Though not as much as I look forward to seeing the psion if they can get him to stop crying in the corner.
Indeed. The psion is supposed to make others cry in the corner, preferably from a hefty Psychic Crush.
Though not as much as I look forward to seeing the psion if they can get him to stop crying in the corner.
Indeed. The psion is supposed to make others cry in the corner, preferably from a hefty Psychic Crush.
Bruce: Wizards have magical feats (at-will, always available). Hold on to higher spells until needed.
Rob: We could bring back a whole raft of at-wills from 4e, and make those type of things Wizard feats. There are also magical feats that are non-combat oriented. Different frequency rates, as well (encounter).
Perhaps you'll be able to swap out feats as you level up.So feats could essentially wind up being an alternate way of learning spells, i.e. smaller spells the wizard knows so well he doesn't have to prep them. I think that could be interesting, if they're not too conservative with it.
The only draw back to this is that there will probably be a hard cap on feats. One thing that always bothered me about the last couple of editions that you only got a pretty conservative number of feat slots but they just kept churning out more and more feats, a lot of them interesting, but because there were so many and you had access to so few most of them were never going to get used.
Perhaps you'll be able to swap out feats as you level up.
Actually, I'm not sure we'll see a dedicated psion class in the PHB1. After all, it has never been a PHB1 class in any edition. They mentioned "wild talents," but that's something quite different, harking back to the 1E DMG where there was a small chance for your character to have a random psionic ability.
...psst, it was the PH, appendix A.
I'm pretty sure that the 4e Warlock had some summoning in its repertoire, but I honestly cannot recall how much.
The E-lock had the ability to summon devils, yes. The PHB one, not so much iirc.
...psst, it was the PH, appendix A.
I know several players in my gaming group who will squee with joy if an alienist summoner concept is supported by whatever is 5e's version of a starpact warlock.
Well, it's not THAT simple. The gnome isn't a controversial race; it was only missing from the PHB because AFAIR the 4E design team hadn't nailed down a unique flavor for the gnome. Let's say that 10% of all players want to play an assassin. The problem is that the other 90% might protest that they don't want an evil assassin in their game. So the compromise is to make an assassin that uses the shadow power source -- not that I'm enthused about that, but at least it shows awareness of a balance between inclusion vs majority opinion. (P.S. The seminar transcript indicates that they want to move away from overtly labelled power sources, so I might actually like the 5E assassin, and who knows, maybe I'd like or tolerate the 5E warlord more than the 4E version).Remember the 10% rule, folks. If 10% of all players think having a gnome in the core is very important to them, then gnomes need to be supported.
Similarly, if 10% of all players want Vancian magic, it needs to be in the rules. And if 10% of all players want to play a warlord at some point, then it needs to be supported.
It's that simple.
I know several players in my gaming group who will squee with joy if an alienist summoner concept is supported by whatever is 5e's version of a starpact warlock.
As portrayed in movies, I agree assassins are not necessarily Evil, but AFAIR assassin= evil was always a contention in older editions.Why are assassins necessarily evil, though?
I'm with you on that.What I don't get is why assassins should be a separate class. ANYONE can be an assassin, by definition. Even if we go by the D&D archetype, assassins are just rogues with some minor magical ability (easily simulated through feats or such).
For those who think that is simply Too Many Classes:
3e had 11 classes in the PHB. Do you feel that was too many?