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

[Kobold Stew]

It's really striking to me how big the range of opinion is here. Here are my thoughts on some of the classes:

Assassin: Make it a class if you like, but (in my opinion) there is really nothing that distinguishes it from a rogue or a fighter/rogue. Poison use is one; sure. disguise of a limited palette of shadow spells. Neither of those are enough, and (in my opinion) spells only point to the weakness of the basic concept. Which leaves Death Attack. Now don't get me wrong: death attack is kewl and all, but NOBODY wants to give a save-or-die power to the DM. Which leaves us with a choice if this is given to the assassin:
(a) the GM can have the party hunted by an opponent with assassin levels and risk having their characters instakilled.
(b) PCs receive plot immunity from instakill (lame double standard)
or (c) PC assassins don't have an instakill power.
For me, (c) is the clear choice. And whether it's a hobbled independent class or a developed rogue scheme (giving poison and perhaps some non-magical disguse abilities), both are better than the implications of introducing save-or-die to the game.

I liked the suggestion above of making the Ranger built around CON.

Warlord. Bringing back the Marshal's auras is a good call, I think. I think it would be great to have the Warlord based around Charisma, but Paladin offers another Charisma-Strength combination. And, as Li Shenron wriites, the auras also naturally fit under the Paladin. But accepting premise (1) of the OP, there is conceptual overlap.

Finally -- if Druid is to have shapechanging, it needs to be severely constrained to a certain class of animals -- none of the ridiculous possibilities permitted in 3.X -- too much work for the GM, and it actively took fun away from other players, as the the nature priest turns into something no one has seen in nature. My preference has always been for the non-shapechanging Unearthed Arcana variant -- it gives a bit of monkishness, a bit of range ring without blocking either of those, and stops the druid taking over combats. Really fun to play AND to have someone at the table with you play.

 

[The Shadow]

I really like a lot of ideas from the OP. However, I'm going to dwell on a topic nobody else yet has.

1) We work under the assumption that all the PHB1 classes are going to be in the Next PHB as full classes, no exceptions.

As is my wont, I am going to stick up for the Illusionist, a class I always enjoyed. (And no, not just because I like gnomes - I played a human illusionist too.)

What is central to the Illusionist class? Magic used in the sneakiest possible way. Illusionists are subtle - they pretty much have to be. Their magic is more narrow than that of wizards, but within their bailiwick they reign supreme - they are capable of spells no mere wizard can pull off.

Despite the name, they are also really good at various enchantments. Spells tapping into the Plane of Shadow are unique to them, as are 'quasi-real' illusions.

Traditionally, the Illusionist class depends on Dexterity much more than wizards do - and thus they multiclass beautifully with Thief.

Now for mechanics. First, it is absolutely essential that their signature spells be removed from the wizard list entirely: Phantasmal Killer, Shadow Door, and so forth. Likewise, the vast majority of wizard spells are not available to the Illusionist - they have their own, distinct, highly-flavorful list.

I am inclined to remove Shadow Evocation and simply say that Illlusionists can learn their own, Shadow-evoked, versions of spells like Fireball.

I am a bit torn about their spell-casting mechanic. Pure Vancian would, of course, be traditional; but in Next all classes should have a distinct mechanic. On the other hand, it is important for Illusionists to be able to pass themselves off as wizards; half their impact is removed if people know what to expect.

I'm considering that perhaps their spellcasting should require Dex checks of some sort, to reflect the intricate gestures they must use. The check might help set the DC of rolls to penetrate their illusions; on really good rolls, they might be able to retain the spell even after casting it. (Somewhat similar to the encounter-type spells suggested for traditions.)

Any thoughts?

 

[steeldragons]

I really like a lot of ideas from the OP. However, I'm going to dwell on a topic nobody else yet has.

As is my wont, I am going to stick up for the Illusionist, a class I always enjoyed. (And no, not just because I like gnomes - I played a human illusionist too.)

Dang! I knew I forgot somebody!

For what it's worth, I like your suggestions, Shadow. Even though I think we already know that this will be a specialty or "Tradition" for mages. But to fully use the Ground Rules of the OP, the Illusionist was its own separate class in 1e, so it's only fair to give it a treatment...

