D&D 5E Champion vs. Warrior

[fjw70]

Why do you say that? Do you have information I don't...?

The article says they were going to merge the wizard, warlock, and sorcerer into the mage class but what they had said/shown recently that doesn't seem to be the case.

Even if they were going to group those three classes into a class group called mage I haven't heard anything about that. The wizard character sheet didn't indicate a class group and the leaked warlock intro from the PH didn't indicate such a things either.

So I have zero evidence it made the final game (and some evidence that it didn't).

 

[Agamon]

Sorry, but then women would feel excluded. It needs to be Fighting Person

Well, that's racist. Let's go with Fighting Individual. It can be shortened down to Fighter!

 

[Sword of Spirit]

The article says they were going to merge the wizard, warlock, and sorcerer into the mage class but what they had said/shown recently that doesn't seem to be the case.

Even if they were going to group those three classes into a class group called mage I haven't heard anything about that. The wizard character sheet didn't indicate a class group and the leaked warlock intro from the PH didn't indicate such a things either.

So I have zero evidence it made the final game (and some evidence that it didn't).

It looks to me like the information we have provides more evidence that they are doing what they said than that they aren't.

The article actually explains it like 2e. There will be 4 class groups: primarily metagame concepts to keep in mind for design, with little direct effect on the game. Then you will have your slew of classes (12 in the PHB), each of which will be assigned to one of those groups.

The articles actually explained how they had changed from their prior plan. The previous plan was to merge wizard, sorcerer and warlock into a single mage class. Those articles were the announcement that that was no longer the plan, and that the plan going forward is for there to instead be class groups.

We know that there are wizard, sorcerer, and warlock as three separate classes, and as of today we know that rogue has d8s for hit points. So as far as I can tell, all of the evidence confirms that they have, in fact, done exactly what those articles indicated they were planning on doing.

 

[fjw70]

It looks to me like the information we have provides more evidence that they are doing what they said than that they aren't.

The article actually explains it like 2e. There will be 4 class groups: primarily metagame concepts to keep in mind for design, with little direct effect on the game. Then you will have your slew of classes (12 in the PHB), each of which will be assigned to one of those groups.

The articles actually explained how they had changed from their prior plan. The previous plan was to merge wizard, sorcerer and warlock into a single mage class. Those articles were the announcement that that was no longer the plan, and that the plan going forward is for there to instead be class groups.

We know that there are wizard, sorcerer, and warlock as three separate classes, and as of today we know that rogue has d8s for hit points. So as far as I can tell, all of the evidence confirms that they have, in fact, done exactly what those articles indicated they were planning on doing.

Yes, I see I did misread that article. Still I don't really see evidence of class groups since that article. So we will see. Maybe they will have them, maybe they won't.

 

[fjw70]

It looks to me like the information we have provides more evidence that they are doing what they said than that they aren't.

The article actually explains it like 2e. There will be 4 class groups: primarily metagame concepts to keep in mind for design, with little direct effect on the game. Then you will have your slew of classes (12 in the PHB), each of which will be assigned to one of those groups.

The articles actually explained how they had changed from their prior plan. The previous plan was to merge wizard, sorcerer and warlock into a single mage class. Those articles were the announcement that that was no longer the plan, and that the plan going forward is for there to instead be class groups.

We know that there are wizard, sorcerer, and warlock as three separate classes, and as of today we know that rogue has d8s for hit points. So as far as I can tell, all of the evidence confirms that they have, in fact, done exactly what those articles indicated they were planning on doing.

I tweeted Mearls to ask if they are still using the class groups and this was his response.


@MikeMearls: @Fjw1970 Nope, didn't need them.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I tweeted Mearls to ask if they are still using the class groups and this was his response.


@MikeMearls: @Fjw1970 Nope, didn't need them.

I just saw that one--good guess.

Now...why is it that they thought they needed them, and then determined that they didn't...

Perhaps they decide they can just list the classes that can use certain magic items like a staff of magi in the DMG, and then if they make a class like Artificer later just say, "Artificers can use any magic items that wizards can."

 

[fjw70]

I just saw that one--good guess.

Now...why is it that they thought they needed them, and then determined that they didn't...

Perhaps they decide they can just list the classes that can use certain magic items like a staff of magi in the DMG, and then if they make a class like Artificer later just say, "Artificers can use any magic items that wizards can."

Maybe they don't plan to restrict magic items by class.

 

[Li Shenron]

Not a major issue, but I also dislike the change from Warrior to Champion, because the latter just sounds too goofy to me.

Had it been up to me, I would have renamed it to Veteran.

Why Veteran? Because that means someone who's been mostly doing the same role over and over, not strictly necessary in a war, but could have been a guard, a duelist, a weaponmaster or even a hunter etc. The point is that when you do just the same thing (i.e. attack) over and over, with little technical/tactical variations (which is instead represented by learning maneuvers or other abilities), you mainly improve precision, and this is IMHO represented fairly well by the improved criticals: nothing fancy, nothing complex, just higher average damage.

 

[MarkB]

Not a major issue, but I also dislike the change from Warrior to Champion, because the latter just sounds too goofy to me.

Had it been up to me, I would have renamed it to Veteran.

Why Veteran? Because that means someone who's been mostly doing the same role over and over, not strictly necessary in a war, but could have been a guard, a duelist, a weaponmaster or even a hunter etc. The point is that when you do just the same thing (i.e. attack) over and over, with little technical/tactical variations (which is instead represented by learning maneuvers or other abilities), you mainly improve precision, and this is IMHO represented fairly well by the improved criticals: nothing fancy, nothing complex, just higher average damage.

Good reasoning, but I'd find it rather weird to be playing a 1st-level veteran.

 

[Li Shenron]

Good reasoning, but I'd find it rather weird to be playing a 1st-level veteran.

In fact, it starts at 3rd

By 3rd level, you aren't a "veteran" by PC classes' standards, but you are probably a veteran by people's standard.

And by the way, in BECMI, a 1st level Fighter is called a Veteran!