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

[Yora]

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.

And named after the Iron Heroes class? I think that was one of the greatest thing about the game.

 

[LurkAway]

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.

So where do you draw the line in the sand? The gnome effect's 10% mark is another line in the sand, after all. If 5E excludes say, the Great Wheel, than Great Wheel lovers are being denied the chance to explore the multiverse they want to play in "core" 5E (or insert another more appropriate example).

 

[Aldarc]

So where do you draw the line in the sand? The gnome effect's 10% mark is another line in the sand, after all. If 5E excludes say, the Great Wheel, than Great Wheel lovers are being denied the chance to explore the multiverse they want to play in "core" 5E (or insert another more appropriate example).

Character options (races, classes) seem of a completely different nature than core setting assumptions.

 

[LurkAway]

Character options (races, classes) seem of a completely different nature than core setting assumptions.

I disagree, but how about Kender then or whatever? Gnomes get to be in the core because 10% of players really want gnomes in the core rules, but Kender aren't in the core because they didn't make the 10% cutoff -- that's a line in the sand that Gnome-lovers are not excluded and Kender lovers are, and denying the fan who really, really wants a Kender in the core rules is being denied that chance, thus the attitude that excludes Kender is apparently "stupid".

 

[DonAdam]

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

Mystic = Monk from Basic/Rules Cyclopedia.

I think Priest will be separate from Cleric but otherwise this looks right.

 

[Aldarc]

I disagree, but how about Kender then or whatever? Gnomes get to be in the core because 10% of players really want gnomes in the core rules, but Kender aren't in the core because they didn't make the 10% cutoff -- that's a line in the sand that Gnome-lovers are not excluded and Kender lovers are, and denying the fan who really, really wants a Kender in the core rules is being denied that chance, thus the attitude that excludes Kender is apparently "stupid".

Aren't kender considered encompassed in "halflings"? But at least a 10% cutoff uses a criteria of some measure for inclusion. What's the criteria for not including "warlords"? Simply disliking them?

 

[Dragonhelm]

Mystic [Basic]

It should be noted that the mystic of basic D&D is no relation to the mystic of Dragonlance. The basic D&D mystic is more of a monk, while the Dragonlance mystic was a divine sorcerer with a single domain who didn't need to worship the gods.

Aren't kender considered encompassed in "halflings"?

Kender are Dragonlance's halflings. For all intents and purposes, they could be considered a halfling subrace, much as the feral halflings of Dark Sun are.

 

[ferratus]

Aren't kender considered encompassed in "halflings"? But at least a 10% cutoff uses a criteria of some measure for inclusion. What's the criteria for not including "warlords"? Simply disliking them?

As a Dragonlance fan, and someone who frequents the dragonlance community, I can tell you that everyone uses halfling stats for kender if you play 3e or 4e.

The only difference is they tack on an immunity to fear, which isn't very gamebreaking. Everything else is an annoying personality that makes you want to strangle the player.

 

[LurkAway]

Aren't kender considered encompassed in "halflings"?

I guess about as much as warlords are considered encompassed in a fighter class with leader option.

But at least a 10% cutoff uses a criteria of some measure for inclusion.

What is the criteria for choosing 5% or 10% or 15% -- they're all arbitrary.

What's the criteria for not including "warlords"? Simply disliking them?

Nope. There are many, many threads about this which cannot be boiled down to a simple dislike.

 

[Aldarc]

I guess about as much as warlords are considered encompassed in a fighter class with leader option.

Monte: To start with we kind of shot at the moon, and said everything that's been in a Player's Handbook 1, we want to potentially have in our new player's book. That includes things like the warlock and the warlord from 4th edition, but also includes the classes from other editions like the ranger, the wizard, the cleric.​

We'll see, and I look forward to see how WotC incorporates warlords, but I think it's best to be respectful about the options that people want and try to look for ways for them to be included without declaring "no warlords" or "no [x] class/race," especially for an edition that seeks to unite editions. Don't forget that.

What is the criteria for choosing 5% or 10% or 15% -- they're all arbitrary. Nope. There are many, many threads about this which cannot be boiled down to a simple dislike.

