Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Draz" data-source="post: 5796332" data-attributes="member: 67515">Don't forget Thief being separate from Rogue, and Mage and Magic-User separate from Wizard. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />They also mentioned the Psion in passing, as well as the possibility of splitting the Cleric from the Priest.You're right, that's a LOT of PHB1 classes to try to launch a new system with.  I think they should narrow it a bit.  Here are my thoughts on each:Assassin: I approve of this, as long as it's not pigeonholed into the arcane casting or mystical shadow powers of the 1e/3e/4e Assassins.  Those things should be optional; the focus should just be on being the "stabby Rogue" archetype.  Something pretty similar to the 3e Swordsage, plus a bit more aptitude with burglary or infiltration.Barbarian: I actually don't think this is a big enough archetype to make into a full 1-20 class.  But it is an archetype, and it is one that you should be able to play at Level 1.  So ... I guess it should stay, unless it could just become a Fighter variant instead.  I just wish they would rename it "Berserker" to keep the backstory more flexible.Bard: Definitely an archetype worthy of a PHB1 class.  I just hope the 5e version can support "wise" bards, "spoony" bards, and "aggressive swashbuckler" bards alike.  1e emphasized the "wise" aspect; 2e and 3e heavily favored "spoony."  4e tried to make all three viable, and I applaud the attempt, but I think all three may have fallen a little short of what I'd like to see (most 4e Bards really ended up more as a mishmash of all three).Cleric: A classic; obviously has to be included. 1e Clerics, 3e Clerics, and especially 4e Clerics weren't diverse enough.  They weren't all that different from deity to deity.  (2e had a framework to make them more diverse, but it required a fair amount of homebrew.)  So because of that, I approve of the split between Cleric (healer/holy warrior) and Priest (casting-focused, hopefully very diverse between different deities).  But see comments under Paladin about how the Cleric should be.Druid: Obviously should be a PHB1 class, but I hope it's not quite as shapeshifting-focused or overpowered as it has been at times ...Fighter: Eh.  My main concern about this one is figuring out what archetype it really is trying to fill ... and the comments in the Seminar make it clear that WotC has the same confusion.  So, hopefully they'll come up with something that works.Illusionist: I don't see why Illusionist deserves page space in the book more than, say, Necromancer.  But separate classes for each specialty arcane caster would be crazy.  So ... I guess mostly the same as 3e, with these being Wizard variants?  Possibly feat-based or PrC-based, rather than default features.Monk: I don't think this should be in the 5e PHB1.  It's too "niche."  When the 4e PHB1 came out, people complained about the Druid and Bard's absences, but not so much the Monk.  Save it for an Eastern-themed or Psionic-themed splat.Paladin: I've always thought the Paladin title was more befitting a PrC than a base class, and I stand by that now.  Particularly if the Cleric and Priest are getting separated, then the Cleric can cover the Paladin archetype just fine at low levels.  Also, the Paladin PrC (or Paragon Path, or whatever they call it in 5e) should be easily accessible to both Clerics and Fighters; it certainly shouldn't require a priori spellcasting ability.Psion: I don't know what it's going to look like, or whether it can cover the whole gamut of psionic archetypes by itself (seems like it would at least need to be able to select which ability score it's based on), but I like the idea of psionics getting put in the PHB1 for a change, instead of being shunted into splatbook territory.  They've got the history for it.Ranger: Definitely PHB1 material.Rogue: This should be as different from the "stabby" Assassin archetype as a skillful urbane character can be.  This should be the "I can do anything because I'm just that awesome" class.  Like the 3e Factotum, except with magic optional.Sorcerer:  I actually wouldn't give this a PHB1 slot.  It feels too setting-specific ... I mean, not in every world is there strains of dragonblood amongst the population, granting magical powers.  It's just not as universal (or traditional) as some of the other D&D magic sources.Warlock: 3e should have had this instead of the Sorcerer all along.  (Flavor-wise.  I'm not necessarily judging mechanics or even the name.  Just the flavor.)  4e made the right decision between them.Warlord: Hmmm.  I love the Warlord concept.  The idea of having a martial support character who removes the need for a Cleric.  But ... flavor-wise, it's not as different from Fighter as I'd like.  I almost wish this could be a Fighter variant rather than a separate class.  But I'm not sure that's mechanically feasible.Wizard: Obviously it's not D&D without a Wizard class.  I actually feel that this, again, is rather setting-specific.  But I'm not going to begrudge WotC the classic appeal of putting a Wizard class in.</blockquote>

Verification