When it comes to RPG games there are basically two types of resources: fluff and crunch. Crunch is generally regarded as the mechanics of the system, and fluff is all the stuff that surrounds it. Recently, although from the state of this blog it may not appear so, I have been bogged down in the minutiae of crunch. I have been looking at attribute score generation methods and the pros-and-cons of standard array, point-buy, and randomized attributes.
Going from six attributes to nine attributes is not as easy as just throwing more build points at a player and hoping they do not just consider four or more of the attributes dump-stats and max out their main stats. But that is a different post entirely, once I get the math down and my playtesters do not keep breaking the math. What I want to look at today is reskinning some rules that have already been designed for you, or in this case classes.
One of the methods I use for studying is to rewrite a chapter or an article while replacing key words with other words, forcing myself not to just skim and type the entirety out as fast as possible. This is what I have been doing with the 5e D&D players handbook. I figured that there would probably be some rules that I would not want in my game, but so far, other than changing which attributes apply to which proficiencies, my only erratas have been that choosing feats instead of attribute score improvements are listed within the class descriptions, and some of the names have been changed.
The goal I have with renaming some of the classes is to break the expectations that may come from veteran players, and to give some direction on the flavour of magic that can be found in the setting. Wizards are Ritualists, Warlocks are Occultists, Paladin are Oathbound, and Clerics are Oracles.
The name Ritualist goes in with my concept that the vancian magic that Wizards would normally use is just the completion of a ritual that they started to perform when they were "memorizing" their spells. Ritualists do not have an innate access to magical powers, and instead they learn through extensive study and the mastering of arcane rituals that have been passed down over the centuries. It should also lead players to look at one of the main strengths that a Ritualist has: ritual casting.
Warlocks have gotten a lot of baggage from pop culture, and video-games in specific. Changing the name to Occultist helps to illustrate the hidden source of their power, and also that they have a less formalized grasp of magic than a Ritualist would have. I am undecided as to whether I want to reskin the Great Old One patron option for Occultists, since that brings them fairly close to the concept of the cultists adversaries I have in my head. On the other hand, it is not like Mythos creatures are non-competitive.
The change from Paladin to Oathbound was fairly obvious, with the new found focus on oaths as the source of their magic. I also tend to find uncommon compound words interesting. Shadowfell, Feywild, Batman. All interesting. The new focus on oaths also opens the way to a class that is almost a reflection of the Occultist, with an oath made to an Archfae in return for powers intended to defeat other fae, or an oath made to a celestial being in trade for powers to defeat the servants of the Archfiend.
The most significant fluff change comes with the renaming of Clerics to Oracles. Priests at your local temple will not necessarily have access to spells, and cleric just reminds too many of my friends of clerical assistants, a common job title. No, Oracles are people you have direct access to their deity, although not necessarily the backing of a church hierarchy. I also like the idea, inspired by Terry Pratchett's Small Gods, that deities are powered by their worshipers, and sometimes they have to take a direct interest in their followers well-being.
