Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Yaarel" data-source="post: 9275922" data-attributes="member: 58172">Classes are something &quot;special&quot;, namely combat competency.In my current settings, &quot;not everyone would have a class&quot;. Not everyone is competent in combat.I answer the question. Even if in my current settings not everyone is competent in combat, many are. Many cultures train for combat, including warriors of a clan, and militia of town. It is easy to imagine where everyone in a setting has at least some combat training, hence levels in a class.Well, yes. A character without a class is &quot;weaker&quot; in combat.But the noncombatant still has skills, toolsets, proficiency, and feats that they can point to with regard to noncombat areas of life.Even the Sorcerer class needs training and experience to advance from background to level 1 to higher levels.Nothing assumes that innate magic must be for combat. Perhaps the sorcerous magic is strictly for noncombat and weaving clothing (Weavers Toolset, Performance Skill).The weaponization of sorcerous magic is combat training and experience.There is such thing as a Farmer background whose Nature skill and so on eventually advance to proficiency +6 (and expertise +12).However, I dislike the design concept of a &quot;Farmer class&quot;. A high priority for the design of any D&amp;D class is to be balanced compared to other classes thus equally effective in combat. Unless weirdly weaponizing the concept of a Farmer, the hypothetical Farmer class would be strictly inferior in combat, thus no longer be a viable player class, or even a &quot;class&quot; at all.D&amp;D evolved from a combat game, and a &quot;class&quot; represents a combat style, and doesnt represent the totality of reality.At the same time, there is no need to translate everything into some kind class. There are other design spaces to describe noncombat things, especially background, proficiency, and feats. Where each class level is worth about a feat, it is hypothetically possible to build a character without combat features, without a class, who only selects noncombat feats. However, at this point, the character would be unsuitable for D&amp;D adventures that require combat. Also, it becomes more straightforward to use a statblock instead of a character sheet to represent the character.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Yaarel, post: 9275922, member: 58172"] Classes are something "special", namely combat competency. In my current settings, "not everyone would have a class". Not everyone is competent in combat. I answer the question. Even if in my current settings not everyone is competent in combat, many are. Many cultures train for combat, including warriors of a clan, and militia of town. It is easy to imagine where everyone in a setting has at least some combat training, hence levels in a class. Well, yes. A character without a class is "weaker" in combat. But the noncombatant still has skills, toolsets, proficiency, and feats that they can point to with regard to noncombat areas of life. Even the Sorcerer class needs training and experience to advance from background to level 1 to higher levels. Nothing assumes that innate magic must be for combat. Perhaps the sorcerous magic is strictly for noncombat and weaving clothing (Weavers Toolset, Performance Skill). The weaponization of sorcerous magic is combat training and experience. There is such thing as a Farmer background whose Nature skill and so on eventually advance to proficiency +6 (and expertise +12). However, I dislike the design concept of a "Farmer class". A high priority for the design of any D&D class is to be balanced compared to other classes thus equally effective in combat. Unless weirdly weaponizing the concept of a Farmer, the hypothetical Farmer class would be strictly inferior in combat, thus no longer be a viable player class, or even a "class" at all. D&D evolved from a combat game, and a "class" represents a combat style, and doesnt represent the totality of reality. At the same time, there is no need to translate everything into some kind class. There are other design spaces to describe noncombat things, especially background, proficiency, and feats. Where each class level is worth about a feat, it is hypothetically possible to build a character without combat features, without a class, who only selects noncombat feats. However, at this point, the character would be unsuitable for D&D adventures that require combat. Also, it becomes more straightforward to use a statblock instead of a character sheet to represent the character. [/QUOTE]

Verification