D&D 5E Legends and Lore July 28: Keeping it Classy

Is there a way to play a noble politico, in the manner that we see quite frequently in Game of Thrones for example (Littlefinger, Cersei, Daenerys, etc)?

I was kinda thinking of a Rogue with a noble background - but there not really an archetype to fit.

jadrax said:

Its worth noting that subclasses are not necessarily about delivering options, they are often about cutting options off. The more sub-classes a class has, the more the designers though that the class is over-powered if allowed to buy everything and started forcing you to only take a sub-sect of them.

Click to expand...

Subclasses are about a lot of things...

Some are about character concepts (e.g. Totem Barbarian), some are used to deliver additional mechanics (e.g. Battlemaster), some are for importing the schtick of another class (e.g. Eldritch Knight), some are used to control complexity (e.g. Champion), some are to differentiate specialties (e.g. domains and arcane traditions), and some indeed are to protect a certain capability (e.g. Druid of the Moon) but rather than for preventing power I think it's done because a lot of people didn't want every PC of class X to have feature Y for narrative reasons.

On a related note, is there any intention to add to the Class list in the DMG (or beyond)? Including things like NPC Classes (Aristocrat, Expert, etc). Personally, I hope they don’t go down this route too much, but rather expand on the in-Class archetypes. Like others, I feel there should be a lot more archetypes for Rogues and Fighters in particular.

Raith5 said:

Agree.

I really hope that the Eldritch Knight bucks the trend of previous editions attempts and enables the creation of a decent fighter-mage.

Also I wonder if there is any way the hunter ranger will have a quarry ability. I am sure there will be some form of favoured enemy but I really liked the quarry ability in 4e as way of modelling focusing upon a single enemy.

Click to expand...

Going by the Alpha PHB, which seems to be extremely close to this, no and no, sadly.

The Eldritch Knight is not a "decent Fighter-mage". He IS a decent Fighter. Not as good as the other two, but decent. His spellcasting, however, is limited to only cantrips and abjuration and evocation spells (which are thematically appropriate but prevent him getting most really serious battle-altering spells, and goes off INT, and most importantly he only gets 8 + 4 spells EVER (the 4 being fixed), casting 4th level spells at the highest (only at level 19 and 20, though I'd be unsurprised to see that go down to 17 in the final).

It's not a horrible class or anything, but it's just a Fighter with a bit of magic bolted on, not a true "hybrid" or "fusion of sword and spell". I expect we will see such a class eventually, but they'll probably need to be their own base class.

5E Ranger as per the Alpha PHB is a very solid class, but does not have any kind of Quarry feature and even Favoured Enemies offers zero direct combat benefit.

Evenglare said:

I actually made a pretty high level eldritch knight level 10 or so, we played a bit and I didn't really notice being any worse than any other character.../shrug. The worst thing was picking the spells because they aren't listed by type only level, that was really really annoying.

Click to expand...

They aren't terrible, it's just that they aren't very good Fighter-Mages, if that's what you want. They're good Fighters who also dabble in low-end magic (which appeals to some people, but kind of different ones to those serious about Fighter/Mages).

TrippyHippy said:

Is there a way to play a noble politico, in the manner that we see quite frequently in Game of Thrones for example (Littlefinger, Cersei, Daenerys, etc)?

I was kinda thinking of a Rogue with a noble background - but there not really an archetype to fit.

Click to expand...

That's sorta doable, but he is still going to be SUPER-good at murdering people and stealing stuff. He could have the appearance, the skills, the background, the outlook of a noble, but he'd have the abilities of a killer/housebreaker. That could work, though, for nobles who were trained that way for some reason (I can think of a number of fantasy novel characters who fit that mould, including GOT ones who I will avoid naming because spoilers).

There's no "more skills, less kills" Rogue, yet.

TrippyHippy said:

On a related note, is there any intention to add to the Class list in the DMG (or beyond)? Including things like NPC Classes (Aristocrat, Expert, etc). Personally, I hope they don’t go down this route too much, but rather expand on the in-Class archetypes. Like others, I feel there should be a lot more archetypes for Rogues and Fighters in particular.

Click to expand...

Looks like they plan to avoid NPC classes. I'm totally "reading between the lines" here, but there's been zero mention of them or response to questions about them (that I'm aware of), and Mearls has specifically said that trained soldiers with experience are Fighters, which fits with 2E, but not 3.XE, where they'd have been Warriors.

Totally agree that Rogues and Fighters could do with more archetypes. It feels kind of cheesy that they put out so many Wizard specializations (each of which is probably more complex than the Champion Fighter sub-class, and not far off or equal to the Rogue sub-classes), but only three each, one of which is basically "With a side of magic" in both cases, for Fighter and Rogue. Hopefully they will add to these options before too long.

Ruin Explorer said:

It's not a horrible class or anything, but it's just a Fighter with a bit of magic bolted on, not a true "hybrid" or "fusion of sword and spell". I expect we will see such a class eventually, but they'll probably need to be their own base class.

Click to expand...

I don't know, Warlock seems close to this. They get at-will spell-like effects, a few of the earth-shaking spells (usable a few times per short rest), with Blade pact they can get proficiency in any weapon, they can get a 2nd attack per turn from Invocation, they have d8 hitdie, with fiend patron you get temphp for killing stuff... Seems like it's the best combination for a good while.

