• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

Class list for PHB

The Choice

First Post
I think a tangential question is in order: How many classes can they fit in the book?

If it's a standard, PHB-sized one (3.X/4E style), I think we could see anywhere between 9 and 12 classes depending on the space allowed for each. Then the question becomes what is the core experience of D&D and what classes exemplify it best. Let's take the Bard, for exemple. Unless he has his own particular spell list and very distinctive abilities, what does he bring to the table that a rogue or wizard doesn't? And if we cut him out for space reasons, how will that cascade further into the book's structure? If the half-elf was designed to really synergize well with the bard class, and had abilties that tied in thematically with it, can we cut that race too or redesign it?

The same goes in reverse: if you have an assassin class, you'll need features that accentuate it (be it a race, specialties, backgrounds, etc.).

I imagine this is going to cause problems whichever classes they pick, as some will feel WotC is imposing a specific type of game on them. Though you can't really go wrong with a base of cleric, fighter, wizard (keep the rogues for supplement I :p).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Sadrik

First Post
Monk (remove the Asian theme, go Jedi)
The concept needs to be broadened. Simply an asian guy that punches is too narrow. I really like the idea of the jedi applied to the monk, a mystical warrior who can use weapons and draws physical power from his magical abilities. Not a spellcaster per say, but has trappings of doing spell-like things. So a true at-will/always-on caster. Can you build an effective asian puncher still? Yes, are you limited to it? no.

Another interesting notion is letting them choose a "heritage" that aligns itself to a certain style of monk. "Punchers" could be one, "Sohei" weapon masters could be one, "ninja" could be one, honorable duty-bound wandering "judges" could be one (ala jedi). Lots of options there.

Warlock (better in its own supplement or merged as a heritage of sorcerer or heck even a cleric, IMHO)
The more I think about the warlock should be in a later expansion. That way the level of detail the class needs can be addressed fully. Also I think it's flavor is too outlandish for the base game (my opinion).

Additionally, couldn't a cleric who has the same backstory fill this role? Worship/serve powerful being get benefits. Too specific of a class.

Finally the druid, could not this class be used to represent the warlock? The druid is a class that in my mind represents a witch out in the woods. If the druid ate the heart out of the warlock and the warlock became a theme, I would be happy.

Psionics (In the 1e phb, I would like to actually see this in the book and merged into the magic system)
I would rather see a psion in the main game than a warlock. Psion has way more applications throughout the history of the game than the warlock. Mindflayers that work out of the gate is very good! Warlock feels very niche the way it is constructed, psion is a very broad class that has application in almost every setting. Some settings even require it! Warlocks I see no requirement.

So per my original post, a psionic class that is folded into the magic system and a sorcerer that can latch on with a heritage would be very important in my book. Heck, take all the powers from the expanded psionics handbook convert them to spells and give the psion access to them. You would have a very good class and some of those former powers could be used to bolster some of the other classes spell lists if appropriate!

Barbarian (rage as specialty, savage as background)
There are several instances where a savage background would be helpful to distinguish a character from the more civilized counterparts. Savage rogue, savage druid, savage ranger all valid and interesting. One class should not be the only barbaric class. Perhaps barbaric could increase your hit die by one step...

As to the rage part, make it a specialty. I see it as no different than fighting with two weapons, it is a technique.

Assassin (background)
I would rather have a ranger be chief choice for the character concept. "Humanoid" hunter class feature with an assassin background. Wala! Take the illusionist specialty and pick up some of the helpful minor illusion spells and even multi-class into wizard or sorcerer and get more powerful ones such as invisibility and darkness and others. Would be a really cool character! No need to make a whole class based on this, a background would suffice.

Bard (background, and specialty, would be neat to plug into Druid rogue sorcerer or even ranger)
A bard is the jack of all trades and it does not have to be represented by a single class. A rogue/druid/fighter or a rogue/wizard/ranger even just a simple rogue or fighter all of these seem very applicable. Tack on the bardic college background, add in the bard/warlord/leader specialty. I really like this concept. It really frees the character concept to do so much and still have the ability to boost your allies with words of praise via feats rather than spells.

Then a whole "musical" magic system does not have to be tacked on to the game and explained away with a wave of the hand and saying no one plays that class anyway. Example: if the bard was a wizard/rogue they would be a wizard and would cast as a wizard. They would still be able to boost allies via their bard specialty! very cool. Also there are several clerics and specific gods that would make excellent bards too!

