Seminar Transcript - Class Design: From Assassins to Wizards

Lanefan · Jan 28, 2012

All the optimism I built up from reading the seminar notes yesterday kind of evaporated today on seeing this one.

As soon as they start talking about what choices have to be made at each level (abilities, feats, powers, whatever name they get) I turn away, because between the lines that tells me that the term "character build" is still in play. Which means by extension the continuation of the meta-games of system mastery and optimization - neither of which has any place in D&D.

As for the class list, assuming it stands up, I'm glad to see Illusionist back. Having never seen a Warlock in play, can someone please tell me what differentiates it from a Wizard or Sorcerer or Bard? (or can it relatively easily be melded into one of those three?)

Vancian casting is fine with me for arcane types. I'd prefer to see the divine casters on a Sorcerer-like system where if they have a slot available of a given level they can cast any spell of that level on their list.

At first glance I'm very dubious about this idea of trading out low-level powers-abilities-feats for higher-level ones, but I'll leave the jury out until I see more hard facts on it. Still sounds far more complex than required, however.

And for the love of mushrooms the game is about more than just Damage Per Round!!! If everything in the game is being reduced merely to how much damage it represents (e.g. Charm Person = 105) the designers have lost sight of the forest because they just face-planted into a tree!

And finally, not a fan of timing things by encounter as the definition of what is an encounter is still far too fuzzy. Per-day or per-hour or whatever is fine as those can be measured and tracked at least to some extent.

Lan-"warm and fuzzy one day, cold and spiky the next"-efan

Draz · Jan 28, 2012

Remathilis said:
If you go by there statement of Every PHB1 class:

Assassin
Barbarian
Bard
Cleric
Druid
Fighter
Illusionist
Monk
Paladin
Ranger
Rogue
Sorcerer
Warlock
Warlord
Wizard

Damn, that's a lot of classes!

Don't forget Thief being separate from Rogue, and Mage and Magic-User separate from Wizard.

They also mentioned the Psion in passing, as well as the possibility of splitting the Cleric from the Priest.

You're right, that's a LOT of PHB1 classes to try to launch a new system with. I think they should narrow it a bit. Here are my thoughts on each:

Assassin: I approve of this, as long as it's not pigeonholed into the arcane casting or mystical shadow powers of the 1e/3e/4e Assassins. Those things should be optional; the focus should just be on being the "stabby Rogue" archetype. Something pretty similar to the 3e Swordsage, plus a bit more aptitude with burglary or infiltration.

Barbarian: I actually don't think this is a big enough archetype to make into a full 1-20 class. But it is an archetype, and it is one that you should be able to play at Level 1. So ... I guess it should stay, unless it could just become a Fighter variant instead. I just wish they would rename it "Berserker" to keep the backstory more flexible.

Bard: Definitely an archetype worthy of a PHB1 class. I just hope the 5e version can support "wise" bards, "spoony" bards, and "aggressive swashbuckler" bards alike. 1e emphasized the "wise" aspect; 2e and 3e heavily favored "spoony." 4e tried to make all three viable, and I applaud the attempt, but I think all three may have fallen a little short of what I'd like to see (most 4e Bards really ended up more as a mishmash of all three).

Cleric: A classic; obviously has to be included. 1e Clerics, 3e Clerics, and especially 4e Clerics weren't diverse enough. They weren't all that different from deity to deity. (2e had a framework to make them more diverse, but it required a fair amount of homebrew.) So because of that, I approve of the split between Cleric (healer/holy warrior) and Priest (casting-focused, hopefully very diverse between different deities). But see comments under Paladin about how the Cleric should be.

Druid: Obviously should be a PHB1 class, but I hope it's not quite as shapeshifting-focused or overpowered as it has been at times ...

Fighter: Eh. My main concern about this one is figuring out what archetype it really is trying to fill ... and the comments in the Seminar make it clear that WotC has the same confusion. So, hopefully they'll come up with something that works.

Illusionist: I don't see why Illusionist deserves page space in the book more than, say, Necromancer. But separate classes for each specialty arcane caster would be crazy. So ... I guess mostly the same as 3e, with these being Wizard variants? Possibly feat-based or PrC-based, rather than default features.

Monk: I don't think this should be in the 5e PHB1. It's too "niche." When the 4e PHB1 came out, people complained about the Druid and Bard's absences, but not so much the Monk. Save it for an Eastern-themed or Psionic-themed splat.

