Class list for PHB

[the Jester]

Pretty much this, with a couple of relatively minor exceptions. Assassins should be Righ Out as PCs. Barbarian is a social term, change the class to Berseker. Better yet, it should be a Fighter with Rage and a barbarian theme. And Warlord is a title, so should also be renamed. (Don't know to what, as I've never paid much attention to the class.)

Yes, let's alienate a bunch of players of different editions when we're trying to unify the fanbase.

Assassin, warlord, etc. should all be classes; should retain their traditional names; should be distinct, both mechanically and story wise; and should be usable in any campaign world that the dm chooses to use them in.

Because assassin is a job, not a class.

So is "fighter".

 

[Steely_Dan]

I doubt (hope) D&D will ever go class-less (or race-less), I seriously doubt we will see: Adventurer: choose your crap.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

I doubt (hope) D&D will ever go class-less (or race-less), I seriously doubt we will see: Adventurer: choose your crap.

I'd agree with this, except that I'd prefer that they go classless. But yeah, ain't gonna happen. Not no way, not no how.

 

[DEFCON 1]

If by some chance Assassin does not become it's own class... my own educated guess would be that Assassin would become a Specialty, not a Background.

The reason being... what was the main focus of the Assassin's mechanics from back in the day, as opposed to the Thief? It was their assassination table. The table that allowed you to roll on and possibly insta-kill your opponent. Obviously... that's a combat mechanic. And which of the two (Background or Specialty) deals with combat? The Specialty does.

Here's the thing... if we want the Assassin to have any sort of "assassination" mechanic (so that it's different than the Rogue and his Sneak Attack)... it's going to have to run at about the same level of power as any of the potential spellcaster Save or Die spells (if those end up eventually being in the game). If they are... then whatever character level those spells start appearing for the casters is the similar level that any potential "insta-kill" Assassin mechanics would/should also start appearing at. As we're probably talking AT LEAST probably around Level 9 at a minimum... the only way some class could acquire that "insta-kill" mechanic (currently) would be via a feat (and thus, Assassin Specialty). They ain't getting it via any Background mechanics, that's for sure.

Although truth be told... my personal guess would be that the Assassin WILL be a class-- but it will be a Prestige Class (or Paragon Path if you'd prefer). Because if the game indeed continues along this path where the game's main throughline is Levels 1-10, and then starting at 11 it changes quite a bit (a la "name level" in 1E parlance) for the more "epic" type of game experience... THAT'S where the Save or Die and/or assassination "insta-kill" types of mechanics will begin to appear. AFTER the base 1 to 10 game, within its own game evolution starting at level 11.

 

[Minigiant]

Two things I learn while attempting to make my own RPG:

1) Just because you like something one way, doesn't mean many other people will like it.

2) it is easier to say something than to actually do it.

That is why this class list thing is so weird. It is one thing to make the characters you want. It is another thing to create a system where players can create the characters they want.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Have they stated the base game is levels 1 -10, after that it changes (becomes Epic or what-have-you)?

 

[Sadrik]

We have a "Thief" background and a "Lurker" Specialty. By the logic of [MENTION=14506]Sadrik[/MENTION] and others, we don't need a rogue class.

D&D Next: Featuring Fighter and Sorcerer!

It is very hard to promote the middle road without wackos on either end telling you you do not go far enough (no classes!) or you have gone too far (all classes evar). Those that view everything through a black and white lens have a very hard time with the idea that there may be more than one way or a better way. But as close minded as we all are, and stuck as we are in our ways, trying to have an open mind is a good thing. Some towed the 4e line all the way. Some towed the 3e line, and even others jumped ship and have only a modicum of interest in 5e. Any way went, we are here to provide our views for this open playtest. Our views are valid and there is no need to make faulty logic arguments in an attempt to belittle the side where agreement is not found. I suggest reading the first post again, if confused.

