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

[steeldragons]

Assassin
Defining Trait: Death/insta-kill attack.
Using poison, a garrotte, or just stabbin' away, through stealth, disguise or shadow-ninja magic, the Assassin needs be able to get close to their target and have a decent chance to slay [or put a massive hurt on] it with minimal muss or fuss.
-Shadow magic is not a "defining trait", to me, of an Assassin class. But should definitely exist as a Specialty for those who want a shadow-walking/magic assassin (or shadow-magic mage/bard/warlock or whoever).
-Poison knowledge, use, making, and CURING (what self-respecting assassin uses a poison they don't have antidote for?). This is a trait that should be built in to the class, just not the defining one.
-Stealth, Disguise, & Spying (perception/spot bonus?) should all be built in to the class.

Barbarian (as stipulated by the Ground Rules of the thread)
Defining Trait: Rage.
Flavor it as spirit/totem/whatevers, flavor it as "getting mad" or "hulking* out", flavor doesn't really matter/can be whatever you want ("savage tribesman", "nordic warrior", "aristocrat with anger management issues", whatever). Barbarians "rage", that's what they do. No Conan, this. Damage bonus is assured, some temp HP/DR probably too. That about does it, that's all the "Barbarian" has to offer. The rest is in the flavoring which the book ought not be defining for us.
-If they ARE going to flavor it a bit, to at least enough to say they are not from "civilized regions", then some Survival/Wilderness abilities, heightened senses maybe, maybe some hunting or traps stuff, that sort of thing. But these need not, necessarily, be built into the class and would vary based on flavor/background/etc...
* In which case the Marvel legal department would like a word with you.

Bard
Defining Trait: Magical Music/Voice.
I'm all for a return to the Celtic flavor. Druidic magic already allows some of the bolstering, minor healing, and enchantment magics that would be useful. Throw in a few illusions and you're golden.
-Note I also believe the Bard ought not be considered or presented as a "primary caster" class but a secondary/partial magic-using class. In short, they ARE the Jack-of-all-trades who are essentially the "Secondary Everyman". Need an extra sword in the melee, the bard can use one. Need a lil' healing afterwards? The Bard's got it. Need to pick a lock? "I might be able to figure that out for ye." she said with her charming crooked grin. They have their magical songs and verses they have learned in their training but, while certain experienced bards might very well be sages, they are not "wizards."
-A specialty to allow for the Skald build is definitely warranted.
-A specialty allowing for a more Arcane based build is warranted. But I would be very pleased to see the Bard defaulted to [mostly] Druidic magic again.
-Decent arms use, limited spell use, limited rogue abilities (going unnoticed is just as important as getting the attention of the whole room , info gathering, nature/political/geographic knowledge and lore stuff should all be skills built into the class. Then present a bevy of other specialties and skills for the Bard to choose from as they increase levels and broaden the Bard's base of skills.

Druid
Defining Trait: Nature Magic.
Simple. Done.
-Specialty for those who want it all about Shapeshifting.
-Specialty for those who want it all about animal companions and/or summoning.

Monk
Defining Trait: Mystic abilities of mind and body.
Asian, not Asain, kung-fu panda or shaolin showdown, the Monk needs to be given the abilities, that might be flavored as mundane skills/training, psionic powers, or intense spiritual, mental and bodily discipline, the Monk needs to be able to do what other non-Monks can not: surviving falls, "deadly" poisons, diseases, resisting charms/illusions and other mental effects, moving/jumping with [what appears to be] inhuman speed/distances, etc. I do think that the "unarmed" thing should be taken out of the Monk default. Simple weapons, a la spears and staves, swords and bows, should be allowed if not preferred.
-Specialty to do the extra-mental/psionic/mystic powers.
-Specialty for purely "unarmed" combat.

