What makes a class?

[ZombieRoboNinja]

There have been a lot of threads on which pre-5e classes deserve to be classes in 5e. I think it might be worthwhile to take a look at what a "class" actually seems to consist of in 5e, based on what we know so far.

Looking at the playtest characters, the things explicitly tied to class are pretty straightforward: weapon and armor proficiencies, spells, HP/hit dice, and a fairly limited selection of "core" class abilities. We also have good reason to think that various "hidden" bonuses are tied to class (e.g. the fighter gets +1 to attack and damage, and I think someone figured out that there are class bonuses to ability scores). Some classes also seem to get an extra background (the rogue's "thief scheme") or an extra theme (a possibility mentioned for the fighter).

Beyond that, the class seems pretty stripped down. It's not the character's 4e "role" anymore; that's at least partly defined by theme. For non-spellcasters, it's not a 4e-style list of "powers." It's not a list of class skills, or BAB, or saving throw progression, which were a pretty big deal in 3.x. It's apparently not a roleplaying "paradigm" either, since the fighter class is supposed to cover everything from archers to swashbucklers to knights. (Even the cleric class is supposed to cover both battle-clerics in platemail and priests in cloth.)

Here's the interesting part, for me: the rogue class (my favorite from the playtest) demonstrates just how much a character can be defined by a few powerful class abilities. The rogue has three unique class abilities: an extra roguey background, Skill Mastery, and Sneak Attack. Taken together, these abilities are enough to make the rogue play very differently from, say, the fighter, even if that fighter was a halfling commoner (or even a halfling thief, if the thief scheme is available as a background for other classes, which I hope is the case). These abilities are elegant and powerful enough to define the character both in and out of combat. Moreover, they're flexible enough to (potentially) allow all sorts of different rogues that are tied together in a clear way. You could have a skirmisher who uses a theme to gain advantage from flanking, or a diplomat who poisons his enemies, or a plain ol' backstabber.

Spellcasters are a different kettle of fish, because they're very much defined by their spells and how they access them. But when it comes to other "martial" or hybrid classes like fighter, ranger, paladin, and warlord, what kind of class abilities can you imagine that would define those classes sufficiently to make them stand out as unique?

The current fighter class seems to get fighter's surge (a cool ability) and some extra bonuses to weapon damage and attack rolls. Is this enough to define the fighter's role as master of weaponry? What if it's combined with more cool higher-level class abilities?

What about the ranger - can you think of 2-4 elegant class abilities that would define a 1st or 2nd-level ranger enough to clearly differentiate him from an archer-fighter or an archer-rogue? Or the paladin from a war-domain cleric?

 

[Yora]

I think a class is entirely defined by its class features. A class feature should be something that automatically expandes, advances, or increases as the character gains new levels, as opposed to feats, which a character should get one at a time confined in itself.

A rogue has above average Thief Skills and Sneak Attack. A barbarian has his berserker rage. A wizard has arcane spells. A ranger has favored enemies and above average scouting and tracking skills. A fighter should have numerous special attacks and above average weapon skill.

The most problematic "mainstream" class as I see it is the paladin. Because the paladin is lacking a distinctive class feature that defines it as a class. Paladins can use weapons and armor like a fighter, and they can heal and cast some spells like a cleric.
You could play a ranger or a monk as a fighter/rogue instead, but they would not have favored enemies or powerful unarmed attacks. When you play a fighter/cleric, there is no class feature that the character would lack to be like a paladin.

The same problem affects the Psychic Warrior in 3.5e, with the major difference that the psychic warrior is actually very well balanced and versatile. But it still is just a fighter/psion with a few powers that a fighter/psion has to invest a feat for to get. Not a good reason to have it being a distinctive class.

