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

[Minigiant]

Like it pretty much.

Still upset there is no tinker or scholar class.
I am glad they took my Favored Enemy idea for ranger and never too up that silly idea that the ranger is a fighter+druid.

No Constistuion class though. Sad. I enjoyed beating dragons with my tolerance for pain, raw health and painful and sickening magic.

 

[Li Shenron]

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.

I am not completely sure the "need to prepare" won't be extended to all, but probably it will stay as you say.

Overall as it is now, it feels like "only characters who know a lot of spells can't use all of them on a single day, they have to choose ("prepare") a subset every day". Makes narrative sense enough to me, and this could be the easiest way to present the difference to new players.

 

[DEFCON 1]

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?

Well, sure. Depending on the DM, that's exactly what they probably should do. But my main point was that anyone who WANTS all the non-core four classes removed from the game can still get what they want just by being creative with designing sub-classes and refusing to use the other real ones. So truly wishing things like the barbarian or paladin to be removed from the game in their entirety by WotC is futile because it was never going to happen (precisely for the reason you state). But that shouldn't matter because you can just build what you want using the class and sub-class chassis if what is included doesn't float your boat.

So everyone is happy. (Except of course those people who don't get the ego rub that comes with thinking that their personal desires are precisely what are written in the book so they constantly complain that they have to "houserule" something... but screw those people. Adapting rules has and always will be a part of the game, so they need to get over themselves if they can't handle it.)

 

[Sadrik]

So everyone is happy. (Except of course those people who don't get the ego rub that comes with thinking that their personal desires are precisely what are written in the book so they constantly complain that they have to "houserule" something... but screw those people. Adapting rules has and always will be a part of the game, so they need to get over themselves if they can't handle it.)

I think this edition will have a lot of house rules. It will be similar to 2e in this regard. Maybe not to that level but this edition is encouraging rules swaps in the form of modules, I think it behooves individual DMs and groups to take a hard look at the game they want to play.

I support much of the concepts of rules modules but one social economic truth that when presented with too many problems it can be daunting and cause analysis paralysis. Then, rather than make the hard decision for everyone at the table the DM will go default with no HR. Then during play, there will always be a lament I should have went with option C, and not option B because of issue X, It fixes issue Y though, ah heck with it default option A. It is the retirement plan problem if your company has 50 different retirement plans, many times people people cannot decide what to pick, and so wind up picking nothing.

I fully see this principle being a large part of how 5e will unfold. There are ways to fix this though. Have three to five default styles of play. Perhaps telling you which levers are turned on and which dials are turned to what setting. I would go for fewer default styles of play, in this way, the decision is simple and there is less buyers remorse.

 

[Sadrik]

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.

We can only guess at the mechanics of some of these classes.
I would imagine though there will be a couple of styles:
the wizard spellbook know 2 per level
the bard known spells table
the cleric, druid, paladin and ranger know all spells

Sorcerer will be with bard, warlock likely will too. That is only conjecture based on MMs articles.

I think the more interesting thing at this point is the where their magic comes 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

I like internally consistent worlds and having the option to bend these magical sources around to allow for creativity hopefully that is doable...

 

[Li Shenron]

Sorcerer will be with bard, warlock likely will too. That is only conjecture based on MMs articles.

...

IDK --> Bard

Besides the fact that in previous editions both Sorcerers and Bards used Charisma to determine spells DC and bonus spells, I don't actually see much similarities between the two. I'm rather inclined to think that people expect them to cast spells similarly, only because they did in previous editions.

If I have to say which other spellcaster the Bards feel closest to, IMHO it has to be the Wizard. I don't see the reason why Bards' spells would be an innate ability like Sorcerers. That they might get them from some otherworldly patron or deity could be possible, but being tied to a religion or pact is not really a Bard thing AFAIK.

That leaves the "learn by study" option as the most plausible. Bards are already keepers of lore and often described as wandering the world. Maybe they don't have to take this as far as basing Bard's spellcasting on a spellbook for recording their spells knowledge, but to me the Bard is easily someone who gathers up stray knowledge from lots of sources, therefore I'd make Bard's spellcasting more similar to the Wizard's than to anybody else's. (Note that Charisma can still be the key stat for Bard's spellcasting, in 5e the key stat only determines spells DC... it is not even half as important as in was in 3e).

 

[Sadrik]

Besides the fact that in previous editions both Sorcerers and Bards used Charisma to determine spells DC and bonus spells, I don't actually see much similarities between the two. I'm rather inclined to think that people expect them to cast spells similarly, only because they did in previous editions.

If I have to say which other spellcaster the Bards feel closest to, IMHO it has to be the Wizard. I don't see the reason why Bards' spells would be an innate ability like Sorcerers. That they might get them from some otherworldly patron or deity could be possible, but being tied to a religion or pact is not really a Bard thing AFAIK.

