Class list for PHB

[MoonSong]

A bard is the jack of all trades and it does not have to be represented by a single class. A rogue/druid/fighter or a rogue/wizard/ranger even just a simple rogue or fighter all of these seem very applicable. Tack on the bardic college background, add in the bard/warlord/leader specialty. I really like this concept. It really frees the character concept to do so much and still have the ability to boost your allies with words of praise via feats rather than spells.

Then a whole "musical" magic system does not have to be tacked on to the game and explained away with a wave of the hand and saying no one plays that class anyway. Example: if the bard was a wizard/rogue they would be a wizard and would cast as a wizard. They would still be able to boost allies via their bard specialty! very cool. Also there are several clerics and specific gods that would make excellent bards too!

Emphazis mine. Sorry but no. The whole musical approach is what makes the bard class so special to begin with:
Basic: Musical skills are about the only thing that makes a bard a bard (at least by late Rules Cyclopedia)
2e: Musical skills are the one thing bards have noone else has, (and IMHO the minstrel is the best Bard across all editions)
3.x: Musical skills got expanded on the transition to 3.5. Outside of core a bard with the right feats could become so focussed on Perform the bard actually turned SAD and was nearly impossible to disrupt.
PF: The musical repertorie got expanded and musical skills got severely nerfed.
4e: Musical skills got dumped and reduced to token flavor -and this is the one reason I think 4e bards weren't the best version of the class so far, they feel gimped without a meaningfull use for musical isntruments-, yet the potential was there in form of certain class features, magic items and bard rituals. A lot of powers had musical flavor and weapliments for bards were named with the "song-" prefix for a reason.

As long as the musical skills are there, I wouldn't mind if the bard had no inherent spellcasting ability and instead picked sorcerer, wizard or druid and advanced spellcasting at half level on one of these classes (with actual multiclass levels stacking) with bonus spells added to get the spells right.

 

[Sadrik]

Realistically, Bard isn't going to be removed as a class. WotC simply isn't going to require multi-classing to create a character that has existed since 1e- it's too contentious.

Just going to clarify my thought on this. I don't think the bard requires multi-classing as a specialty. I was throwing out suggestions that certain triple classed combinations might have the same jack of all trades feel of a bard in previous editions.

Ultimately my point was that I would like to see a bard that is a specialty so that it can be applied to all classes. Again the bolstering and leadership qualities could double with the warlord. So it would be a warlord/bard specialty call it what you will. Make them non-magical effects.

Should bardic magic be separate? Are they innate casters like sorcerers?

Actually there is a greater point here that can be addressed:
How many types of magic should there be in the PHB?
Bard (in 1e they were druids, in 2e they were wizards, in 3e they had their own list of spells and casting method, in 4e they were arcane, 5e???)
Cleric - Paladin (pay homage to a powerful being)
Druid - (tap the world through training and knowledge)
Monk (doesn't cast but has mystical powers: innate power - born into or unlocked)
Psion (innate power - born into or unlocked)
Sorcerer (innate power - born into or unlocked)
Warlock (pay homage to a powerful being)
Wizard (tap the world through training and knowledge)

I see the following:
innate power - born into or unlocked
pay homage to a powerful being
tap the world through training and knowledge
Bard???

 

[GX.Sigma]

Realistically, Bard isn't going to be removed as a class. WotC simply isn't going to require multi-classing to create a character that has existed since 1e- it's too contentious.

But Bards did require multiclassing in 1e.

 

[ComradeGnull]

But Bards did require multiclassing in 1e.

You're right- I was off about the old 1e style class. However, 1e Bards seem more like a modern prestige class than a regular class- since becoming a normal class in 1989 they've been single class and I don't think WotC is going to start requiring multi-classing to achieve any of the 2/3/4e core classes.

 

[Li Shenron]

Warlord would be a specialty of what? Fighter?

I think the point of specialties should be that they are available to everyone (although obviously some feats are designed to enhanced a class ability and therefore just don't apply to everyone).

Having warlord's abilities turned to feats means that every class can be the party's warlord... so there can be a Fighter-Warlord, a Rogue-Warlord, a Cleric-Warlord etc.

To me all classes have room for possibly also being "leaders and commanders, inspiring figures, and master tacticians."

 

[ComradeGnull]

I think the point of specialties should be that they are available to everyone (although obviously some feats are designed to enhanced a class ability and therefore just don't apply to everyone).

