D&D 5E The classes of 5e (now with 90% less speculation)

[Derren]

I don't see why assassin is even a class, and not just a rogue.

Assassins are good at stealth, backstabbing, and avoiding security measures.
Rogues are good at sealth, backstabbing, avoiding security measures, spying, and lying.
An assassin is just a rogue who focuses on certain aspects of the class.

With the same reasoning paladins and rangers are just fighters and/or clerics.

 

[Yora]

I guess rangers would be fighter/rogue/druids and paladins fighter/cleric/warlords, and having a single class for such builds doesn't seem like a bad idea.

But assassin? That would be just plain rogue.

 

[Aldarc]

My biggest worry with having too many classes is class redundancy caused by a lack of clear conceptual vision for each class or flexibility within classes. The D&D Next design team really needs to sit down and force themselves to question everything about the conceptualization of classes. If they are including clerics, they need to ask "What is a cleric? What makes a cleric? How do clerics conceptually differ from other classes? What justifies the existence of clerics as a class?"

 

[Yora]

In the case of clerics, they seem to have really been giving it some thought. Yesterday they mentioned something about the cleric being a divine warrior and planning to delegate the role of divine primary caster to a separate priest class.

 

[steeldragons]

My biggest worry with having too many classes is class redundancy caused by a lack of clear conceptual vision for each class or flexibility within classes. The D&D Next design team really needs to sit down and force themselves to question everything about the conceptualization of classes. If they are including clerics, they need to ask "What is a cleric? What makes a cleric? How do clerics conceptually differ from other classes? What justifies the existence of clerics as a class?"

I think this is great post and a great exercise. Can every class answer these questions...or, at least, 3 of 4?

Cleric:
"What is a...": a Divinely-powered caster class. A devout priest of their faith imbued with powers above and beyond the lay "follower".
"How do they differ from other classes?": They are divine and casters in origin. They are "conntected" to their deity in a way few other mortals will ever experience.
"What justifies...": Every culture from the most primitive to the most civilized has a conception/system of religion, an afterlife, and greater powers more or less generically referred to as "the gods." Clerics are the intermediaries for these cultural/societal beliefs in "civilized" cultures and organized religions.

G'head. Pick a class, run with it.

--SD

 

[ferratus]

I think this is great post and a great exercise. Can every class answer these questions...or, at least, 3 of 4?

Yes, I think every class that has ever been invented can, even the Runepriest.

We need tougher justifications than that if we are going to set about pruning.

 

[Aldarc]

Yes, I think every class that has ever been invented can, even the Runepriest.

We need tougher justifications than that if we are going to set about pruning.

Then feel free to add a further question: "What can be conceptually and mechanically accomplished by this new class, and their abilities, that could not be achieved by a preexisting class, their customization abilities, or multiclass options?"

 

[steeldragons]

Yes, I think every class that has ever been invented can, even the Runepriest.

We need tougher justifications than that if we are going to set about pruning.

Ok. Go ahead.

Runepriest:
"What is a...":
"How do they differ from other classes?":
"What justifies...":

For extra credit:
"What can be conceptually and mechanically accomplished by this new class and their abilities, that could not be achieved by a preexisting class, their customization abilities, or multiclass options?":

 

[Sammael]

With the same reasoning paladins and rangers are just fighters and/or clerics.

For the most part, they can be emulated by those two classes and multiclass combinations thereof.

That's why I gave them both a huge makeover in my revision:

Paladins Champions are nowhere near as proficient with weapons and armor as fighters are. However, they have supernaturally strong belief that fuels their abilities. This is not belief in the divine (though many champions are likely religious and think their abilities come from their deities); instead, it is the sort of primal belief that shapes planes and gives birth to gods. Each champion's belief system is a combination of two causes, and those two causes are the basis for his abilities: passive abilities (auras) and active abilities (pledges, smites, and surges). Champions do not pray or meditate for their abilities; their abilities are always active unless they consciously suppress them.

Rangers are likewise not masters of weaponry or armor; they favor speed and stealth over plate mail. Their advantage in combat comes from tracking (which gives them bonuses against tracked creatures), terrain knowledge (which provides various bonuses and special maneuvers), and the element of surprise (see 3.5 Scout). Unlike fighters, who mostly train to hone their own skills, rangers spend a lot of time observing other creatures and thus learn valuable combat insights from their behavior. For instance, a ranger who survives a fight against giants may gain a bonus to AC against larger creatures, while a ranger who survives a fight against kobolds may choose to gain a reroll on his reflex saves against traps.

 

[ferratus]

Ok. Go ahead.

I may have reached too far in saying you can justify the runepriest. I'm not the guy to defend it really, since I thought they were a waste of space when they were released.

But I can justify the psion, warlock, and sorcerer, and all I would need to do so is point the alternate magic system. Otherwise, they are just other ways of saying "wizard".

If the runepriest was a little more daring with its design, you certainly could justify it.