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

[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?