D&D 5E Defining Traits of the D&D classes

[Remathilis]

This is the thread where we begin to discuss what traits do we need to define a class.

A Couple Ground rules:

1) We work under the assumption that all the PHB1 classes are going to be in the Next PHB as full classes, no exceptions.
2) Right now, we don't need to worry about the core-four (fighter, cleric, wizard, rogue). They are defined right now. We can still discuss sorcerer and warlock using what we know so far.
3) Different classes are defined slightly differently to different editions and players. We want to as inclusive as possible.

Now, how do we execute this?

My initial thoughts

Assassin: To me, an assassin has three defining traits that make them different than a rogue: death attack, poison use, and shadow/illusion magic. An assassin isn't going to have the skill mastery or schemes a rogue does, but I think he can make up for that with these three traits. I'd like to see death attack be threshold-based. For example, a 1st level assassin can 1-shot a foe if he has surprise and the foe is below 10 hp. As he gains levels, this threshold rises. If he fails to kill the foe (more hp than threshold) the attack could be a reduced SA (like 1/2 damage dice of a rogue) or just normal attack. This makes assassins great at taking out mooks and weaker foes, but unlikely to one-shot boss monsters.

Barbarian: Rage, rage, rage. I'd like to see rage grant different abilities. A whirling dervish could make multiple attacks, a berserker can make single devastating blows, a hulk-like rager could gain DR and defensive bonuses. I also wouldn't mind seeing some of the warden in here with being able to draw off spirit totems and the land to grant defense and supernatural senses.

Bard: I've heard "Celtic" roots for this class. Makes me think we'll see less troubadour and more druidic bards. I'd like to see them comfortably fill that "leader" role; able to grant allies bonuses and boons. I'd also like to see them the best diplomat at the game.

Paladin: I'd like to see a virtue system in play. A paladin picks a virtue that defines his focus and abilities. A paladin of "honor" is traditional LG paladin. A paladin of piety serves a deity. A paladin of duty is more knight-like and a defender. A paladin of justice is all smitely and loves to take the fight to foes. We can even add vices later for those who want to serve evil.

Warlord: I looked back at the marshal (the 3e proto warlord) and think the idea of auras is worth revising. A warlord grants auras that give benefits to allies. He also can grant extra movement, temporary hit points, extra attacks, and re-rolls on saves and attacks. Alternately, if he uses a variant of the fighter's CS, then he could grant allies uses of his CS dice.

A few ideas off the top of my head. Yours?

 

[Lanefan]

Assassin: To me, an assassin has three defining traits that make them different than a rogue: death attack, poison use, and shadow/illusion magic. An assassin isn't going to have the skill mastery or schemes a rogue does, but I think he can make up for that with these three traits. I'd like to see death attack be threshold-based. For example, a 1st level assassin can 1-shot a foe if he has surprise and the foe is below 10 hp. As he gains levels, this threshold rises. If he fails to kill the foe (more hp than threshold) the attack could be a reduced SA (like 1/2 damage dice of a rogue) or just normal attack. This makes assassins great at taking out mooks and weaker foes, but unlikely to one-shot boss monsters.

Looks good but I'd rather have the "threshold" be level/HD based than h.p. based - an assassin can one-shot a foe of equal or lower level/HD given surprise and a successful to-hit roll.

Bard: I've heard "Celtic" roots for this class. Makes me think we'll see less troubadour and more druidic bards. I'd like to see them comfortably fill that "leader" role; able to grant allies bonuses and boons. I'd also like to see them the best diplomat at the game.

Celtic roots are fine, I'd also like to see some reference to the Norse Skald; I'm sure that'll be easy enough to re-skin.