Paladin: I've always thought the Paladin title was more befitting a PrC than a base class, and I stand by that now. Particularly if the Cleric and Priest are getting separated, then the Cleric can cover the Paladin archetype just fine at low levels. Also, the Paladin PrC (or Paragon Path, or whatever they call it in 5e) should be easily accessible to both Clerics and Fighters; it certainly shouldn't require a priori spellcasting ability.

Psion: I don't know what it's going to look like, or whether it can cover the whole gamut of psionic archetypes by itself (seems like it would at least need to be able to select which ability score it's based on), but I like the idea of psionics getting put in the PHB1 for a change, instead of being shunted into splatbook territory. They've got the history for it.

Ranger: Definitely PHB1 material.

Rogue: This should be as different from the "stabby" Assassin archetype as a skillful urbane character can be. This should be the "I can do anything because I'm just that awesome" class. Like the 3e Factotum, except with magic optional.

Sorcerer: I actually wouldn't give this a PHB1 slot. It feels too setting-specific ... I mean, not in every world is there strains of dragonblood amongst the population, granting magical powers. It's just not as universal (or traditional) as some of the other D&D magic sources.

Warlock: 3e should have had this instead of the Sorcerer all along. (Flavor-wise. I'm not necessarily judging mechanics or even the name. Just the flavor.) 4e made the right decision between them.

Warlord: Hmmm. I love the Warlord concept. The idea of having a martial support character who removes the need for a Cleric. But ... flavor-wise, it's not as different from Fighter as I'd like. I almost wish this could be a Fighter variant rather than a separate class. But I'm not sure that's mechanically feasible.

Wizard: Obviously it's not D&D without a Wizard class. I actually feel that this, again, is rather setting-specific. But I'm not going to begrudge WotC the classic appeal of putting a Wizard class in.

DaveMage · Jan 28, 2012

SteveC said:
Well this is the first thing about the edition that's really starting to make me worried, so I suspect the folks who dislike 4E must be loving it right now. Vancian?

I dislike 4E, but I'm still not seeing anything in 5E that has wowed me.

Nagol · Jan 28, 2012

Lanefan said:
<snip>

As for the class list, assuming it stands up, I'm glad to see Illusionist back. Having never seen a Warlock in play, can someone please tell me what differentiates it from a Wizard or Sorcerer or Bard? (or can it relatively easily be melded into one of those three?)

Mechanics-wise the 3.5 Warlock is very different from the other casters.

Completely, non-Vancian, the Warlock chooses a very small list of effects that he can cast at-will. He also has an at-will, standard action, magical blast that he can alter with some of the magical choices -- turning it into a area effect, or adding a different damage type rider to the attack, etc. The magical blast grows in power with level getting to around 10d6 at 20th level.

In addition, he is a master of Use Magic Device. Gaining the ability to Take-10 with the skill and a few other bonuses as well.

The closest analogue I can think of is Marvel's Son of Satan comic book character.

Flatus Maximus · Jan 28, 2012

Yeah, someone is going to have to explain: "Charm person = 105." If not, this could get out of hand real quick and turn into an edition war-ism.

Remathilis · Jan 28, 2012

Personally, I see

Fighter (basic warrior)
Cleric (option: Priests of specific mythos which trade martial abilities for faith-based powers)
Rogue (sneak)
Wizard (Option: Specialization, with Illusionist being the example)
Ranger (option to go scout or go warrior type)
Paladin (healer and warrior)
Druid (summoner, healer, naturalist)
Bard (buffer, face, healer)
Assassin (shadow-based sneak)
Barbarian (high toughness damage dealer)
Monk (acrobat/skirmisher)
Sorcerer (less spells, recharges quickly)
Warlock (few spells, used at will)
Warlord (warrior with buffing side)

14 Classes. I may be wrong and psion, illusionist, and priest all make as seperate classes, but 17 classes is pretty huge, esp with all those spells/powers/feats to fuel them!

Lanefan · Jan 28, 2012

Nice list. A few thoughts...

Draz said:
Assassin: I approve of this, as long as it's not pigeonholed into the arcane casting or mystical shadow powers of the 1e/3e/4e Assassins. Those things should be optional; the focus should just be on being the "stabby Rogue" archetype. Something pretty similar to the 3e Swordsage, plus a bit more aptitude with burglary or infiltration.

Maybe not even the "stabby Rogue" but instead the non-caster's version of the "I win" button when dealing with non-fantastic foes. I'm an Assassin. I don't fight very well, but if I get a chance to line up my strike for a few minutes while you're unaware of me, and if I can pull it off, you're dead. Period.

Barbarian: I actually don't think this is a big enough archetype to make into a full 1-20 class. But it is an archetype, and it is one that you should be able to play at Level 1. So ... I guess it should stay, unless it could just become a Fighter variant instead. I just wish they would rename it "Berserker" to keep the backstory more flexible.

