Oh, please.Too bad the D&D community hated new ideas.
Edit: I retract the comment. Not a rewarding topic of conversation.
Last edited:
Oh, please.Too bad the D&D community hated new ideas.
look I liked that one weird playtest sorcerer, it was good.
The playtest sorcerer was excellent, and when the designers got scared off by initial feedback...yeah that pretty much told me all I needed to know about what 5e was going to become.The weird playtest sorcerer displayed the difference between the clsses better.
Too bad the D&D community hated new ideas
It's true.Oh, please.
If you have a better explanation for why the two most-flavorful and honestly best-constructed playtest classes apparently got such negative feedback that the designers felt they had to completely abandon them and start over, never to be seen again until official release, I'm listening.Oh, please.
That's more or less what 4e did.Judging by premodern military history, four classes:
• Knight (heavy infantry)
• Skirmisher (light infantry)
• Rogue (covert)
• Archer (artillery)
There is also a fifth category, cavalry, but it is odd.
Okay, you’re right.If you have a better explanation for why the two most-flavorful and honestly best-constructed playtest classes apparently got such negative feedback that the designers felt they had to completely abandon them and start over, never to be seen again until official release, I'm listening.
Your sarcasm is not productive. I was genuinely hoping you had an answer besides "you're dumb for thinking that people voted against something because it was new." Because yeah, that sort of thing happened a lot during the playtest. It wasn't just confined to things I liked, e.g. Mearls tried very hard to get the community to go for proficiency dice instead of proficiency bonus but eventually relented. (AIUI, he loves rolling fistfuls of dice, so he overruled the normal response to anything that wasn't polling supermajority positive, but it stayed unpopular over time.) Nor to things I had any real feelings about at all, as that's what killed Specialties (and thus the Warlord-style Fighter, which had originally had explicit support...but then was turned into a Specialty, and when Specialties got dropped it had nowhere else to manifest so they quietly stopped talking about it.)Okay, you’re right. The community hated new ideas. Otherwise, everyone would have shared your opinions.
1 to 5 are great.That's more or less what 4e did.
- Fighter (heavy infantry)
- Ranger (light infantry)
- Rogue (covert and irregulars)
- Hunter (missile)
- Warlord (command)
- Skald (flagbearer and horns)
- Berserker (shock infantry)
I retracted my statement.Your sarcasm is not productive. I was genuinely hoping you had an answer besides "you're dumb for thinking that people voted against something because it was new." Because yeah, that sort of thing happened a lot during the playtest. It wasn't just confined to things I liked, e.g. Mearls tried very hard to get the community to go for proficiency dice instead of proficiency bonus but eventually relented. (AIUI, he loves rolling fistfuls of dice, so he overruled the normal response to anything that wasn't polling supermajority positive, but it stayed unpopular over time.) Nor to things I had any real feelings about at all, as that's what killed Specialties (and thus the Warlord-style Fighter, which had originally had explicit support...but then was turned into a Specialty, and when Specialties got dropped it had nowhere else to manifest so they quietly stopped talking about it.)
So tell me if you heard this before: There was this game that essentially did this. It took a look at the magicless martial warrior archetypes, and it split them up into four base classes defined by their fighting style: the defender/bruiser (the Fighter), the archer (the Ranger), the skirmisher (the Rogue), and the commander (the Warlord). Hmmmm... I wonder if the Warlord may have gotten more leverage if it was renamed as "the Knight."I have to admit, taking the fighter and maybe splitting it up a bit isn’t a bad idea. Or maybe fighter and rogue combine to make three base classes.
Yeah, heh. Funny enough, I'm just starting a reread of Thomas Covenant and I'm so looking forward to seeing the Cords again.So tell me if you heard this before: There was this game that essentially did this. It took a look at the magicless martial warrior archetypes, and it split them up into four base classes defined by their fighting style: the defender/bruiser (the Fighter), the archer (the Ranger), the skirmisher (the Rogue), and the commander (the Warlord). Hmmmm... I wonder if the Warlord may have gotten more leverage if it was renamed as "the Knight."
Alternatively, Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved combined and then split the Fighter and Rogue. Instead AE had the heavily-armored fighter (the Warmain) and the lightly-armored fighter (the Unfettered). The skill/proficiency-monkey was the mystical Akashic who tapped into the akashic memory for their abilities.
Also instead of making the Monk based on ki and orientalist tropes, Monte Cook took inspiration from the Haruchai of The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant and designed the Oathbound, who gain their powers from swearing oaths against using weapons and armor, eating, breathing, sleeping, riding horses/mounts, aging, etc.
Yes, they should have a feature that let's them get always-on magical effects and features that represent their bloodline. You could call them invocations...I'd also take that to then go "Sorcerers don't care about the meaning of spells and could twist magic in Strange Ways based upon their bloodline", like draconic ones being able to get wings or other elements of their bloodline, celestial ones getting angelic features, and so on.
is that not a monk cleric?I still want a Friar like in Dark Age of Camelot. I have tried unsuccessfully to use feats and multiclasses to recreate the feel in every edition.
View attachment 150513
Yep. That is why I voted "only for specific settings". My Rokugan examples give three different ways why a new class may be better than fitting a core class:Almost every suggestion so far has been quite narrow. They don't fit, at all, the philosophy of 5e with classes being broad archetypes that fit a spectrum of characters from the inspirational literature (stories, books, films, games, comics, etc). Some are so narrow that there's only been a single character outside of the game that's fit.
I think the class structure is actually what makes DnD special. I don't like chose your own abilities games. I do think multiclassing does fill that gap in the 5e rules. I could also see subclasses that can be taken by every class, or I could see bringing back DnDnext "Themes" which were reverted back to feats. I was very fond of this particular playtest.I don't really have strong feeling on classes. It is not like they are as core to the game as alignment. ;-)
But I think I would like to have class building to be more a collection of feats and traits that that you can use to build your concept, with a the core, traditional classes provided as examples and for people that just want to get up an running quickly. They don't even have to rip out the current classes. Just put new optional character build rules in the DMG that have been play tested and balanced, which if used, would not make the traditional classes and subclasses completely obsolete.