Warlord (specialty)
Warlord would be a specialty of any class. If you are a leader and you want to give your allies bonuses, similar to the bard actually. Non-magical boosts that are feat based not based on spells or class features.

I also feel like the ranger should eat a lot of the features out of the Warlord class. The ranger should be the INT based warrior. For those die hard warlord fans would it be too much to have a ranger build that encapsulated the INT based warlord?

Illusionist
Specialty just like the Necromancer. I like the idea of making these specialties selectable by anyone even non-casters. In this way you can represent a dabbler of magic or someone that is touched by that magic.

Example character:
Elf Ranger
Class feature: Humanoid hunter
Specialty: Illusionist
Background: Assassin

Very cool character concept. Call him a noble slayer who works not for the high bidder but for an order of monks (ones that are not asian punchers) who exact vengeance on evil doers.
 

GX.Sigma

Adventurer
I think a tangential question is in order: How many classes can they fit in the book?

If it's a standard, PHB-sized one (3.X/4E style), I think we could see anywhere between 9 and 12 classes depending on the space allowed for each.
I don't think more classes are going to take up too much space. Let's look at 3.5's page count, by chapter.

Abilities: 4 pages
Race: 10 pages (7 races; we could stand to have a few more)
Class: 40 pages (9 classes, multiclassing, experience and levels; we could stand to have a few more)
Skills: 26 pages (we'll definitely have fewer)
Feats: 15 pages (we might have more, depending on how it works out)
Equipment: 22 pages (probably about the same)
Combat: 27 pages (depends if the tactical combat rules will be in this hypothetical book)
Adventuring: 9 pages
Magic: 13 pages (just to explain how spellcasting works. Uh oh...)
Spells: 123 pages! (15 pages of spell lists, 108 pages of spells, too many spells to count)

Wow, I think we found our problem. How did the other editions do? (note: I only have access to retroclones, so the actual printings are probably different; the principle is still important though)

OSRIC: 82 pages of spells (4 classes)
Dark Dungeons: 42 pages of spells (2-ish classes)
Labyrinth Lord: 24 pages of spells (2-ish classes)

Let's look at an example spell, to see the difference in presentation. Let's try bless. [sblock]Here it is in Labyrinth Lord:
Bless (reversible)
Level: 2
Duration: 6 turns
Range: 60'
Bless fills the caster's allies with courage, but does not affect enemies within the affected area of 20' x 20'. Each ally gains a +1 morale bonus and +1 on attack and damage rolls.
The reverse of this spell does not affect allies within the effect area, and incurs penalties of –1 instead of bonuses to the rolls indicated above.
Here it is in Dark Dungeons:
Bless (R)
Cleric 2, Druid 2, Shaman 2
Target: All allies in a 20’ radius
Range: 60’
Duration: 1 hour
When this spell is cast, all friendly creatures in the area of effect gain a +1 bonus to attack, damage, and morale rolls for the duration, providing they are not already engaged in combat.
Reverse: Blight gives each enemy in the area a –1 penalty to attack, damage and morale rolls for the duration providing they are not already in combat. Each of these enemies may make a saving throw vs Spells to avoid the effect.
Here it is in OSRIC:
Bless (Reversible)
Clerical Conjuration/Summoning
level: Cleric 1
Range: 60 ft
duration: 6 rounds
area of effect: 50 x 50 ft
components: V,S,M
casting time: 1 round
Saving throw: None
This minor benison raises the morale and attack rolls of any creatures allied with the casting cleric by +1 or +5% as appropriate. Any creatures already engaged in melee combat will not gain the spell’s benefits. The spell is reversible, allowing the cleric to curse his or her enemies with –5% morale and –1 to hit.
The spell’s area of effect is a circular area centred at the target point, which cannot be more than 60 ft from the cleric. Holy water is required to cast the spell (unholy water for the reverse).
Aaand here it is in 3.5:
Bless
Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-Affecting]
Level: Clr 1, Pal 1
Components: V, S, DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: 50 ft.
Area: The caster and all allies within a 50-ft. burst, centered on the caster
Duration: 1 min./level
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless)
Bless fills your allies with courage. Each ally gains a +1 morale bonus on attack rolls and on saving throws against fear effects.
Bless counters and dispels bane.