Ranger: defining traits are:
1. tracking, herblore, woodscraft
2. toughness - main stat should be Con.
3. relatively simple fighting techniques (i.e. no 2-weapon tripe or fancy-pants maneuvers) but very good at these basics
4. hunter's weapons only to start with - spear, bow, axe, simple sword

Lanefan

 

[MoonSong]

Bard: A bard should feel musical, and not only fluffwise. If Next a Bard doesn't get to do anything meaningful with a lute or by singing, then something will be very wrong. Poetics, songs, melodies, these are the soul of the bard. However please don't fall in the same trap as PF bards, perform skills easily lend themselves to improvisation, codifying them actually detracts from their potential.
A bard will also be a natural dabbler knowing a little about many different subjects. But I'd rather have it as an interesting mechanic as in 3.x than the boring +3 to some skills from 4th edition or the cold and clinic codification of PF.

Really, IMHO PF has the worst version possible of the bard, to me the best to worse version of the bard are in order:
-Second Edition
-A tie between 3.5 and 4e
-Never played or seen it in action, but if I had to guess, 1st edition Bard goes here
-3.0
-BECMI and similars
-PF

 

[Steely_Dan]

Bard: Charm abilities/spells, decent with weapons, inspirational goodies.

Druid: Change into animals, cast elemental/weather-related spells, speak with animals and plants, wilderness movement, etc.

Monk: No need for armour, enhanced unarmed strike, dodge missiles/breath weapons/areas of effect, enhanced speed, limited self-healing, resistance to psychic damage/mental probing etc.

Paladin: Anti-fiend (demons, devils, yugoloths) abilities (smiting), divinely enhanced saves/defences, protective aura.

Ranger: Tracking, survival, hunting, wilderness movement, specialise in fighting certain monster types (from their hood).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Bard: Warrior poet. And ADnD 2nd edition magic dilletante.
I believe with the current class design, both bard archetypes have a place in the PHB.

 

[Minigiant]

Assassin
Death Attack. Some way to kill enemies before hitting 0 HP.
Poison usage
Disguise usage- Through skill and/or magic

Barbarian
Toughness- Largest HD available
Rage- A special mode while deadliness is cranked up.
Basic survival skill

Ranger
Wilderness survival essentials- self medication, climate endurance, dealing with animals, plants, weather, disaster, and natural traps
Tracking
Warrior stats- better than d6 HD, all weapons, some armor
Roguish skills- either extra skills or stronger skills.
Monster slaying

 

[FireLance]

Paladin: I'd like to see a virtue system in play. A paladin picks a virtue that defines his focus and abilities. A paladin of "honor" is traditional LG paladin. A paladin of piety serves a deity. A paladin of duty is more knight-like and a defender. A paladin of justice is all smitely and loves to take the fight to foes. We can even add vices later for those who want to serve evil.

First off, I like the idea of piety as a virtue for paladins of a deity!

What I'd really like to see for paladins in 5e is a return to the idea that the paladin's actions have an effect on his abilities. However, I would like to avoid the extremes that we have seen in the past: a paladin shouldn't be allowed to do whatever he wants (4e), but neither should paladins just be faced with just one big stick, namely, loss of all abilities (3e and earlier).

Ideally, there should be smaller sticks, and some carrots, too. For example, for a paladin of valor, fleeing from a fight might impose a penalty to the effectiveness of his paladin abilities (maybe he loses his class bonus to magic attacks until he can atone). On the other hand, continuing to fight while he is at less than half hit points might grant him a bonus to damage. This bonus could increase further when he is at less than one-quarter his hit points.

This could make playing a paladin a bit more complicated than basic classes like the fighter and the cleric - some of the less straightforward virtues would require some judgement calls on the part of the DM - but I think this is something that would be truer to the tropes of the class, and it is something that should be called out upfront, so that paladin players (and their DMs, and the rest of the gaming group) know what they are getting themselves into.