Lurk, there is still some criteria being established, even if it's an "arbitrary" 5% or 10% line in the sand. What's the criteria again for those who don't want to include warlords again?

 

[LurkAway]

We'll see, and I look forward to see how WotC incorporates warlords, but I think it's best to be respectful about the options that people want and try to look for ways for them to be included without declaring "no warlords" or "no [x] class/race," especially for an edition that seeks to unite editions. Don't forget that.

Since you talk about being respectful then, why did you seem to vouching for labelling people's attitude as "stupid" -- that's not a respectful choice of words. It seems to me that democracy is about deciding what's included as well as what's excluded from shared human experience, and nobody IME could be fairly called "stupid" and arbitrary because, for example, that they voted in a referendum for the absence of something or merely wished for the absence of something in a democracy. Conversely, I know that if I have a minority opinion on something, then I'll fight for it, and if I get it, great, and if I don't, that's understandable too, maybe I'll find some sort of compromise or get it later on. I'm not here to argue for or against the inclusion of warlords in the core (been there, done that) but to emphasize how I think it's wrong-headed to make general blanket statements about what's "stupid" and "arbitrary", especially as those words are often used to invalidate or fail to acknowledge the reason for a behavior ("Oh, don't pay attention to her, she's just being stupid")

 

[Umbran]

Folks,

I said this upthread, and I'll say it here - you cannot fight poor behavior with poor behavior. You will not correct mindsets of anyone who you call stupid, ignorant, or a jerk.

So, don't do it - either directly at a person, or by generalization. To do so is to address the person, dismiss the point by claiming a flaw in the speaker, rather than address the actual flaws in the position. It is itself a weak position to take, and downright rude.

Thanks, all.

 

[Aldarc]

Since you talk about being respectful then, why did you seem to vouching for labelling people's attitude as "stupid" -- that's not a respectful choice of words.

But I wasn't. Case closed.

 

[Mokona]

A very long list of tightly designed classes would work quite well. Endlessly making characters for games that never happen is really fun IMO.

Put me on the list of people who'd like to see the return of racial classes along the lines of D&D Basic or Rifts RCCs.

 

[Rechan]

Ohgeeze, alignment restriction classes. Please no.

Personally I think it'd be neat if the Assassin became the default Mage/Thief class. Although from what I understand they're a combat-focused mage/thief.

 

[ferratus]

Ohgeeze, alignment restriction classes. Please no.

Though I think if you're trying to play a good-aligned assassin, you very quickly shift to an evil alignment, so the problem takes care of itself.

 

[Rechan]

Though I think if you're trying to play a good-aligned assassin, you very quickly shift to an evil alignment, so the problem takes care of itself.

I hate alignment restrictions, period. I was happy when 4e removed alignment from any sort of mechanic. RP penalties do not make good balancing factors vs. mechanics, and should depend on the campaign.

The biggest offenders of alignment restrictions for me were the Bard, Paladin, Monk and Barb. It was incredibly frustrating not being able to say, have a Paladin/bard. I even figured out an in-story reasonable explanation for a monk/barb, but by RAW neither are legal (unless you play the full on alignment shift/can't gain levels in that class ever, which is IMO very lame).

 

[ferratus]

Oh, you won't get an argument from me on alignment restrictions.

I generally think alignments generally are a detriment to roleplaying. If it was more of a way of grouping like minded monsters together rather than a PC defining trait, I'd probably like alignment more.

 

[Incenjucar]

Though I think if you're trying to play a good-aligned assassin, you very quickly shift to an evil alignment, so the problem takes care of itself.

Not a fan of police or military snipers?

 

[TarionzCousin]

19 classes seems like a lot, but if 5E core is as simple as they claim, each class description might fit on one page.

Personally I think it'd be neat if the Assassin became the default Mage/Thief class. Although from what I understand they're a combat-focused mage/thief.

That could be interesting. And while the name "assassin" seems inherently evil, 3E Forgotten Realms had a Divine Slayer (?) that wasn't evil; the character had to be the same alignment as his/her deity. I could see the assassin being something like that.

I don't think the 4E assassin was restricted to evil characters, was it?