So I was reading up on tropes for fantasy classes and this entry came up:

Quote from: allthetropesThe Gambler: The Gambler is a fairly rare variation more often seen in video games than in pen and paper settings. The Gambler is a rogue who has a set of magical powers that rely more on chance than usual. They may have to draw a card, spin a roulette, roll magical dice, or activate a magical slot machine to get a desired effect which may be positive or negative depending on their luck. Very likely to attack with playing cards in lieu of throwing knives.

This is actually something I wouldn't mind having in 5e. If it could be done non-magically then it would be an interesting counterpart to the wild sorcerer. I'll have to think about it.

Sounds rather like the Deadlands character type (Huckster?) — magicians who hide their foci and practices under gambling trappings, mostly playing cards.

Quote from: The Butcher;856571Sounds rather like the Deadlands character type (Huckster?) — magicians who hide their foci and practices under gambling trappings, mostly playing cards.

Yep, that would be the huckster, a magician who literally gambles with manitous (demons) for magical power. I played one in a Deadlands Reloaded game a few years ago, and it was one of the most fun characters I've ever had. There's nothing like dealing a hand of cards to see if your character is about to throw down a really nasty spell or suffer some truly awful backlash.

I think backgrounds are the real answer to letting 5e cover all kinds of stuff, rather than piling on new classes.

Quote from: RPGPundit;857413I think backgrounds are the real answer to letting 5e cover all kinds of stuff, rather than piling on new classes.

Please god not backgrounds as 2e "Kits"! Backgrounds are great for fleshing out the characters pre-adventuring history and how they got to where they are now.

The class paths work fine for adding new "classes" without actual class bloat.

Quote from: Omega;857417Please god not backgrounds as 2e "Kits"! Backgrounds are great for fleshing out the characters pre-adventuring history and how they got to where they are now.

The class paths work fine for adding new "classes" without actual class bloat.

I actually think backgrounds are an elegant solution to the problem that 2E kits were trying to solve (namely, helping to make different characters of the same class feel distinct). If you look back at the first wave of 2E "Complete" books - Fighter, Priest, Thief and Wizard - it actually turns out that a lot of the kits ended up overlapping between the books - you had your noble kit, your Amazon kit, your street rat kit, and so on and so forth.

The clever thing about 5E backgrounds is that they simultaneously are much more rigorously constructed when it comes to what they actually give you (so you don't get into the 2E thing where some kits are miles better than others) and they divorce kit from class, allowing you to get just as much variety as the old 2E kit system but with a tiny fraction of the page count.

In fact, I'd say that 5E backgrounds are so superior to 2E kits that I'm seriously considering offloading my 2E "Complete" series books - I tend not to use them for much other than the kits, and given the choice between running 2E with kits and nonweapon proficiencies in place and running 5E I'd tend to go for 5E simply because its backgrounds and skill system are, to my mind, better tools for the job.

Quote from: Warthur;857425I actually think backgrounds are an elegant solution to the problem that 2E kits were trying to solve (namely, helping to make different characters of the same class feel distinct). If you look back at the first wave of 2E "Complete" books - Fighter, Priest, Thief and Wizard - it actually turns out that a lot of the kits ended up overlapping between the books - you had your noble kit, your Amazon kit, your street rat kit, and so on and so forth.

The clever thing about 5E backgrounds is that they simultaneously are much more rigorously constructed when it comes to what they actually give you (so you don't get into the 2E thing where some kits are miles better than others) and they divorce kit from class, allowing you to get just as much variety as the old 2E kit system but with a tiny fraction of the page count.

In fact, I'd say that 5E backgrounds are so superior to 2E kits that I'm seriously considering offloading my 2E "Complete" series books - I tend not to use them for much other than the kits, and given the choice between running 2E with kits and nonweapon proficiencies in place and running 5E I'd tend to go for 5E simply because its backgrounds and skill system are, to my mind, better tools for the job.

I agree completely. Even better, much of the information in the background is geared around character personality and beliefs. The skills and special features are nice but don't add too much mechanical claptrap.

I always saw kits as caught between incomplete classes and base-class flavor.

The whole overlapping of them atop optional classes was just a clusterfuck. Peasant Hero or Myrmidon Fighters didn't really need Samurai Paladins or Amazon Rangers in the mix. (Forgive if there's some forgotten alignment clash in those latter, but you get the point.) Settings that needed new classes, like Maztica with its Knights and Weavers/Shapers, got instead halfway measure kits that ended up back editing so much it might as well have been a new optional class from scratch.

That said, they are great templates on where to go to fashion your own optional class interpretations, and for that I'll always keep my Complete books.

Backgrounds are great for tight setting flavor. But there really is no substitute for several of those "hard mechanic" (new ability/feat) "quasi-class" kit powers into strictly bonus NWPs and a "soft mechanic" (setting-based) power. There really is a big difference between a concept of "Criminal Contacts" and "Duelist" feat. And so many 2e kits are scattershot between that hard and soft mechanical spectrum.

Quote from: Omega;857417Please god not backgrounds as 2e "Kits"! Backgrounds are great for fleshing out the characters pre-adventuring history and how they got to where they are now.

The class paths work fine for adding new "classes" without actual class bloat.

I guess I should clarify a bit: my point is that you should strongly consider what really NEEDS to be a whole  new class.  Consider first whether the "new class" you're thinking of couldn't just be an existing class with a specific background.
If it's trickier than that, figure out if it can't just be an existing class with a new set of class options.

I think that if you look at that, there's really very few things that need to be a whole new full-blown class.

Class bloat has been a problem in D&D games for quite a long time.  I think it's wise to try to limit that.

This discussion makes me think of that thread about the Monk from a while back, how some people wanted to make a kung fu fighter Bruce Lee type and couldn't.

Given that backgrounds are being looked at here (along with subclasses/feats/classes) what would be the best way to represent that? I don't think it would be a background since that just gives you some skills.

Quote from: rawma;853812I haven't come up with anything I would want a new class for; but there seems to be room for expanded options within some classes (like more pacts for warlocks).

I have seen a lot of multiclassing of a modest sort; people treating one level (or occasionally several) of a complementary class as a sort of enhanced feat.

1-3 level dip is the norm, because D&D always front loads classes.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;858185This discussion makes me think of that thread about the Monk from a while back, how some people wanted to make a kung fu fighter Bruce Lee type and couldn't.

Given that backgrounds are being looked at here (along with subclasses/feats/classes) what would be the best way to represent that? I don't think it would be a background since that just gives you some skills.

Still can't.  Bruce Lee was not a 'Monk' in the over focused class, he was a Fighter, with a custom version the Tavern Brawler Feat, where instead of getting wrestling moves, his barehanded damage got hiked a die upwards at a certain level.  Mr. Lee had a wide range of both open hand and weapon techniques that were never covered by any version of the 'Monk'.  And is a prime example as to why the Monk is a bad class, simply because very few people actually read it, instead envision what they want out of it.

Bruce Lee should probably just be an NPC.

D&D fails to perfectly model specific pop culture reference as RAW PC, film at 11.

Quote from: The Butcher;858880D&D fails to perfectly model specific pop culture reference as RAW PC, film at 11.

We're not talking about modeling specifically, more like making a character LIKE in this case, Bruce Lee.  The issue is that the class that people assume should doesn't even bother coming close to give a passing nod.