Rangers and barbarians are a different thing. I can not easily emulate all their abilities using other more generic classes.
As a fighter/rogue, I would have access to skills to live in the wilds, like Survival and Knowlege (Nature) in 3rd Edition, or the ability to handle animals significantly above the level of other people. And there would also not be a way to specialize in the tracking and fighting of specific classes of creatures.
As a fighter, a character would lake the superhuman endurance and stamina of a barbarian, as well as his combat rage. You could make rage a feat, but then you would have to make it a lot of feats to make it become more powerful and versatile as you gain levels. But feats should be nice additions and customizations for your character, not the means to realize a very basic concept of character.

Of course, I am biased, because I like the fluff of rangers but don't like the fluff for paladins. But other people might have more insight into what the distinguishing mechanical feature of a paladin are.

 

[jadrax]

Hit Dice and proficiency are currently seem to be only delivered by Class, so if your concept requires a certain Hit Die or weapon/armour restriction, its probably a class.

Themes have to be combined with a class, so if your concept does not work if its combined with most other classes, its probably not a theme.

So if you think the important things about a Paladin is it has a d10 Hit Die, wears heavy Armour and is not a Wizard, its a bad idea to make it a theme.

If on the other hand you think the important things are that a Paladin can Smite Evil, Cure Disease and Turn Undead, then it would work fine as as theme.

 

[Frostmarrow]

I've previously suggested that rangers get extra damage (or something to that effect) versus size. Let's say a low level ranger gets extra damage against small opponents, later learns to do extra damage versus large opponents (around 3rd level). In the end a ranger might learn to use such hunting techniques versus medium opponents.
This way a Slayer ranger and an Archer ranger share a common trait as monster hunters but they go about killing hem fairly differently.
Watch LoTR: Legolas kills all the bigguns.

 

[Hussar]

I imagine paladin will remain a class simply for legacy sake, but, honestly, this is a discussion that has been going on since 3e. Even in 3e, the paladin was going to be a prestige class until playtesters complained. ((apparently)) So, it's not a stretch to think that this issue hasn't really gone away.

Because, honestly, ZombieRoboNinja is pretty much spot on. There aren't a lot of distinctly "paladin" mechanics in the class. Cure Disease and Lay on Hands and Paladin's mount are all pretty replaceable.

Honestly, I have no problem with paladin (as in paragon warrior of a diety) as a theme. But, I imagine that this will never fly.

Perhaps tying the paladin with a Holy Weapon might be a good idea. That's at least distinct from other warrior classes. Sort of like the Kensai from Oriental Adventures. Bit weak, IMO, but, at least it's distinct.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Before we jump to mechanics, I think that first a class has to be based on a strong archetype that is distinct from the archetype used for other classes. This can get into pretty fine distinctions, but for example "soldier" and "wilderness scout" can be distinct archetypes (even with some perceived overlap) while "sword and shield fighter" and two-handed fighter" aren't sufficiently distinct.

Given a distinct archetype, then, a class should provide a unique combination of mechanics that allow the distinguishing flavor characteristics of the archetype to be achieved without being able to easily replicate that combination with modular, non-class mechanics. Put another way, the combination of class abilities and mechanics should be such that you can't build the same character by cobbling together other existing mechanics -- if you can, it isn't a separate class.

So, for example, if the "rogue" archetype is thematically based on being able to hide, move stealthily, and strike effectively from the shadows, then the rogue class should have unique mechanics enabling it to hide, sneak, and strike from the shadows better than any other class with add-one mechanics.

Then we get into how broad the archetypes should be -- are "wizard" and "sorcerer" sufficiently distinct that they are different classes before you assign mechanics, in which case they should be different classes, or are they defined by variations of mechanics, in which case they should be variations on or modules of a single base class.

The challenge is where to set the class/archetype boundaries. It's a neat little systems engineering problem when you think about it.

