Is "stupid" the word you really you want to use?
D&D 5E The classes of 5e (now with 90% less speculation)
- Thread starter Ainamacar
- Start date
Aldarc
Legend
Would you prefer if "selfish" was used instead?
Are those my only 2 choices?
I don't know what the word is, but "not magnanimous" is getting close.
Sure, there are various ways to phrase it. Let's not use "stupid", okay? I think "stupid" and "selfish" are like gateway drugs.
Nivenus
First Post
Yeah, actually, it is.
I think anyone who puts their opinions on a pedestal and degrades those of others simply because they're different is being an ignorant jerk, because they're operating from the position that there isn't another way of doing things.
Mod Note: Two wrongs don't make a right - you can't effectively fight jerkiness with name calling and insults, folks! So, please, keep it civil. ~Umbran
Again, I don't think that what these people want to include is a bad thing. I just think that their desire to exclude things on the arbitrary basis that they weren't always there is stupid.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think your statement is unnecessarily polarizing. First of all, it depends on the context, and it's not arbitrary. If a new player wanted to create a halfling called Clint Eastwood wearing a cowboy hat, it's not stupid or arbitrary for others to express discontent. If a new player wants to create an evil torturer PC, it's not stupid or arbitrary to complain. What's happening is that the other players are feeling threatened by an element that is dissonant with the shared narrative. Sure, it's not mature or generous to want to exclude everything you don't like from a system at the expense of others, but it can work the other way around with the tyranny of the minority so to speak. So it really depends on the context, and I'm not sure that your blanket statement and your choice of words are all that helpful.
Nivenus
First Post
First of all, this isn't likely to come up all that often. Secondly, if it does, it all depends, as you say, on the context. It's up to the DM really, if that's acceptable. I see no reason why D&D can't support such a character. It's not my preferred style, but hey, whatever works for your game and your group of players.
That sounds more like a player/DM problem than a problem with the game. FWIW, I think evil characters should be supported by the rules.
My choice of words may not be helpful, but I think they're honest.
Again, I ask: why should D&D only support one style of play and atmosphere? That's never been the idea behind it. The very first versions of the games had adventures with robots and spaceships and a sidebar for psionics was in the Player's Handbook. D&D has always been about running the game you want to run, regardless of whether or not that fits into what other people think is D&D.
Because you are either with us or against us?
If squeeing is right, I'd rather be wrong.
Actually the assassins more like Rogue/Shadowcaster/Ninja with a strong focus on poisons.
Yes Rogues have shealth in common with Assassins, but so do Rangers.
Assassins have access to lots of Shadow Magic and poisons.
Assassins are for more focused on combat and killing in general then rogues.
Rogues in 4e shift alot, but Assassins teleport through shadows just for example. Even in 3e Assassins used magic.
Aldarc
Legend
You have the freedom to come up with an alternative. We risk trying to make our game desires universally applied, but in so doing, denying other people what they may want out of the game.
It doesn't, but that's not what I dispute. I dispute that it's stupid or arbitrary or being an ignorant jerk to simply desire to exclude subjectively dissonant elements from a story.
Separate optional adventure modules and optional sidebars was exactly the correct approach for dealing with robots and psionics at that time.
Aldarc
Legend
Dissonant for whom? That's the issue. You acknowledge that it's subjective. You can easily say as a DM "no warlords in my campaign," but it's much harder for others to say "warlords are a playable class" when they are not included in the rules.
Li Shenron
Legend
I really don't think there is any chance that they will make different classes for Fighter, Warrior and Fighting-man It's clear that these are just name variations of the same class.
I also really doubt that Priest, Mage and Thief will be separate classes.
Racial classes might be in just as they might be out. It will be a political decision... but may also depend on how solid will be the multiclassing rules and how many options will the corebooks provide for class customization, because there may be little reason for an Elf class if you can make a well-working archer/wizard with some "elvish" extra add-on for example.
My take:
*tentative because I have no idea of what it was
It's clear that these are just name variations of the same class. I also really doubt that Priest, Mage and Thief will be separate classes.
Racial classes might be in just as they might be out. It will be a political decision... but may also depend on how solid will be the multiclassing rules and how many options will the corebooks provide for class customization, because there may be little reason for an Elf class if you can make a well-working archer/wizard with some "elvish" extra add-on for example.
My take:
*tentative because I have no idea of what it was
Wormwood
Adventurer
The 5e Assassin will probably look much more like the 4e Executioner than the base 4e Assassin class. The Executioner was created with the stated intent of being a 4e re-imagining of the 1e Assassin, after all.
If that's the case, we'll see a class much like the rogue but more focused on poisons and lining up a death attack and less emphasis on exploration.
If that's the case, we'll see a class much like the rogue but more focused on poisons and lining up a death attack and less emphasis on exploration.
No, my issue exactly is using the words "stupid" and "arbitrary" and "ignorant jerk".
For example, with the poll "Would you like to see Healing Surges in the next edition of D&D?", over 50% votes "No, I don't want Healing Surges". Is it helpful for us to start calling the OP or the voters "stupid" and "arbitrary" and "ignorant jerks"? Nivenus thinks his use of words is honest. I think it's inflammatory, period.
Nivenus
First Post
To be clear, I think the attitude is stupid. I think the persons in question might be intelligent.
The poll about healing surges is also relative. "No, I don't want healing surges" doesn't mean, "I'll quit the game if they include this option." It's "I'd rather this wasn't part of the main set of rules."
I understand if my statement seems as absolute as the former and not as relative as the latter. But what I'm saying is that the attitude that plays a game of chicken with WotC and draws lines in the sand is stupid.
Nivenus, I've become confused by exactly what you're saying. Regarding these atttitudes, I think the difference between 1e and 2e, and 2e and 3e, and 3e and 4e, and 4e and 5e -- they're all lines in the sand. There are no objectively right or wrong rules for a right or wrong story. Neverthless, the desire to draw a line in the sand is not any more stupid or abitrary than the impetus that caused 5E to see the light of day.
Nivenus
First Post
Those who draw the line in the sand about Vancian magic are as much in the wrong to me as those who draw a line in the sand about dragonborn. Both are denying others a chance to play the way they want to play.
If the 5e assassin looks a lot like the 4e Essentials assassin, I can be very happy. Especially if the poisons are moved to the equipment chapter where they belong instead of being a power.