A big HEAR HEAR to the renaming idea! With that, Barbarian can become what it should have been all along: a sub-race of Human.

Cleric: A classic; obviously has to be included. 1e Clerics, 3e Clerics, and especially 4e Clerics weren't diverse enough. They weren't all that different from deity to deity. (2e had a framework to make them more diverse, but it required a fair amount of homebrew.) So because of that, I approve of the split between Cleric (healer/holy warrior) and Priest (casting-focused, hopefully very diverse between different deities).

Doing up different spell lists for each deity is a huge amount of work, particularly if the individual spells also have deity-specific variants (DSV). For example, it only makes sense that a Light spell cast by a Sungod Cleric should be more effective somehow than the same spell cast by a Moongoddess Cleric. While I like the idea, I certainly can't blame the designers for putting it way down the priority list.

Fighter: Eh. My main concern about this one is figuring out what archetype it really is trying to fill ... and the comments in the Seminar make it clear that WotC has the same confusion. So, hopefully they'll come up with something that works.

They could easily enough split it down into some sub-classes - Archer, Knight, Swashbuckler, etc. - if required.

Illusionist: I don't see why Illusionist deserves page space in the book more than, say, Necromancer.

To me, those are the only two Wizard specialties that are worthy of their own classes. The rest all just kinda blend together into generic Wizard territory.

Monk: I don't think this should be in the 5e PHB1. It's too "niche." When the 4e PHB1 came out, people complained about the Druid and Bard's absences, but not so much the Monk. Save it for an Eastern-themed or Psionic-themed splat.

Yes, and make psionics completely optional.

Paladin: I've always thought the Paladin title was more befitting a PrC than a base class, and I stand by that now. Particularly if the Cleric and Priest are getting separated, then the Cleric can cover the Paladin archetype just fine at low levels. Also, the Paladin PrC (or Paragon Path, or whatever they call it in 5e) should be easily accessible to both Clerics and Fighters; it certainly shouldn't require a priori spellcasting ability.

Another idea here might be to introduce a third type of Cleric - the War Cleric - which has some fighter-y abilities and some caster-y abilities, can't cure worth a damn but is really good with the battle spells; and that's what you start as if your career goal is Paladin.

Psion: [...] I like the idea of psionics getting put in the PHB1 for a change, instead of being shunted into splatbook territory.

I don't. I used to really like psionics but not so much any more, and I'd prefer them to not be in core at all. Great option-book material, though, and a good place to hide the Monk as well.

Rogue: This should be as different from the "stabby" Assassin archetype as a skillful urbane character can be. This should be the "I can do anything because I'm just that awesome" class. Like the 3e Factotum, except with magic optional.

Go back to calling it a Thief, and I'd suggest it should be the "I can do anything but you'll never know about it because I'm just that quiet" class.

Sorcerer: I actually wouldn't give this a PHB1 slot. It feels too setting-specific ... I mean, not in every world is there strains of dragonblood amongst the population, granting magical powers. It's just not as universal (or traditional) as some of the other D&D magic sources.

Warlock: 3e should have had this instead of the Sorcerer all along. (Flavor-wise. I'm not necessarily judging mechanics or even the name. Just the flavor.) 4e made the right decision between them.

Can these be blended into one class, without the setting-specific flavour?

Wizard: Obviously it's not D&D without a Wizard class. I actually feel that this, again, is rather setting-specific. But I'm not going to begrudge WotC the classic appeal of putting a Wizard class in.

I can't see how Wizard (or MU) is any more setting-specific than most of the other classes.

Lanefan

SteveC · Jan 28, 2012

DaveMage said:
I dislike 4E, but I'm still not seeing anything in 5E that has wowed me.

It's still very early, of course, but what we've seen indicates rolling back critical items from 4E (spell slots again?) so I think you may like what you see more than I do. Of course the question becomes "why switch back when you already have the game you want?" We'll have to see, I suppose.

I have a lot of faith in the designers excepting Monte Cook, who seems to have no idea of what 4E did, and hasn't given any indication that he ever played it. He's a very nice guy, but I'm shaking my head at what he's written. That may have been the point. If I'm stuck with a wizard who needs a crossbow again, I will be a sad, sad panda, and I expect that a lot of folks may say "I have a crossbow wielding mage already, so what's in it for me."

I suppose it's waaaay too early for grousing, so take what I say with a couple grains of salt. Who knows, they may find a way to make both of us happy...

