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

[Zhaleskra]

I consider that most people have enough imagination to think "I want to do X", whatever X is, and upon not seeing any rules for it don't say "I can't do that". Or that when the rules do say that they can't, they say "that's stupid" and do it anyway. Have you noticed these posts ignored the positive sentence of my post and just latched onto the negative? Who really needs the thicker skin when that's happening?

 

[dwayne]

I consider that most people have enough imagination to think "I want to do X", whatever X is, and upon not seeing any rules for it don't say "I can't do that". Or that when the rules do say that they can't, they say "that's stupid" and do it anyway. Have you noticed these posts ignored the positive sentence of my post and just latched onto the negative? Who really needs the thicker skin when that's happening?

This is the same reason they put instructions to not open a bottle looking at it or any other number of useless instructions on things or in them because not everyone is intelligent enough to know or able to figure it out on there own or just wants to be told. Also its a rule book and is meant to be a guild to help make things for the game so your point is invalid and makes you look like a well I think everyone gets the picture.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I consider that most people have enough imagination to think "I want to do X", whatever X is, and upon not seeing any rules for it don't say "I can't do that". Or that when the rules do say that they can't, they say "that's stupid" and do it anyway. Have you noticed these posts ignored the positive sentence of my post and just latched onto the negative? Who really needs the thicker skin when that's happening?

Protip: If you want someone to focus on the positive aspect of what you're trying to say, don't use phrase like, "It's insulting they would include this sentence" or "games like that can just die."

It's like handing someone a poo sandwich and complaining that they're focusing on the poo rather than the fact you also included artisan bread.

And yes, if you actually feel insulted by that sentence? Then you do need thicker skin IMO. Of all the things to be insulted about...

 

[Rabulias]

We don't know but according to the Table of Contents there is one more page on Villainous class options.

Sorry to burst any hope for a third villainous class in the DMG, but the first paragraph under Villainous Class Options states "The class options below let you create two specific villainous archetypes..." (emphasis mine).

 

[Malshotfirst]

I guess it flew over a lot of peoples heads. The third villainous class...is the DM! Muahahaha ('cmon we all know the DM is out to get you).

 

[steeldragons]

Sorry to burst any hope for a third villainous class in the DMG, but the first paragraph under Villainous Class Options states "The class options below let you create two specific villainous archetypes..." (emphasis mine).

Yeah. Caught that too. Surprised anyone would be expecting 3 anymore. The only thing I can think of, since it goes on to say they are showing the evil "high priest and the anti-paladin", maybee there is a single additional page for an "Evil High Priest" as a class. Like, "Here's the Death Domain for Death domain clerics. The Oathbreaker pally and the Evil High Priest both use this. Now, here's the Oathbreaker and then, the Evil High Priest [like a death cleric/warlock kinda hybrid of culty wicked villainy." Giving "3" possibilities but really only showing 2 archetypes. But that, admittedly, is a stretch.

 

[Zhaleskra]

Protip: If you want someone to focus on the positive aspect of what you're trying to say, don't use phrase like, "It's insulting they would include this sentence" or "games like that can just die."

I said no such thing, stop taking an opinion as a group attack.

 

[Morrus]

so your point is invalid and makes you look like a well I think everyone gets the picture.

What part of you made you think that was an appropriate way to talk to somebody else on EN World? If you disagree, do so politely; that's how discussion works. This was just obnoxious. Don't be obnoxious.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I don't think these should have been put in the DMG instead of the PHB. There's nothing about the Death domain (or gods of death in general) that is inherently evil. None of the othbreaker's powers are necessarily evil, either. Take out all of the blackguard-like fluff and they could easily just be a death knight.

 

[Hussar]

[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.

Funny thing.

In 4e, you could make NPC's using the PHB rules. There was absolutely nothing stopping you. But, they didn't include that line in the DMG and people absolutely freaked out and claimed that it was impossible to make NPC's using the PC rules that NPC's had to be different. Granted, the rules assumed you weren't going to make full fledged PC's for your NPC's, but, there was nothing stopping you from doing so.

Including lines like this is a direct result of people being incapable of looking at RPG books and going beyond what was explicitly permissible.