LumenPlacidum
2021-02-09, 12:52 PM
I've seen some discussion of late of whether classes have a place, or whether people think other classes should be introduced. I wanted to share something which I think is an interesting way to think about class design.
Schtick - Every class should have something that they're supposed to be good at. This determines an overall approach to what kinds of abilities they get. If I asked you to label the "warrior" classes, you'd probably say barbarian, fighter, paladin, ranger; that's what I'm talking about. These classes have a primary approach to the mechanics of the game which seems to be "use weapons to make 'em dead and be tougher than they are"
Rationale or Origin of Powers - Every character gets their skill from some aspect of their past. I don't mean things as specific as "My dad was the merchant who brought the sword to the lands of..." I mean, general statements like "I picked up skills naturally from my past". With many of the classes that currently exist, they dip side to side into alternative origins based on subclass. That muddies the waters a bit, but sometimes there's still a strong theme.
Other than just presenting this to you, I also wanted to ask if there are any major schticks or origins that you can think of to go in my table.
With Schticks along the left axis and Rationales along the top... we have:
Born with it
Worked hard to learn
I stand for something
I am but a representative
My strength is the strength of others
I care little for the things that hold others back
I use special tools
Warrior
Barbarian, Fighter
Fighter, Ranger
Paladin
?
?
Barbarian
Artificer, Fighter
Skirmisher
Rogue
Monk, Ranger, Rogue
?
?
Rogue
Rogue
Rogue
Magician
Sorcerer
Wizard
?
Warlock
Bard
?
?
Mystic
?
Monk
Cleric, Druid, Paladin
Cleric
?
?
?
Sundry Skills
Bard
Artificer, Ranger
?
?
Bard
Rogue
Artificer
A little more explanation in detail: You see Paladin under "I stand for something" and "Warrior". What I'm saying is that part of the concept of the paladin is that they are a warrior and that the reason why they are better than others at being a warrior than most other people is because they are upheld by the strength of their convictions! You see Rogue under the conjunction of "Skirmisher" and "I care little for the things that hold others back". This means that part of the concept of the rogue is the idea that they might be a better skirmisher than most other people and that this is, in part, due to the idea that they're willing to fight dirty, stabbing people in the back when the opportunity presents itself. I'm trying (although likely failing - that's a lot of cells) to represent core conceptual links here. I'm sure that this community can help me flesh out the table.
You see a '?' under "I use special tools" and "Magician". This is because I don't intrinsically connect the reason why any of the current casters are good at being magi with the fact that they have access to and use specialized tools. I suppose an argument could be made for Artificer being here, or Wizards due to their books. But, I'm just less sure that Artificers are really Magicians in the first place. They're half-casters, and it seems to me that the theme of the class is less to have spells and more to have gimicky tools that allow them to apply them to other scenarios (see "Sundry Skills"). In the case of Wizard, it seems to me that the core idea is that the Wizard's concept is that their spells come from their own understanding of the spells in the book rather than from the book itself.
The presence of Bard under "Born with it" and "Sundry Skills" represents the concept that has mechanically been represented as bardic knowledge or the Jack of All Trades ability, implying that the bard has just seen some **** and has a bunch of random knowledge and half-skills to reflect the idea that they might just pull anything out of their pocket.
I think there really is an open space under "My Strength is the Strength of Others" and "Warrior". A class dedicated to being a battle commander is tangentially touched on by some subclasses in D&D 5e, but doesn't really seem to be embraced by any one of them. I could imagine arguments for Bards, Clerics, Fighters, and Paladins, but there still seems to be a lot of room.
Please keep in mind that these associations are, to me, thematic ones. This is not a question of whether or not the theme has been implemented mechanically in D&D 5e.
So, what am I missing? Should I have associations that I'm ignoring or failing to see? Should I not have associations that I think I see? Should there be other main Schticks? Other main Rationales/Origins? Is this all just a silly waste of time?
Schtick - Every class should have something that they're supposed to be good at. This determines an overall approach to what kinds of abilities they get. If I asked you to label the "warrior" classes, you'd probably say barbarian, fighter, paladin, ranger; that's what I'm talking about. These classes have a primary approach to the mechanics of the game which seems to be "use weapons to make 'em dead and be tougher than they are"
Rationale or Origin of Powers - Every character gets their skill from some aspect of their past. I don't mean things as specific as "My dad was the merchant who brought the sword to the lands of..." I mean, general statements like "I picked up skills naturally from my past". With many of the classes that currently exist, they dip side to side into alternative origins based on subclass. That muddies the waters a bit, but sometimes there's still a strong theme.
Other than just presenting this to you, I also wanted to ask if there are any major schticks or origins that you can think of to go in my table.
With Schticks along the left axis and Rationales along the top... we have:
Born with it
Worked hard to learn
I stand for something
I am but a representative
My strength is the strength of others
I care little for the things that hold others back
I use special tools
Warrior
Barbarian, Fighter
Fighter, Ranger
Paladin
?
?
Barbarian
Artificer, Fighter
Skirmisher
Rogue
Monk, Ranger, Rogue
?
?
Rogue
Rogue
Rogue
Magician
Sorcerer
Wizard
?
Warlock
Bard
?
?
Mystic
?
Monk
Cleric, Druid, Paladin
Cleric
?
?
?
Sundry Skills
Bard
Artificer, Ranger
?
?
Bard
Rogue
Artificer
A little more explanation in detail: You see Paladin under "I stand for something" and "Warrior". What I'm saying is that part of the concept of the paladin is that they are a warrior and that the reason why they are better than others at being a warrior than most other people is because they are upheld by the strength of their convictions! You see Rogue under the conjunction of "Skirmisher" and "I care little for the things that hold others back". This means that part of the concept of the rogue is the idea that they might be a better skirmisher than most other people and that this is, in part, due to the idea that they're willing to fight dirty, stabbing people in the back when the opportunity presents itself. I'm trying (although likely failing - that's a lot of cells) to represent core conceptual links here. I'm sure that this community can help me flesh out the table.
You see a '?' under "I use special tools" and "Magician". This is because I don't intrinsically connect the reason why any of the current casters are good at being magi with the fact that they have access to and use specialized tools. I suppose an argument could be made for Artificer being here, or Wizards due to their books. But, I'm just less sure that Artificers are really Magicians in the first place. They're half-casters, and it seems to me that the theme of the class is less to have spells and more to have gimicky tools that allow them to apply them to other scenarios (see "Sundry Skills"). In the case of Wizard, it seems to me that the core idea is that the Wizard's concept is that their spells come from their own understanding of the spells in the book rather than from the book itself.
The presence of Bard under "Born with it" and "Sundry Skills" represents the concept that has mechanically been represented as bardic knowledge or the Jack of All Trades ability, implying that the bard has just seen some **** and has a bunch of random knowledge and half-skills to reflect the idea that they might just pull anything out of their pocket.
I think there really is an open space under "My Strength is the Strength of Others" and "Warrior". A class dedicated to being a battle commander is tangentially touched on by some subclasses in D&D 5e, but doesn't really seem to be embraced by any one of them. I could imagine arguments for Bards, Clerics, Fighters, and Paladins, but there still seems to be a lot of room.
Please keep in mind that these associations are, to me, thematic ones. This is not a question of whether or not the theme has been implemented mechanically in D&D 5e.
So, what am I missing? Should I have associations that I'm ignoring or failing to see? Should I not have associations that I think I see? Should there be other main Schticks? Other main Rationales/Origins? Is this all just a silly waste of time?