Illusionist
Defining Trait: Illusion/phantasmal/mind effecting magic/spells.
The Illusionist uses spells that most wizards eschew as "minor magic" or "parlor tricks". The truth is the effects of a creative Illusionist's phantasmal magic is enough to much more than merely trick the senses. They delve into the use of light and shadow and color to effect the mind, sometimes with permanent and/or devastating results.
-Build into the class its own spell list that would include several enchantment type spells and perhaps some minor conjuration (shadow magics?) mixed in with the phantasms...a la 1e.
-Built into the class is Magic Item use, not just "Illusionist items". An Illusionist IS a trained Mage, they just choose to specialize in this particular sort of magic. Thus, an Illusionist could read/identify and cast normal wizard spells from scrolls, use wands or staves that are not illusory in nature, what carnival would be complete without a fortuneteller gazing into her crystal ball?, etc...
-At-will Cantrip: Color Spray or Hypnotism.
-I like the idea of somehow making Dex. more important/relevant/giving some kind of added bonus. I'm just not sure how best to implement it. MAYBE, just going off the top of my head, something like a Dex check after casting any visual spell where success allows the Illusionist 1 round of movement following the casting without being noticed? i.e. The Illusionist casts Color Spray, makes their Dex. check and gets to move while the targets are dazzled by the flare of rainbow colors. When the colors dissipate/they regain their vision, the Illusionist is already [whatever their movement rate is] out the door, down the corridor, and out of sight (appearing to have disappeared

 

[Remathilis]

I really like a lot of ideas from the OP. However, I'm going to dwell on a topic nobody else yet has.



As is my wont, I am going to stick up for the Illusionist, a class I always enjoyed. (And no, not just because I like gnomes - I played a human illusionist too.)

What is central to the Illusionist class? Magic used in the sneakiest possible way. Illusionists are subtle - they pretty much have to be. Their magic is more narrow than that of wizards, but within their bailiwick they reign supreme - they are capable of spells no mere wizard can pull off.

Despite the name, they are also really good at various enchantments. Spells tapping into the Plane of Shadow are unique to them, as are 'quasi-real' illusions.

Traditionally, the Illusionist class depends on Dexterity much more than wizards do - and thus they multiclass beautifully with Thief.

Now for mechanics. First, it is absolutely essential that their signature spells be removed from the wizard list entirely: Phantasmal Killer, Shadow Door, and so forth. Likewise, the vast majority of wizard spells are not available to the Illusionist - they have their own, distinct, highly-flavorful list.

I am inclined to remove Shadow Evocation and simply say that Illlusionists can learn their own, Shadow-evoked, versions of spells like Fireball.

I am a bit torn about their spell-casting mechanic. Pure Vancian would, of course, be traditional; but in Next all classes should have a distinct mechanic. On the other hand, it is important for Illusionists to be able to pass themselves off as wizards; half their impact is removed if people know what to expect.

I'm considering that perhaps their spellcasting should require Dex checks of some sort, to reflect the intricate gestures they must use. The check might help set the DC of rolls to penetrate their illusions; on really good rolls, they might be able to retain the spell even after casting it. (Somewhat similar to the encounter-type spells suggested for traditions.)

Any thoughts?

I would love to see a illusionist/beguiler/shadow mage class. A mix of strong illusions not given to wizards, as well as a bit of roguish ability.

 

[The Shadow]

For what it's worth, I like your suggestions, Shadow. Even though I think we already know that this will be a specialty or "Tradition" for mages. But to fully use the Ground Rules of the OP, the Illusionist was its own separate class in 1e, so it's only fair to give it a treatment...

Yes, it will almost certainly be a wizard tradition. They better not screw it up, that's all I can say. If it's another watered-down 2e/3e specialist, I may scream.

-Built into the class is Magic Item use, not just "Illusionist items". An Illusionist IS a trained Mage, they just choose to specialize in this particular sort of magic. Thus, an Illusionist could read/identify and cast normal wizard spells from scrolls, use wands or staves that are not illusory in nature, what carnival would be complete without a fortuneteller gazing into her crystal ball?, etc...

Good point. And it helps keep people guessing, too. Once you prime somebody with a real Fireball from a wand, they're all the more likely to believe your Shadow Fireball the next round.

-At-will Cantrip: Color Spray or Hypnotism.

Excellent choices. Ghost Sound (I still miss the term 'Audible Glamer'!), Light, and Detect Magic should also be on the cantrip list.

