It depends on the baggage. Ranger is easier to change the theme of, as it's not really tied to anything too strongly apart from being loosely an explorer and primal based.
Paladin and Warlock are extremely change resistant. Almost all dm's will rule you have to have an oath/patron. There is no getting around that part of the theme. It's part of the class no matter what you do.
But in that case, nothing, absolutely nothing prevents you from:
Taking an Oath/Patron that is about arcane magic and fighting and therefore fits your character very well, or,
Taking an Oath/Patron that gives you power and never ever mention it again because you have a completely different roleplaying story that is rich enough so that the oath/patron can totally be forgotten.
This is just roleplaying, the DM will certainly support this as there is no homebrew whatsoever.
But then your mechanics do not support the flavour. Sure you can say that you just forget about your patron, but what about pact boon? And eldritch master?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Reading it through the eyes of a 2020 context I can understand how you can extrapolate and make the connection to modern role-playing but it was a very different thing and the OSR is literally about trying to preserve that alternative method and meaning of role-playing.
I'm not sure what the OSR is, to be honest. And I still don't understand what you mean by "modern" roleplaying.
The OSR is a movement, the Old School Revival, that wants to return to the playstyles popular in older editions of D&D.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
It depends on the baggage. Ranger is easier to change the theme of, as it's not really tied to anything too strongly apart from being loosely an explorer and primal based.
Paladin and Warlock are extremely change resistant. Almost all dm's will rule you have to have an oath/patron. There is no getting around that part of the theme. It's part of the class no matter what you do.
But in that case, nothing, absolutely nothing prevents you from:
Taking an Oath/Patron that is about arcane magic and fighting and therefore fits your character very well, or,
Taking an Oath/Patron that gives you power and never ever mention it again because you have a completely different roleplaying story that is rich enough so that the oath/patron can totally be forgotten.
This is just roleplaying, the DM will certainly support this as there is no homebrew whatsoever.
But then your mechanics do not support the flavour.
Huh ? I thought the paladin's mechanics were perfect for a gish ?
Sure you can say that you just forget about your patron, but what about pact boon? And eldritch master?
You are perfectly free to give any roleplaying reasons for your pact, maybe with an arcane sect, and your "patron" is the master of your order of Arcane Knight. Or Maybe it's just Boccob himself, the unknowable god of magic. RAW, the game does not mandate anything particular, and your characters does not know the name of his powers, so he can call it any way he wants. If ou want to relabel "Divine Sense" something like "Mystic Eye", who will complain ?
I guess I didn't clarify in my post. I was mainly talking about warlock, and how if you chose to ignore the patron aspect of it some of the abilities don't make sense. And paladins do have great mechanics, but they only really work with divine gishes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
I guess I didn't clarify in my post. I was mainly talking about warlock, and how if you chose to ignore the patron aspect of it some of the abilities don't make sense.
Give me an example, I'm pretty sure that we can find something.
For example, how do you get your pact boon? If it is given to you by someone else, even if they are not a supernatural entity, they are still your patron. I think it is possible to make a warlock that ignores having a patron, and if you give me a good example I won't argue against you. I just don't know exaclty how you could ignore your patron, which is the most important part of being a warlock.
Again, why ? Oath of Conquest or Oath of Vengeance have absolutely nothing divine about them, most of the bonus spells are actually arcane...
You still have divine sense, and lay on hands and Divine Smite. All of these abilities are divine in flavor, and it encourages you to have a god to worship.
I guess I didn't clarify in my post. I was mainly talking about warlock, and how if you chose to ignore the patron aspect of it some of the abilities don't make sense.
Give me an example, I'm pretty sure that we can find something.
And paladins do have great mechanics, but they only really work with divine gishes.
Again, why ? Oath of Conquest or Oath of Vengeance have absolutely nothing divine about them, most of the bonus spells are actually arcane...
Ares (or pretty much any war god) for Conquest and although deities of vengeance are less well known, they also exist.
However, in 5e, the power officially comes from the oath rather than from any outside power. That could even be argued a form of psionics....
I agree with the idea that a Paladins power comes from faith and conviction rather than a god. I actually find them much more interesting than Clerics for this reason.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
It depends on the baggage. Ranger is easier to change the theme of, as it's not really tied to anything too strongly apart from being loosely an explorer and primal based.