 

[Remathilis]

It is very hard to promote the middle road without wackos on either end telling you you do not go far enough (no classes!) or you have gone too far (all classes evar). Those that view everything through a black and white lens have a very hard time with the idea that there may be more than one way or a better way. But as close minded as we all are, and stuck as we are in our ways, trying to have an open mind is a good thing. Some towed the 4e line all the way. Some towed the 3e line, and even others jumped ship and have only a modicum of interest in 5e. Any way went, we are here to provide our views for this open playtest. Our views are valid and there is no need to make faulty logic arguments in an attempt to belittle the side where agreement is not found. I suggest reading the first post again, if confused.

Here is my problem.

D&D has roughly (if you ignore similar concepts and redundancies) 50 some classes in it. Some are obscure as all Baator (hello factotum) and others feel like natural additions (I'm honestly shocked we made it through 1e without some demon-powered magic caster, because warlock seems right at home).

The question this always boils down to is what should make a class worth being a full-bodied class, and what better fits a supplementary role (either as a later addition in a supplement, a background, a specialty, or whatever prestige idea they add later).

Since there is no objective way of measuring such things, we all default to our "gut" and make value judgments based on our experiences and beliefs. The problem with that is that we bring our own prejudices into the mix. For example, I think the Spellthief from 3.5 is hella-weak in both concept and execution. I could really care less if it was ever made a class again. Others will disagree with me. That's fine. Here's where it gets rough.

I'm of the opinion that the PHB 1 classes (Assassin through Warlord) get a free pass. Why? Because they are iconic to at least one edition of D&D, and if this is the edition of healing, unity, and kumbaya, it needs all the parts from all the editions there. It doesn't matter if your PC is a half-orc assassin or a dragonborn warlord, those options should be out the gate for you in Next. (If you picked a more obscure race/class from a supplement, that might be another story).

Further, I think most people refuse to believe that themes/specialties are fairly lackluster. They're a tree of linked feats, which could be taken separately or ignored completely if so chosen. You can't say X is a specialty without inherently saying "X is nothing but a few feats and should be ignorable". I'd hate to see my 1e inspired DM have to choose between having an OS no feats/specialties in his game and having an "assassin" character available.

Specialties might work for a class that is decisively one-trick (the aforementioned spell-thief might work as an add-on for Sneak Attack) but iconic classes have no business as specialties.

Third, there is a nasty habit to refight the class-wars of the past yet again. Barbarian isn't a class, its a culture. Assassin is a job anyone can do. Monks are too asian, paladins should serve gods, etc etc etc. I think it does us no good to refight these wars. Barbarian has been a class for Four editions now. There has never been a generic, non-asian flavored martial artist in any edition now. We need to get over the fact that these classes have been classes now for a while, some of them multiple editions. They have fluff and crunch differences from other classes. Trying to cram barbarian back into Fighter or Druid back into Cleric is like trying to put the smoke back in the bottle. They've won the right to be classes again.

Now, what does that mean for the rest of them? Well, some of them I think will make it back to classdom but not out the gate (Psionics is #1 example; its too hard to fit spells and powers in one PHB). Others were grid-fillers that no longer have a niche (an invoker didn't have much beyond "divine controller" to set it apart from cleric, I see no need to keep it around. While I can see a place for shaman as different than a druid). We can debate if we need a dedicated gish class, or if avenger is strong enough to stand alone in some supplement. But I think it really is counterproductive to argue about the PHB. It needs those classes to be successful and they have earned their place.

So lets quit over arguing the validity of an assassin class and start discussing how it should be done, because screaming that it doesn't belong is counterproductive at this point.

 

[TrippyHippy]

I think the major question anybody needs to ask about the Assassin is why would they go adventuring in a group? Unless the target of the assassination is one of the player characters...in which case why would anybody want them as part of the group?

The other issue is that Assassins aren't especially good at their job - they should have fighter stats at least, to be any good, but instead they have Rogue style attack bonuses and HD. They are also brazenly Assassins, and all the other PCs will know this, which cuts out most of their disguise abilities.

There is an argument for making it a highly specialised Class, maybe, but it is problematic as it stands.

 

[Moon_Goddess]

But your still looking for reason why not to have an Assassin class.

I'm not saying your problems aren't real, or even that you are reaching to find them..

But if this is the unifying edition we should spend way more thought on How to make the assassin work rather then Why the assassin won't.