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

[Aldarc]

Are those my only 2 choices?

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.

 

[LurkAway]

Again, I ask: why should D&D only support one style of play and atmosphere?

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.

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.

Separate optional adventure modules and optional sidebars was exactly the correct approach for dealing with robots and psionics at that time.

 

[Aldarc]

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.

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]

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:

Assassin
Barbarian
Bard
Cleric
Druid
Fighter
Illusionist
Monk
Mystic *
Paladin
Ranger
Rogue
Sorcerer
Warlock
Warlord
Wizard

*tentative because I have no idea of what it was

 

[Wormwood]

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.

 

[LurkAway]

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.

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]

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.

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.

 

[LurkAway]

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]

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.

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.

 

[ferratus]

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 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.