Paladin and Warlock are extremely change resistant. Almost all dm's will rule you have to have an oath/patron. There is no getting around that part of the theme. It's part of the class no matter what you do.
But in that case, nothing, absolutely nothing prevents you from:
Taking an Oath/Patron that is about arcane magic and fighting and therefore fits your character very well, or,
Taking an Oath/Patron that gives you power and never ever mention it again because you have a completely different roleplaying story that is rich enough so that the oath/patron can totally be forgotten.
This is just roleplaying, the DM will certainly support this as there is no homebrew whatsoever.
So I've taken reskinned my 'oath' as arcane, despite not wanting an oath at all.
Cool is my lay on hands and detect good and evil abilities able to be reskinned as turning my sword to lightning yet?
Arcane magic isn't just a one word descriptor. Neither is divine or primal magic. Spell lists have different sets of spells depending on their source. Divine spell lists have spells like bless, ceremony, and cure wounds. Arcane lists have things like shocking grasp, ice knife, and featherfall. Primal lists have spells such as goodberry, speak with animals, and spike growth. There is list overlap, but different power sources have an overwhelming bias towards certain spells.
The most simple option would be to give sorcerer a set of smite/strike spells in its spell list. Doesn't need a new class, and provides an arcane class which can enchant its own weapons. Sorcerer is a class many people are unhappy with already, and doing that would make it more different to wizard. They're not even spells which are open to twin/quicken metamagic abuse either. Hell, the playtest sorcerer was a full martial with heavy armour, all weapons, and half casting anyway, so giving the current sorcerer these spells isn't even out of theme of the first concept.
I can hear that in your responses. The OSR is a kind of movement of keeping alive essentially the old school style of gaming I'm describing that I experienced in the 80's. There is even a logo available for games that want to self identify as OSR games. Just looking at top selling titles on Drive Thru RPG I can point you to a few. Warhammer Fantasy RPG , Alien RPG, Stars without Numbers, Trinity Continuum, Cyberpunk, Index Card RPG, Blades in the Dark, Old School Essentials and Dungeon Worlds just to pick out a few random ones.
OSR designers were also key to the design of 5e, there were more OSR consultants on the design team then Wizards of the Coasts designers.
Now I understand this may seem a bit off topic, but here is the thing. Denying how the game was designed, what the roots of the games were is a pretty common modern discussion about D&D. Many D&D players today just outright reject the idea that D&D wasn't the narrative, collaborative storytelling game from the get go. That it was never a game about just fighting monsters and finding treasure, but it was, its deeply rooted in the game and in the communities even today even though their is a kind of shaming of that concept of D&D as was already displayed just a minute ago by Kotath who said "Sorry to hear that yours sound not quite so pleasant...", as if playing by that method is something to be embarrassed about or feel sorry for those who had to endure it.
This common attitude in particular on this forum is really part of the problem because believe it or not, this concept of D&D as a simple fantasy adventure game about fighting monsters and taking their stuff is how the overwhelming majority of people play and have played D&D for the last 40 years. This concept of it being this deeply narrative, collaborative RPG where we do voices and cry at the table, this is a kind of elitism in the community, a type of gate-keeping to try to establish firmly that anyone who doesn't take this game "seriously" needs to be shamed and ridiculed, or at the least felt sorry for.
This discussion about more classes is just that old school element of D&D boiling to the surface because at the end of the day for the overwhelming majority of people D&D is a simple fantasy adventure about going into dungeons, fight monsters and finding treasure and what they want is new interesting classes to do that with. Its really that simple, but it only makes sense if you can connect the dots.
Is it though? I reject this version of D&D even though it started as such. Sometimes along the years, not two years ago and not five but much more, D&D started evolving from that type of gameplay and I think people liked that.
Planescape Torment war released 20 years ago to enormous success and even today remains one of THE benchmarks on how "old timers" want a proper RPG to look like, in contrast to the "action RPG" way we see now. Maybe D&D started as the simple excercise in "beating the dungeon" but people have been excited at the prospect of more depth in the narrative in role playing games for at least two decades now.
Is it though? I reject this version of D&D even though it started as such. Sometimes along the years, not two years ago and not five but much more, D&D started evolving from that type of gameplay and I think people liked that.