 

[Mattachine]

Warlock:
magic of great power but limited scope
gradual trading of one's soul for power
supernaturally tough

Monk:
mystic warrior
combination of unarmed/unarmored martial arts with mystic powers
best saves/survival of all classes

Psion:
psychic powers/magic
best at telekinesis, telepathy

 

[1of3]

Barbarians like to get hurt, they get better that way. They can choose totems to get special abilities. (Spider - climb, Hare - land speed, Lion - intimidate...) Supernatural totems bestow supernatural powers. That way players can customize how magical they want their character to be.

Rangers are better against foes with certain traits (fire creatures, undead, large creatures, reptiles & dragons, spellcasters, fae & elves & gnomes...). There was a very cool proposal on the WotC boards for linking Favored Enemy to special abilities. They can also spend an action to get bonuses against a single foe they do not favor. Spellcasting should be an option.

 

[Li Shenron]

Assassin: To me, an assassin has three defining traits that make them different than a rogue: death attack, poison use, and shadow/illusion magic.

I think these are ok but maybe still a bit too weak/few concepts for a full class.

Especially Poison... unfortunately D&D always makes poison just "bonus damage" (at least it was ability damage in 3ed, but since a lot of DMs cannot manage that, it will be just extra HP damage in 5e). How is that really going to be different from the Rogue's sneak attack or the Fighter's deadly strike. Of course there is some practical difference (sneak attack being situational, first and foremost), but there is however the risk that Poison is just another damage source. Boring...

The problem with the Poison concept is that it really shines only as a plot device, but unfortunately this makes it great for a villain to use but unlikely to work for a PC.

At the same time death attack is a-ok... but again it has to be significantly different from sneak attack to make sense. It could be a save-or-die ability, but again this is one of those things that 5e wants to stay away from.

Barbarian: Rage, rage, rage. I'd like to see rage grant different abilities. A whirling dervish could make multiple attacks, a berserker can make single devastating blows, a hulk-like rager could gain DR and defensive bonuses. I also wouldn't mind seeing some of the warden in here with being able to draw off spirit totems and the land to grant defense and supernatural senses.

Agree on everything, these are cool ideas and shouldn't even be that hard to design!

Bard: I've heard "Celtic" roots for this class. Makes me think we'll see less troubadour and more druidic bards. I'd like to see them comfortably fill that "leader" role; able to grant allies bonuses and boons. I'd also like to see them the best diplomat at the game.

This is fairly traditional, and I like it.

I have thought before that, instead of having to design another vancian variant (seems mandatory at the moment for 2 spellcasters to have at least slightly different mechanics) and another spell list, it might be nice to conceive the bard as someone who has access to everybody's spell lists to represent his "stray knowledge" of magic.

It might actually be as simple as Bard casting rituals (which is itself a mechanic, but apparently nobody has anything against it being shared by different classes) and only rituals, but can pick his known rituals from anybody else's spell list. Maybe even the additional, unique ability to turn any spell into a ritual, while others can only cast as rituals spells that explicitly allow so.

Paladin: I'd like to see a virtue system in play. A paladin picks a virtue that defines his focus and abilities. A paladin of "honor" is traditional LG paladin. A paladin of piety serves a deity. A paladin of duty is more knight-like and a defender. A paladin of justice is all smitely and loves to take the fight to foes. We can even add vices later for those who want to serve evil.

I like this idea a lot, I think you've already written this in another thread... but also see next.

Warlord: I looked back at the marshal (the 3e proto warlord) and think the idea of auras is worth revising. A warlord grants auras that give benefits to allies. He also can grant extra movement, temporary hit points, extra attacks, and re-rolls on saves and attacks. Alternately, if he uses a variant of the fighter's CS, then he could grant allies uses of his CS dice.

Warlord is too weak of a concept to be a class of its own. Auras are a great idea but work best if magical, both because you have many more design options for them and because they require less suspension of disbelief from players. Therefore auras should really be the defining mechanic of Paladins!

The rest of the Warlord stuff should better become feats so that we can again have a leader fighter, but also a leader ranger, a leader rogue, a leader wizard, and everybody else...

In conclusion, your assumption 1) really needs to be eliminated.