That leaves the "learn by study" option as the most plausible. Bards are already keepers of lore and often described as wandering the world. Maybe they don't have to take this as far as basing Bard's spellcasting on a spellbook for recording their spells knowledge, but to me the Bard is easily someone who gathers up stray knowledge from lots of sources, therefore I'd make Bard's spellcasting more similar to the Wizard's than to anybody else's. (Note that Charisma can still be the key stat for Bard's spellcasting, in 5e the key stat only determines spells DC... it is not even half as important as in was in 3e).

This is an interesting perspective. Which casting stat should be used with which casting methodology.

Clearly Wizard and the idea of study should be attributed to INT.
For those granted powers and do not have to study to get them. Lumping in the Druid and Ranger, and even the Warlock here. This is WIS.
Sorcerer is CHA, which I guess represents inborn power.
Bard, is CHA? I think you made a very valid point that these are learned things, even the flavor text says so, and it is not granted and not inborn... So the Bard should be INT too.

As a side point I can see the granted power classes switching to CHA and the Sorcerer to WIS. This just makes more sense to me. But there are years of precedence, despite it making more sense.

 

[MoonSong]

This is an interesting perspective. Which casting stat should be used with which casting methodology.

Clearly Wizard and the idea of study should be attributed to INT.
For those granted powers and do not have to study to get them. Lumping in the Druid and Ranger, and even the Warlock here. This is WIS.
Sorcerer is CHA, which I guess represents inborn power.
Bard, is CHA? I think you made a very valid point that these are learned things, even the flavor text says so, and it is not granted and not inborn... So the Bard should be INT too.

As a side point I can see the granted power classes switching to CHA and the Sorcerer to WIS. This just makes more sense to me. But there are years of precedence, despite it making more sense.

On an ideal world, sure Bard should cast with Int as a wizard, however this is the same case as the paladin, the reason to switch the casting stat from Int/Wis to Cha is to reduce MAD. Something very important to bards which are now full casters and expected to be a full support class almost in pair to Clerics.

 

[Li Shenron]

Bard, is CHA? I think you made a very valid point that these are learned things, even the flavor text says so, and it is not granted and not inborn... So the Bard should be INT too.

As a side point I can see the granted power classes switching to CHA and the Sorcerer to WIS. This just makes more sense to me. But there are years of precedence, despite it making more sense.

I agree, and I actually think our old DM who heavily house ruled Bards in 3e did exactly that and used Int for spells.

Besides legacy, I suppose the main problem is that the key ability score that governs a class' spellcasting, ends up defining the whole character.

This is a little absurd, because currently such ability score really only determines the spells DC. Should the player want to cast offensive spells, the spell DC is important, but it is less important than previous editions due to bounded accuracy having reduced the range of both spells DCs and saving throws. OTOH, should the player mostly ignore offensive spells (or use only offensive spells that work with attacks or anyway not allow a saving throw), then the score in your spellcasting stat in 5e means nothing. Still, you can be sure that almost every Wizard player in 5e will put the highest stat in Int, every Cleric player will boost Wis, every Sorcerer player will boost Cha and so on...

That key ability score is going to have a much bigger effect in 5e on things other than spells... Once your Sorcerer has high Charisma, she will likely be the best at interaction skills and therefore the most likely to take the "face" role in the party, for example.

I actually like a lot the fact that it doesn't have to be like that in 5e. You can play an effective low-Charisma Sorcerer, low-Wisdom Cleric, or low-Intelligence Wizard, as long as you take some additional care with your spell selection. For me this is a strength of the system, because it allows me to have a game where not every Sorcerer is a diplomat but some are weak-spirited antisocials, not every Cleric is highly perceptive but some are absent-minded, and not every Wizard is a genius but some might even be stupid guys that just somehow manage to cast their spells right (the latter is the hardest to accept probably... but then I think of one of my old grandma's friends who was as dumb as a cow about understanding the rules of any cards games they played, and yet always managed to make her cards work and win those games at the end... and make everybody else at the table angry ).

 

[Li Shenron]

On an ideal world, sure Bard should cast with Int as a wizard, however this is the same case as the paladin, the reason to switch the casting stat from Int/Wis to Cha is to reduce MAD.

I have to admit I've never quite made my mind up about the problem of MAD.

On one hand, I seriously dislike dump stats. I really would like a game where there is truly no dump stat, and every stat is going to be useful, thus if you choose to dump one you're always going to pay for it.

Therefore I actually like having class abilities governed by different stats. I don't mind 3e Paladins to need Wisdom for spells, Charisma for several special abilities, and Strength for combat. It bothers me more that most Paladin can dump Intelligence and even Dexterity with impunity, than they "need" three stats for their class features. IMHO the problem is in the players' minds, that they think they need to max some stats or the character will be too weak.

A real problem is rather in the disparity between classes, so if the Bard is designed in a way that too many high stats are needed to even enable some features (I don't think that's the case in 5e, but it was the case for spells in 3e), while other classes get away with one stat governing all their important features, then I agree that this is unfair.