D&D 5E Classes - What we know so far

[Sadrik]

So we have 3 updates on the the Sorcerer, Warlock, and Bard. I thought I would discuss in a holistic way all of the classes and what we know.

Full Casters
Bard
It is hard for me to justify the existence of this class as a specialized enchanter with some skill use and healing thrown in. I think this is a better background and then could easily have been a multiclassed character. Whatever though, it will little be played still as always.
Cleric
Default divine caster, will never go away.
Druid
This one could have been a specialist Cleric, like in 2e, and could have been a background to boot on top of that. The shapechanging could have been a series of spells. The hallmark features to me feel like background stuff and a limited application of divine magic, in a nature domain. Also if you have to have this class like this open it up to a non-woodsy class too ala, Shugenja.
Mage
Default arcane caster, will never go away. I like the idea of pulling the wizard term out and perhaps making that a background or upper level Prestige like ability.
Sorcerer
Native magic caster, a psion essentially. I approve and think that this could be broadly applied enough to capture more than just arcane magic but divine and psionic magic as well. We will see how that goes though.


1/2 Casters
Paladin
A Divine Fighter, spun in a unique. Sure, and I even like it. Oath's are crappy though. I think they should pick something more influencing like a domain, or even pick avenger, blackgaurd, Lyan (and the other old school paladins) but perhaps don't link them to an alignment. If they can back it up and broaden it, this could be a really neat class. Right now it feels constrained and the Oath is of too little consequence.
Ranger
A Druid Fighter, spun in a unique way. Sure. I think something that is really important for me on this is the option of the urban ranger. He does not have to be a woodsman automatically, allow him to also be van helsing.
Warlock
I actually like them moving the warlock into a 1/2 Caster role. This is the Arcane Fighter, spun in a unique way. I don't like the pet option and I hope the ranger, paladin and druid do not have pet options or if they have a pet option, it is in an expansion book. Playing two characters, is not something that I would endorse without buying into, as a feat available to anyone I would be ok... but special classes that get pets. Nah.

Non-Casters
Barbarian
This is the one class that I wish did not exist in D&D 5e. I think its whole premise is off base and it is a class that would be better suited to being merged with the fighter as a sub-class. I am sure all stops will be pulled out to make it as unique as possible from the fighter, but ultimately it is in direct niche competition. I suppose there are Full-Casters in direct niche competition too, therefore this should exist separately. Logically right...
Fighter
Default warrior, should exist. But perhaps... they should not be as front loaded with all weapons and armor. Maybe medium armor and then buy into heavy armor with a sub-class. I would also like to see d12 hit die. If Barbarian gets it fighters should too.
Monk
It is hard to peg what the Monk should actually do. Are they a full fighter that punches. Do they have supernatural abilities? In this edition there is a parallel paladin and ranger spells. I can see this class being a 1/2 caster and having their spells be supernatural abilities that bump themselves up. Idk, the last version of this class fell way flat for me.
Rogue
Default tricky warrior class, I am firmly in the rogues need to be more warriory, but not front line. They need to have a place in combat. Glass cannon warriors is what they have typically been in combat in the past, continue with this concept and give them more tricky options in combat. The out of combat stuff... they are perfectly conceived there and no guidance is even needed.

So where does magic come from...
Granted by supernatural entity --> Cleric, Paladin, Warlock (note a domain can be a philosophical concept, warlock have this option too?)
Unlock Nature (whatever that is, is it granted or do they study it?) --> Druid, Ranger
Unlock Universe through study --> Mage
Innate ability through inborn powers--> Sorcerer
IDK --> Bard

So what are your thoughts and concerns about the classes in a holistic global sense? Will you be able to make the character you want? Are there classes here that do not seem justified or worse are there missing classes?

 

[Mistwell]

Mage
Default arcane caster, will never go away. I like the idea of pulling the wizard term out and perhaps making that a background or upper level Prestige like ability.
Sorcerer

We know they've changed the name back to Wizard for the final release version.

Warlock
I actually like them moving the warlock into a 1/2 Caster role. This is the Arcane Fighter, spun in a unique way. I don't like the pet option and I hope the ranger, paladin and druid do not have pet options or if they have a pet option, it is in an expansion book. Playing two characters, is not something that I would endorse without buying into, as a feat available to anyone I would be ok... but special classes that get pets. Nah.

I would not call the Warlock a 1/2 caster. They're really not. With all spells renewing each short rest, and invocations altering things, they're simply their own thing. For example, you should see them cast as many spells, in quantity, as any full caster.

 

[Li Shenron]

Mage
Default arcane caster, will never go away. I like the idea of pulling the wizard term out and perhaps making that a background or upper level Prestige like ability.

Tiny update: the name is already reverted back to Wizard, according to Mearls' tweets.

 

[DEFCON 1]

It's been said I believe that the intention is for the DMG is to have instructions for making Sub-classes.

So everyone who still complains about the existence of Paladins, Barbarians, Bards, Sorcerers, Rangers and the like can now go ahead and just create their own Core Four sub-classes that can cover all those options so you don't ever have to use the full classes that you hate.

