What makes a class?

[Fifth Element]

I disagree, because you're muddying the water between class and theme.

Those waters are pretty murky already. The whole ranger/paladin as class/theme discussions illustrate that there is no clear-cut definition of class or theme as of yet.

Having a theme called "Necromancer" is not an inherently good thing, nor should it be a design goal. Having the capability of playing a character that feels like a Necromancer is a design goal.

Indeed. Whether this is accomplished with a class or a theme is irrelevant. But if the overall class design suggests that necromancer should be a theme rather than a class, then so be it. It should not then be excluded from the game design because it's not what most themes are like and is not worthy of a class unto itself.

I'm more interested in good character options than making sure all themes obey some arbitrary limits in the design space.

If Necromancer is a theme, then you can't have Necromancer-Lurkers or Necromancer-Healers or Necromancer-Slayers. Additionally, we've already seen the Rogue Schemes mechanic, which, I think, is a far better model for things like Necromancer, that are pretty clearly just specific subsets of being a wizard.

Sure, if you add more complexity, you can have more granularity. Background-class-theme-scheme.

 

[jadrax]

Don't look at me. However, I have difficulty seeing how "Illusionist" is going to apply to very many classes at all, though.

Lets do some speculating here.

Lets assume we get 15 classes: Assassin, Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Monk, Paladin, Psion, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Warlock, Warlord, Warrior and Wizard.

I think its fair to say based on past implementation that Barbarian, Monk, Rogue, Warrior and Warlord are unlikely to get spells, so that's down to ten spellcasting classes.

I also think Druid, Ranger and Paladin are unlikely to get illusions. So that is down to seven. Assassin, Bard, Cleric, Psion, Sorcerer, Warlock and Wizard.

There is also the possibility that you will be able to gain illusion spells from another Theme, and then take Illusionist. We will have to wait and see.

 

[Ratskinner]

Those waters are pretty murky already. The whole ranger/paladin as class/theme discussions illustrate that there is no clear-cut definition of class or theme as of yet.

Looking at the themes in the playtest...none of them impress me as nearly equivalent to a class mechanically or in flavor. Additionally, they are all applicable to any class whatsoever. Certainly some have greater advantage for one class or another (healer + cleric, frex), but even a Wizard would gain advantage from having the Healer theme. The healer theme doesn't "break" when applied outside its favored classes. That, is both good for the game and good design.

You seem to recognize that making making themes that are applicable to only a few classes would be bad for the design. I'm saying it would also be bad for the game. You would lose a lot of stuff, including the ease of picking themes in the first place. It would make a great deal of things more complicated outside of the theme mechanics themselves.

Indeed. Whether this is accomplished with a class or a theme is irrelevant. But if the overall class design suggests that necromancer should be a theme rather than a class, then so be it. It should not then be excluded from the game design because it's not what most themes are like and is not worthy of a class unto itself.

At this point in the process...you should change the game design to include it properly, rather that detriment your existing architecture, as they did with rogues and schemes. There are several dangers to shoving such things into themes. (Which get shot at me on other threads about Barbarians, Paladins, Rangers, and Assassins.)

I'm more interested in good character options than making sure all themes obey some arbitrary limits in the design space.

Right...Except those limits aren't as arbitrary as you might think. I'm very suspicious of the suggestions made earlier.

 

[Ratskinner]

I actually think it depends on how much of a reasonable expectation they feel it is.

So I think there are a handful of classes people I really heavily invested in: Warrior, Wizard, Cleric, Rogue, Paladin, Ranger, Druid, Monk, Bard. I think if its missing any of those as core classes you are going to instantly lose players.

The other classes, I just don't know how popular they are in terms of being an actual class.

I think some of it depends on presentation. I recall that they originally presented the core as having levels of complexity, and that as you went from "basic" to "advanced" (or whatever) some things that were built-in would become choices. So a "basic" or perhaps "default" Paladin would be a Fighter + Aristocrat + Crusader, but if you're in an "Advanced" game, you could swap things in or out. That idea seems to be fading a little given the "for a more old school feel" note on the playtest character sheets.

For every "I must have an Assassin!" guy I personally know, I seem to know a "Wait, I could be a Paladiny Wizard? That's awesome." So I think its going to be a trick for Wizards to pull off either way.