Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jack7" data-source="post: 5796899" data-attributes="member: 54707">What follows below is part of a response I made in  the Return of the Sneaking Man. It is something I had  meant to address before regarding Classes and the way I'd like to see them  operate (more or less - no matter how they actually operate I'll modify this for  my own milieu) in 5E.It is I think a happy compromise between the  entirely fixed and rigid Proprietary Class (my term), and the  tendency to produce a Smeared Class (my term), which  is, in effect, every class being a slightly different version of the same class.  It will also, I think, help develop acceptable  solutions to some other problems, such as Dual and Multi-Classing. (Not that I  have anything at all against either, I use both in my milieu and hope 5E will  make accommodations for both.) I think it will also help solve the  Redundancy Problem. By the Redundancy Problem I mean something  very specific in this case, the tendency in a party, with very fixed and rigid  Proprietary classes to be in real trouble if certain party members are killed or  disabled. For instance, to use an example, suppose the party's thief is killed  or severely wounded and disabled in a trap infested environment. If the thief is  the one and only party member with his capabilities then the party could be in  serious trouble. But if the thief has taught the Ranger (or Barbarian or Fighter  or even the Wizard, for examples), or the Ranger has learned from another master  how to detect and avoid and disable traps, then there is no Capabilities  Gap or Capabilities Loss. Now the Ranger may not be as good as the  thief (there likely will be a Skills Mastery Gap) at what the thief  does, but he can at least "pick-up" the team-disability and help resolve it. Yet  at the same time he is not a Thief under a different name, and he has not been  smeared into something else and he is not simply an interchangeable  "thief-gadget." He is neither a situational dunsel nor an interchangeable  gadget. He remains himself but the loss of the Thief does not mean the loss of  all thieving capabilities to the party.I had meant to bring this up earlier but didn't  really at that time have a proper formulation for what I was trying to say. Nor  a proper solution. But now I do. I think most all of these problems can be resolved  with a good In-Game Training System that is part of the overall  Modular Design Scheme of 5E. By allowing the characters (and others) to  cross-fertilize and cross-train each other.For a better explanation see below.                        Concur. I think that is one of the  better design features of later versions of the game. I still think  that Classes can be much better designed than later versions of the game  to be far more individualized, and to be far more potent at what they  do (as in earlier game-Class versions), versus all classes being smeared  out so that everyone is everyone, or just a different version of the  same thing, as in 4E. But allowing a Ranger (and it makes perfect sense for a Frontier's  Ranger to be a good thief, for instance) to become good at Thieving  skills is a good design feature of the later versions of the game. It  might even make sense for a Wizard, depending on where he lives or how  he operates, to be a good thief (at least in some respects), or even for  a Cleric to be good at church or court espionage (this borders on what  the Rogue is good at), or at other Thief skills. I personally think the real best game design answer lies in the middle  between turning everyone into slightly different versions of each  other, and making everything about a class entirely proprietary,  I'm hoping with 5E being modular in design, many of these problems can be rectified in the milieu design the DM constructs from the basic game design parameters. Yeah, the game design will have to provide basic parameters and still be  solid enough that the core concepts and fundamentals (even down to  things like class) are transferable from one game to another, but also  fluid enough to allow enough parameter (in this case Class) manipulation  to prevent the Classes from becoming calcified, rigid, and entirely  proprietary. I'd like to see a Thief who is uniquely a Thief and easily  distinguishable from any other class, and who is in fact - the most  excellent Thief. There will be no doubt what he is and what he is superb  at. That will be unmistakeable by how he operates. On the other hand I'd also like to be able to see a Ranger (for instance) who can be good at thieving skills. With a good In-Game Training System a good Thief could teach a  smart Ranger many things about disguise and in-city manhunting just as a  smart Ranger could teach a good Thief many things about tracking  outdoors and camouflage. It would take sacrifice and time and effort and  expense but with proper training and devotion such cross-fertilization  could be helpful to both men. Just as in real life when Cops teach  Soldiers good policing and investigative techniques, and Soldiers teach  Cops good Special Weapon and field-deployment techniques. It wouldn't  make the Ranger a different version of the Thief, nor would it make a  Thief a Ranger, it would make for a better and more versatile Ranger and  a better and more capable Thief. I think that with a good In-Game Cross-Fertilizing Training System and a Modular Game Design Recombination System you'd be able to do both things well: have entirely unique Classes, and yet those classes would be able to Train and Advance each other at complimentary and other skills and capabilities.</blockquote>

Verification