Having warlord's abilities turned to feats means that every class can be the party's warlord... so there can be a Fighter-Warlord, a Rogue-Warlord, a Cleric-Warlord etc.

To me all classes have room for possibly also being "leaders and commanders, inspiring figures, and master tacticians."

I'm not sure that putting the Warlord's abilities into a Specialty allows someone to create a character who is the equivalent of a 4e Warlord. Does the specialty cover just the buffing ability of the 4e character, or healing too? What about control/debuff? If I combine Fighter with Warlord-as-specialty, do I maintain the social/interaction utility that I had in 4e? If I combine Warlord with Rogue, don't I sacrifice a lot of survivability? If I am a Cleric-Warlord, do I just gain super strong healing and buffing? How am I different from a baseline cleric? Would there be much incentive for a cleric to choose another specialty if I can buff two core functions with this one?

I think if we are proposing to replace a class with a class+specialty combo, it makes sense to look not just at the 'theme' of the class, but also the mechanical niches that it filled- yes 'inspiring leader' can fit with a lot of classes, but Warlord was more than just 'guy who is inspiring'- there were specific things that a Warlord could do in 4e, and a player who played that character class is going to rightly wonder whether or not he can still play the same type character in 5e.

 

[Li Shenron]

I'm not sure that putting the Warlord's abilities into a Specialty allows someone to create a character who is the equivalent of a 4e Warlord. Does the specialty cover just the buffing ability of the 4e character, or healing too? What about control/debuff? If I combine Fighter with Warlord-as-specialty, do I maintain the social/interaction utility that I had in 4e? If I combine Warlord with Rogue, don't I sacrifice a lot of survivability? If I am a Cleric-Warlord, do I just gain super strong healing and buffing? How am I different from a baseline cleric? Would there be much incentive for a cleric to choose another specialty if I can buff two core functions with this one?

You have to keep in mind that probably (albeit not certainly) buffing as in 3e and 4e is over.

The social/interaction abilities are mostly a province of skills and background, available to all. Some extras can be defined by feats.

The martial capabilities (attack bonus, proficiencies, high HP) of the Warlord are a restriction: you cannot be an inspiring commander and tactician unless you also take the physical prowess? What if I want to be a mastermind instead, someone who truly inspires others without the need to lift an arm?

What is left of the 4e warlord is the healing. Out-of-combat healing is not the problem, the default of 5e is lots of healing for everyone. In-combat healing instead could be an important niche to fill, for those who don't want only magical healing during combat.

But just like magical in-combat healing is only one of the many, many defining features of the Cleric class, I don't think that martial in-combat healing alone is enough to define a whole class around. And since it's martial after all, it's always going to be at least questionable whether the others should have access to it too (this is a general meta-issue IMHO, and normally I take a firm side to protect the unavailability of Fighter's schtik to other classes just because I feel the need for protecting the traditional Fighter class... but I feel nothing for the Warlord class which existed only in the last few years).

Hence my preference to make the "Warlord" a cross-class concept.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

This isn't 1989, man. Why not let people play what they want?

Because assassin is a job, not a class. So unless the entire party are assassins there's not much point to playing one. Unless its to use the party as cover for your job while you pretend to be something else. This goes for ninja too, of course.

 

[steeldragons]

Because assassin is a job, not a class. So unless the entire party are assassins there's not much point to playing one. Unless its to use the party as cover for your job while you pretend to be something else. This goes for ninja too, of course.

This is very true. It also contributed, I'm sure, to why the 1e assassin had a slew of thieves abilities (besides them making sense) the assassin could "pass himself off as" a thief.

The idea that anyone would know someone is a Ninja, outside of their order anyway, is just...well, silly.

I do agree with the sentiment, unfortunately they have been rather vocal in siting Assassins and there is no doubt in my mind it will be a full class of its own.

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

Because assassin is a job, not a class. So unless the entire party are assassins there's not much point to playing one. Unless its to use the party as cover for your job while you pretend to be something else. This goes for ninja too, of course.

You do realize that Assassin was originally the name given to members of a specific Islamic religious order?

With how the designers are talking about doing Paladins and Rangers, I expect the Assassin to go down a similar route and end up being a member of a specific group. I'm expecting a combination of fantasy versions of James Bond and Jason Borne plus the main characters of the Assassin Creed series with a dash of ninja thrown in.