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

[Jeff Carlsen]

The rarity system is almost certainly going to be organized by how controversial the class is.

Common
Cleric
Fighter
Rogue
Wizard

Uncommon
Barbarian
Bard
Druid
Paladin
Ranger
Sorcerer

Rare
Assassin
Monk
Psion
Warlock
Warlord


Warlord might be uncommon, due to popularity and general thematic appropriateness. I think monk will be rare because it's a little out of place in a traditional fantasy setting.

Priest may be a subclass of Cleric. If not, it's probably uncommon.

 

[rounser]

Really, given all the things they're adding back in from 3e and earlier editions, this just seems like pointless grognard-ing to me.

I have issues of my own with the warlord class (as I've indicated in the thread specifically about them) but I won't begrudge their existence for other players to use. I don't see why it's "your way or the highway."

It's as much what you leave out as what you put in. I'm not barracking for a team here, "Team Grognard" as you might put it - adding oldschool classes means nothing if they include a core class that has no archetype, a misnomer of a name, and violates suspension of disbelief. I have no desire to build or run worlds with that noisome nothing-class in it, nor to play as part of parties featuring it. It's going to be ubiquitous. The easiest thing to do rather than fight that and ignore the thing (which is going to pop up everywhere) is to drop the entire edition. WOTC's dealbreaker is "must include warlord in 5E core" and they will not budge, mine is the opposite, so I'm out.

 

[Nivenus]

It's as much what you leave out as what you put in. I'm not barracking for a team here, "Team Grognard" as you might put it - adding oldschool classes means nothing if they include a core class that has no archetype, a misnomer of a name, and violates suspension of disbelief. It's going to be ubiquitous. The easiest thing to do rather than fight that and ignore the thing (which is going to pop up everywhere) is to drop the entire edition. WOTC's dealbreaker is "must include warlord in 5E core" and they will not budge, mine is the opposite, so I'm out.

I honestly don't see how warlord is any less iconic than cleric, to be honest. Divine spellcasters are absent in most fantasy settings outside of D&D, but battle commanders are a pretty common fantasy staple.

Mind you, I like clerics a lot and I think divine spellcasting was one of D&D's great innovations. But I don't think you can make the argument that warlords are a less iconic archetype than many of the classes already present in 3e and earlier editions.

 

[Stoat]

Warlord in the core game again, eh?

Well that saves some time. Goodbye 5E, you are already too reminiscent of 4E.

Can I make a respectful suggestion?

If you really feel this way, if you're really out because "warlord" is in the 5E PHB, stop griping about it and let the rest of us have our fun.

 

[Raith5]

It's as much what you leave out as what you put in. I'm not barracking for a team here, "Team Grognard" as you might put it - adding oldschool classes means nothing if they include a core class that has no archetype, a misnomer of a name, and violates suspension of disbelief. I have no desire to build or run worlds with that noisome nothing-class in it, nor to play as part of parties featuring it. It's going to be ubiquitous. The easiest thing to do rather than fight that and ignore the thing (which is going to pop up everywhere) is to drop the entire edition. WOTC's dealbreaker is "must include warlord in 5E core" and they will not budge, mine is the opposite, so I'm out.

Then don't play them, or use them at your table. Problem solved

 

[rounser]

I honestly don't see how warlord is any less iconic than cleric, to be honest. Divine spellcasters are absent in most fantasy settings outside of D&D, but battle commanders are a pretty common fantasy staple.

Mind you, I like clerics a lot and I think divine spellcasting was one of D&D's great innovations. But I don't think you can make the argument that warlords are a less iconic archetype than many of the classes already present in 3e and earlier editions.

I'll direct you to google for my thoughts on the warlord, if you're really interested. I shouldn't be surprised at it's return - apparently it's a Mearls invention based on his Hunter class.

Anyway, this is an early indicator of 5E's design style. If I don't like that, probably not going to like what else this design team comes up with.

The real headscratcher for me is that getting the implied setting right isn't that hard. Kenzer and Paizo can do it - it really is an unforced error to include stuff like this.

 

[Nivenus]

The real headscratcher for me is that getting the implied setting right isn't that hard. Kenzer and Paizo can do it - it really is an unforced error to include stuff like this.

It's only an error if you don't like it. Plenty of people like it. Stop stating your opinion as objective fact.

 

[Oni]

Seems a hasty decision to me without having seen the rules and all, especially when there's going to be an open beta test.

Really though this is derailing an interesting thread, I don't see any reason to to keep dragging someone back in who isn't interested in the new edition anyway. If he wants to be out, let him be out.

 

[Remathilis]

Seems a hasty decision to me without having seen the rules and all, especially when there's going to be an open beta test.

You think this is bad, ask him what his opinions of teleporting elves and dragonboobs are.

Best to ignore him.

 

[rounser]

You think this is bad, ask him what his opinions of teleporting elves and dragonboobs are.

Best to ignore him.

Your 4E edition failed. Why don't we ignore it? Dragonborn, blink elves and warlords might have something to do with that.

Mod Note: Edition Warring - don't do it. Really. We've had enough. ~Umbran