D&D 5E Trickster/Expert/Adventurer/Rogue

[DEFCON 1]

I suppose. I've held that opinion since at least April.

A new edition never made much economic sense from the perspective of Hasbro. What is the winning situation for a new edition?

Uh... it's going to sell a lot of books? Many more books than any supplement book that WotC would sell these days if WotC was still selling 3.5 supplements?

 

[Celebrim]

Uh... it's going to sell a lot of books? Many more books than any supplement book that WotC would sell these days if WotC was still selling 3.5 supplements?

I don't want to hijack the thread. Fork it if you really want to debate it.

 

[Zaruthustran]

From the other thread, I broke down the classification thusly:

Warrior: applies self to others. Internal power. Hits things. Lots of direct damage abilities.
Trickster: applies others to self. External opportunity. Takes advantage of things. Lots of reaction abilities, or setup abilities (traps).
Mage: applies self's magic. Internal power. Blasts things. Lots of direct application of magic to the world.
Priest: applies others' magic. External beseeching. Mediates things. Conduit of magic; channels and redirects the world's magic.

I agree that Trickster isn't the right word. "Opportunist" is better, but too literal. "Skilled" could work, but it breaks the noun thing that the other classifications have going.

I guess I'm in favor of Expert. I could see thieves, monks, rangers, all belonging to that group.

 

[Manabarbs]

I think that the best names for the class groups depend on what they're actually supposed to mean. Right now there's sort of a mix of different criteria suggested at, including mechanical similarity, thematics, party role, similarity to one of the "core four" along various lines, and general silhouette. Additionally, right now the class groups seem to be based around the idea that Fighter/Rogue/Wizard/Cleric is a natural way to clump classes, something that's not necessarily true regardless of which axis you're basing your classification on. If the classifications are based on what party roles you most ably tend to fill, then I think that the names that suggest specific power sources aren't so hot. If they classifications are based on your thematics, then the currently given descriptions seem too narrow.

I do think that it's important for the names to be as broad as possible. It probably won't always be possible, but the more it can be the case that "A [classname] is a kind of [classgroup]" is a sentence that sounds right in normal language, the better. For example, "A Paladin is a type of Warrior" sounds right in english. That works out pretty well. Ideally, the names should also reflect what the groupings actually mean. For example, "Leader" isn't a good name for the 4e Leader role, because while a 4e Leader may or may not be a leader, what leader actually means is "Supporter". Without knowing what axis the groups are actually dividing classes along, it's hard to know what good names for them are.

 

[Cyberen]

Warrior: applies self to others. Internal power. Hits things. Lots of direct damage abilities.
Trickster: applies others to self. External opportunity. Takes advantage of things. Lots of reaction abilities, or setup abilities (traps).
Mage: applies self's magic. Internal power. Blasts things. Lots of direct application of magic to the world.
Priest: applies others' magic. External beseeching. Mediates things. Conduit of magic; channels and redirects the world's magic.
Opportunist"

This.
It's the only rationale for grouping the 10+ classes shown that makes sense. It could even be useful ... (but what for remains to be determined !).

 

[Savage Wombat]

Hmm...

Vest of Escaping, Armor of Shadows, Montebank's cape, Acrobat's Boots, Liar's Mask, Hat of Disguise, Sword of Subtlety, Instruments of the Master Bard, Songblade, Assassin's Dagger.

How's that for a start?

Ah, but why?

Why does a hat of disguise only work for members of the trickster class? It's based on a wizard spell, after all. Why can't my stealthy ranger wear armor of shadows? Aren't these more a matter of "do you have the relevant skill" than "are you a member of this class"?

 

[Wicht]

Name me a magic item that should only be usable by "tricksters" and not warriors. Without stepping on the "tool proficiency" rules.

Wait. What? I haven't been following 5e for a bit. Are they really going to divy up magic items so that some are useable by rogues, but not by fighters or paladins?

I... um...

I am a bit at a loss to believe that.

 

[Remathilis]

Ah, but why?

Why does a hat of disguise only work for members of the trickster class? It's based on a wizard spell, after all. Why can't my stealthy ranger wear armor of shadows? Aren't these more a matter of "do you have the relevant skill" than "are you a member of this class"?

Honestly, I picked my list because they either a.) augmented traditional rogue/bard skills, b.) fit the "trickster" name and motif, or c.) augmented a class feature of the bard, rogue, or like.

You can argue anyone with proper training (ie skill) could use a. Anyone with the right temperament could use b. as well. c. though proves there is a place for magic items that augment sneak attack, bard song, or death attack.

 

[gyor]

The trickster should be called Expert because the expert classes all get the expertise feature.

 

[Remathilis]

The trickster should be called Expert because the expert classes all get the expertise feature.

This.