D&D 5E The classes of 5e (now with 90% less speculation)

[TwinBahamut]

I'm afraid that I'm beginning to sound like a broken record on this subject, but I really want to see a Ninja in the PHB 1.

I mean, from the sounds of what the 4E Assassin is, it is very similar to the classic idea of a magical ninja who uses poisons, unusual weapons, deception, deceptive magic, and shadowy powers in order to defeat foes through skill and subterfuge. If the idea of an "assassin" is so problematic, then why not just call it a "ninja" and drop those connotations? Same skill set, but almost no assumptions of motive, goal, profession, or alignment. It has a broader range of inspiration to pull from (thanks to hundreds of years of Japanese pop culture), as well.

I'd prefer to have a ninja than an assassin anyways.

 

[cavalier973]

As to the classes, I wonder if they won't set up four or five base classes, then everything else is a hybrid of those.

Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard

Paladin = Fighter/Cleric
Bard = Rogue/Wizard
Ranger = Rogue/Fighter
Monk = Rogue/Cleric

Imagine, for example, that there is a "point system"; a particular class feature costs one "point", and creating a character requires the player to spend four points. To create a fighter, the player uses all four points on fighter features. Or, he could use one of those points to instead take a cleric feature and make a paladin. He could split it evenly, two points of fighter features and two points of cleric features to make a crusader. Three points of cleric and one point of fighter might make a Templar.

Fighter features: 1. Good with weapons 2. Good with Armor 3. Battlefield Tactics 4. Good health

Cleric features: 1. Good with healing 2. Can cast divine spells 3. Effective against Undead creatures 4. Can inspire followers

Two points of Rogue, one point each of wizard and fighter make an assassin.

Something like that...

 

[Nivenus]

As to the classes, I wonder if they won't set up four or five base classes, then everything else is a hybrid of those.

Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard

Paladin = Fighter/Cleric
Bard = Rogue/Wizard
Ranger = Rogue/Fighter
Monk = Rogue/Cleric

As I've stated elsewhere, I'd be okay with that. But that doesn't sound at all like what they're doing. Which I'm also okay with.

 

[Ichneumon]

Assassin sounds like a good theme candidate. I'd also welcome a Ninja class. Only a 10% chance of it happening, though!

 

[Incenjucar]

OK, I saw it, it was a parody of a sniper, and a video game character at that. Why did we "need" see to that -- is this supposed to reinforce that a D&D character must be like a videogame character?

No but it's a good filter for folks with no sense of humor!

--

Every class is a bunch of mass murderers unless you're in a very specific campaign type. Moreover, WotC has that whole Character Builder thing. Alignment restrictions that are fun for you but are not fun for someone else may likely get hard-coded into the program, making it harder for people to play the character that they want and their DMs allow.

 

[LurkAway]

No but it's a good filter for folks with no sense of humor!

Then you got me. But you see, my grandfather was a sniper in World War II. He wasn't an assassin, he sat in a tree for days dropping Nazis near what turned out to be a concentration camp.

Every class is a bunch of mass murderers unless you're in a very specific campaign type.

Not in my experience; we weren't playing Battlestar Galactica or Game of Thrones and exploring all the shades of grey and engaging in philosophical debates about killing orc babies, but basic good or evil moral issues definitely guided our roleplaying choices. And as pointed out in another thread, even 4E Paladins are described as holy and good (and blackguard are in an optional supplement).

 

[Incenjucar]

Then you got me. But you see, my grandfather was a sniper in World War II. He wasn't an assassin, he sat in a tree for days dropping Nazis near what turned out to be a concentration camp.

He one-shot killed dudes, for reasons involving politics, in a location where his actions were illegal. That is what assassins do. He was just an assassin who was a good guy slaying monsters for a noble cause. In D&D, good assassins go about one-shot killing drow raiders near what turn out to be camps filled with enslaved dwarves who are about to be fed to the local illithids.

Assassin definitely has negative connotations, so I can understand being uncomfortable with the word, but "being evil" is not part of the definition.

Not in my experience; we weren't playing Battlestar Galactica or Game of Thrones and exploring all the shades of grey and engaging in philosophical debates about killing orc babies, but basic good or evil moral issues definitely guided our roleplaying choices. And as pointed out in another thread, even 4E Paladins are described as holy and good (and blackguard are in an optional supplement).

Your average paladin is holy and good. Your average anything in D&D is holy and good because D&D is a game focused on heroes. Sometimes, though, you want to play a paladin of a different kind. Nobody is forcing the paladin you play to be like as honor-stained as Lancelot.

D&D has a lot of deities. They all have their place in their game, and they all have a use for divine warriors. Making one class for each alignment would just be messy. Save the forced alignment stuff for a module so those who don't like it can ignore it.

 

[LurkAway]

Incenjucar, I can't agree with the way you're defining assassins, and others have argued along the same lines (here too) but I'm going to drop it before things get out of line.

 

[Incenjucar]

At the end of the day, so long as they don't balance classes based on alignment, and so long as the character builder doesn't force you to accept alignment restrictions, it doesn't matter.

Balance and tool restrictions are the only reasons class alignment is worth discussing.