The Fighter's Identity

[CleverNickName]

I mean, look at the playtest rogue. Most D&D players would probably say, yeah! The rogue IS a unique class! But the playtest rogue certainly has no abilities that couldn't be in themes and backgrounds for other classes.

I agree. But then again, look at the playtest Cleric of Moradin and compare it to a paladin.

This is kind of subjective. And I love the promise of modularity that might allow someone to play a functionally classless 5e. But the idea that we should reduce to some arbitrary number of "needed" classes and get rid of everything else isn't very appealing to me. You don't NEED any classes. You might WANT more than just 2-4, though. You might WANT 100,000. Especially if your game doesn't use themes or backgrounds.

I think that a classless system would be the opposite end of the spectrum. I didn't mean to imply that the developers should get rid of all character classes...if I did, I apologize. I want to streamline them.

Take the wizard and the sorcerer, for example. They are essentially the same class in 3.5E; the only difference being the way they prepare spells. They tried to force a distinction between them with bonus feats and the Bluff skill, but seriously...is that enough of a difference to merit an extra 5 pages of the PHB? I don't think it is.

It's a moot point anyway; we already know that there will be a ranger class. I just hope that there is a pronounced difference between it and the Fighter class. If the only differences are skills and feats, it should be a background or theme, not a class.

To put it another way:

I won't mind at all if there are 20 different classes in 5E...what I don't want are 4 classes with 20 different names.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I agree. But then again, look at the playtest Cleric of Moradin and compare it to a paladin.

Sure. My main point is that "What Warrants A Class?" is arbitrary.

I think that a classless system would be the opposite end of the spectrum. I didn't mean to imply that the developers should get rid of all character classes...if I did, I apologize. I want to streamline them.

For what end? What purpose does that streamlining serve? Why would it be a good thing here? If you have ANY classes, why have a rogue and not a paladin? Why have a fighter and not a warlord or samurai? Why NOT have no classes?

I just hope that there is a pronounced difference between it and the Fighter class. If the only differences are skills and feats, it should be a background or theme, not a class.

To put it another way:

I won't mind at all if there are 20 different classes in 5E...what I don't want are 4 classes with 20 different names.

I don't necessarily agree. Like I keep pointing out with the Triple Vampire in 4e, there's a LOT of advantage to be gained in letting an archetype be approached in a lot of different ways. If the only difference between a Fighter with the Soldier background and the Tempest theme, and a Ranger with the Soldier background and the Tempest theme, is that said Ranger also has some wilderness skills by dint of being a Ranger, and said Fighter has, say, the ability to crit on a 19 with swords....that's pretty fine, to me. It's a subtle difference, but it lets you build the character you want to play in several different ways, so I'm happy.

 

[Remathilis]

Sure. My main point is that "What Warrants A Class?" is arbitrary.

For what end? What purpose does that streamlining serve? Why would it be a good thing here? If you have ANY classes, why have a rogue and not a paladin? Why have a fighter and not a warlord or samurai? Why NOT have no classes?

I keep reminding people that we only need two classes: fighting-man and magic-user. Everything else is some permeation of "guy who fights with weapon" or "guy who casts spells".

That might really appease some classless or generic-class fans, but I think the bulk of the D&D players want to play their favorite class; be it fighter, bard, warlord, or assassin. I realize space is a premium, but really the only way D&D is going to be a "uniter" is to include most of these classes. I think at bare minimum they need the 11 3e classes, and probably warlock as well. I'd like to see warlord/marshal and assassin back as well, but its looking increasingly unlikely.

Its really the only way: someone like CNN can use only the core-four; I can use everything, you could use some combination in between. Ditto with races.

 

[Stormonu]

The class-theme-background can be done multiple ways, and I hope they do it both ways.

Let's be able to have a Fighter with the Woodsman theme and the Ranger-as-wilderness-warrior be possible. Cleric who can take the War domain and the Paladin be pretty close.

It's mostly a matter of do you want your options baked-in at creation or added later? You can get there both ways, the one allows for quick selection, the other allows for customization.

Also, if themes and backgrounds become optional modules, then having the Fighter class and the Ranger class allows you to get your woodland warrior without having to allow in themes and backgrounds.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If Themes really are just going to be packages of pre-planned feat acquisition, I don't see how they'll be able to take the place of classes or sub-classes. 3.5 tried bringing the fighter up to snuff with bonus feats - which is /exactly/ what a 'free theme' would be - and it had an ongoing firestorm of "Fighter SUX" threads at the WotC forums for it's entire run. Not that it was a bad design - the casters were the bad design - just that it was inadequate to the task. The 'more complex fight' and fighter-ish classes like the Paladin and Warlord are going to need more than a Them tacked onto the optionless/powerless/"best at fighting" Fighter to do them justice.

 

[Oni]

If Themes really are just going to be packages of pre-planned feat acquisition, I don't see how they'll be able to take the place of classes or sub-classes. 3.5 tried bringing the fighter up to snuff with bonus feats - which is /exactly/ what a 'free theme' would be - and it had an ongoing firestorm of "Fighter SUX" threads at the WotC forums for it's entire run. Not that it was a bad design - the casters were the bad design - just that it was inadequate to the task. The 'more complex fight' and fighter-ish classes like the Paladin and Warlord are going to need more than a Them tacked onto the optionless/powerless/"best at fighting" Fighter to do them justice.

Besides aren't themes supposed to be this optional thing, why would you try to hide classes in them.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Considering how much power and even basic functionality of the playtest characters was, I find it hard to imagine the game working too well without them. Not that it's easy to imagine it working too well with them, either, at this point. (There's clearly a /lot/ of work to be done - which, in a way, is good, it means they'er getting feedback early in the design process, right?)

 

[Oni]

Considering how much power and even basic functionality of the playtest characters was, I find it hard to imagine the game working too well without them. Not that it's easy to imagine it working too well with them, either, at this point. (There's clearly a /lot/ of work to be done - which, in a way, is good, it means they'er getting feedback early in the design process, right?)

D&D ran fine back in the day without any of that extra junk, no reason it won't now, whether you need or want those extra rules is purely a matter of preference, and that's precisely why themes and backgrounds need to remain optional.

 

[Tony Vargas]

D&D ran fine back in the day without any of that extra junk, no reason it won't now, whether you need or want those extra rules is purely a matter of preference, and that's precisely why themes and backgrounds need to remain optional.

Meh, dig up an old rulebook and use it, then, if all you want from the game is what you've already had from it. 5e is a new game, and, as it stands in the playtest packet, those characters /need/ their themes - they're not suitable material for options at the moment. They'd have to move some functionality back to the classes if themes are to be a module.

 

[Oni]

Meh, dig up an old rulebook and use it, then, if all you want from the game is what you've already had from it. 5e is a new game, and, as it stands in the playtest packet, those characters /need/ their themes - they're not suitable material for options at the moment. They'd have to move some functionality back to the classes if themes are to be a module.

I said it ran fine, I didn't say there wasn't room for improvement. I'm on board for the vision that was presented to us, a core that runs old school that can be altered and modernized through optional rules. I want a flexible game and the more they try to bake into the base core classes the less flexible it becomes.

Anyway it's my opinion they don't need the themes, they certainly more powerful with the the themes, but they definitely don't NEED them. Like I said that's preference.