Modern Interpretations of 5E Classes - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Modern Interpretations of 5E Classes

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
whitishknight
Apr 14, 2015 23:51:06
In light of the new 5E Modern article, I was thinking about modern versions of the existing 5E classes (law enforcement for paladin, lawyers for warlocks, etc.). Then came the quesiton of what deserves to be a background vs. tied to a class, and maybe which archetype vs. class as a whole. Thoughts?

#2
cowleymen
Apr 15, 2015 0:34:29
honestly, I dont think a MODERN, modern game needs as many classes. Its just such an odd thing for me. Skill prof. is the way I think a great modern game will have. Robust, skill for nearly everything. believe it or not, I think you could probably simplify combat even more in a Modern game, and really focus on the other two pillars. Getting around and interacting with people are much bigger deals to me.

I have very little Modern experince though. I could be wrong. Honestly, I dont really want to play a very modern game either. I live in the "modern" world. Even playing a action hero from something like Die Hard doesnt really interest me. Id rather play something set Near future (10-20 years), or mid future (30-70 give or take) then a regular modern world. Just doesnt have a strong appeal.

Looking at the D20 Modern, I see something like Iron Kingdoms, rather then gnomes and elves walking around with us in 21st century. Iron kingdom is the rpg system built from War Machine. I would use the modern rules and have long arms be stuff like lever action carbines and military bolt action rifles, side arms would be revolvers for the most part. Nothing more advance then ww1, sans tanks.

#3
Tempest_Stormwind
Apr 15, 2015 8:51:10 Modern interpretations of the classes largely comes down to setting concerns. For instance, I can say that rogues are law enforcement instead (avoiding conflict where possible, swift takedowns when necessary, and all the training one needs to gather information on criminals), but that paints all of them with too broad a brush. You'd best begin by starting with backgrounds, and leave it to the player to synthesize a setting-appropriate class identity after accounting for that.
#4
transcendantviewer
Apr 15, 2015 12:08:32 I'm with Tempest on this. Making every class uniform when everything in a modern setting is just more complicated will just well... Make things more complicated. It's simpler and safer to have the character's class be more of a general template that's shifted and shaped by their background. Basically, if they're a Fighter, their background determines if they're called a Gladiator, Brawler, Soldier, or even something as far as a Terrorist.
#5
Macv12
Apr 15, 2015 16:48:52
I don't think that should be restricted to modern settings though, tbh. My most recent character (for LMoP) was an investigator. Rogue Assassin, focused on crossbow and social skills, carried manacles and the Expertise to take down enemies and use them, multiclassed to Wizard for some low-level utility spells. It makes very little sense to me to consider a class to be a distinct in-universe quantifiable element, regardless of time period. They should just represent the character's mechanical presence, not their occupation, life story, etc.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 whitishknight Apr 14, 2015 23:51:06	In light of the new 5E Modern article, I was thinking about modern versions of the existing 5E classes (law enforcement for paladin, lawyers for warlocks, etc.). Then came the quesiton of what deserves to be a background vs. tied to a class, and maybe which archetype vs. class as a whole. Thoughts?
#2 cowleymen Apr 15, 2015 0:34:29	honestly, I dont think a MODERN, modern game needs as many classes. Its just such an odd thing for me. Skill prof. is the way I think a great modern game will have. Robust, skill for nearly everything. believe it or not, I think you could probably simplify combat even more in a Modern game, and really focus on the other two pillars. Getting around and interacting with people are much bigger deals to me. I have very little Modern experince though. I could be wrong. Honestly, I dont really want to play a very modern game either. I live in the "modern" world. Even playing a action hero from something like Die Hard doesnt really interest me. Id rather play something set Near future (10-20 years), or mid future (30-70 give or take) then a regular modern world. Just doesnt have a strong appeal. Looking at the D20 Modern, I see something like Iron Kingdoms, rather then gnomes and elves walking around with us in 21st century. Iron kingdom is the rpg system built from War Machine. I would use the modern rules and have long arms be stuff like lever action carbines and military bolt action rifles, side arms would be revolvers for the most part. Nothing more advance then ww1, sans tanks.
#3 Tempest_Stormwind Apr 15, 2015 8:51:10	Modern interpretations of the classes largely comes down to setting concerns. For instance, I can say that rogues are law enforcement instead (avoiding conflict where possible, swift takedowns when necessary, and all the training one needs to gather information on criminals), but that paints all of them with too broad a brush. You'd best begin by starting with backgrounds, and leave it to the player to synthesize a setting-appropriate class identity after accounting for that.
#4 transcendantviewer Apr 15, 2015 12:08:32	I'm with Tempest on this. Making every class uniform when everything in a modern setting is just more complicated will just well... Make things more complicated. It's simpler and safer to have the character's class be more of a general template that's shifted and shaped by their background. Basically, if they're a Fighter, their background determines if they're called a Gladiator, Brawler, Soldier, or even something as far as a Terrorist.
#5 Macv12 Apr 15, 2015 16:48:52	I don't think that should be restricted to modern settings though, tbh. My most recent character (for LMoP) was an investigator. Rogue Assassin, focused on crossbow and social skills, carried manacles and the Expertise to take down enemies and use them, multiclassed to Wizard for some low-level utility spells. It makes very little sense to me to consider a class to be a distinct in-universe quantifiable element, regardless of time period. They should just represent the character's mechanical presence, not their occupation, life story, etc.