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

[jbear]

Because killing people for money is an evil act? I mean, I know it's a game and all, but is there not SOME modicum of decency that should be adhered to?

--SD

Wouldn't you agree that boiled down a bit, many adventurers accept money in return for going and killing something?

In a world where elves, dwarves and halflings are rubbing shoulders with humans, why would going and killing a kobold and his family be any less of a murder than an assassin creeping into the castle and killing a king?

Besides nowadays there are plenty of examples of heroic assassins around. Assassin's Creed assassin for example. He's far more than just a guy who accepts money to kill people. His acts are politically motivated, vying to restore his family's power and prestige. Sounds like something that would slot perfectly into a game of D&D and nothing inherently evil about it, or at least any more evil than most D&D characters motivations (e.g. I'm going to go to this place and slaughter everyone for they have offended my god! Jeesh ... if that aint evil ....)

How they finally release 5e at this stage isn't the main concern, as first they want to pre-release all this stuff and let us bang around with it all in the playtest and then refine it done to the best product possible. They have already talked about the importance of an entry level product to bring new comers into the game. So there will be something released that won't have ALL the options at once, I'm pretty sure. But that won't happen til they have 5e near perfect.

Also they've talked about putting loads of great tools in the DMs hand. People have been complaining about the inclusion of things (which I find completely absurd). But it sounds to me that things are being included but will be presented in a way that the DM is encouraged to add or discard elements as they see fit til they achieve the kind of game that they think is fun. WHich sounds great.

So personally, as an experienced player that absolutely loves options, the idea that they will be coming out the gate with such a wide and varied range of classes is exciting. Far more exciting than what I had thought would happen, which is that they would release play test game with wizard, fighter, rogue and cleric fullstop.

What is released in the play test may not be what we see released in the official first product neccessarily. But we'll know that if, say teh assassin doesn't make it into the release product, we'll know the class is being developed and is well along the way (if not already complete) and its release is just a question of time, mitigating to a large degree the kind of complaints that occured when warlocks and warlords appeard in PHB1 in 4e as opposed to the barbarian or bard.

Anyway, I'm finding my curiosity begin to grow.

 

[WheresMyD20]

Some alignment restrictions make sense. Classes are based on archetypes and some archetypes are tied to specific alignments. For example...

Monks get their powers from years of rigorous training and self-discipline. Lawful-only makes sense.

Barbarians get their power from their rage. Non-lawful makes sense because barbarians are, by their nature, undisciplined.

Of course DMs can ignore these restrictions if they want. However, I really don't have a problem with the RAW preventing monk/barbarians, paladin/assassins, and other class combinations that are, by nature, incompatible based on their philosophy.

 

[Incenjucar]

Some alignment restrictions make sense. Classes are based on archetypes and some archetypes are tied to specific alignments. For example...

Monks get their powers from years of rigorous training and self-discipline. Lawful-only makes sense.

Barbarians get their power from their rage. Non-lawful makes sense because barbarians are, by their nature, undisciplined.

Of course DMs can ignore these restrictions if they want. However, I really don't have a problem with the RAW preventing monk/barbarians, paladin/assassins, and other class combinations that are, by nature, incompatible based on their philosophy.

These are incredibly narrow concepts of either class, and it's not just DM restrictions you have to worry about, but also character builder restrictions.

 

[Chainsaw Mage]

EDIT: Ummm, never mind . . . don't want to say anything that might resemble edition warring. (sheepish blush)

 

[Stalker0]

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.

I think this side conversation is off topic. Lets get back to the subject on hand.

--Stalker0

 

[Rechan]

Monks get their powers from years of rigorous training and self-discipline. Lawful-only makes sense.

I don't see how that relates to Lawfulness. Self-discipline doesn't, for instance, negate neutrality.

Alignment is philosophy. Adherence to laws or principles, as well as motivations. That should not be attached to class features.

