D&D 5E Evil characters material not going to be in the PHB

[dmgorgon]

Also, to clarify, I agree the spells things sounds ridiculous and [I posit] was probably another of Mearls' soon to be [if not already] infamous mis-speaks. Obviously, there's no reason something like "Protection from Good" wouldn't be listed with/wherever the Protection from Evil spell is [or my personal preference to simply list it as the "reverse" instead of a completely unnecessary separate spell].

I totally support reducing redundancy by re-introducing reversible spells. I really don't know why 3e eliminated that concept either.

 

[gyor]

Someone explain how the blackguard is eviler then a warlock with a fiend or far realms pact.

 

[tuxgeo]

I voted "mix": the spells should be in the PHB because players of spellcasting PCs use spells.

Having "Good" and "Evil" spell descriptors (as in 3E) might be useful, but that seems like an option they might put into a module.

A "Vellum Volume of Vile Villainy" splat book at launch would be another fine option.

 

[MJS]

The anti-paladin is wankery, np seeing that relegated to house rules where it belongs.

Evil spells....just go back to reversible protections, cures/harms. If there are evil alignments, those clerical spells are going to be attuned to them.

 

[Deset Gled]

Or we could just, you know, support all playstyles that D&D has traditionally supported, evil pcs among them... and yes it has traditionally supported evil pcs, even if not necessarily immediately.

Moving the evil stuff out of the PH is a poor choice because, among other things, it requires the players of evil pcs have access to the DMG... which, no, some of us old-skoolers don't do that.

I believe your frustration may be misplaced. Note that the placement in the DMG is speculation from Li. Mearls said it would be a "DM option", meaning it's a choice to allow it in the game, not that it's placed in the DMG. And there is no reason to think that evil material won't be available, just not necessarily immediately.

I'm perfectly fine with evil stuff as an add on rather than PHB material. In many ways, I find it preferable.

 

[Li Shenron]

I've had worse.

Yeah, he forgot to add the "L" word...

The place for "evil" spells is right alongside the rest of the spells. Splitting them up means that every time the DM wants to use an evil spellcaster, he now has to consult two sources rather than one.

Indeed, exactly what I had in mind that prompted me to post the poll.

 

[Mistwell]

Wait, where is the answer for it not being in the core at all?

Regardless, we already have the assassin, as a rogue option.

 

[the Jester]

I would like to come into some of you guys campaigns and "explore" playing a chaotic evil pyromaniac vampire necromancer.

Sounds about as disruptive as the Lawful Pushy Anal Good paladin that some people love running so much.

But I would prefer things like poison or anti-paladin's to be in the DMG not because they are eviiilll but because they are less core and more campaign optional then say, halflings (though I could totally see some groups not playing with halflings).

I strongly suspect that there are more players who (at least some of the time) play evil pcs than there are players who play dragonborn or wardens, yet we will have options for both of those in the PH (presuming the "warden" subclass makes it in).

Yes, have a cohesive party is very important. It also doesn't occur naturally, especially when everyone is role playing their characters. Adding evil to the mix makes it more difficult.

...for some groups. For some playstyles. And that's fine. But a huge part of the goal of 5e is inclusion. Enabling multiple different playstyles. Letting us play the game our way while you play the game your way. That doesn't work well if a bunch of player material is banished from the book that players are likely to own because it's for my playstyle.

 

[Mistwell]

Sounds about as disruptive as the Lawful Pushy Anal Good paladin that some people love running so much.



I strongly suspect that there are more players who (at least some of the time) play evil pcs than there are players who play dragonborn or wardens, yet we will have options for both of those in the PH (presuming the "warden" subclass makes it in).

You think those will be in the PHB? I have not seen any indication of that. I think they're leaving some stuff for later books. Like maybe rules for evil PCs

 

[the Jester]

I believe your frustration may be misplaced. Note that the placement in the DMG is speculation from Li. Mearls said it would be a "DM option", meaning it's a choice to allow it in the game, not that it's placed in the DMG.

True, and if it's all in the PH then it's all gravy.

And there is no reason to think that evil material won't be available, just not necessarily immediately.

I'm perfectly fine with evil stuff as an add on rather than PHB material. In many ways, I find it preferable.

If a major goal of 5e remains to allow gamers from all editions and playstyles to jump in on day 1- thus the whole "everything from a PH" approach- then relegating the evil stuff to a later release is a big fat fail. Heck, regardless, I think it's a big fat fail. What if my very first adventure uses an evil cleric as the villain, but the Book of Eeeeevil doesn't come out for 3 months?

No, screw that- evil character stuff belongs in the PH. Just as I don't have to use double swords or feats, just as Bobby Jo doesn't have to use dragonborn and warlocks, the dm can simply say, "No evil pcs" and the problem is solved. But without the info to run evil pcs, my options are to tell that evil-playin'-player either "Wait 3 months (years?)" or "Let me make a bunch of stuff up that won't match with the eventual rules and will force me to debate making you rewrite your evil cleric once we do have the rules".