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

[Sword of Spirit]

Hmm...according the L&L article it seems that Cha is going to be the primary stat associated with bards, so it would make sense to base their spellcasting on it. I do wonder about the fluff. As a full caster with their own spell-list, I just don't see them picking up spells haphazardly in their travels. I get the idea that there is going to be a strong bardic magic tradition.

I'm expecting that, in addition to the minstrel and war-bard sorts of subclasses we're seeing in the current abandoned bard, we'll also see a loremaster type of bard. Since bardic music/performance appears to no longer be a class feature, but they get full spellcasting, my prediction is that bardic music is going to be moved directly into spells. We'll see things like song of courage or fascinating song right in their spell list. Since they have more spell slots as a full caster, they will have more uses of those abilities than they would were this done as a half-caster.

This is actually a pretty cool way of doing things, since it means that those players who want a musical bard can select the musical spells they want, while those who want to pattern a bard more as a Merlin-like loremaster-magician, can simply not take any music spells, and still have the benefit of being a full-caster.

It's a class that is still up in the air for me, but I'm hoping it comes out as a great and flexible re-envisioning of the class that makes it more appealing to a lot of player. And I'm someone who normally doesn't like re-envisioning D&D classes, so that's saying something.

 

[Sadrik]

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.

Stats and needs
Fighter STR
Rogue DEX
Barbarian STR possibly CON too
Monk STR, DEX and WIS (This will be the worst effective class)

Paladin STR and CHA
Ranger DEX and WIS
Warlock CHA (but should probably be WIS)

Wizard INT
Cleric WIS and CHA (Would like to see just CHA on this)
Druid WIS
Bard CHA and INT (Would like to see just INT on this one though...)
Sorcerer CHA

Any disagreements on these?

 

[GX.Sigma]

Since when do Monks need Strength?

Since when do Clerics need Charisma?

Since when do Bards need Intelligence?

 

[gyor]

Stats and needs
Fighter STR
Rogue DEX
Barbarian STR possibly CON too
Monk STR, DEX and WIS (This will be the worst effective class)

Paladin STR and CHA
Ranger DEX and WIS
Warlock CHA (but should probably be WIS)

Wizard INT
Cleric WIS and CHA (Would like to see just CHA on this)
Druid WIS
Bard CHA and INT (Would like to see just INT on this one though...)
Sorcerer CHA

Any disagreements on these?

Build dependant. One could technically build a Paladin that uses finese weapons in which case they may pick dex over strength for example.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

No it's more like:

Fighter: STR or DEX and CON
Barbarian: STR or DEX (HawkTotem) and CON
Paladin: STR or DEX and CHA
Ranger:STR or DEX and WIS
Monk: DEX and WIS

Because in all cases Finesse weapons can be used over normal weapons. There's less of a need for any of those classes to have a high STR. Monk's Unarmed Strike counts as a finesse weapon, which means that DEX can be used for the attack bonus and the damage bonus.

 

[Li Shenron]

Any disagreements on these?

Since when do Monks need Strength?

Since when do Clerics need Charisma?

Since when do Bards need Intelligence?

Build dependant. One could technically build a Paladin that uses finese weapons in which case they may pick dex over strength for example.

I don't have the playtest rules at hand, so I cannot do the following at the moment, but if someone else wants to...

To assess MAD levels and discrepancies between classes, what I would do first, is check only what ability scores explicitly affect non-optional class features.

For example, for the 3e Paladin, Wisdom directly affects spells (max level of spells you can cast, bonus spells per day, spells DC), Charisma directly affects Turn Undead, Lay on Hands, Divine Grace and Smite Evil. Among these, I would also check when the ability scores are true enabler of a certain ability: Turn Undead and Smite Evil don't require a minimum Charisma score, while the other three do. It can be argued that being weak at something is in practical terms almost as bad as being unable at something, but to me there is still a significant difference between unlikely and impossible (at least the difference in feel is huge between "I have this class ability, but it won't work often" and "I have this class ability, but I cannot use it at all").

Separately, I would think which other ability scores are typically supposed to be high for such characters. Most Paladins are melee warriors, hence Strength is usually assumed. But it's different from the previous case, because this is rather an ability score that has synergy with the rest of the class features (Paladin have good weapon and armor proficiencies, and lots of hit points, so they make among the best melee) but is not explicitly needed by any class feature. Indeed Paladins make almost as good archers as Rangers or Barbarians, it's mostly because of a traditional image that people think Rangers should be archers and Paladins should be sword and board. Similarly, people expect Rogues to have as many skills as possible, therefore they consider high Int a must-have, but it really doesn't have to be (this is typically a consequence of the bad habit of seeing each PC in a vacuum, instead of seeing her as a member of a party).

In other words, I would make a distinction between ability scores that are strictly required to be even able to use some class features, those which determine the magnitude of effect of class features (but no minimum score is required), and those which only determine the magnitude of effect of non-class specific mechanics that people expect that class to use.

 

[Sadrik]

Since when do Monks need Strength?

Since when do Clerics need Charisma?

Since when do Bards need Intelligence?

Build dependant. One could technically build a Paladin that uses finese weapons in which case they may pick dex over strength for example.

No it's more like:

Fighter: STR or DEX and CON
Barbarian: STR or DEX (HawkTotem) and CON
Paladin: STR or DEX and CHA
Ranger:STR or DEX and WIS
Monk: DEX and WIS

Because in all cases Finesse weapons can be used over normal weapons. There's less of a need for any of those classes to have a high STR. Monk's Unarmed Strike counts as a finesse weapon, which means that DEX can be used for the attack bonus and the damage bonus.

So the warrior type classes have the option of going DEX or STR. Also I did not notice this before but the turn undead feature is based on WIS now and not CHA. for the Bard I said INT too because of Bardic Knowledge.

I am a fan of packaging all of the Caster classes features into one stat because it is important that when designing that character to be able to do something else other than just cast effectively. Hence I like the Paladin and cleric change. Though I would have moved both of them to CHA, and not just the paladin. In this way all three granted power classes would align (Warlock, Cleric and Paladin) as CHA based casting classes.

Let me revise:
Fighter STR/DEX
Rogue DEX (and could do STR but not as effective, DEX can never be a dump stat)
Barbarian STR/DEX and CON
Monk STR/DEX and WIS

Paladin STR/DEX and CHA (Paladin moved spellcasting to CHA, Cleric should too)
Ranger STR/DEX and WIS
Warlock CHA (but should probably be WIS, unless Cleric moved to CHA, then CHA)

Wizard INT
Cleric WIS (Would like to see CHA on this)
Druid WIS
Bard CHA and INT (Would like to see just INT on this one though...)
Sorcerer CHA (If the granted power classes were all CHA I could see this going to WIS or even CON!)

 

[Sadrik]

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.

You make an excellent point here. Due to the lower math in the game. Stats will make a massive impact on the actual outcomes in skills and the areas that characters will be competent at. Example, should the sorcerer be the face of the party or should the cleric/paladin/warlock? I think they should, just another reason to move cleric spellcasting to CHA. I think the Bard should be one of the smartest and most knowledgeable guys in the party so INT makes the most sense here for me. Rangers and Druids the most perceptive so WIS makes sense to me. A very good way of looking at this! Kudos