I'm interested in seeing if one could make a worthwhile low-Cha Warlock (by picking up spells that don't require saves or to-hit rolls). And of course, stuff like Darkness and picking the invocation that allows you to see in even magical darkness, combos well together.

I wouldn't worry too much about additional options. I'd be very surprised if "new subclasses" didn't become one of this edition's primary expansions, as PrCs/paragon paths and feats were in the two prior. In fact, given the optional nature of feats, and the fact that they have to be both a lot more impressive and carefully balanced now, I wouldn't be too shocked if, with the possible exception of new spells, new subclasses were the primary player-focused mechanical goody in 5e books (Wizards or third party) moving forward.

For those unhappy with the quantity of sub-classes, I have a feeling that this is not the end of sub-classes - and in fact, this is one area where WotC may go a bit splat-crazy. We're going to sub-classes all over the place, in setting books, supplements, even adventures. They're also probably really easy to house rule, and I imagine the DMG will offer guidelines.

hbarsquared said:

My one sad thought: a diplomatic, fast-talking merchant rogue subclass. Who remembers Silk, from the Belgariad? To me, Silk is the quintessential rogue, thoigh I rarely see his character expressed mechanically...

Click to expand...

Silk is unforgettable. But I think he could be made with the Thief sub-class, maybe Assassin but I see more Thief.

Syunsuke said:

You cannot be a generalist (non-specialist) wizard?

Click to expand...

I could be mistaken, but aren't sub-classes optional? A generalist wizard would be without a sub-class, perhaps?

Mercurius said:

For those unhappy with the quantity of sub-classes, I have a feeling that this is not the end of sub-classes - and in fact, this is one area where WotC may go a bit splat-crazy. We're going to sub-classes all over the place, in setting books, supplements, even adventures. They're also probably really easy to house rule, and I imagine the DMG will offer guidelines.



Silk is unforgettable. But I think he could be made with the Thief sub-class, maybe Assassin but I see more Thief.



I could be mistaken, but aren't sub-classes optional? A generalist wizard would be without a sub-class, perhaps?

Click to expand...

I don't think they're "optional" so much as each one has a baseline sub-class that is the Basic version. So if you didn't want to choose one, that'd be the one you'd have. So there's no "sub-classless" wizard, it's the Evocation wizard.

How wrong it is that I've yet to read the PHB and I'm already thinking about further expansions with more colleges, circles, traditions, etc.?

Mouseferatu said:

I wouldn't worry too much about additional options. I'd be very surprised if "new subclasses" didn't become one of this edition's primary expansions, as PrCs/paragon paths and feats were in the two prior. In fact, given the optional nature of feats, and the fact that they have to be both a lot more impressive and carefully balanced now, I wouldn't be too shocked if, with the possible exception of new spells, new subclasses were the primary player-focused mechanical goody in 5e books (Wizards or third party) moving forward.

Click to expand...

That's problematic, though, Mouse, because new subclasses can only be used by new PCs.

It's the same as the background issue, only worse. With a background, it's cool, but it's a choice you make once, and cannot ever make again. It's the same (AFAIK!) with sub-classes, but at least they keep on giving you stuff as you go on.

Whereas Feats and potentially PrCs or similar can be applied to existing characters - I'm pretty sure this is why books which included such things were such big sellers in the 3.XE era, whereas books which focused on new races or base classes tended to be a bit less successful (relative to investment). Entirely my perception, of course!

So if they're the "primary" player-focused mechanical thing, then I think that might be an issue. Though perhaps we'll all just keep creating new PCs, who knows?

Juriel said:

I don't know, Warlock seems close to this. They get at-will spell-like effects, a few of the earth-shaking spells (usable a few times per short rest), with Blade pact they can get proficiency in any weapon, they can get a 2nd attack per turn from Invocation, they have d8 hitdie, with fiend patron you get temphp for killing stuff... Seems like it's the best combination for a good while.

I'm interested in seeing if one could make a worthwhile low-Cha Warlock (by picking up spells that don't require saves or to-hit rolls). And of course, stuff like Darkness and picking the invocation that allows you to see in even magical darkness, combos well together.

Click to expand...

I just read through Warlock to see if I was missing anything, but it looks like whilst Blade Pact can easily get 2 attacks, they can't really get ANYTHING else which supports melee'ing. They have light armour or Mage Armour (equivalent to light armour), no shield (AFAIK), no way to get bonus melee damage (unlike even Clerics!) beyond STAT mod, no special manuevers, no ability to cast and attack, and generally no way to make melee a particularly good option. So they strike me as more like the flipside of the Eldritch Knight - really strong on magic, with an option to tack on a tiny bit of melee (actually less than the EK can tack on, magic-wise). And you'd pretty much need a really good DEX and a finesse-based weapon (STR would be kind of a waste as it wouldn't help your AC or anything).

I dunno, am I missing something? Eldritch Blast is pretty much always as good or better than hitting something with a sword, if you aren't already in melee - 120' range (no range penalties - much longer than most ranged weapons), 1d10 damage, +CHA if you take the option (which you probably should if intending to use it much), get 2 attacks with it at 5, 3 at 10, 4 at 20 (kind of better progression than a Fighter! That thing seems pretty badass.