What makes a class?

[Eldritch_Lord]

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.

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.

Paladin auras aren't just a WoW thing; D&D paladins have had magic circles against evil, auras of courage, and the like throughout their career. If anything is to define the paladin as being different from a fighter/cleric, I think auras are probably the right way to go.

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.

Note that we already know there will be class-specific themes--Mearls said that Necromancer is a theme for arcane and divine classes only--so it's entirely possible to go with a "themes = subclasses" approach and make paladin a theme for clerics and fighters only, for instance.

-------------------------------------

A thought on paladins being a class. Those who played 2e probably remember how UA turned paladins from a fighter subclass into a cavalier subclass. Whether one liked that particular change or not (I'm guessing many fall into the latter category), it does bring up the issue that paladins don't have to be a fighter++ to "feel like D&D."

So far, people have been talking about the paladin as if he's "basically a fighter, with cleric-y stuff" and a ranger as if he's "basically a fighter [or rogue], with wilderness stuff." What if that's not the only option? We know they're not going with just the fighter/wizard/rogue/cleric quartet for core, so the more niche classes don't have to be variations on just those four. What if there's a Champion class (or whatever other name works) for niche classes that are partly magical and are devoted to a cause?

The defining features of the Champion could be that it casts a certain thematic subset of spells, has combat stuff making it particularly effective against enemies of the cause, has a special companion of some sort that grows in power with him, and has social stuff making it get along particularly well with friends of the cause (possibly among other things).

• The Paladin becomes a Champion of lawful goodness, or Good, or whatever: it casts some alignment- and healing-related spells to find evildoers and heal the sick, it smites evil, it has a holy mount, and has knight-like social perks in good society.
• The Ranger becomes a Champion of nature, or small communities in the woods, or whatever: it casts some plant- and stealth-related spells to command his environment and stalk his prey, it has favored enemies, it has animal companions, and it has wild empathy or the equivalent.
• The Samurai, if there's a 5e Oriental Adventures, becomes a Champion of his ancestors, or his lord, or whatever: it casts some divination- and fear-related spells to commune with the spirits and intimidate his foes, it is particularly effective against shadowlands creatures, it has an ancestral weapon, and it is highly honorable.

And so on. I could see similar themes for bladesingers (Champions of the elven people), templars (Champions of the Dark Sun dragon tyrants), demon worshipers (Champions of non-divine patrons), barbarians (the 4e primal version or 3e animal totem version, Champions of their totems) and more. There could be other "hybrid" base classes to help bring niche classes out from the shadow of the classic four:

• a Mystic class, for the classes that have a divine flavor (power from a patron or source, magic themed from that source, etc.) but an arcane playstyle (e.g. more blasting/CC/summoning than healing/buffing/protection) and have a magical schtick that doesn't clearly fit into either the arcane or divine mold perfectly, like the shugenja (elements), the druid (shapechanging), or the warlock (curses).
• a Gish class (needs a better name), for the classes that are sort of magical but have a really narrow magical skill set and only or mostly have personal-range stuff while the rest of their shtick is nonmagical, like the monk or swordsage (mostly does mobility and unarmed strike enhancement, has some defensive stuff), the swordmage (mostly does teleporting and weapon enhancement, has some defensive stuff), and the ninja (mostly does detection and stealth enhancement, has some offensive stuff).

Essentially, we know that there are going to be more than 4 base classes, so we don't need to keep trying to fit niche classes as variants of the classic four. If it works well enough, like the illusionist or sorcerer being a wizard variant and the barbarian or ninja being a rogue variant, that's fine, but don't feel constrained by those four, since having another class as a base could provide some interesting variety. Heck, the assassin class is one example of a class people don't think should exist but could do a lot of different things based on its classification: as a Rogue theme/variant, it's a sneaky, nonmagical killer who focuses the rogue more towards combat; as a Champion theme/variant, it's a guy who gets benefits against a contracted target and has some minor stealth magic; as a Gish theme/variant, it's a callback to the 4e assassin with his shadowy powers.

So...yeah. That's my crazy suggestion of the day. Carry on.

