Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sword of Spirit" data-source="post: 6273019" data-attributes="member: 6677017">I get that impression. Subclasses and races that are traditionally connected to a previous campaign setting are probably going to be published with that setting. Dragonlance is a great example because it had Wizards of High Sorcery and Knights of Solamnia, which are great subclass ideas for that campaign. Forgotten Realms can have things like Red Wizards of Thay, etc. I'm not sure where exactly they'll draw the line. Will Warforged be in the Eberron book, for instance? I'd be fine with that.They haven't said anything explicitly, it's just an educated guess based on following the evolution of 5e, and seeing how what they've said has translated into what they've shown us, how the mechanics and fluff have adapted over time, etc. I'm fairly confident in the assessment, however.Absolutely. And that's exactly how it should be. The PHB isn't the place for extensive modules. The only module that's almost certain to be there is feats. And I wouldn't be at all surprised if that were the only module in the PHB. The DMG will have some of the simplest, most basic, and most commonly requested modules. But even that isn't designed for the major, game-changing stuff. That will be held for a later "Unearthed Arcana" type of book (Mike Mearls said that many of the advanced modules would go in such a book, even referencing Unearthed Arcana, although he didn't say it would have the same name.)I understand what you're saying. Let me explain how I see it.The classes that have been in at least 2 out of 3 of those PHBs are considered core enough to have at least subclass representation in 5e. So we'll see Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Wizard. We'll also have Barbarian, Bard, Sorcerer, and Monk (which were only in 3e), because they were in the 4e PHBs and people have come to expect them. We'll see Warlock because it is ridiculously popular. That leaves Assassin from the 1e PHB as the only 1e-3e PHB class which will appear only as a subclass--but it is going to be in the PHB. Warlord is also popular enough to get a subclass.Wizard absorbed Illusionist and began to include specialists for each school of magic in 2e, and stuck with it in 3e. This is an expansion and redefinition, rather than a deletion. This is similar to what they are now doing with Assassin, although Assassin is a weaker version since it skipped 2e-3e, which Illusionist has always been around.Cavaliers were never in a PHB, and this won't be an exception, unless you count the Devotion Paladin, or they create a fighter subclass for it.Half-orcs took a break in 2e, but other than that have been in the PHBs. There is a pretty strong thread of what they consider to be important/traditional enough to be in the PHB. The very fact that they said that if it was in a PHB 1 they will make sure it is in the 5e PHB demonstrates a stated and intention and commitment to the kind of thing that I mentioned.I disagree that choosing to leave stuff out and putting it in later has been a staple. 2e left stuff out (such as Assassin and Half-orc) as a redefinition of the game, not as a planned later add on. They put all the classes and races they expected to define D&D characters in the PHB. The stuff that came out in Unearthed Arcana was expanded choices that weren't part of the core.3e did the same thing with their PHB. They redefined the game again by deciding to grab Barbarian and Monk from 1e Unearthed Arcana (and late 2e peripheral products) and make it a standard PHB class, and it stuck into 4e. They also reintroduced Half-orcs. They decided to import Assassin, but they made a prestige class out of it. Had they imported Cavalier from Unearthed Arcana, they would likely have set a precedent and we would have had Cavalier as a class in one of the 4e PHBs, and be guaranteed to have it in 5e (probably as a subclass).In each 2e and 3e case, they intended to redefine the standard options available for players. Additional classes and races appeared in peripheral products as just that--peripheral classes. The 3e PHB 2 wasn't intended as a standard expansion, but was a peripheral expansion.4e explicitly told us that they were going to do their publication differently. I can't remember where it was, because that was years ago now. But I was following the lead up to 4e and they were very direct in saying that their model was different, and they were taking an annual PHB approach. Hence the statements about the PHB part 1, 2, 3, that I made earlier. They added a plethora of classes, and each of them was considered equally standard--unlike in prior editions.With 5e they are explicitly trying to include everything that was in the PHB (1) in previous editions. They mainly had to specify the (1) because of the different publication style in 4e, because they weren't going to include the whole plethora of classes that were introduced only in 4e. In fact, there isn't going to be a single class that made it's full class debut in 4e (that I am aware of) that is going to be a full class in the 5e PHB, because those classes don't have the history behind them. Even Warlock, which made it's PHB debut in 4e, was a peripheral full class in 3e (and the certainty of its inclusion is based as much on its extreme popularity as on its tradition).Now, when I say everything, I don't mean feats and spells and powers and such. What I mean is the enduring tradition (to paraphrase WotC). Schools of magic and wizard specialists in each of them is a strong example. It appeared in 1st in a more limited sense as Illusionists, blossomed into a full representation of each school in 2e, and continued into 3e.There are a number of ways that can represent it. They can simply make 8 subclasses. They can make a single subclass and give in Land Circle Druid style choices for the 8 schools. They can leave specialists out entirely and just put a blurb into a subclass. They can even make a lesser number of subclasses that asborb the schools--for instance 4 subclasses, each of which explictly encompasses 2 of the schools of magic. And if they don't do any of that, they could even get by with making subclasses only for the schools they felt deserved the most mechanical and thematic distinction, and then having a generalist subclass and explicitly saying that specialists in all 8 schools exist, but specialists in the other schools (not represented by the specific subclasses) are sufficiently similar in their abilities as to be represented by the generalist subclass without any mechanical differentiation. If they did that last point, they could even change their mind in the Wizard splatbook and stat out the remaining schools at subclasses. I consider that last option to be the least acceptable, but I could at least live with it. The other options are more or less alright.What would totally break from how they are doing their entire publication style for 5e would be for them to decide to redefine Wizards so that there aren't they 8 types of specialists, or even worse, to say that their are but then reserve some of them for a splat book. Reserving a standard, traditional PHB option for a splatbook is what I would be irate about--since it is completely contrary to the entire model of publication that I've described, and which I'm fairly confident is their model for 5e.</blockquote>

Verification