-I like the idea of somehow making Dex. more important/relevant/giving some kind of added bonus. I'm just not sure how best to implement it. MAYBE, just going off the top of my head, something like a Dex check after casting any visual spell where success allows the Illusionist 1 round of movement following the casting without being noticed? i.e. The Illusionist casts Color Spray, makes their Dex. check and gets to move while the targets are dazzled by the flare of rainbow colors. When the colors dissipate/they regain their vision, the Illusionist is already [whatever their movement rate is] out the door, down the corridor, and out of sight (appearing to have disappeared

That could work well too - or in addition.

I would love to see a illusionist/beguiler/shadow mage class. A mix of strong illusions not given to wizards, as well as a bit of roguish ability.

I don't know much about the beguiler, but I'm told it's a fun and well-designed class. It would probably mix well with the Illusionist.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

I'd like to address the Warlord, specifically. Given the above assumptions 1) it's in, 2) it's one of the classes we need to discuss, and 3) it is the only PHB1 class to exist in only one edition. That last is important - while the Marshal from the Miniatures Handbook and the Warblade from Bo9S might be considered predecessors of the Warlord and 4e Fighter, respectively, I honestly don't think they require much consideration, both being from late supplements and not in any sense core classes.

So, if we want to find the defining traits of the Warlord, we'll find them in 4e. (Furthermore, I'd say we want to look at the PH1 Warlord, since that's the one that's "in," not the variations that appeared in supplements.) What are those defining traits?

• Front-line combatant. The Warlord has the proficiencies and toughness (offense & defense) to 'lead from the front,' and is primarily melee-oriented.
• Leadership: The Warlord can 'command' allies, using his actions to grant them out-of-turn actions, or his 'commanding presence' to enhance their actions.
• Inspiration: The Warlord can 'heal' his allies, restoring their will to fight and revitalizing them. Since this kind of healing doesn't close wounds, it's best represented as restoring hit points rather than affecting any sort of grittier wound mechanics. Since un-wounded allies can also be inspired, temporary hps and other sorts of bonuses would likely be appropriate, as well.
• Tactics: The Warlord is a master of the kinds of small-unit tactics that apply to adventuring parties. The game has a 'tactical' aspect (focusing fire, etc) that's strictly player-driven, so this needs to be something beyond that which is modeled mechanically. Moving both allies and/or enemies, granting attack bonuses, forcing enemies to grant advantage/suffer disadvantage, negating surprise, and altering initiative order are the sorts of things that the Warlord should be able to do.
• AEDU: Not really - everyone in the 4e PH1 is AEDU, so it's not defining at all. But, some of the Warlord's abilities are things that he shouldn't be able to 'spam' - you can't pull the tactical wool over the same enemies' eyes the same way twice in a row, you can only inspire an ally to greater efforts so many times before he has nothing left to give - so some sort of limited-use mechanics are going to be needed for the Warlord.

Now, I know there are those who don't like martial healing or martial powers you can't spam, but, like the foes of Vancian casting, they are just going to have to avail themselves of the modularity of 5e and not use the class in question as presented in the core rules.

 

[Remathilis]

I don't know much about the beguiler, but I'm told it's a fun and well-designed class. It would probably mix well with the Illusionist.

It was a kinda weird rogue/illusionist/enchanter class. It was built on the warmage chassis (small list of spells, cast freely from them spontaneously), had rogue weapons and armor, 6 skill points, trapfinding, and gained bonuses to spell DCs if opponents were flat-footed.

It showed you could build an illusionist that didn't necessarily look like a mage.

 

[Remathilis]

I'd like to address the Warlord, specifically. Given the above assumptions 1) it's in, 2) it's one of the classes we need to discuss, and 3) take into account the editions it's been in, one important thing that distinguishes it is that it is the only PHB1 class to exist in only one edition. While the Marshal from the Miniatures Handbook and the Warblade from Bo9S might be considered predecessors of the Warlord and 4e Fighter, respectively, I honestly don't think they require much consideration, both being from late supplements and not in any sense core classes.

So, if we want to find the defining traits of the Warlord, we'll find them in 4e. (Furthermore, I'd say we want to look at the PH1 Warlord, not the variations that appeared in supplements.) What are those defining traits?