 

[Hussar]

Well, thinking about it, if you wanted to make a paladin a full class, perhaps the easiest way would be for him to mug the Warlord and take his stuff.

That way you get aura's that heal/buff (and people can stop bitching about non-magical healing ) and the paladin becomes a battlefield commander - which, in my mind is a nice strong schtick. I guess the Crusader class from Tome of Battle might be a good place to start too.

Like it was said - theme vs class depends on how many mechanics that idea really needs. If you can model the idea in a small handful of mechanics, it's likely a theme. If it really needs some more depth and breadth, it's going to be a class.

That makes sense.

 

[Ratskinner]

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.

My only problem with this is that themes need to be applicable to all the other classes. I'm not sure what an Illusionist-Themed Fighter would look like. Similarly, what's the Sorcerer theme gonna do for the Fighter? Will he get some feat to let him prep his spells differently?

I'm kinda wondering if maybe the specialist casters need to be spawned off Wizard like they are working the Rogue's Schemes. Alternatively, they could work like the Cleric, but that seems a little awkward.

 

[Fifth Element]

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.

"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 tracking and using my wilderness skills." Class, Ranger.

I'm with you in general, but in the examples you provide for classes we have "fight", "use magic", and "use tracking and wilderness skills" as the defining features. One of these things is not like the others. To fit with the generality of the first two, you'd need to make the third "use skills" instead of just this one narrow subset of skills. Otherwise it's internally inconsistent. Which would make "skill monkey" the class, or whatever better name you wish to use.

The more narrow the definition of a class candidate, the less likely it should be a class instead of a theme.

 

[Fifth Element]

My only problem with this is that themes need to be applicable to all the other classes. I'm not sure what an Illusionist-Themed Fighter would look like. Similarly, what's the Sorcerer theme gonna do for the Fighter? Will he get some feat to let him prep his spells differently?

Yes, this is a problem but I'd suggest a better solution would be to have some themes that don't apply to every class. I can't see an issue with making some themes available only to certain classes or groups of classes.

 

[Hussar]

Yes, this is a problem but I'd suggest a better solution would be to have some themes that don't apply to every class. I can't see an issue with making some themes available only to certain classes or groups of classes.

Really, I don't think there's any way around that. Not all themes are going to apply equally to all classes. The "ninja" theme probably doesn't apply too well to the heavy armor crowd, for example. 2e kits were class based as well, so, there is precedence for it. As well as the 3e prestige classes. It's pretty unavoidable for some themes to only apply to some subset of classes.

 

[Fifth Element]

Really, I don't think there's any way around that. Not all themes are going to apply equally to all classes. The "ninja" theme probably doesn't apply too well to the heavy armor crowd, for example. 2e kits were class based as well, so, there is precedence for it. As well as the 3e prestige classes. It's pretty unavoidable for some themes to only apply to some subset of classes.

Yes, I think the idea that a theme must be applicable to any class really restricts what you can do with themes, and pushes you toward an "everything is a separate class" situation.

 

[Fifth Element]

That way you get aura's that heal/buff (and people can stop bitching about non-magical healing )

And start bitching about the lack of non-magical healing!

 

[Ratskinner]

Really, I don't think there's any way around that. Not all themes are going to apply equally to all classes. The "ninja" theme probably doesn't apply too well to the heavy armor crowd, for example. 2e kits were class based as well, so, there is precedence for it. As well as the 3e prestige classes. It's pretty unavoidable for some themes to only apply to some subset of classes.

I don't think "ninja" is a theme. "Ninja" would be the result of applying certain themes and backgrounds to a class or classes. I like the idea of themes, but you can't just toss everything into themes, or there's no point to classes...which doesn't make sense for D&D. If you have a prospective theme and it won't work with some classes, then you might consider that it is, in fact, worth being a class.

Themes are flavors that you can splash onto the classes. Classes would/should still to the "heavy lifiting" when it comes to a character's function. Otherwise, you're just talking about dual-classed system where you pick a Class from columns A & B.

 

[Yora]

A ninja would be great as a rogue with either an Assassin or Spy theme.

You could also have a Fighter Assassin or a Wizard Spy.