Barbarians get their power from their rage. Non-lawful makes sense because barbarians are, by their nature, undisciplined..

That depends on how you define/describe rage. Also, just because you have rage doesn't mean that you can't be disciplined in other areas. I mean, barbarians weren't barred from having the Craft skill, for instance, which is inherently disciplined. Besides, barbarians don't lose their rage if they become disciplined (i.e. multi-class). You can easily have a Dr Jeckyl/Mr Hyde thing going, or a Hulk-like effect.

I looked at the mechanics of the Rage and thought about how to re-interpret it based on its stats. The rage is simply an increased Str/Con, and resistance to will at the detriment of AC. So I thought that the Rage could easily be an altered state of consciousness, or something like "Bullet time", if you will - an offensive battle mode/martial art form/etc. Harnessing adrenaline and other such things through meditation/training. Hence, Monk/barbarian.

I also liked the idea of a character whose rage was simply PTSD. crazy panic-mode.

Unfortunately the Monk class is pure Kung Fu Ascetic, instead of having room for just being a pugilist, Greco-roman wrestler, or any other type of unarmed combatant, which would go quite well with a barbarian.

But I strongly dislike how Barbarian class = primitive. They are illterate for instance. That's unnecessary. I mean an army can have berzerkers who are barbarians, does that mean that they shoudln't be able to read or accept command from their superior officers (not being lawful, being nice and chaotic)? No. Etc.

 

[harlokin]

Some alignment restrictions make sense. Classes are based on archetypes and some archetypes are tied to specific alignments. For example...

Monks get their powers from years of rigorous training and self-discipline. Lawful-only makes sense.

Of course DMs can ignore these restrictions if they want. However, I really don't have a problem with the RAW preventing monk/barbarians, paladin/assassins, and other class combinations that are, by nature, incompatible based on their philosophy.

I also think this is a too narrow interpretation. The Sith, from Star Wars, could be an inspiration for Chaotic Evil monks; very disciplined in increasing their personal power, but utterly ruthless and untrustworthy when dealing with others.

Restrictions for Race/Class/Alignment are easy for a DM to add for a specific campaign concept, but have no place in the generic core rulebook IMO.

 

[LurkAway]

Not a fan of police or military snipers?

I don't think they're assassins (unless they're purposefully taking potshots at civilians). It seems to me that the difference between a sniper and an assassin depends on the nature of the target and the reason for the killing. Snipers are defined by how they kill, assassins by what or why they kill. Snipers surprise attack enemy combatants. Assassins surprise murder religious or political figures (and yes there is a blurry area in between, but I think the general contrast still applies).

In terms of combat, I think the best class concepts are not distinguished by what they kill, but how they kill. Fighters kill with weapons, wizards kill with spells, etc and what or why they kill is part of the individual character concept. Ideally, I'd prefer that a flavorful what and why is a theme so that any core class can take it and that allowance just feels right to me.

The Assassin class seems, to my mind, to confuse the why with the class concept. I think this is because of the semantic weight of the word "assassin". So finding the soul of the assassin class is to distinguish between assassin (with all it implications) and Assassin (the D&D version). Perhaps the Assassin is part of an Order, trained in remote fortresses for whatever purpose with a unique specialized fighting style, and that most trained Assassins become assassins, but not all assassins are Assassins, and a PC Assassin might not be an assassin at all.

 

[Hassassin]

Not a fan of police or military snipers?

The difference between soldiers and assassins is that soldiers may kill people, but assassins murder people.

You can certainly refluff the assassin class so that you don't kill civilians for political/ideological/financial gain, but then you are no longer an assassin.

If assassination isn't evil in your games, what do you use PC alignments for?

 

[harlokin]

The difference between soldiers and assassins is that soldiers may kill people, but assassins murder people.
for?

That is a matter of semantics, they do exactly the same thing, it's just the reason that may vary.

I see no reason not to allow players to play good-aligned assassins, who kill evil NPCs for example.