D&D 5E Strip Background out of subclass

[Sadrik]

So back in the day prior to subclasses I started a thread entitled strip background out of class. I think this is just as relevant today, though I think stripping background out of subclass is the important one now. This has been hit before in threads but I think it needs to be called out in its own thread.

So, backgrounds are an excellent addition to the game, you can be all kinds of backgrounds that add a layer to your character that I think is very cool. With the advent of subclasses though some of the background stuff is being sucked back into the subclasses. I would like sublasses to be independent of setting and more focused on the how than the why. Then let the backgrounds subsume the why. A couple of examples: the knight, this should be renamed to something else, knight should be a background and have nothing to do with a subclass. Call it the defender or anything else sufficiently generic. Now for casters I think this is a little different the how you get your magic (domain, pact, bloodline, study) should be your subclass, then you can apply a background that is of your devising.

So who agrees with this approach?

 

[Kobold Stew]

Backgrounds are a wonderful innovation for the game, allowing members of any class to be a "thug" or a "guide" -- it makes as much sense now for the mage or the fighter to be a "priest" as it does a cleric. This is a rich, rich opportunity, and my priority is to maintain this opportunity.

I suspect that your suggestion will accomplish that goal; I voted "don't care" because as long as the richness of the background mechanic is not lost, then I will be content.

 

[1of3]

Classes should be meaningful. A class is the game's answer to "What character do you play?". You can have a class without many mechanics (V:tM clans), you can have a class without its own mechanics (Shadowrun Archetypes), but you cannot have a class with a meaningful image and story. Or maybe you could, but that's bordering on board game.

Now subclasses are becoming the true class in Next. So they should have their own image, their own story.

 

[Falling Icicle]

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.

 

[Rhenny]

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). 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. Heck, a mage could also. There may be more sub-classes that really should be backgrounds, or titles that are earned through game play. I'm even one of those people who think that Barbarian should be a background rather than a class.

 

[Morrus]

Re: knight. Well, that's just a name thing. Renaming "Knight" to "Cavalier" or "Mounted Armoured Character" doesn't really make any difference to the game. If you prefer the latter word, I guess you could use it instead.

 

[variant]

Sorry, but I can't imagine a 0-level Knight or Gladiator. When Knight was a background I repeatedly commented that it didn't belong as a background at all because it isn't a background. A Knight is a trained and veteran warrior, as is a Gladiator.

 

[KidSnide]

I understand the motivation behind separating out backgrounds from the sub-class names, but I don't think it's worth the price is genericness. I don't want a fighter subclass called the "defender". That's more of a mechanical concept than a game world thing and I'd like my mechanics to have more meaning in the game world. When a new player reads "knight" they have a concept of what that means. So long as the mechanics accurately embody that idea, then I think the game should use the term. I came to dislike the separation between mechanics and game world concept in 4e and I wouldn't like to see it repeated in D&DN.

Sorry, but I can't imagine a 0-level Knight or Gladiator. When Knight was a background I repeatedly commented that it didn't belong as a background at all because it isn't a background. A Knight is a trained and veteran warrior, as is a Gladiator.

I think it's worth noting that the Path of the Knight feature for fighters captures this nicely, as a fighter doesn't become a knight until 3rd level. (You can argue about whether 3rd level is "veteran" or not, but it seems like a plausible level for a newbie knight to me.)

-KS

 

[Morrus]

Sorry, but I can't imagine a 0-level Knight or Gladiator. When Knight was a background I repeatedly commented that it didn't belong as a background at all because it isn't a background. A Knight is a trained and veteran warrior, as is a Gladiator.

Nothing about either requires training or being a veteran. Plenty of gladiators die in the arena long before they became veterans.

 

[Sadrik]

When a new player reads "knight" they have a concept of what that means. So long as the mechanics accurately embody that idea, then I think the game should use the term.

Will it confuse a new player to select warrior subclass (the planned simple one) and then the new player looks at his background options and sees knight and goes that is what I want... I think the knight concept does not have to be placed in a class to make sense to a new player. I think a new player will appreciate that he could be a paladin or even ranger knight more.

I came to dislike the separation between mechanics and game world concept in 4e and I wouldn't like to see it repeated in D&DN.

This is just it, the background should be where the campaign setting hits the ground. It should not be the class or the subclass. 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.