• Front-line combatant. The Warlord has the proficiencies and toughness (offense & defense) to 'lead from the front,' and is primarily melee-oriented.
• Leadership: The Warlord can 'command' allies, using his actions to grant them out-of-turn actions, or his mere presence to enhance their actions.
• Inspiration: The Warlord can 'heal' his allies, restoring their will to fight and revitalizing them. Since this kind of healing doesn't close wounds, it's best represented as restoring hit points rather than affecting any sort of grittier wound mechanics. Since un-wounded allies can also be inspired, temporary hps and other sorts of bonuses would likely be appropriate, as well.
• Tactics: The Warlord is a master of the kinds of small-unit tactics that apply to adventuring parties. The game has a 'tactical' aspect (focusing fire, etc) that's strictly player-driven, so this needs to be something beyond that which is modeled mechanically. Moving both allies and/or enemies, granting attack bonuses, forcing enemies to grant advantage/suffer disadvantage, negating surprise, and altering initiative order are the sorts of things that the Warlord should be able to do.

All good suggestions, and I'd like to muse on warlord healing...

I'm leery about giving warlord "normal" healing. That is, there should be no "the warlord heals 1d8+1 points of damage" style healing. However, we still have a few options:

1.) Engage HD. The biggest one I can think of is just the warlord's "inspiring presence" can grant an ally a use of his HD healing IN combat, granting them a kind of "second wind" mechanic.
2.) Aura Healing. Dragon Shamans (another proto-warlord, in that he's a non-spellcaster healer, though still very magical) could heal allies (via granted fast healing) below 1/2 hp, but only to half. It might be a way to represent the "grit vs. wounds" debate and allow area healing without everyone to be a full health by chilling next the the warlord for 5 minutes.
3.) Temporary HP. Instead of "healing", the warlord can just grant buckets of free hp in the form of temp hp to absorb blows. A real wound to his normal HP is still a wound that requires rest/healing, but the warlord can pad up his allies hp totals with phantom hp so that its not very common to GET to real hp.

 

[Tony Vargas]

All good suggestions, and I'd like to muse on warlord healing...

I'm leery about giving warlord "normal" healing. That is, there should be no "the warlord heals 1d8+1 points of damage" style healing.

The warlord was a healer very nearly on par with the Cleric. It's essential to the class. A party with a warlord should be able to sustain damage and keep going, much like a party with a cleric or other class with healing.

Tapping HD doesn't deliver that.

Restricted healing doesn't deliver that.

Even temp hps - though also a reasonable mechanic for the warlord to use, in addition to healing - doesn't quite cut it.

A real wound to his normal HP is still a wound that requires rest/healing.

D&D makes no distinction between 'real' wounds that are all-meat-damage and pseudo-hits that don't even leave a mark. Most wounds are conceptually a combination of the two (and, out of the very lowest level, proportionately more of the latter) but the game has never done anything mechanical to track that.

Sure, when some gritty wound-tracking module is in use, it can make a distinction between healing hps and actually making physical wounds disappear, and the warlord shouldn't be doing the latter. But, in a core that's true to how D&D hps have always worked in the past, the warlord absolutely should provide outright healing.

Again, anyone who doesn't like Warlords healing, like anyone who doesn't like Vancian casting, can simply avail themselves of the modularity of 5e and not use the class in question as presented in the core rules.

 

[Remathilis]

The warlord was a healer very nearly on par with the Cleric. It's essential to the class. A party with a warlord should be able to sustain damage and keep going, much like a party with a cleric or other class with healing.

Tapping HD doesn't deliver that.

Restricted healing doesn't deliver that.

Even temp hps - though also a reasonable mechanic for the warlord to use, in addition to healing - doesn't quite cut it.

D&D makes no distinction between 'real' wounds that are all-meat-damage and pseudo-hits that don't even leave a mark. Most wounds are conceptually a combination of the two (and, out of the very lowest level, proportionately more of the latter) but the game has never done anything mechanical to track that.

Sure, when some gritty wound-tracking module is in use, it can make a distinction between healing hps and actually making physical wounds disappear, and the warlord shouldn't be doing the latter. But, in a core that's true to how D&D hps have always worked in the past, the warlord absolutely should provide outright healing.

Again, anyone who doesn't like Warlords healing, like anyone who doesn't like Vancian casting, can simply avail themselves of the modularity of 5e and not use the class in question as presented in the core rules.

I don't have a problem with warlord's healing, but I don't think it should be their primary asset. I would be disappointed if warlords get a "channel divinity" like ability; it defeats the purpose of different mechanics.