Bane
Enchantment (Compulsion) [Fear, Mind-Affecting]
Level: Clr 1
Components: V, S, DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: 50 ft.
Area: All enemies within 50 ft.
Duration: 1 min./level
Saving Throw: Will negates
Spell Resistance: Yes
Bane fills your enemies with fear and doubt. Each affected creature takes a –1 penalty on attack rolls and a –1 penalty on saving throws against fear effects.
Bane counters and dispels bless.
[/sblock]Noticing a pattern here. Let's take a look at another spell. Let's try binding. Here's how it looks in 3.5 (narrow your browser window for full effect):[sblock]Binding
Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-Affecting]
Level: Sor/Wiz 8
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: One minute
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: One living creature
Duration: See text (D)
Saving Throw: Will negates; see text
Spell Resistance: Yes
A binding spell creates a magical restraint to hold a creature. The target gets an initial saving throw only if its Hit Dice equal at
least one-half your caster level.
You may have as many as six assistants help you with the spell. For each assistant who casts suggestion, your caster level for this casting of binding increases by 1. For each assistant who casts dominate animal, dominate person, or dominate monster, your caster level for this casting of binding increases by a number equal to one-third of that assistant’s level, provided that the spell’s target is appropriate for a binding spell. Since the assistants’ spells are cast simply to improve your caster level for the purpose of the binding spell, saving throws and spell resistance against the assistants’ spells are irrelevant. Your caster level determines whether the target gets an initial Will saving throw and how long the binding lasts. All binding spells are dismissible.
Regardless of the version of binding you cast, you can specify triggering conditions that end the spell and release the creature whenever they occur. These triggers can be as simple or elaborate as you desire, but
the DM must agree that the condition is reasonable and has a likelihood of coming to pass. The conditions can be based on a creature’s name, identity, or alignment but otherwise must be based on observable
actions or qualities. Intangibles such as level, class, Hit Dice, or hit points don’t qualify. For example, a bound creature can be released when a lawful good creature approaches, but not when a paladin approaches. Once the spell is cast, its triggering conditions cannot be changed. Setting a release condition increases the save DC (assuming a saving throw is allowed) by 2.
If you are casting any of the first three versions of binding (those with limited durations), you may cast additional binding spells to prolong the effect, since the durations overlap. If you do so, the target gets a saving throw at the end of the first spell’s duration, even if your caster level
was high enough to disallow an initial saving throw. If the creature succeeds on this save, all the binding spells it has received are broken.
The binding spell has six versions. Choose one of the following versions when you cast the spell.
Chaining: The subject is confined by restraints that generate an antipathy spell affecting all creatures who approach the subject, except you. The duration is one year per caster level. The subject of this form of binding is confined to the spot it occupied when it received the spell.
Slumber: This version causes the subject to become comatose for as long as one year per caster level. The subject does not need to eat or drink while slumbering, nor does it age. This form of binding is more difficult
to cast than chaining, making it slightly easier to resist. Reduce the spell’s save DC by 1.
Bound Slumber: This combination of chaining and slumber lasts for as long as one month per caster level. Reduce the save DC by 2.
Hedged Prison: The subject is transported to or otherwise brought within a confined area (such as a labyrinth) from which it cannot wander by any means. The effect is permanent. Reduce the save DC by 3.
Metamorphosis: The subject assumes gaseous form, except for its head or face. It is held harmless in a jar or other container, which may be transparent if you so choose. The creature remains aware of its
surroundings and can speak, but it cannot leave the container, attack, or use any of its powers or abilities. The binding is permanent. The subject does not need to breathe, eat, or drink while metamorphosed, nor does it age. Reduce the save DC by 4.
Minimus Containment: The subject is shrunk to a height of 1 inch or even less and held within some gem, jar, or similar object. The binding is permanent. The subject does not need to breathe, eat, or
drink while contained, nor does it age. Reduce the save DC by 4.
You can’t dispel a binding spell with dispel magic or a similar effect, though an antimagic field or Mordenkainen’s disjunction affects it normally. A bound extraplanar creature cannot be sent back to its home plane due to dismissal, banishment, or a similar effect.
Components: The components for a binding spell vary according to the version of the spell, but they always include a continuous chanting utterance read from the scroll or spellbook page containing the spell, somatic gestures, and materials appropriate to the form of binding used.
These components can include such items as miniature chains of special metals (silver for lycanthropes, cold iron for demons, and so forth), soporific herbs of the rarest sort (for slumber bindings), a bell jar of the finest crystal, and the like.
In addition to the specially made props suited to the specific type of binding (cost 500 gp), the spell requires opals worth at least 500 gp for each HD of the target and a vellum depiction or carved statuette of the subject to be captured.[/sblock]And here's how it looks in previous editions.... Wait, what? It isn't even in previous editions? So, did the authors of 3rd Edition just decide for no reason to make up an insanely long spell description and stick it in the spell list?

