Steely_Dan
First Post
What I selfishly desire is some form of Monk (love my Grand Master of Flowers).
How Many Classes Do We Really Need?
All I know is that I don't want Druids to be sub-classes of Clerics (ie "divine")... UNLESS Warlocks become sub-classes of Clerics too (ie also "divine").
The Druid being a divine sub-class of the Cleric is basically saying that the "nature god" of whatever pantheon you are using is a special snowflake who gets to have his own class. All the other gods only get to have "specialty priests" or domain Themes for their worshippers... but the nature god's Druids are IMPORTANT. Important enough to get their own class.
I don't buy that for a second. The same way I don't buy that the Illusionist gets to be its own class, while the Evokers, Conjurers, Enchanters, Necromancers, and Transmuters all have to just be specialist wizards or themes too.
If the Druid is its own class.... then I want it to be completely split off from the divine source, just like they were done in 4E. Druids aren't the specialty priests of the nature god... they are their own group, gaining their power and abilities from their own primal source (the spirits of the prime plane). You do that... then yes, absolutely Druid should be its own class. And then wardens and shaman could be backgrounds or themes to be taken.
And my reference to warlocks above? If Druids for some reason do not get classified as a nature god specialty priest (and instead are their own special case where they get their power from nature itself), but are still considered a Divine class... then the game is basically redefining what Divine means. It no longer means your power is granted to you from a GOD, but rather that your power is granted to you from someone or something. And if you try and make that case... then I demand that Warlocks become Divine as well, because their powers are granted to them from another source too (the fey, the devils, the far realm)... thus making them much closer to Clerics than Wizards.
If Druids get defined as a Divine sub-class... then by the same definition, Warlocks are too.
The Druid being a divine sub-class of the Cleric is basically saying that the "nature god" of whatever pantheon you are using is a special snowflake who gets to have his own class. All the other gods only get to have "specialty priests" or domain Themes for their worshippers... but the nature god's Druids are IMPORTANT. Important enough to get their own class.
I don't buy that for a second. The same way I don't buy that the Illusionist gets to be its own class, while the Evokers, Conjurers, Enchanters, Necromancers, and Transmuters all have to just be specialist wizards or themes too.
If the Druid is its own class.... then I want it to be completely split off from the divine source, just like they were done in 4E. Druids aren't the specialty priests of the nature god... they are their own group, gaining their power and abilities from their own primal source (the spirits of the prime plane). You do that... then yes, absolutely Druid should be its own class. And then wardens and shaman could be backgrounds or themes to be taken.
And my reference to warlocks above? If Druids for some reason do not get classified as a nature god specialty priest (and instead are their own special case where they get their power from nature itself), but are still considered a Divine class... then the game is basically redefining what Divine means. It no longer means your power is granted to you from a GOD, but rather that your power is granted to you from someone or something. And if you try and make that case... then I demand that Warlocks become Divine as well, because their powers are granted to them from another source too (the fey, the devils, the far realm)... thus making them much closer to Clerics than Wizards.
If Druids get defined as a Divine sub-class... then by the same definition, Warlocks are too.
The Shadow
Hero
I have a lot of sympathy for this view. In 2e, as I recall, druids were just one more kind of specialty priest. I could live with that again. (Wildshape could become a series of spells, and that might actually make more sense than a class ability.)
Or I could also live with them being 'primal'. But being a 'special snowflake' divine class is indeed a little weird.
I somewhat agree. I think a wizard specialist rates a class IF it is a strong archetype. Illusionist/Enchanter and Necromancer qualify. Conjuror/Summoner too, even if they are annoying.
Transmuters and Evokers, and especially Abjurers, not so much.The problem is that the spell schools are really too narrow to hang specialties on in many cases. Also, some of them are rather silly and arbitrary - Transmutation seems to be the 'Miscellaneous' school, to give one example.
See, I don't think "Transmuter" would make a good class. But "Thaumaturge"? A guy who specializes in flashy, gee-whiz magic, none of that namby-pamby mind-mojo stuff? That I could maybe see.
Evoker just doesn't convince me as a class - unless it becomes the default specialty for wizards, as many people seem to play them that way.
Diviner is a convincing archetype, but its spell list would need to be seriously beefed up before it would make sense as a PC class.
I get where you're coming from, and to some extent I agree. But man, that just goes against the grain emotionally.
Steely_Dan
First Post
I agree druids could be their own thing, 2nd Ed Forgotten Realms really compounded the Specialty Priest thing.
Warlocks, well, it's like Sorcerer, Necromancer, and Witch.
am181d
Adventurer
In a class-based system like D&D, I think it's a mistake to over-homogenize. Class-based systems are inherently idiosyncratic. If you standardize too much, you're just playing a point-build system with severely restricted options.
I think the right mix is 3 or 4 really vanilla classes, 6 to 8 additional quirkier core classes, and then over the life of the edition maybe another 10 or so classes that fill in other idiosyncratic niches.
Could a particular class option be demoted to a theme or a multi-class combo? I suppose so, but I would avoid it where possible.
I think the right mix is 3 or 4 really vanilla classes, 6 to 8 additional quirkier core classes, and then over the life of the edition maybe another 10 or so classes that fill in other idiosyncratic niches.
Could a particular class option be demoted to a theme or a multi-class combo? I suppose so, but I would avoid it where possible.
Steely_Dan
First Post
The problem is we get the Gnome Cobbler Avenger class.
ArmoredSaint
First Post
The "Core Four" are good enough; everything else can be represented by the right combinations of themes and backgrounds layered on top.
Except maybe the Bard--not sure what to do there. But the Bard is the only possibility of a fifth that I'd allow for.
Except maybe the Bard--not sure what to do there. But the Bard is the only possibility of a fifth that I'd allow for.
TBH, I don't think they are, because 'layering stuff on top' is just another way of saying making character generation more complicated.
I a new player can't generate a Drow Ranger by picking Race: Drow and Class: Ranger, 5th edition will have failed in my eyes.
The Shadow
Hero
Easy enough. The core rules can present a Ranger that is later revealed to be a Fighter with the Wilderness background and the Hunter theme (or whatever), while the core Fighter is revealed to instead have the Soldier background and Slayer theme.
I don't think I would have an issue with that.
