D&D 5E [UPDATED] DMG - Villainous Classes Preview

[TrippyHippy]

I may be completely losing my mind here, but wasn't there supposed to be a third villain-only subclass in the DMG? Am I completely misremembering that? I can't for the life of me think what it was supposed to be, so chances are I'm just high on Cheeese.

And it also suddenly occurs to me, looking at the TOC for the DMG, that it's not altogether clear where the sort-of-promised Kender and Warforged would go. Creating New Character Options on 285-290 seems likely, but that's not a ton of space to cover two races plus other content in any real detail.

My view is that the Kender and Warforged should be presented in their respective setting books - rather than general rule books.

 

[CM]

[MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION] and [MENTION=13009]Paraxis[/MENTION]: yes, I'm entirely serious. "you can make villainous NPCs with classes and levels using the rules from the Player's Handbook" follows the "most people are stupid" model I felt with 4e, which I also avoided. To me it promotes the idea that people don't use their own imaginations. Games that talk down to their audience DIE.

As a lot of people will be coming in from 4e where characters and NPCs were built with drastically different rules, this is pretty important advice.

Come off your high horse maybe?

 

[Zhaleskra]

As a lot of people will be coming in from 4e where characters and NPCs were built with drastically different rules, this is pretty important advice.

Come off your high horse maybe?

How about you stop telling me what I think?

 

[hardvice]

My view is that the Kender and Warforged should be presented in their respective setting books - rather than general rule books.

I tend to agree. I'd rather see them get a full work-up than be squeezed in as an example of how to make a race or something. If they're in that section, I fear they might not get much more than a sidebar.

That said, as of June Mike Mearls said they were scheduled for inclusion in the DMG. :/

ETA: of course, I guess getting bare-bones rules in the DMG doesn't actually preclude them from getting a full write-up later, too.

 

[Undertaker Sheep]

Uh oh, there is a typo on the left page!

"A player can choose one of these options with the your approval."

 

[dwayne]

A Death domain that's non evil would deal with the after life and putting the dead to rest and helping in there passing and to fight the evils of those who would subjugate the dead for there own ends or those who use the unnatural energy's to perpetuate there own lives like a lich. In that context I can see a death domain, but as most who want it to make undead armies and the necriotic damage abilities or to pump up the dead they create, well that my friend is why its evil and unnatural.

 

[BigVanVader]

Why are undead armies, necrotic damage or pumped up damage evil or unnatural?

 

[hardvice]

Yeah, IIRC, there was a "Repose" domain somewhere in 3.X that was more of a non-necro uncreepy death domain, more focused on psychopompy and reincarnation/resurrection type stuff than dragging hoards of undead Thralls out of the ground.

 

[hardvice]

Why are undead armies, necrotic damage or pumped up damage evil or unnatural?

I think the idea is that 1) you're subverting the natural order of things by interfering with the cycle of life (though the same can be said of healing magic, and especially resurrection, of course) and 2) those undead minions used to be people, and dragging them from their eternal reward so they can make the tea is kind of a dick move.

 

[Kaychsea]

... and dragging them from their eternal reward so they can make the tea is kind of a dick move.

Yep.