How nice that would be.

 

[Sadrik]

It's been said I believe that the intention is for the DMG is to have instructions for making Sub-classes.

So everyone who still complains about the existence of Paladins, Barbarians, Bards, Sorcerers, Rangers and the like can now go ahead and just create their own Core Four sub-classes that can cover all those options so you don't ever have to use the full classes that you hate.

How nice that would be.

This is handy for nixing the barbarian. Which I am sure many will want to do, although, it may be more trouble than it is worth.

 

[DEFCON 1]

This is handy for nixing the barbarian. Which I am sure many will want to do, although, it may be more trouble than it is worth.

Depends entirely on how much a person really thinks a Barbarian is really nothing more than just a Fighter + Berserker sub-class + Guide background I suppose.

 

[Remathilis]

I am so happy that the "four classes" crowd didn't win and that we have separate barbarian, monk, bard, druid, paladin, ranger, sorcerer, and warlock classes! I despise the idea that you can cram barrbarian into a background or ranger into a subclass. Now, I can play a guide/ranger/archer or a priest/ranger/beastmaster and still be a ranger rather than have all rangers be the woodsman/fighter/ranger build. Talk about "all characters the same".

Kudos on WotC for keeping all 12 classes!

 

[Sadrik]

I am so happy that the "four classes" crowd didn't win and that we have separate barbarian, monk, bard, druid, paladin, ranger, sorcerer, and warlock classes! I despise the idea that you can cram barrbarian into a background or ranger into a subclass. Now, I can play a guide/ranger/archer or a priest/ranger/beastmaster and still be a ranger rather than have all rangers be the woodsman/fighter/ranger build. Talk about "all characters the same".

Kudos on WotC for keeping all 12 classes!

I think the debate was that their should be somewhere from 4 to likely about 15 classes I would have liked to see about 10, 12 is not that far off. The way it is now if they can actually construe a Monk worth a damn I would be happy to have that included. Really Barbarian is the only one I lament.

That said I can understand where the "4 class crowd" was coming from and even how the game would look designed like that.

 

[Li Shenron]

I am so happy that the "four classes" crowd didn't win and that we have separate barbarian, monk, bard, druid, paladin, ranger, sorcerer, and warlock classes! I despise the idea that you can cram barrbarian into a background or ranger into a subclass. Now, I can play a guide/ranger/archer or a priest/ranger/beastmaster and still be a ranger rather than have all rangers be the woodsman/fighter/ranger build. Talk about "all characters the same".

Kudos on WotC for keeping all 12 classes!

There are different possible approaches:

- few generic classes (e.g. the "iconic four") each of which is expanded through subclasses or other options
- several semi-generic classes (as in 3e) each of which still allow moderate variations
- plenty of specialized classes (as in 4e?) each of which with limited or no variation at all

They are all valid design approaches, each with pros and cons. I am quite sure they thought carefully about which one to follow and listened to feedback. But it's a major design choice, and once the decision is made, then it becomes important to stick with it during the whole edition (although fringe products such as 3e Unearthed Arcana have the chance to support alternative approaches).

EDIT:
I also prefer the current approach. The way I see it, this "middle ground" approach sets the edition in a position where it's actually not that hard for a gaming group to shift to either of the two alternative approaches.

For example, if I were a fan of "tons of classes", I would first of all realize that almost certainly there is going to be some mechanical overlapping, because it's hard to have a game with 50 classes each of which is totally different. Then I would simply look at subclasses as if they were actual classes! Instead of presenting the game as "there are 12 classes: Fighter, Cleric, Wizard..." I would look at is as "there are ~50 classes: Warrior, Weaponmaster, War Cleric, Life Cleric, Enchanter, Illusionist....".

The other way around (i.e. playing with only the "iconic four" and turning other classes into subclasses) requires more work, in order to swap class abilities between them, but can still be done, and IMHO the fact that there are (1) no "dead levels" in 5e classes and (2) no different BAB/ST/spells progressions, actually makes the swapping process easier than before.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Depends entirely on how much a person really thinks a Barbarian is really nothing more than just a Fighter + Berserker sub-class + Guide background I suppose.

But, I mean, even if a DM philosophically believes that the Barbarian should just be a Fighter build... if someone at the table wants to play a Barbarian, why not let them use the Barbarian class?

As for the topic of this thread: I'm interested in how the spellcasters interact with learning and preparing spells. So far we know:

• Wizard style (automatically learn some, can learn more, must prepare)
• Priest style (automatically learn all, can't learn more, must prepare)
• Bard style? (automatically learn some, can't learn more, doesn't need to prepare) [Sorcerer will probably be the same]

I wonder what the Warlock's style will be... maybe:

• Warlock style (automatically learn some, can learn more, doesn't need to prepare)

That could be pretty good, especially in a high-magic setting where you can just buy a scroll and learn whatever spell you want. I'm guessing it'll be more like Sorcerer style, though.