Seminar Transcript - Class Design: From Assassins to Wizards

Blackwarder · Jan 27, 2012

Seems like the vanician system is making a come back... I'm not sure if I'm pro or con.

One thing they hadn't touched in the seminar is how they intend to make each character viable in the three pillars of the game, would it be character dependant or will it be dependant on somthing else (like themes?)

Warder

Remathilis · Jan 27, 2012

Giltonio_Santos said:
Assassin, Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Warlock, Warlord and Wizard. Am I missing something here? Sounds like a good setup to me.

Illusionist/Specialty Mage. If they're back (and not just a side-part of wizard) I'll go full-blown geekgasm.

Thornir Alekeg · Jan 27, 2012

I really want to get the playtesting started already. This all sounds great as goals and planning, but I really want to see it for myself, unfiltered.

Vancian magic - Yay!!!!

My excitement is building. I really hope it can live up to most of the expectations.

Kurtomatic · Jan 27, 2012

I just wanted to say, I totally called this yesterday...

Monte: To start with we kind of shot at the moon, and said everything that's been in a Player's Handbook 1, we want to potentially have in our new player's book. That includes things like the warlock and the warlord from 4th edition, but also includes the classes from other editions like the ranger, the wizard, the cleric. Going along those lines we separated things along the lines of what's common or uncommon. So for example fighters, clerics, wizards and clerics might be commmon while warlocks, bards, and paladins fall into uncommon and something like the assassin might be rare. This helps DMs determine what options they want to run in their games as well.

Bruce: The goal at the moment is to include all the classes that we're in the first PH style book for each edition. No word on other classes yet.

Kurtomatic said:
..Now you're looking at a model which, in addition to simple fighters, wizards, etc, also has simple warlords and sorcerers and barbarians and warlocks and hell, maybe even simple swordmages and avengers. Whatever fits in the available page spread. But they're all simple executions that fit on a one-page character sheet with few mechanical inflection points..

Knightfall · Jan 27, 2012

Remathilis said:
Illusionist/Specialty Mage. If they're back (and not just a side-part of wizard) I'll go full-blown geekgasm.

I hope so. Maybe being a specialty wizard is a feat choice.

What I'm really wonder is this, however: If they are including all the classes from all the PHB 1's, are they also including all the races from all the PHB 1's?

Wormwood · Jan 27, 2012

Knightfall said:
What I'm really wonder is this, however: If they are including all the classes from all the PHB 1's, are they also including all the races from all the PHB 1's?

I would dearly hope so.

Don't like 'em? Don't use 'em.

Dragonblade · Jan 27, 2012

Awesome! I'm very encouraged by everything I'm hearing.

Giltonio_Santos · Jan 27, 2012

Knightfall said:
What I'm really wonder is this, however: If they are including all the classes from all the PHB 1's, are they also including all the races from all the PHB 1's?

I really hope they're not doing that! It's much harder to create a low fantasy experience when players are looking forward to play a dragon-like creature.

Cheers,

Windjammer · Jan 27, 2012

Q: What about a simple, tactical game?

Rob: With D&D Next, you should be able to play the same kind of <acronym title="D&D 4th Edition">4e</acronym>-type game that you're playing now.

I'm wondering what should encourage me to play 5E instead of 4E.

A lot of the stuff that's mentioned in the transcript are things our group never found problematic - even if we used the term "arcane power [source]" at the table (which we don't), that'd hardly be a deal breaker - and other stuff has me scratching my head as to whether, even Monte apart, the others really have played much of 4th edition. The separation and balance of combat and out-of-combat magic is executed so well (even an illiterate barbarian PC of mine could cast rituals, haha!), the 4E bard already illustrates a lot what they're talking about, so I'm mildly curious how these promises are filled in the eventual design.

And oh, Bruce Cordell saying his favourite class evarr is the starpact warlock without mentionining that he bloody wrote it himself? That as good as makes him the David Brent* of the D&D World.

*[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6ePYe3HodM[/ame]

Knightfall · Jan 27, 2012

Wormwood said:
I would dearly hope so.

Don't like 'em? Don't use 'em.

I completely agree. Just because one of the new races is in the PHB, it doesn't mean every gaming group has to use them.

Here's the race list, if it's true: Dragonborn, Dwarf, Eladrin, Elf, Gnome, Half-Elf, Half-Orc, Halfling, Human, and Tiefling.

I could learn to live with that.