What makes a class?

[Doug McCrae]

In D&DNext, I think themes, backgrounds and classes are all 'what you do' - they are increasingly sized chunks of mechanical ability. They are also tied to flavour, with backgrounds probably having the strongest ties. The more generic classes, such as fighter, have less flavour than the more specific, such as ranger. 2e kits were similar - like a class, and also having flavour ties, but containing a smaller number of abilities.

Taking feats and skills singly may be a way to get mechanical ability without attached flavour. The same thing could be possible for class abilities, with the equivalent of 2e's Skills & Powers book, but I'm pretty sure that option won't be in the first 5e PHB.

 

[ren1999]

I just can't wrap my head around the difference between a mage, a wizard, a witch, a druid, a warlock and a sorcerer.

A fighter, a barbarian, a berserker, a warrior, a ranger, a paladin?

Wouldn't it be fun if D&D actually taught you something about history?

Should these names conform more to their traditional meanings?

For example, a Mage is an Iranian Priest King with casting powers.

Wizard, what the Germans and English called their Roman teachers, experts, and professionals. We even use the term today as in "He is a wizard at math."

Witches, German and English religious advisers, midwives, healers, hex casters,

A Druid, a French priestly and professional class, sometimes Druid warriors, bards and sacrificers.

A Warlock, a Scottish witch outcast who betrayed his or her group of witches by telling the local leadership and establishment about them.

A sorcerer is just the French word for Wizard.

Couldn't we make interesting themes out of these notions?

--

A fighter, a generic word.
A barbarian, specifically a Western European.
A berserker -- a true Viking theme class of guys who invoked god/animal spirits in battle -- hyped themselves up and were able to release some endorphins.
A ranger -- a scout, a spy, a forward observer, a recon guy, a woodsman, a survivalist.
A Paladin -- a Romano-British cavalry soldier who wore armor -- specifically the Asiatic Sarmatians living in Brittan fighting for Rome.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and [MENTION=92511]steeldragons[/MENTION] have interesting but opposing views. It's kind of a critical definition -- what is a class versus what is a theme?

I favor [MENTION=92511]steeldragons[/MENTION] definition: Class (What you do) Theme (How you do it). That aligns with my post above. Use the flavor, then add mechanics.

If we accept [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s opposite definition -- Class (How you do it) Theme (What you do/are) then I'd agree with him that you then define class mechanically first, then draw the particular flavor from the mechanics.

So which comes first? Flavor or mechanics? Fluff or crunch?

Apologies to either [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] or [MENTION=92511]steeldragons[/MENTION] if I've misrepresented your positions -- please clarify.

 

[Yora]

The thing with themes is, that from what we can tell now, they are just prepackaged feats. In that regard, themes are premade builds. And I guess in practice non-casual players who customize their characters will probably not even use themes but select their feats themselves.
So I would not put a lot of emphasis on themes. It's not as if "you need feat A, G, K, and Y to play an archetypal hunter", but rather "here is a package of feats A, G, K and Y which work well together and could for example represent a hunter".

The question of Class vs. Theme really becomes a question of Class Feature vs. Feat.

 

[Minigiant]

Well let's look at themes and background first

A theme is currently a collection of 3 combat feats that you get at levels 1,3 and 5.

A backgrond is a collection of 3-4 exploration and interaction skills and 1-2 exploration and interaction trait at level 1.

Now, class is a collection of class features display the method the character does things. Correction. Classes determine their best way to do things.

The fighter gets high HP, proficiency with all armors, shields, and weapons and bonus damage. The fighter wants deals with problems with fighting first.

The cleric gets spontaneous divine spells, proficiencies, and channel divinity based on their deity. The cleric wants deals with problems the spells and weapons their cleric prefers.

The rogue gets a bonus background, sneak attack, and skill mastery. The rogue wants deals with problems with skills and being advantageous.

The wizard get prepared fantastic arcane spells and weak cantrips. The wizard wants deals with problems by knowing when to drop prepared wonderful effects.

So let's look at other classes.

