But I'm talking about 5e.
If 5e is removing the God emphasis from the cleric, modeling them after heavy-armored warriors with heals (where they originated), then they are creating a watered down Paladin. Why be redundant?
Tweet gleanings
- Thread starter Plane Sailing
- Start date
If 5e is removing the God emphasis from the cleric, modeling them after heavy-armored warriors with heals (where they originated), then they are creating a watered down Paladin. Why be redundant?
But I'm talking about 5e.
If 5e is removing the God emphasis from the cleric, modeling them after heavy-armored warriors with heals (where they originated), then they are creating a watered down Paladin. Why be redundant?
I can answer that easily. Because of X. (I will come back and fill in X when I know more about 5E).
DMKastmaria
First Post
1e Clerics were warrior priests. The idea was based on the historical example of the Knights Templar and similar orders.
A 1e Paladin, was something different. An exemplar of the LG warrior. Holy, virtuous, the flower of knighthood. The Sir Lancelot archetype, if you will.
The whole idea of "paladins of every alignment" was a misunderstanding of what the Paladin was meant to be and represent. 1e already had "holy warriors." They were called "Clerics."
mach1.9pants
Hero
I sorta think they will go on a spectrum for paladins et al
for example
high spellcasting, low combat = priest
medium spellcasting, medium combat = cleric
low spellcasting, high combat = paladin
Now none of these option are good for goods of theivey types so I hope there is some way to make a roguey/stealthy type divine caster, without multi classing
for example
high spellcasting, low combat = priest
medium spellcasting, medium combat = cleric
low spellcasting, high combat = paladin
Now none of these option are good for goods of theivey types so I hope there is some way to make a roguey/stealthy type divine caster, without multi classing
Raith5
Adventurer
Isnt the common/uncommon/rare breakdown of classes not only unnecessary but also subjective. I mean in my subjective experience rogues/thieves are rare but druids are common...
I dont see what value this adds. If a class like the assassin is classed as rare because it is 'difficult' to play, then make the class have an easier entry point.
I dont see what value this adds. If a class like the assassin is classed as rare because it is 'difficult' to play, then make the class have an easier entry point.
I don't quite get it either but I think it's more for people who have no baseline coming into the game.
Obviously how common a certain class is is dependent on your campaign or adventure setting. Not what the rules say.
I think common uncommon and rare are bad terms. More like core, advanced/expanded and...extraneous? hahaha I don't know but I think you get the idea. Going from the foundation of all classes on up towards classes that were in some editions only available later on and have very specific themes. Assassin is very specific where as fighter is incredibly vague.
Raith5
Adventurer
I think the core/advanced etc divide makes more sense but may also rub some other people up the wrong way.
Your point about fighters being broad and assassin being narrow is a good point, but it opens the question of should the assassin really be its own class? It should be a build within the rouge - which I guess it still could be given the lack of definite information released so far.
Otherwise we could have an Assassin/rogue or cleric/priest etc
grimslade
Krampus ate my d20s
Common/Uncommon/Rare
I think the rarity breakdown is designer short hand. I don't think we will see classes broken down by rarity. The rare classes might be more for classes with less options. They are pretty focused already, paladin and assassin. The common classes are the ones with most room to specialize as they are the most generic.
I think the rarity breakdown is designer short hand. I don't think we will see classes broken down by rarity. The rare classes might be more for classes with less options. They are pretty focused already, paladin and assassin. The common classes are the ones with most room to specialize as they are the most generic.
Transformer
Explorer
I'm more optimistic about 5e in light of what Wizards has told us so far. Granted they haven't yet commented on any issue more controversial than the existence of Warlords, but still: flattening the power curve and not including magic items in the basic progression are common-sense, clearly smart, not-particularly-beholden-to-any-edition decisions that make me happy.
Similar Threads
