a paladin can't be a knight, or even a wizard. Sir Elton John is a knight in real life, and he's a bard.

I'm pretty sure that when mediaevel people talked about "knights" they didn't have in mind Sir Elton John and his ilk; the idea of knighthood as a pure honorific is more modern. The standard referent of "knight", as used by a mediavel person, is mounted, heavily armoured warrior who is also a noble (the two statuses track one another, because only nobles have the resources to equip and train themselves in the requisite fashion). Given this, I think it's harmless enough that D&D has fighters as knights, but not wizards or rogues - they might be nobles, but they're not knights - they don't ride horses in heavy armour charging with lances.

That paladins, and certain sorts of clerics, can't be knights is a different issue. But that doesn't so much show us that knight should be a background rather than a sub-class, as reinforce the broader issues currently being debated around what exactly makes for a distinct class. In 4e, for instance, if you want to play a heavily-armoured melee warrior you can be a fighter, a warlord, a paladin, a battlemind, a runepriest or a cleric. Any of those could be used to build a knight PC.

Within the current design paramaters of D&Dnext, the solution might be a cavalier sub-class for the paladin and a templar sub-class for the cleric.

As for gladiators, besides fighter the other obvious candidate would be a rogue. Maybe a "street scrapper" sub-class might do the job.

If you really want to strip away all aspects that are more background then you might even have to examine thief and assassin. Both of those are things any class could conceivable do. A fighter who steals or kills for a living could be either of the two.

I don't think a fighter should be able to be played as an assassin, though. A fighter should be designed to play as a frontline combatant - relying on good hit points, good defences and reliable damage output to win fights. Whereas a mechancially viable assassin needs to be capable of spike damage from stealth, but therefore requires (as a balance trade off) a certain squishiness if events move from stealth to fighting out in the open. In D&D terms, that is a rogue build, not a fighter build.

For instance a samurai, a wugen, a ninja all should be backgrounds not subclasses. A samurai might be a fighter/warrior, a wugen might be a wizard/warlock, a ninja might be a rogue/assassin. So separation of game world from subclass, yes. Separation of background from game world impossible.

The same point applies - a fighter or paladin can't be a ninja. A ninja is a form of assassin.

To the extent that a wizard can be a capable assassin or ninja, this shows us something about the wizard build - it is really a form of magic-using sneak/skill guy, and hence should be designed having more regard to how it sits with, and doesn't make redundant, the rogue.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I have no idea... One year ago Backgrounds were a major part of 5e, we had this Race+Class+Background+Specialty setup and I think it was fine, a lot of people liked this structure.

I really liked that approach, I found it flavourful and inspiring. I'm sorry to see it get watered down and dissipated

 

[Li Shenron]

I really liked that approach, I found it flavourful and inspiring. I'm sorry to see it get watered down and dissipated

I quite think this was a byproduct of making skills optional, rather than a conscious design decision to water down backgrounds.

They talked about being now able to design backgrounds more freely, as a combination of traits + proficiencies + lore. The current versions however do feel quite watered down.

 

[Derren]

I'm pretty sure that when mediaevel people talked about "knights" they didn't have in mind Sir Elton John and his ilk; the idea of knighthood as a pure honorific is more modern. The standard referent of "knight", as used by a mediavel person, is mounted, heavily armoured warrior who is also a noble (the two statuses track one another, because only nobles have the resources to equip and train themselves in the requisite fashion)

Wrong order.
The knight was first and foremost a lowly noble, sometimes with land, sometimes without. Still, its the title that mattered. If the knight was wealthy enough, he could go to war with plate mail and a fine warhorse, but so could a wealthy merchant (or a relative of him).
Having a "Knight" as a class just creates a horrible mess. What if a normal fighter or cleric gets knighted in the game? Hes now a knight not-knight while his partner is a not-knight knight as he has the class but not the title?

Gladiator is also problematic, but less so. My main problem is that gladiators weren't really fighters. They were entertainers who could fight. In a war they would certainly be better than untrained militia, but less skilled than the average soldier/legionnaire as he would only be used to fighting animals or opponents with horribly unpractical armor and weapons to deliver a show. Becoming a gladiator would, for a D&D fighter, actually be a step down and not up.

The same point applies - a fighter or paladin can't be a ninja. A ninja is a form of assassin.

Actually, many ninjas were actually a samurai willing to dishonor himself who took special training for clandestine operations/assassinations.