Barbarian. The barbarian is a class of primal emotion. The barbarian wants to snatch his emotion and toos them at a problem. The baraian uses Intimidate to toss his emotion onto who they are talking too. The barbarian focuses his emotion onto his foes through his weapons. This is where rage comes from. Due to this focusing on showing emotion, the barbarian has to be tough and reflexive in order to survive the narrow focus. This is where d12, uncanny dodge and DR comes from. In combat they ocerrun the enemy with force. In conversation, they beat the other person with their emotion. In exploration, power through traps and climb over obstacles. The barbarian wants deals with problems with emotion and pure power to barrel through obstacles.

Ranger: The ranger stalks. track. hunts. watches. listen. gathers information. Then decides when to stick. Their survival techniques allow them to decide when to fight and when to avoid. But when they strike, they strike hard. This is the favored enemy/hunter's quarry/damage vs giant class. In combat, they hit hard and run if the combat i not going their way. In exploration, they study the terrain, act accordingly, and prevent problems before they occur. The ranger wants deals with problems by staying near, staying in the scene as long as they need, and striking hard when they choose.

 

[Hussar]

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and [MENTION=92511]steeldragons[/MENTION] have interesting but opposing views. It's kind of a critical definition -- what is a class versus what is a theme?

I favor [MENTION=92511]steeldragons[/MENTION] definition: Class (What you do) Theme (How you do it). That aligns with my post above. Use the flavor, then add mechanics.

If we accept [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s opposite definition -- Class (How you do it) Theme (What you do/are) then I'd agree with him that you then define class mechanically first, then draw the particular flavor from the mechanics.

So which comes first? Flavor or mechanics? Fluff or crunch?

Apologies to either [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] or [MENTION=92511]steeldragons[/MENTION] if I've misrepresented your positions -- please clarify.

I'd say it's not really a flavour vs crunch issue. After all, at the end of the day, both approaches end at the same place - a character that is based on a strong archetype with mechanics to support that archetype. Where exactly those mechanics come from is up for grabs.

I just think that classes are too broad to be strongly archetypal. I mean, what is a "fighter"? Or, rather, what is the archetype that the fighter is supposed to embody? Dude with a weapon? Well, that's not exactly an archetype is it? Anything that is actually an archetype is too narrow for a class. A heavy armored sword and board knight is an archetype, but I certainly wouldn't limit fighters to that.

Even in earlier editions, classes weren't really archetypes. Not really. Too broadly defined. When fifteen different archetypes fit under the same class, it's pretty hard to say that classes are strongly archetypal.

I see themes as the old Kits from 2e. The kit strongly defined what your character actually was. Sure, I might have been a fighter or a ranger, but, it was the Beastmaster or Gladiator kits that truly defined that character.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Anything that is actually an archetype is too narrow for a class.

I see most, if not all, D&D classes as being too narrow to be archetypes.

The 1e/3e cleric possesses many distinct features - martial prowess, ability to wear platemail, inability to use edged weapons, turning undead, lots of magic, Vancian daily casting, and some Christian-themed spells such as sticks to snakes and lower water - that mark it out as a weird D&D-ism constructed out of one part medieval legends of fighting priests, one part Van Helsing, and one part D&D caster.

An archetype would be something like Holy Man. It would have many potential powers from many different cultures, or even none at all, and certainly provide for the possibility that such powers are controlled by divine forces rather than the character. By default it probably wouldn't have much fighting ability, though the archetype might include Sir Galahad-type holy warriors.

The 3e rogue probably gets closest of any D&D class in any edition to being a true archetype, the Expert, Savant or Scholar. Even then, sneak attack is too specific an ability, in my view.

 

[Gorgoroth]

paladin

Hussar - "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."

Love that idea (can't XP you)

A morning "bless my rifle"-type ritual could make this sword, or mace, or axe, your current Holy Weapon, which gives a persistent +1 / holy property (unholy for anti-paladins, one would presume). If you lose your weapon or it breaks you can re-bless another one tomorrow and keep on.

At higher levels that blessing gives greater benefits. A fighter gets a +1 period, but a paladin gets it on his "Holy Avenger"-esque weapon. Of course, I don't know if this should stack with the holy avenger weapon type, I would say Yes...but "smite evil" and undead killing should definitely be part of the class.