Paladin
Defining Trait: Channel Divinity.
To use the already established mechanic, filter the Paladin's abilities all through Channel Divinity. Flavor, again, is irrelevant. If you want it to be "ideals" or "virtues" instead of an actual deity, go for it. Call the mechanic ""Channel Spirit" or "Channel Virtue", flavor it as THEIR Divinity as opposed to some OUTSIDE divinity, or whatever makes you feel better. But the default Paladin should not be built into/around a "Virtue system" or "Vows" or "Lawful Gods" or what have you. Immunity/cure disease, laying on hands, protective auras, detecting "evil", turning undead, even charging up their weapons for some good ole fashioned Smiting, all easily explained with channeling energies they have access to (however you want to define them) through themselves for various effects.
-Cavalier specialty for those who want to work the Sacred Mount thing.
-Some specialty for those who want actual Divine Spell Use in their Paladin. (though we have already heard, somewhere around here, that Paladins and Rangers WILL likely be built/defaulted with spell use...which I will immediately ignore/write out, naturally.)

Psion
Defining Trait: Psychic powers.
Put'em in plate or leather, giv'em a dagger or a two-handed sword, it's not gonna matter as soon as they reach out with their mind to yours. Fear (or any other emotion), illusions, imposing paralysis, communication, moving things without touching them, moving themselves, arms and armor don't matter... Unless you can shut down the Psion's mind, your mind (and possibly your body as well) is screwed. Default them to having a combo of telepathic and telekinetic based powers.
-Specialty to allow for heavy armor and weaponry for a Psychic Warrior/Jedi guy.
-Specialties for other Psychic archetypes: Medium (for communing with spirits/the dead, talking to animals, etc...), a Pyrotechnic (no telepathy but telekinesis that only creates/effects fire), a Telepath (no telekinesis for uber communicative and mind-f*ing powers), Empath (no direct "thoughts" stuff but master of sensing, changing and imposing emotions), etc.

Ranger
Defining Trait: Tracking.
Whether they have a wolf or panther or not, are really good at killing goblins vs. giants or surviving/moving through mountains vs. forests, whether they know some "survivalist magic" or not, the Ranger can track. They can find the signs and notice the details that others (even other trackers or woodsmen or hunters) will miss. They WILL find you.
-Favored Enemy gets wrapped up/written into Favored Terrain and get built into the class. Special movement (either a bonus or just not being penalized for difficult terrain), stealth/hiding bonuses in that terrain, attack bonus in that terrain against any foe?
-Stealth (anywhere), herbal/natural/mundane healing, and animal/plant/local regional lore should all be built into the class.
-Magic Use, either druidic or arcane AND Animal companions should be achievable options/optional builds through specialties. NOT written into the default of the class. Fighting styles (the whole "archer v. dual-wielder" stuff) should be easily achievable through options, NOT built in to the class.*
*I very much like Lanefan's idea of going back to "hunting weapons" defaults. But I doubt we'd ever see that again.

Sorcerer
Defining Trait: "I gotz magik in me bonz!" Ok, ok. I'll be nice...Spontaneous Arcane caster.
Sorcerers cast arcane spells spontaneously. That's what they've got. Apparently they are also allowed to run around in armor, use weapons and will turn into dragons or fairies or gods know what else. We already know how this is being done. So there's that.

Warlock
Defining Trait: At-will magical (arcane) Powers gained through a Pact.
The warlock, more than any other primary-caster class has magic at their fingertips. They are able to channel/invoke their powers at will...and maintain their end of their "bargain" with their "patron" entity while they do so or risk having their powers revoked. Again, we've already seen how this is being implemented, so there's the Warlock.

Warlord
Defining Trait: There simply isn't one. Not one that can't be tacked on to any other class. "I'm an inspirational leader." THAT'S the Warlord's shtick. And frankly, it is not strong enough to warrant its own class. Any class should be able to be a warlord (small "w") through a specialty. THAT SAID, again, deferring to the "Ground Rules" of the thread that it WILL be included we have to come up with SOMEthing usable...how 'bout...
"Inspiring Presence".
Similar to the mechanic for the Paladin, all of the Warlord's abilities exist and are filtered/deployed through this Inspiring Presence. Bolster against fear or confusion effects, imbue with temp HP/DR (instead of actual "yell healing" you just start with more HP if the warlord "works you up for the battle?), inspired to bonuses to attacks or damage somehow? All done through the inspiring aura of the Warlord and his oh so inspiring self. If this IS going to be a class, I'd like to see some kind of limitation/danger to it...Like a Paladin losing their connection to their powers, a Warlord who somehow looses their confidence or suffers enough CHA damage or something, can no longer "inspire" folks as well as they used to, if at all.