FitzTheRuke · Jan 28, 2012

Dice4Hire said:
They did say the ones that were in every edition. A lot of those were not in every edition's PHBI

I'm afraid they said "ANY edition's PHB1" not "every".

darjr said:
Less jargon and less meta and less strict on the definition of what a 'combat/ecnounter' is.

Less meta jargon at the table is always a good goal. I think the problem with Encounter powers here is in the name. (Kind of like how a loss of HP is called "damage" even if it represents fatigue, luck, morale, or focus).

Encounter powers are abilities that require the character has a chance to maybe sit down and have a snack, swig their wineskin, and catch their breath before buckling down and doing it all again. That's it.

ppaladin123 said:
I am cautiously optimistic about a revised Vancian system with fewer spells per day, a more limited spell list, and rituals to cover the really impressive stuff.

Oddly, so am I. I've never liked Vancian magic, but I can see how it could be possible to do it in such a way that I could like it.

Jeff Carlsen said:
Encounter powers always seems a little mechanically off for me, particularly for the non-casters.

For a wizard, the idea that he has to rest for a few minutes and reprepare a simple spell makes sense. There's an internal logic to that.

But not for marshal characters. The following has no internal logic:

I see it as the NUMBER of encounter powers is a product of character skill, while WHAT the power does is a product of circumstance. It's not that the character can't do the same thing twice, it's that the opportunity doesn't occur too often. Call it gamist of me, I suppose

The character is always TRYING to kill the monster with one blow, but that doesn't happen either, does it?

Nebulous said:
I tend to agree. As a DM i hated the Dragonborn, it never fit my idea of the kind of world i wanted to play.

However, if a player really WANTS that build...

The question comes down to the core rules, and when the DM puts his foot down and says NO. I don't know which is the best route, kitchen sink or DM judgement or scaled back core. Personally, i would hate to see Dragonborn and Warforged in the core. But...since 5e is being so darn flexible already, i might have to be flexible too.

Perhaps they will make Races like they appear to be making classes: With rarity. The rulebook could then outright tell players "Ask your DM if you wish to play a Rare element" making it easier for DMs to say "No" without coming off the jerk.

This way they can include elements that are much loved by some players and much hated by others without causing problems (though I'm sure someone will hate it anyway).

Flatus Maximus said:
It's a crying shame that clerics will still be Vancian casters. "Dear god, please grant me two...no, make that three cure light wounds, one bless, two...no, I can get away with one dispel magic,...god, are you getting all this?"

Funny.

Thorgrim Sekkrhrafn · Jan 28, 2012

Tortoise said:
A thought on Psionics: Maybe the reason the Psion is crying in the corner is that they are trying to make it a class.

I think it should go back to being a mechanic. It should be a string of options so you can have your class trade out something for psionic feats and abilities.

That would also put those options squarely in the hands of the DMs when deciding if such things should be in the game and just how psionics works in their world.

No. If the DM doesn't want psionics, he or she bans 'em, period. And there was already an option for giving psionic abilities to non-psionic classes. Wild talents. Keep that option.

But not creating a psionic class/classes doesn't make sense if you're to use wild talents. I mean, when the first wizard learned how to manipulate arcane energies, it probably wasn't very complex, right? It took untold spans of time to give us the complex tapestry of wizardry, with all its specialized methods of shaping arcane energies (spells).

So how is that any different from psionics? Replace 'wizard' with 'psion' and 'arcane energies' with 'psionics' and it's the same progression. Little things at first, millennia of experimentation, then specialization into what we call--purely a mechanical, meta-term--a 'class'.

'Psionics' is just another 'energy'. I just don't get the uncomfortability--and sometimes hatred--associated with it. If folks don't like it, don't use it. It's the First Axiom of DMing, written by Gygax himself. It's YOUR game, DMs. The books are, ultimately, options.

I mean, not everyone uses all the races in the PHB, right? Even the first PHB which, allegedly, is supposed to be the core of core manuals. I know DMs who refuse to use dwarves or eladrin or dragonkin. I don't give the same place in my campaign to gnomes and halflings that others do (despise them, frankly). I think the notion of a Lawful Good Paladin makes sense...but so does a champion of other alignments. The only reason why we've got a strictly LG Paladin is in part because the early editions of D&D deliberately went out of their way to draw players away from evil alignments. You weren't supposed to play them. But the idea that only LG gods have champions with Really Cool Benefits is illogical.

We all have house rules. I guess it comes down to how much we want in the core rules. Psionics may have only been wild talents in 1E but every edition since had them as classes with the add-on that a non-psionic class could express a weaker, less developed 'natural' psionic talent or two. I think we should keep it that way.