Also, a paladin would be particularly good at not getting killed by specifically evil-aura creatures such as undead and ghosts and vampires and demons...Are those not good enough "class-defining" features? I fail to see how it would be feasible to add those types of buffs via a few feats on top of a generic fighter in plate with LG or LE alignment background. If undead-crusader is a feat available to all followers of an LG god...then maybe a theme would make paladinhood doable. But that's a non-starter because it will be a class.

I'd much rather be able to play a paladin, and THEN take a theme that makes me super good on horses, or be able to dual wield longswords or bastard swords or one longsword and one battleaxe or a battleaxe and a warhammer.

Think Optimus Prime in the third movie there, when he's dual-wielding the sword + axe combo and kicks ass all over the battlefield FTW. You can't have your class features as a "theme" and still allow for "leader" or "dual wielder".

You NEED to have "defend the weak, protect the innocent" type abilities by default. You are a defender, who epitomizes the "holy avenger" archetype. It's not just a weapon, it's he/she who wields it that is the true Avenger.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

In the Redditt thread yesterday, Mike Mearls said that when they're actually trying to determine if e.g. a thief or illusionist is a class or a theme, it partly comes down to just how "thick" the mechanics are, and whether they'd fit in a theme. (He used monks as an example whose unarmed and unarmored fighting specialization would probably be too complex to fit into a theme.)

I like Gorgoroth and Hussar's approach here, and I think it matches what WOTC has to do (in broad strokes): recognize which concepts are iconic enough to merit being a class, and then design the mechanics to make that work.

One idea for paladins that Pathfinder kind of stole from WoW is the idea of auras: because paladins are so inspirational, they passively enhance nearby allies (within 10' or so) in a variety of ways. (For example, you could make nearby allies immune to fear and charm effects, or make them deal more damage to evil enemies.) In Pathfinder, I think the auras stack, but you could just as easily go WOW-style and have the paladin switch between auras as a free action on his turn.

Between holy weapons, smite, and auras, that's probably enough mechanical oomph to make an exciting class, which could be further narrowed depending on theme, race, and background.

What are the unique ranger mechanics we can come up with? Favored enemies, animal companions (bleh), and tracking are the biggest in 3e, I'd say. My problem is that of these three, tracking is the only one I associate with actual rangers from fiction (Aragorn, Drizzt, etc). I can also see rangers as masters of their terrain, setting traps and gliding through rough terrain with aplomb.

 

[Minigiant]

Hussar - "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."

Love that idea (can't XP you)

A morning "bless my rifle"-type ritual could make this sword, or mace, or axe, your current Holy Weapon, which gives a persistent +1 / holy property (unholy for anti-paladins, one would presume). If you lose your weapon or it breaks you can re-bless another one tomorrow and keep on.

At higher levels that blessing gives greater benefits. A fighter gets a +1 period, but a paladin gets it on his "Holy Avenger"-esque weapon. Of course, I don't know if this should stack with the holy avenger weapon type, I would say Yes...but "smite evil" and undead killing should definitely be part of the class.

Also, a paladin would be particularly good at not getting killed by specifically evil-aura creatures such as undead and ghosts and vampires and demons...Are those not good enough "class-defining" features? I fail to see how it would be feasible to add those types of buffs via a few feats on top of a generic fighter in plate with LG or LE alignment background. If undead-crusader is a feat available to all followers of an LG god...then maybe a theme would make paladinhood doable. But that's a non-starter because it will be a class.

I'd much rather be able to play a paladin, and THEN take a theme that makes me super good on horses, or be able to dual wield longswords or bastard swords or one longsword and one battleaxe or a battleaxe and a warhammer.

Think Optimus Prime in the third movie there, when he's dual-wielding the sword + axe combo and kicks ass all over the battlefield FTW. You can't have your class features as a "theme" and still allow for "leader" or "dual wielder".

You NEED to have "defend the weak, protect the innocent" type abilities by default. You are a defender, who epitomizes the "holy avenger" archetype. It's not just a weapon, it's he/she who wields it that is the true Avenger.

I suggested something like that before. A paladin who prays over his weapon and armor during rest. Each prayer granted different enhancement and powers. +1 sword and +1 chainmail at level 1. Holy avengers and +2 winged plate at high level. Then in battle the paladin can swap enhancement in battle. Sorta of like Requip magic of Fairy Tail or Magic of Incarnium but only the enchantments switch.