Planescape Torment war released 20 years ago to enormous success and even today remains one of THE benchmarks on how "old timers" want a proper RPG to look like, in contrast to the "action RPG" way we see now. Maybe D&D started as the simple excercise in "beating the dungeon" but people have been excited at the prospect of more depth in the narrative in role playing games for at least two decades now.
Role-playing, the narrative of story and the concept of collaborative storytelling has nothing to do with combat rules or really mechanics in general. If D&D becoming a deeper role-playing experience is the goal we wouldn't be having this discussion about classes and the intricate balancing, whether smite is optimal, or if Y build is better then X build.
You can reject the premise, believe me your not the first or the last to do so, but no matter how frustrating it may be for the "storyteller's" in our community, most people lean into the skid of D&D, a game about exploring and fighting.
This is the second time you've mention it as if you had some statistical data. Can I read about it somewhere?
And I reject the premise of D&D being the way it was (in your words, "go inside dungeon, kill monster, get treasure, job well done") because it evolved for a reason. I do believe people like deeper storytelling more even if their comfort level with roleplaying a character may be varying.
Is it though? I reject this version of D&D even though it started as such. Sometimes along the years, not two years ago and not five but much more, D&D started evolving from that type of gameplay and I think people liked that.
Planescape Torment war released 20 years ago to enormous success and even today remains one of THE benchmarks on how "old timers" want a proper RPG to look like, in contrast to the "action RPG" way we see now. Maybe D&D started as the simple excercise in "beating the dungeon" but people have been excited at the prospect of more depth in the narrative in role playing games for at least two decades now.
Role-playing, the narrative of story and the concept of collaborative storytelling has nothing to do with combat rules or really mechanics in general. If D&D becoming a deeper role-playing experience is the goal we wouldn't be having this discussion about classes and the intricate balancing, whether smite is optimal, or if Y build is better then X build.
You can reject the premise, believe me your not the first or the last to do so, but no matter how frustrating it may be for the "storyteller's" in our community, most people lean into the skid of D&D, a game about exploring and fighting.
This is the second time you've mention it as if you had some statistical data. Can I read about it somewhere?
Really? You don't believe that? I'm not sure how to provide you with statistical data other then to say.. every stream on youtube ever? Is that qualify? Can you find any example in which this is not true? I honestly would love to see it. Show me a podcast or stream or any example of D&D play in which people don't explore and fight monsters. I would actually enjoy watching that, I personally have never seen it myself, I would be very curious to see what D&D looks like when its not about exploring and fighting monsters.
How did we get from 0 to 60 like that? I never meant no exploration and no combat.
But you started explaining how D&D started (beating the dungeon) and that "it's the way most have been playing".
So no - I reject the idea that dungeon crawl with barely-a-character is the way most people are playing. A quick glance at streamers, DnD subreddit etc. shows me that people are much more dedicated to their characters and the narrative than the "OG D&D where people made a bunch of them cause they knew they will die".
While also fighting, sure. I have no problem with that. While fighting is integral to D&D as a game, it's evolved to the point where people started caring about their characters much more than before.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but why can't D&D be a game about fighting monsters, dungeon crawling and fantasy exploration......and a story driven role playing game? Why is it wrong for different groups to pick and choose which elements to have a greater presence of in their own games? Why is it wrong to like playing the game more mechanically vs more story driven? Why is it suddenly assumed that min-maxers can't or won't roleplay? Why is it assumed that role players will never care if the official mechanics support their character choices?
That's not what I've experienced at my table, the players love role play and using the mechanics to their fullest. We love role play, story lore, exploration, combat and everything in between. I've always seen D&D as a game where you can make it whatever you want, and I've seen many different ways to play this game. I guess I'm just surprised to see just how polarizing different play styles can be.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
But then your mechanics do not support the flavour. Sure you can say that you just forget about your patron, but what about pact boon? And eldritch master?
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
The OSR is a movement, the Old School Revival, that wants to return to the playstyles popular in older editions of D&D.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
I guess I didn't clarify in my post. I was mainly talking about warlock, and how if you chose to ignore the patron aspect of it some of the abilities don't make sense. And paladins do have great mechanics, but they only really work with divine gishes.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
For example, how do you get your pact boon? If it is given to you by someone else, even if they are not a supernatural entity, they are still your patron. I think it is possible to make a warlock that ignores having a patron, and if you give me a good example I won't argue against you. I just don't know exaclty how you could ignore your patron, which is the most important part of being a warlock.