Did I miss anyone...these class posts get longer and longer...and that wasn't even with the "Big 4." What is that?...with the 4, that's 15. That is skirting way too many classes for a beginner imho. Geebuz. How huge IS this PHB going to be?!

Anyway, fun as always. I love this kinda stuff. Hope there's SOMEthing for everyone in there someplace and no one feels like their preferences are being left out.
--SD

 

[Steely_Dan]

About the Psion, I want it straight out of the gate, or not at all, lest it be the redheaded deal.

 

[Remathilis]

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

Assumption 1 is there to prevent this from degenerating into a X is/isn't a class thread.

 

[Obryn]

Warlord is too weak of a concept to be a class of its own.

Warlord
Defining Trait: There simply isn't one. Not one that can't be tacked on to any other class.

People keep saying this as if it's established truth or fact. I think it's nonsense.

Rangers and paladins have as much distinction from fighters as Warlords do. Fighter should not be, "Anyone who swings a weapon around," and Warlord shouldn't be, "We'll just tack a few things onto the Fighter..."

The militaristic leader who enhances their party through tactics and inspiration is a very strong archetype present in enough fiction (both books and movies) with enough interesting mechanical aspects to warrant a full class of its own. If other classes want those sorts of perks, they can do the same thing any class that wants, say, Wizard spells can do - multiclass to pick them up.

-O

 

[ferratus]

Assassin: I agree with Mearls that sneak attack is an assassin ability rather than 'roguish" per se. So if sneak attack remains in the rogue's stable, then you might as well make the assassin a scheme or specialty of the rogue. I do not agree that shadow magic and illusions are necessary for the assassin, and I hated non-executioner 4e rogues because of it.

Barbarian: Personally, I want this to be a background/beserker fighter specialization. Being a fighter who goes berserk just isn't enough to build a class around. 4e had totem and primal powers, which at least justified another class, but you can't make Conan with that. I suppose someone could come up with new mechanics to justify it, ala the sorcerer, but they have to be pretty good mechanics for me to give a fig leaf about it. I do agree though that rage and some wilderness skill makes an iconic barbarian.

Bard: Lose the jack of all trades aspect, and double down on abilities that give him prophecy, lore, enchantment spells, and satirizing his opponents so they lose their power.

Cleric: I really wish clerics weren't vancian casters, but invokers of miracles. One person described the wizard as being someone who was sitting on a bomb, but that isn't the wizard to me. That's the cleric, because he is invoking the power of a god. So I'd like the cleric to be primarily a ritual based caster for his blessings and healing, with a few level-disproportionate big booms that may not go off.

Druid: Druid doesn't really need to change much. Shape-changing, terrain control, and weather. Can pretty much function as he always has. Could be a variant cleric, but I'd rather see him as a variant wizard ala the warlock and sorcerer, with a little bit of healing.

Fighter Combat superiority dice and fighting styles seem to have this well in hand.

Paladin A paladin is essentially a hybrid class of a pious fighter and a martial cleric. If 5e has hybrid classes like 4e did, this is where it should probably show up. Mearls also mentioned prestige classes, and this might be a good candidate for that as well. If however it only has the flavour text and mechanics that 1e-4e gave us, he doesn't really justify his own class.

Ranger: A ranger has to be self-sufficient and is the true jack of all trades. Anything that allows the ranger to survive on his own without other party members is what a ranger needs to have. If he is merely a wilderness fighter, then he doesn't really justify class status.

Rogue/Thief He should live the steal, look for every opportunity to cheat, and be a slippery, sneaky, no good bastard. This should colour everything he does, including fighting. No whirling light blade dervishes of death please. That's the assassin.

Sorcerer: The bloodlines are pretty cool, so that seems to be done. Should be kept for the advanced player's guide though, since it is not strictly necessary.

Wizard: Vancian casting is D&D. I wish we could abolish spell levels though, and just have spells modified by how powerful the wizard is. Even utility spells aren't impossible to fit if you combine a few together. (ie. feather fall, levitate, and fly could all be the same spell, growing in power as the wizard levels up).

Warlock: Like the pacts and rituals of this class, but the 5 minute spellcasting doesn't really make sense for the flavour text. I'd like this class to be the at-will spellcasting class again, with ritual hexes and curses. I also wouldn't mind a little more subtlety than the eldritch blast. Also a candidate for an advanced player's guide.