 

[Hussar]

Olgar - I think I'll disagree with you there. At least partially. I think it's much easier to distinguish archetypes with theme. After all, that's what a theme is. It's an archetype that is added on. The base framework is the class - class tells you that this vehicle is going to be best used in X or Y situations. A Fighter class has lots of HP, should gain lots of weapon goodies and can wear all the armor. There's nothing about archetype there at all really.

Wizard, as class, is the 3e SRD version of the class - a collection of abilities that fit in a loose concept. And I picked wizard here, but, any 3e SRD class works too. Very little flavour, almost all mechanics. If you want "casts arcane stuff" you pick the wizard class. You actually choose the archetype of that character - necromancer, Blows-up-stuff-alot, whatever - with theme.

Theme is what you are. Class is how you do it.

 

[steeldragons]

Then we get into how broad the archetypes should be -- are "wizard" and "sorcerer" sufficiently distinct that they are different classes before you assign mechanics, in which case they should be different classes, or are they defined by variations of mechanics, in which case they should be variations on or modules of a single base class.

To my mind, no. They are not.

Instead of all of the extra analysis and attempting to generate more complexity for the core game...why not just use what WotC has said as the benchmark?

[EDIT: That is not directed [MENTION=5868]Olgar Shiverstone[/MENTION]! As, in retrospect it seems to read. I mean anyone/everyone/all of these "Class v. Theme" threads. Seems to be trying to overly complicate and overly define things that don't require it. It's really all very simple. See below. Just didn't want Olgar to think this was somehow directed at him,specifically. /EDIT]

Class: What you do. Theme: How you do it.

Mage (nee Wizard): "I approach the challenges and pillars of adventuring by using magic."...that's a Class.

Sorcerer: "I approach the challenges and pillars of adventuring by using magic...spontaneously."...that's a Theme.

"I approach the challenges and pillars of adventuring by using magic...to trick and influence others' senses." Theme. Illusionist.

"I approach the challenges and pillars of adventuring by using my strength and weapon skills (i.e. by fighting)."...that's a Class, Fighter.

"I approach the challenges and pillars of adventure by fighting...offensively."...that's a Theme, Slayer, or "by fighting ...defensively" [Guardian] or "by fighting...with stealth and surprise" [Lurker..maybe Skirmisher].

"I approach the challenges and pillars of adventure by tracking and using my wilderness skills." Class, Ranger.

"I approach the challenges and pillars of adventure by tracking and using my wilderness skills...and bow expertise." Theme [Archer/Hunter/whatever] or "...and by dual blades of doom." [Two-weapon Fighter] or "...with my trusty pals Bear and Cougar." [Beastmaster]

 

[Ellington]

A class is a mechanically and thematically strong concept that is the central part of a character. A character who focuses above everything else on martial combat is a fighter. Sure, he may use one or two weapons, focus on melee or ranged combat, be a knight or a commoner, but as long as martial combat is his primary niche, that character is a fighter. A character that uses two weapons and focuses on martial combat is thematically or mechanically distinct enough to warrant its own class, and so it becomes a theme.

You can think of classes as food. You can have a pizza (fighter) with various toppings (themes) from various places (backgrounds), but it's still always a pizza. You could also get a sub (wizard) with the same toppings from the same place, but it's still fundamentally different from a pizza.

As long as the ranger's primary mechanics revolve around something unique such as its bond with nature, I say the ranger deserves to be its own class. If the ranger's primary mechanics turn out to be martial combat with some wilderness abilities sprinkled on top, I'd move to say it should be a background or theme.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Then we get into how broad the archetypes should be -- are "wizard" and "sorcerer" sufficiently distinct that they are different classes before you assign mechanics, in which case they should be different classes, or are they defined by variations of mechanics, in which case they should be variations on or modules of a single base class.

I think the wizard, sorcerer, and warlock are thematically distinct from one another. The main problem is that the warlock isn't very thematically distinct from the priest or cleric - both get their powers from a relationship with a powerful extraplanar being - but mechanically the class's powers are very different. If warlocks get all their magic at-will, priests should too.