You still have divine sense, and lay on hands and Divine Smite. All of these abilities are divine in flavor, and it encourages you to have a god to worship.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
I agree with the idea that a Paladins power comes from faith and conviction rather than a god. I actually find them much more interesting than Clerics for this reason.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
So I've taken reskinned my 'oath' as arcane, despite not wanting an oath at all.
Cool is my lay on hands and detect good and evil abilities able to be reskinned as turning my sword to lightning yet?
Arcane magic isn't just a one word descriptor. Neither is divine or primal magic. Spell lists have different sets of spells depending on their source. Divine spell lists have spells like bless, ceremony, and cure wounds. Arcane lists have things like shocking grasp, ice knife, and featherfall. Primal lists have spells such as goodberry, speak with animals, and spike growth. There is list overlap, but different power sources have an overwhelming bias towards certain spells.
The most simple option would be to give sorcerer a set of smite/strike spells in its spell list. Doesn't need a new class, and provides an arcane class which can enchant its own weapons. Sorcerer is a class many people are unhappy with already, and doing that would make it more different to wizard. They're not even spells which are open to twin/quicken metamagic abuse either. Hell, the playtest sorcerer was a full martial with heavy armour, all weapons, and half casting anyway, so giving the current sorcerer these spells isn't even out of theme of the first concept.
In fact can anyone with more rules knowledge double check that?
Would adding spells like searing smite and ensnaring strike to the sorcerer spell list break anything?
I don't think that it would break anything at all. It actually sounds like talking smites would be very suboptimal.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
5-11 levels of fighter + sorcerer with smite/strike spell access = perfect arcane gish imo.
Is it though? I reject this version of D&D even though it started as such. Sometimes along the years, not two years ago and not five but much more, D&D started evolving from that type of gameplay and I think people liked that.
Planescape Torment war released 20 years ago to enormous success and even today remains one of THE benchmarks on how "old timers" want a proper RPG to look like, in contrast to the "action RPG" way we see now. Maybe D&D started as the simple excercise in "beating the dungeon" but people have been excited at the prospect of more depth in the narrative in role playing games for at least two decades now.
If wizards would just make a melee sorcerer origin...
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
They did, then scrapped it!
;-;
Tasha's is coming up, we still have (minimal, but it's there) hope!
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
This is the second time you've mention it as if you had some statistical data. Can I read about it somewhere?
And I reject the premise of D&D being the way it was (in your words, "go inside dungeon, kill monster, get treasure, job well done") because it evolved for a reason. I do believe people like deeper storytelling more even if their comfort level with roleplaying a character may be varying.
Nah it's psionic and clockwork sorcerers in Tasha's. The elemental sorcerers are long dead and buried.
Oof. Well, it doesn't sound that difficult to homebrew. Now I have another project...
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
How did we get from 0 to 60 like that? I never meant no exploration and no combat.
But you started explaining how D&D started (beating the dungeon) and that "it's the way most have been playing".
So no - I reject the idea that dungeon crawl with barely-a-character is the way most people are playing. A quick glance at streamers, DnD subreddit etc. shows me that people are much more dedicated to their characters and the narrative than the "OG D&D where people made a bunch of them cause they knew they will die".
While also fighting, sure. I have no problem with that. While fighting is integral to D&D as a game, it's evolved to the point where people started caring about their characters much more than before.
I think people would leave D&D in droves if the mechanics were changed to emphasize talking with monsters instead of killing them.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but why can't D&D be a game about fighting monsters, dungeon crawling and fantasy exploration......and a story driven role playing game? Why is it wrong for different groups to pick and choose which elements to have a greater presence of in their own games? Why is it wrong to like playing the game more mechanically vs more story driven? Why is it suddenly assumed that min-maxers can't or won't roleplay? Why is it assumed that role players will never care if the official mechanics support their character choices?
That's not what I've experienced at my table, the players love role play and using the mechanics to their fullest. We love role play, story lore, exploration, combat and everything in between. I've always seen D&D as a game where you can make it whatever you want, and I've seen many different ways to play this game. I guess I'm just surprised to see just how polarizing different play styles can be.
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Characters for Tenebris Sine Fine
RoughCoronet's Greater Wills