Warlord: Another candidate for the advanced player's guide, but auras are all wrong for the warlord. They should just be good at telling others what to do, and then people get bonuses to what they are doing when they obey. I don't see why anyone wouldn't just use the 4e version, which worked really well. The mechanic is also simple enough that it could fit in a cross-crass speciality (like the soldier) which I also really like. I would love to see cleric warlords and ranger warlords.

 

[slobster]

I'll take a crack at one of my favorite newcomers, the warlord.

Warlords aren't necessarily inspirational leaders, though many are. They aren't always in positions of ultimate authority either; the general of an army could be a warlord, but so could his strategic adviser or his battle standard bearer. The warlord is defined by his devotion to the art of combat, his understanding of the ebb and flow of conflict. Whether through mastery of tactics, or the inspiration of his allies, or the ability to out-think and out-guess his opponents, the warlord's leads his allies to victory through his mastery of the art of war.

Just for the sake of argument, let's give the warlord combat superiority (CS) dice just like the fighter. Let's also assume that these refresh at the end of the warlord's turn rather than at the beginning.

When he starts out, the warlord gets a single d6 CS die just like the fighter, but unlike the fighter he can't use that dice himself. Instead, he may use it any time when an ally is making an attack to add 1d6 to their damage total. This represents his ability to read an opponent and point out a weakness in their defense, or his ability to exhort his allies into great acts of heroism.

Because of its name and its pedigree, I see the warlord as being the class that most emphasizes the tactical aspects of combat, for the player who enjoys that sort of thing. The class has to offer meaningful decisions and conditional benefits to reward tactical play.

The following are leadership styles, a mirror of the fighting styles chosen by fighters.

Wolf-Pack Tactics: Spend a CS die during your turn as an action. A target ally harries one adjacent enemy, opening holes in its defenses that can be exploited. The next attack made against that enemy is made with advantage. If more than one ally is currently adjacent to the enemy, one of those other allies may immediately make a melee attack against the enemy as he presses his deadly advantage.

A Gap in their Defenses: Spend a CS die at any time during an ally's turn. While they move this round they do not provoke attacks of opportunity.

Hold the Line: You gird yourself and your allies for the enemies' inevitable attack. Spend and roll a CS die on your turn as a free action. You, any adjacent ally, and any ally adjacent to an ally that this ability affects, gains a number of temporary hp equal to the number you rolled. Once an ally benefits from this ability he may not benefit again for the rest of the encounter.

Sever the Serpent's Head: You identify a single dangerous foe and instruct your allies to bring it down fast. Spend a CS die at any time as a free action. Target an enemy. Until you regain that CS die, attacks that hit that enemy roll damage twice and take the better result. If the targeted enemy dies while this ability is active, and that enemy had a position of authority or power over the rest of the enemies in this encounter, then the remaining foes must immediately make a morale check with a penalty equal to your charisma modifier or break.

(I realize that the last one used morale rules, which we aren't sure will exist, but I was just brainstorming. If we do end up with morale rules, a warlord seems like a good place to include some interactions. Maybe he should even have a passive ability that imposes a penalty on all morale checks enemies make!)

There you go. Far more tactical-minded than other classes in the playtest so far, but I think it fits. Maybe others can come up with some ways to clean it up a little bit so that it meshes better with theater-of-the-mind play, but as it currently is I think it could make the transition and still be playable. It's obviously built on the CS chassy pioneered by the fighter, and I'm curious if that works for people or if it needs its own schtick.

 

[Remathilis]

I was thinking more about the warlock/sorcerer/wizard split, specifically about traditions vs. origin vs. pact.

A tradition is a way magic is cast. It can be a specialization (conjurer, necromancer) or a method (warmage, shadow mage). There can be a lot of option opened up easily (for example, the warmage specialty focuses on evocations and other damage spells, and grants better weapons and armor.) The trick is that a tradition is a way of casting, not a source of power. A generalist wizard and a warmage cast the same spells, but one focuses differently.

