D&D 5E (2014) The classes of 5e (now with 90% less speculation)

[LurkAway]

All they know for sure is that a lot of players really want warlords and it's stupid for those who don't want them to think their preferences override those who do.

Is "stupid" the word you really you want to use?

 

[Aldarc]

Is "stupid" the word you really you want to use?

Would you prefer if "selfish" was used instead?

 

[LurkAway]

Would you prefer if "selfish" was used instead?

Are those my only 2 choices?

 

[Ichneumon]

Is "stupid" the word you really you want to use?

I don't know what the word is, but "not magnanimous" is getting close.

 

[LurkAway]

I don't know what the word is, but "not magnanimous" is getting close.

Sure, there are various ways to phrase it. Let's not use "stupid", okay? I think "stupid" and "selfish" are like gateway drugs.

 

[Nivenus]

Is "stupid" the word you really you want to use?

Yeah, actually, it is.

I think anyone who puts their opinions on a pedestal and degrades those of others simply because they're different is being an ignorant jerk, because they're operating from the position that there isn't another way of doing things.

Mod Note: Two wrongs don't make a right - you can't effectively fight jerkiness with name calling and insults, folks! So, please, keep it civil. ~Umbran

Again, I don't think that what these people want to include is a bad thing. I just think that their desire to exclude things on the arbitrary basis that they weren't always there is stupid.

 

[LurkAway]

I think anyone who puts their opinions on a pedestal and degrades those of others simply because they're different is being an ignorant jerk, because they're operating from the position that there isn't another way of doing things.

Again, I don't think that what these people want to include is a bad thing. I just think that their desire to exclude things on the arbitrary basis that they weren't always there is stupid.

I think your statement is unnecessarily polarizing. First of all, it depends on the context, and it's not arbitrary. If a new player wanted to create a halfling called Clint Eastwood wearing a cowboy hat, it's not stupid or arbitrary for others to express discontent. If a new player wants to create an evil torturer PC, it's not stupid or arbitrary to complain. What's happening is that the other players are feeling threatened by an element that is dissonant with the shared narrative. Sure, it's not mature or generous to want to exclude everything you don't like from a system at the expense of others, but it can work the other way around with the tyranny of the minority so to speak. So it really depends on the context, and I'm not sure that your blanket statement and your choice of words are all that helpful.

 

[Nivenus]

I think your statement is unnecessarily polarizing. First of all, it depends on the context, and it's not arbitrary. If a new player wanted to create a halfling called Clint Eastwood wearing a cowboy hat, it's not stupid or arbitrary for others to express discontent.

First of all, this isn't likely to come up all that often. Secondly, if it does, it all depends, as you say, on the context. It's up to the DM really, if that's acceptable. I see no reason why D&D can't support such a character. It's not my preferred style, but hey, whatever works for your game and your group of players.

If a new player wants to create an evil torturer PC, it's not stupid or arbitrary to complain. What's happening is that the other players are feeling threatened by an element that is dissonant with the shared narrative.

That sounds more like a player/DM problem than a problem with the game. FWIW, I think evil characters should be supported by the rules.

Sure, it's not mature or generous to want to exclude everything you don't like from a system at the expense of others, but it can work the other way around with the tyranny of the minority so to speak. So it really depends on the context, and I'm not sure that your blanket statement and your choice of words are all that helpful.

My choice of words may not be helpful, but I think they're honest.

Again, I ask: why should D&D only support one style of play and atmosphere? That's never been the idea behind it. The very first versions of the games had adventures with robots and spaceships and a sidebar for psionics was in the Player's Handbook. D&D has always been about running the game you want to run, regardless of whether or not that fits into what other people think is D&D.

 

[Herschel]

Because you are either with us or against us?

If squeeing is right, I'd rather be wrong.

 

[gyor]

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.

Actually the assassins more like Rogue/Shadowcaster/Ninja with a strong focus on poisons.

Yes Rogues have shealth in common with Assassins, but so do Rangers.

Assassins have access to lots of Shadow Magic and poisons.

Assassins are for more focused on combat and killing in general then rogues.

Rogues in 4e shift alot, but Assassins teleport through shadows just for example. Even in 3e Assassins used magic.