 

[pemerton]

Wrong order.
The knight was first and foremost a lowly noble, sometimes with land, sometimes without. Still, its the title that mattered. If the knight was wealthy enough, he could go to war with plate mail and a fine warhorse, but so could a wealthy merchant (or a relative of him).

Online etymology doesn't tell me which dictionary it's from, but it fits with my understanding:

Meaning "military follower of a king or other superior" is from c.1100. Began to be used in a specific military sense in Hundred Years War, and gradually rose in importance until it became a rank in the nobility 16c.​

That is, in mediaeval usage "knight" means a type of warrior. My understanding is that the number of wealthy merchants going to war was very low. For instance, Latin Syria ("Outremer") seems to have exhibited a fairly strong divison of labour between its knights (the Frankish ruling class) and its wealthy merchants (the Italians and Syrians).

 

[Sadras]

Gladiator is also problematic, but less so. My main problem is that gladiators weren't really fighters. They were entertainers who could fight. In a war they would certainly be better than untrained militia, but less skilled than the average soldier/legionnaire as he would only be used to fighting animals or opponents with horribly unpractical armor and weapons to deliver a show. Becoming a gladiator would, for a D&D fighter, actually be a step down and not up.

Fair point. However my counter argument would be in D&D we fight animals and monsters and perhaps opponents with horribly unpractical armour and weapons (orcs, goblins, hobgoblins..etc) while wars are usually secondary. Gladiators could fight well and did, they did not generally have the mettle for large scale war hence legionaires were better trained for that type of combat. That doesnt mean it made them better or worse fighters. It is just a different speciality. The "step down" re gladiators you referred to was more a matter of perception of that time, with reference to social status and the like.
Also what would be your view on Swashbucklers or Musketeers - they could certainly entertain too, that element doesnt deter from their fighting capabilities.

 

[Starfox]

Swashbucklers or Musketeers - they could certainly entertain too.

Do you mean "entertain" in the meaning of being a host at a social occasion? Because that's the only way I imagine most musketeers or swashbucklers would entertain - they were not jesters or minstrels, mind you.

A swashbuckler was originally a Spanish sword-and-buckler man, later exported to much of Europe and some colonies, and even later losing the buckler. The name comes from the sound they made prior to battle, striking sword and shield together. Originally professional light infantry, the term gradually changed to become something of a gentleman-at-war. But it didn't enter entertainment until Hollywood.

Musketeers were musket-armed cavalry, armed with swords as well in the custom of the time. The King's Musketeers was a guard regiment with duties at court, but they still went into battle - if not often and rarely successfully. French "guard" regiments under "le ancienne regime" were not the same as those of other countries - they were palace guards and garrison troops, not elite fighting units. Still, they were warriors, not entertainers.

For gladiators, read up on emperor Commodus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodus#Dacia_and_Britain) - the villain of no less than 2 Hollywood epics was actually a lot cooler in real life than in the movies. And yeah, gladiators were entertainers.

 

[Sadras]

Do you mean "entertain" in the meaning of being a host at a social occasion? Because that's the only way I imagine most musketeers or swashbucklers would entertain - they were not jesters or minstrels, mind you.

Well I was stealing the Swashbuckler's concept from the 2E Fighter's Handbook and the Musketeers from Alexandre Dumas's novels. D&D has not only stolen its mythology from history alone but from novels too. I interpreted the previous poster to refer to the Gladiators' flamboyant fighting style as entertainment, which the Musketeers of Alexandre Dumas's novels seemed to possess the same characteristics.

I have no doubt that Gladiators were entertainers (similar in some aspects to todays WWF/WWE and Matadors) however when life and death is involved and given the history of Spartacus which is certainly true (NOT the series) I would have to argue the point that there were many a Gladiator that certainly could fight. Whether a gladiator is more practised in the art of tumbling rather than fighting or juggling rather than weaponskill they could certainly include that as part of the option features for the subclass.

I'm aware of Emperor Commodus and his fetish for Gladiatorial combat - I am probably one of the few that preferred Fall of the Roman Empire to Gladiator.

 

[Starfox]

I would have to argue the point that there were many a Gladiator that certainly could fight. Whether a gladiator is more practised in the art of tumbling rather than fighting or juggling rather than weaponskill they could certainly include that as part of the option features for the subclass.

Agreed

I'm aware of Emperor Commodus and his fetish for Gladiatorial combat - I am probably one of the few that preferred Fall of the Roman Empire to Gladiator.

Very much agreed