A Sorcery Origin should be semi-sentient and transformational. I could see origins beyond draconic in elemental, chaos/wild magic, and pure arcana. Warlock pacts should be "sentient" in nature: demonic/fiendish, fey, star/aberrant, archon, etc. I can see some overlap later on: a warlock may make a pact with a dragon or a sorcerer could have a demonic bloodline. As long as they are "different", I don't mind some overlap.

 

[Moon_Goddess]

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

If you disagree with the rules of the thread why did you even post in here?

 

[tuxgeo]

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

Your "begin to discuss" description cannot be right, because this same discussion has already been going on for months. (I've already suggested ideas about the Sorcerer in at least two earlier threads. . . .)

A Couple Ground rules:
< snip >
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.

Assassin: Like a "sleeper agent," the Assassin must be "activated": she will kill on a mission when given a valid command, or for pay, or both.
Such commands and/or contracts to kill aren't always available, so the Assassin needs to have something else to do while waiting.
Also, an Assassin sometimes kills by means of infiltration, so each Assassin needs a verifiable identity as a member of some other class, complete with history of actions and all of the weapon and armor proficiencies that would make each Assassin believable as a member of such a class. (If the Captain of the Guard says, "Let the clerics into the keep, but don't let any assassins in, whatever you do," then you're golden.)
Defining class feature: "Cover Class": The Assassin class does not specify weapon and armor proficiencies. At time of character creation, select any class other than Assassin: your new Assassin character gains the weapon and armor proficiencies of that class (and perhaps the appropriate casting ability?), and counts as a member of that class for purposes of meeting any prerequisites that require such membership.
Other class features: The Assassin class provides +1 to the character's Charisma score to help to sell ("Bluff") membership in the Cover Class.
[That's not enough features to make a full class list; but the request was for the defining characteristic, not for the whole list.]
- Possible Specialty: Poison-user.
- Possible Specialty: Shadow-magic.

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.

Barbarian: "Inability to speak Greek?" [Yeah, I got nothing.]

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.

Bard: Composer. (Oh, alright: "Singer-Songwriter" -- is that better?)
Defining class feature: Musical Skills:
• Improvisation (tricks, techniques, and years of practice)
• Musical Lore (e.g. Major/Minor Scales; Chords; Progressions; Keys; Modes; Tempos; etc.)
• Poetic Lore (e.g. Metrical Patterns; Rhyme Schemes; Alliteration; Lyric/Balladic/Epic styles; Couplets, Limericks, Sonnets; etc.)

Druid: What Steely_Dan said in post #4 .

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.

Paladin: Rigid values. Ability to "Detect Intransigence" at-will. Even a better diplomat than the Bard -- who's somewhere else writing satires.

Ranger: What Lanefan said in post #2 . (Aragorn more that Drizzt.)

Warlock: Needs changing from the current Playtest, but At-Will Eldritchment is traditional for this class. That needn't force its defining feature to be at-will spells, though, because some other classes already get those too. (Cleric, Wizard.)

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: (Yarb. Can we change the name of this yet? The concept is great, but even some 4E fans mocked that name. . . . Sure, we don't want to call it the "Bandicoot," and "Synergist" is too vague, but there has to be some better name for it somewhere. Maybe "Prohort?" Related to both "Cohort" and "Exhort," each of which is related to inciting action.)
Defining class feature: All of the ones listed above (auras, movement, temp. HP, attacks, re-rolls), except for the CS dice. Let's leave CS dice to the fighter.

 

[GreyICE]

The defining trait of a Warlord in Inspiration. He leads his allies by example, raising their spirits and increasing their power. Warlords are the ones who, when the army is routing, stand firm and rally a defense that seizes victory from the jaws of defeat. Warlords are the one who lead their men by example, the bravest, the brightest, the best.

Bards may inspire people by singing songs of their glory. Warlords inspire people with a few growled words and a vicious cut of their sword that shows where the monster is vulnerable.

Key mechanics of inspiration:

Inspiring Word - Mandatory. You don't have a warlord without this feature available.

Presence - Probably could be pared down, and if they're removing action points (why...) they could easily make it key off something else. Critical hits? Or just make it an aura.

Strike Direction - Allowing other party members to make strikes, or making strikes auto-crit, sounds sexy. Definitely a good mechanic where he hits a monster and another party member can make an attack against the same monster.

I also think movement powers should be part of his skill set in some way.