Yeah, I think we found the problem.
 
Last edited:

shadowmane

First Post
Assassin

  • Flavor: Murderous spell-warrior
  • Mechanics: Shroud based skill user

Barbarian

  • Flavor: Raw Natural Warrior
  • Mechanics: Rage and Toughness

Bard

  • Flavor: Magic Performer
  • Mechanics: ???

Cleric

  • Flavor: Divine caster
  • Mechanics: Spontaneous support caster

Druid

  • Flavor: Master of Nature
  • Mechanics: Elementalist and Shapeshifter

Fighter

  • Flavor: Trained Warrior
  • Mechanics: Combat Maneuvers via CS dice
Monk

  • Flavor: Spiritual Warrior/Skill Monkey
  • Mechanics: Ki Point Warrior/Skill Monkey

Paladin

  • Flavor: Blessed Warrior
  • Mechanics: Passive bonus warrior

Ranger

  • Flavor: Observant Wilderness Warrior
  • Mechanics: Quarry based Skilled Warrior

Rogue

  • Flavor: Sneaky Skill Monkey
  • Mechanics: Sneaky Skill Monkey

Sorcerer

  • Flavor: Natural Caster
  • Mechanics: Willpower/Spell Point Caster

Warlock

  • Flavor: Pact Caster
  • Mechanics: At-will and Encounter Caster

Wizard

  • Flavor: Formally Trained Caster
  • Mechanics: Vancian Caster

Your cleric here would be absolutely boring to play.
 

Remathilis

Legend
Assassin, Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Warlock, Warlord, Wizard.

This gives the maximum flexibility of concept. I want Priest Assassin Lurkers (death cultists), I want Noble Warlord Jack-of-all-Trades (Royal Captains), I want Thug Barbarian Survivors (slum-dogs) and I want Sage Monk Magic-Users (Sayans).

Cleric, Bard, Druid, Wizard, Warlock and Sorcerer are your own true casters. Paladin, Ranger, and Assassin can be done a partial casters (borrowing spell lists) or not-at all. The rest are non-casters. I really don't see a space issue.

If any have to be cut, I guess Warlord folded into Fighter and Assassin being a thing for Rogue might work, but I'd like that as a last option.

As for races, I am holding out for Human, Dwarf, Elf, Halfling, Gnome, Half-elf, Half-orc, Dragonborn, and Tiefling. I like Eladrin conceptually, but Elf is hell-bent on stealing the blinkly-fey's niche again and I REALLY hate PC races with innate teleportation. A completely re-written eladrin might work, but as is High elves eat their lunch.
 

Ichneumon

First Post
Most of the classes mentioned will be in as classes. The only ones I'm uncertain about are Assassin and Psion, along with exactly what the Illusionist will be.

The Assassin could be done as a speciality, but has history as a class and will probably go this way. I'd like to see it hark back to its 1st Edition version, which focused on setting up clever out-of-combat kills. The Psion has technically never been in a Player's Handbook 1, but its presence would be welcomed by lots of people. However, given that the psion would need a distinctive casting technique and its own set of spells/powers (borrowing from the wizard wouldn't really work), it would probably be the first one to go if space is an issue.

The Illusionist, which was a class in 1st Edition, will exist in 5e as a speciality or wizard tradition. I'd like to see it as a speciality, as there are several classes with an interest in illusion casting aside from the wizard, such as the bard and warlock.
 

Riposte

First Post
I think classes become much easier to handle if each player had two specialties instead of one. I know that would be a pretty big change and I'm probably not the best person to argue for it.

With that out of the way, I would like to see the base classes be as broad as possible. The Fighter does a really good job of what I want. Variants would best exist only for big concepts which require big mechanical differences that can't be covered by a specialty (though I think two could probably fix this for most) and background. With that in mind I say chop down the classes like Assassin and Barbarian and arguably also classes like Ranger and Warlord. However what I think ultimately depends on how smart multi-class rules are. I'm okay with some (core) character concepts absolutely requiring multi-classing (thus there being no need for a gish classes). Given how 5e seems to be shaping up, those rules would need to be strict, but potent (so unlike 3e's rules, though they have their own merits).
 

