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

[RandomCitizenX]

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.

 

[WheresMyD20]

...psst, it was the PH, appendix A.

Actually, characters having a random chance of psionic ability goes all the way back to Original D&D Supplement III: Eldritch Wizardry.

 

[avin]

While I'm not sure about how pacts were handled in 4E, Warlocks are a damn interesting refreshing change. I'm eager to see 5E's fluff.

As for Warlord it fits perfectly in my imagery of a typical fantasy party.

Fey-elves, or High Elves, or Eladrin are a fantastic concept. My games still have the Great Wheel cosmology, so Eladrins are something different... thus I rename them to High Elves and life moved on.

We need to understand that people play different games. It always has been like that.

For some, it's classical gygax fantasy or die, for some is steampunk, for some is low magic, for some is a desolate Dark Sun, another guys enjoy the vast freedom of Planescape.

We should respect each other preferences, instead of saying X can't be in PHB1 because it's not "core".

 

[Herschel]

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.

So are you for it, or against it?

 

[Rechan]

For those who think that is simply Too Many Classes:

3e had 11 classes in the PHB. Do you feel that was too many?

 

[LurkAway]

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.

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).

 

[Ichneumon]

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.

So would I. Though actually, I'm too dignified to squee. Most of the time.

 

[Sammael]

Why are assassins necessarily evil, though?

Killing a person in D&D is not an evil act, as long as you are not doing it only for personal gain (or pleasure). As long as you assassinate people in the name of the greater good or because your superiors order you to do it, you're perfectly fine.

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).

 

[LurkAway]

Why are assassins necessarily evil, though?

As portrayed in movies, I agree assassins are not necessarily Evil, but AFAIR assassin= evil was always a contention in older editions.

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).

I'm with you on that.

The definition of assassin seems to be a murderer, who kills in a surprise attack for monetary, political and/or religious reasons. I doubt that a majority of PC assassins are being roleplayed that way.

And if you expand the definition of assassin in D&D, I think you might as well say that ALL adventurers are assassins of sorts. They just murder creatures in public spaces that happens to be dungeons.

 

[Hassassin]

For those who think that is simply Too Many Classes:

3e had 11 classes in the PHB. Do you feel that was too many?

Yes, but I don't feel so very strongly. I'd be fine with four in core + options to make then feel different. 11 very rigid classes would be much worse in my opinion.

There's probably a middle ground.