What makes a class?

[Crazy Jerome]

Something with the aura mechanics is the way I'd go with the paladin, given what we've seen thus far. I really like the idea of turning the generic paladin into a "champion" or some cause, but when you start thinking about what those champion mechanics might do and be about, they look a lot more like themes to me.

Plus paladin class with aura (beneficial and protective effects on his friends) + various champion themes geared towards causes seems to strike a good balance between those who want the paladin centered around lawful good and those who want paladins to support all kinds of causes. With that division, a paladin class with a few key champion themes can easily becomes the archetypical early D&D paladin, while other classes taking different champion themes can cover avengers and such.

For the ranger, I'd come up with some "woodland lore" mechanics that mirror the rogue "schemes". I would not look to favored enemy, animal companions, or other brik-a-brak of the historical ranger mechanics for that "woodland lore"--as those also strike me as more theme-related items. Really, given the focus of the core thus far, I'd say the "woodland lore" bits should be about finding your way in the wilderness, setting up ambushes (or not getting ambushed), etc.

 

[Ratskinner]

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.

As opposed to an "everything is a separate theme" situation?

The point of it isn't "Let's see how much we can do with themes." but "Let's make sure that themes serve the game well." Having themes be mechanically orthogonal to classes maximizes the potential variety in characters. They've already discovered that themes aren't the appropriate place for all the variety of rogue to live, and added schemes to the rogue class. Good or Bad? I dunno, yet. If you have variation that only fits within one class, you should probably stick to something like that.

 

[Fifth Element]

As opposed to an "everything is a separate theme" situation?

The point of it isn't "Let's see how much we can do with themes." but "Let's make sure that themes serve the game well."

Exactly my point - if themes are too restricted then there's little point in having them. If you're going to have both classes and themes, they both need their own room in the design space.

 

[Ratskinner]

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.

I don't think the "iconic"-ness should have anything to do with it. Its all the weight and interaction of the mechanics. Being a class, rather than a class+bg+theme shouldn't be a popularity contest. This is especially true since some of the classes cover a lot less ground conceptually, than others. Its a problem since, for reasons I can't comprehend, some people are upset that Ranger or Paladin or Assassin might become a possible build, rather than a pre-fab build.

Hopefully it all works out for the best, one way or another.

 

[Ratskinner]

Exactly my point - if themes are too restricted then there's little point in having them. If you're going to have both classes and themes, they both need their own room in the design space.

Right, and that's what you violate if you make themes that only apply to one or two classes.

A theme that only applies to wizards is more restricted than a theme that applies to all classes.

 

[jadrax]

I don't think the "iconic"-ness should have anything to do with it. Its all the weight and interaction of the mechanics. Being a class, rather than a class+bg+theme shouldn't be a popularity contest. This is especially true since some of the classes cover a lot less ground conceptually, than others. Its a problem since, for reasons I can't comprehend, some people are upset that Ranger or Paladin or Assassin might become a possible build, rather than a pre-fab build.

If you want people to play the game, then you have to provide the classes they want. Its all right working from some ideological design standpoint, but the truth is their are players out their who will only play a handful of classes and if you don't let them, they simply will not play.

 

[Fifth Element]

Right, and that's what you violate if you make themes that only apply to one or two classes.

A theme that only applies to wizards is more restricted than a theme that applies to all classes.

That particular theme is more restricted, but themes as a whole would be more open.

If a theme must be able to apply to every character class, then that cuts swathes of possible design space out of themes. There could not be a necromancer theme, because it wouldn't apply to a fighter. So if you want to have a necromancer, you have to make it a class.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I don't think the "iconic"-ness should have anything to do with it. Its all the weight and interaction of the mechanics.

I completely agree.

Being a class, rather than a class+bg+theme shouldn't be a popularity contest. This is especially true since some of the classes cover a lot less ground conceptually, than others. Its a problem since, for reasons I can't comprehend, some people are upset that Ranger or Paladin or Assassin might become a possible build, rather than a pre-fab build.

Here's where I disagree. I think that actually, it's incumbent on WOTC to MAKE mechanics that are weighty and interactive for the most popular/traditional archetypes.

If the 5e cleric class sucks, WOTC can't just give up on the class and make a "cleric" theme that gives the wizard healing spells and armor. The cleric archetype is important enough that it's their job to make it stand up as a class.

I'd argue that the same is true of paladins, rangers, and bards. Even if those classes haven't really had the opportunity to stand out mechanically in past editions, they're important enough that the developers should be putting a lot of thought and resources into MAKING them stand out.

(EDIT: "incumbent," not "contingent." I knew that sounded wrong! Thanks Jerome!)

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Something with the aura mechanics is the way I'd go with the paladin, given what we've seen thus far. I really like the idea of turning the generic paladin into a "champion" or some cause, but when you start thinking about what those champion mechanics might do and be about, they look a lot more like themes to me.

Something that occurred to me is that one-at-a-time paladin auras might step on the bard's turf a bit. Hopefully they could be differentiated though.

For the ranger, I'd come up with some "woodland lore" mechanics that mirror the rogue "schemes". I would not look to favored enemy, animal companions, or other brik-a-brak of the historical ranger mechanics for that "woodland lore"--as those also strike me as more theme-related items. Really, given the focus of the core thus far, I'd say the "woodland lore" bits should be about finding your way in the wilderness, setting up ambushes (or not getting ambushed), etc.

The trick is that combat styles are also apparently coming from themes, so it might be hard to make a ranger that has animal companions AND favored enemies AND two-weapon fighting if they only have one theme at hand.

I guess the ranger is really good at

 

[Kabluey]

I guess I have a slightly different take on the question. It shouldn't be, "What makes a class?", but rather, "What makes a theme?" In other words, I think when considering it you should start with thinking of a concept as a theme, and then move it to a separate class when it no longer fits in a theme. Classes and themes are mechanical distinctions, not conceptual ones. That doesn't mean I want as few classes as possible, though. I actually think more classes is better than fewer, because that increases the number of class/theme combos, but too many classes or classes without any real distinctions aren't helpful either.

When deciding if a theme should be a class, you have to remember that themes are just collections of feats. So you have to think about all the abilities you want in your concept. If one or more of them don't fit as a feat, then it's a class. For example, if you wanted to build a paladin, you'd start as a theme. But one of the abilities of paladin is to cast divine spells. I wouldn't want a feat that allows this, because then anyone can take it, so at that point I'd say it's a class. Also I tend to think things that improve automatically with levels doesn't fit a feat, so any ability that required this would force me to make it a class rather than a theme.

On the question of whether all themes should be available to all classes, again I think my take is a little bit different than others. I actually think they should be universally available - they just don't have to be universally optimal. A fighter could take an illusionist theme, for example, but it might not really help him much. But I'm okay with letting players make sub-optimal builds if they want, because sometimes those can be fun to play too.