ComradeGnull

First Post
Pretty much this, with a couple of relatively minor exceptions. Assassins should be Righ Out as PCs. Barbarian is a social term, change the class to Berseker. Better yet, it should be a Fighter with Rage and a barbarian theme. And Warlord is a title, so should also be renamed. (Don't know to what, as I've never paid much attention to the class.)

Warlord as a title and Warlord as a class have nothing to do with each other. The name was fixed in 4e and might as well continue- I don't really see how it creates confusion without some intentional Abbott & Costello-style wordplay (Player 1: 'Warlord Krung is a level 10 Fighter.' Player 2: 'I thought he was a Warlord?' Player 1:'Third base!' DM: TPK!).

I would rather see a psion in the main game than a warlock. Psion has way more applications throughout the history of the game than the warlock. Mindflayers that work out of the gate is very good! Warlock feels very niche the way it is constructed, psion is a very broad class that has application in almost every setting. Some settings even require it! Warlocks I see no requirement.

I, too, am somewhat annoyed by getting new versions of mental magic monsters six books into a game. However, I don't think that the answer is to include the Psion as a base class (which opens a whole can of worms of making psionics the equivalent of regular magic in terms of prominence when it has never really had that place, and forces a choice of either including another mechanical system or just making psionics a re-fluff of an existing magic type (Willpower, for instance, would work). I would rather just make psionics more like magic so that an eventual Psionics expansion doesn't require re-statting a bunch of monsters- they can just be WP casters from day 1, and psionics vs. mind-focused magic can just be a non-mechanical choice.


As to speaking to the monk, I want the concept broadened. Simply an asian guy that punches is too narrow. I really like the idea of the jedi. A mystical warrior who can use weapons and draws physical power from his magical abilities. Not a spellcaster per say, but has trappings of doing spell-like things. So a true at-will/always-on caster. Can you build an effective asian puncher still? Yes, are you limited to it? no.

Should we have asian weapons in the PHB to accommodate the monk? No. Should there be a supplement with weapons of different cultures? Yes. Should many cultural weapons simply be re-skinned versions of other weapons? yes. Currently katana are its own weapon, I really liked them as a bastard sword by a different name.

I like this idea too- monk as a mystical warrior who can be either an unarmed combat focus, or a focus as a sort of mystic weapon master. Weapon choice should be more narrow than a fighter- whereas a fighter can be a master of a specific weapon, they have a lot of general competency that means that they can pick up nearly anything and be effective with it. Also agree about not shoehorning in Asian weapons- shuriken being one of the most useful thrown weapons for my 4e Rogues always seemed forced to me. I did typically re-fluff them as throwing knives, but still felt a bit odd.

Again I agree, there are several instances where a savage background would be helpful to distinguish a character from the more civilized counterparts. Savage rogue, savage druid, savage ranger all valid and interesting. One class should not be the only savage class.

As to the rage part, make it a specialty. I see it as no different than fighting with two weapons, it is a technique.

I feel like Rage is a bit more than a fighting technique- more akin to Combat Superiority or Sneak Attack, and thus better suited as the core mechanic for a Barbarian/Berserker class (realistically, the name will be Barbarian for continuity reasons, but I understand the objection). Mechanically, raging should involve adding some damage, adding some ability to soak up damage or fight past the point of incapacity, possibly loose some accuracy, and have some limits imposed on it in terms of length of the rage, endurance, stacking penalties, etc., so that it is an interesting choice of whether to use the rage or not, and for how long, rather than just being something that is always on. That pushes it into class territory for me- also, a Barbarian could chose to be a two weapon fighter or a two-hander fighter, or even a sword and board fighter (don't the Lewis Chessmen show a berserker gnawing on the rim of his shield?) along with his raging.

I could possibly see it being a set of Combat Superiority maneuvers- you spend a die to enter a rage for the number of rounds equal to the faces of the die, and then while you have the 'rage' condition going, you can use ragey maneuvers that aren't available outside of it.

An enraged Rogue or ranged weapon warrior seems a bit hard to swallow to me. I feel like if you want a Raging Ranger or something, that should be a multi-class choice rather than a specialty.

A bard could be a triple classed character! Look jack of all trades does not have to be a class that comprises of 3 classes. A rogue/druid/fighter or a rogue/wizard/ranger all of these seem very applicable. Tack on the bardic college background, add in the bard specialty. I really like this concept. It really frees the character concept to do so much and still have the ability to boost your allies with words of praise via feats rather than spells. Then a whole "musical" magic system does not have to be tacked on to the game and explained away with a wave of the hand and saying no one plays that class anyway. Example: if the bard was a wizard/rogue they would have wizard magic and they would still be able to boost allies via their bard specialty! very cool. Also there are several clerics and specific gods that would make excellent bards too!

