WotC_Trevor
First Post
Can you, or anybody actually, point me to the article where Mike says that? My head is swimming with lots of official and unofficial news and I can't recall this one.
Seminar Transcript - Class Design: From Assassins to Wizards
WotC_Trevor
First Post
We can't really do that without exposing the text of the spell and all sorts of other information that we can't get into now. For the time being, how about we assume that these guys understand that math isn't the only thing to look at (because they do understand that) and that this was a quick easy touch point when talking about balancing different class features and such for combat.
And in the end, there's never a good reason for edition war-isms
WotC_Trevor
First Post
This came up in the seminar, but the wizard had a spell or (fire lance or flame lance I believe) that I think did 1d6 points of damage on a hit. It was usable every round. I think this was a spell feat that gave him that option, but it was he picked up at level 1. So it doesn't look like you'll have to go back to a wizard who shoots his cross bow unless that's something you want to do.
(insert caveat that anything could change due to play testing and development yada yada)
Mercurius
Legend
Thanks for stopping by, [MENTION=82759]WotC_Trevor[/MENTION]. It seems like it has been ages since we've had an "official" voice around here. If you folks don't send someone in here to slap some sense into us every now and then, we'll start speculating that the 5E Player's Handbook will have warbunnies as a core race.
WotC_Trevor
First Post
I think we can get beyond this if we get rid of the expectation or notion that characters who have different abilities or different ways of accessing those abilities make it harder on the DM to run the game. It doesn't seem any harder when there's a fighter, monk, wizard and cleric at a table. They each do different things in combat and progress a little differently. If you're looking at 2 or 3E, the wizard and cleric might have similar spell progressions but often very different spells and class abilities. In my experience, having different classes with different class features and specialties hasn't really made it harder on me as a DM, in social situations, RP, combat, exploration or anything else.
The basic rules don't have to grow in complexity just because a class might have some interesting or maybe even unique advancement options. Each character/player does what they do, you react, continue with the narration or combat, and keep things moving.
WotC_Trevor
First Post
(note to self - ask team to remove war bunnies)
(note to the mods and everyone else - sorry for the machine gun of posts. I was taking notes and responding to posts as they came up. I though it would be better than just a big wall of text but it pretty much has the same effect. If you'd like for me to combine them all, just let me know)
Last edited:
WotC_Trevor
First Post
One last clarification before i move on to another thread. No plans for an elf or dwarf class. Those are covered with the way races are split out from class now.
avin
First Post
Don't change a line of that.
YES! THANK YOU! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
avin
First Post
What????? This is a SLAP in your costumer's face!!!!!!!!! Why removing Warbunnies?????? What's next, no Fighters?
ScottMcG
First Post
I understand that this is more of a statement about how difficult the task of making a fighter class that covers all the angles they want to include from the various editions, but I respectfully suggest that the monk deserves some of the same investment in diversity. It's always felt like a one-trick/flavor pony class to me, and I think it could be much more.
I'm enthusiastic about support iconic D&D play-styles/experiences, but I'd rather not have classes lock us into only emulating iconic characters. I'd hope to have the room to build some new icons of our own.
Similar Threads
Pathfinder 2E
What Are The Changes In Pathfinder Remastered?