Realistically, Bard isn't going to be removed as a class. WotC simply isn't going to require multi-classing to create a character that has existed since 1e- it's too contentious.

Warlord would be a specialty of any class. If you are a leader and you want to give your allies bonuses, similar to the bard actually. Non-magical boosts that you have the option to utilize. In fact, doesn't the warlord step on the bard's concept too much?

Well, in 4e the Warlord was both a buffer and a non-magical healer, and had a bit more front line combat capability than a Bard. If we were to translate that into pre-4e terms, the Warlord matches up better with the Paladin than the Bard- better weapon and armor selection, less skill utility, decent social capabilities (due to high Cha and some class abilities rather than just skill usage). I'm not quite sure how you differentiate the Warlord and the Paladin for 5e.

I also feel like the ranger should eat a lot of the features out of this class. The ranger should be the INT based warrior. For those die hard warlord fans would it be too much to have a ranger build that encapsulated the INT based warlord?

Don't see this happening. Ranger has always been Wis based rather than Int- a Ranger's skill is based on observation skills, common sense, and experience rather than intellectual prowess. It would be perfectly reasonable to be an illiterate ranger. The character concept for the Ranger and Warlord are quite far apart as well- the Warlord is a buffer/healer/front line combat role, whereas the Ranger is a utility/combat role that has lighter armor and often focuses on ranged weapons rather than melee. Wilderness utility and tracking needs to be a core part of the Ranger class to keep continuity with previous editions, whereas the Warlord is more focused on organized, disciplined military-style combat and social roles. It's like making General a sub-class of Scout.

The more I think about the warlock should be in a later expansion. That way the level of detail the class needs can be addressed fully. Also I think it's flavor is too outlandish for the base game (my opinion).

Additionally, couldn't a cleric who has the same backstory fill this role? Worship/serve powerful being get benefits. Too specific of a class.

Finally the druid, could not this class be used to represent the warlock? The druid is a class that in my mind represents a witch out in the woods. If the druid ate the heart out of the warlock and the warlock became a theme, I would be happy.

Clerics represent being aligned with a divine power- it's a devotion or vocation. Warlock is a business transaction. I feel like someone who gains power via a figurative or literal deal with the devil is a broad enough fantasy archetype that it deserves some inclusion, and mechanically they've come up with a way to distinguish it. I don't see Druid and Warlock having much in common- Druids have always been nature-communing priests and defenders of the woodlands. Warlocks use power for their own end. Nature magic and possible wildshape are going to be core mechanics for Druids which doesn't match well mechanically for Warlocks.

I can see the similarity with Clerics (particularly if you think about Dark Sun's templar class), but I think with Warlocks they are trying to fill two niches- one is a story niche, and one mechanical. Having Warlock as a class with a distinct mechanism gives us another thought-out magic system that can be re-fluffed as needed- I could see creating a setting where all the "clerics" were really Warlocks mechanically.

If any have to be cut, I guess Warlord folded into Fighter and Assassin being a thing for Rogue might work, but I'd like that as a last option.

I think Fighter as Warlord could work if the CS options are made broad enough. I think they're committed to keeping it as a class, however.
 
Last edited:

Ellington

First Post
Assassin - Class or Rogue Scheme
Barbarian - Background (Barbarian) and Speciality (Berserker)
Bard - Class
Cleric - Class
Druid - Class
Fighter - Class
Paladin - Class
Psion - Class, but I don't really care about psionics
Ranger - Class
Rogue - Class
Monk - Class
Sorcerer - Class
Warlock - Class
Warlord - Class or Speciality, either is cool
Wizard - Class

I'm only really fussed about the barbarian tbh. I really would like for it to not be a class. I'd love rogues and fighters with the barbarian background, as well as paladins with the berserker speciality that can go into a holy rage.
 

tuxgeo

Adventurer
I agree. I would rather have a ranger be chief choice for the character concept. < snip >

I also feel like the ranger should eat a lot of the features out of this class. The ranger should be the INT based warrior. For those die hard warlord fans would it be too much to have a ranger build that encapsulated the INT based warlord?

As ComradeGnull has already said, the Ranger has always been the WIS-based warrior, not the INT-based warrior: perception, discernment, tracking, not "book-learning."
(Sorry, cannot give more XP to ComradeGnull at this time. . . .)
 

Remove ads

Top