Mind of tempest
(he/him)advocate for 5e psionics
I am more confused about where to put monk as it is hard to place.
D&D (2024) UA Groups: Expert, Mage, Priest, Warrior
hipster_benches
Villager
I'm guessing all the Priests will have Channel Divinity. I don't really see the Warlock fitting into that, so I think the Priests will be Cleric, Druid, and Paladin. They will probably rework Channel Divinity to be useable proficiency bonus times per long rest (Paladin might be half proficiency bonus times per long rest). Then Wild Shape (and everything that uses Wild Shape) will be changed to be a Channel Divinity option for Druids.
Likewise, I'm guessing all the Warriors will have a Fighting Style and get Extra Attack. For Monk, this might afford some versatility in how they play. I could see Monks getting to choose from Dueling, Blind Fighting, Two Weapon Fighting, Interception, Thrown Weapon, and Unarmed Fighting. Hopefully Monks also get bumped up to a d10 hit die.
Likewise, I'm guessing all the Warriors will have a Fighting Style and get Extra Attack. For Monk, this might afford some versatility in how they play. I could see Monks getting to choose from Dueling, Blind Fighting, Two Weapon Fighting, Interception, Thrown Weapon, and Unarmed Fighting. Hopefully Monks also get bumped up to a d10 hit die.
Sacrosanct
Legend
Based on those groups, what I see happening is:
Paladin: more focus on divine buffing/auras, etc. Less damage dealing
Monk: more KI abilities and points to fuel increase in damage. Perhaps instead of damage, their combat prowess comes in stunlocks and other battlefield control features.
Paladin: more focus on divine buffing/auras, etc. Less damage dealing
Monk: more KI abilities and points to fuel increase in damage. Perhaps instead of damage, their combat prowess comes in stunlocks and other battlefield control features.
Blue Orange
Gone to Texas
They're bringing back the divine/primal/arcane trichotomy from 4e, eh? (Of course 4e had a few more power sources too.)
It's just interesting how these things keep cycling around.
It's just interesting how these things keep cycling around.
Yaarel
He Mage
The term "priest" is problematic, because it ethnocentrically specifies theism in the context of a temple or church. For example, there is a reason why the sages of Jewish "rabbi" and Muslim "imam" avoid term priest. Likewise a nontheistic animistic "shaman" avoids the term priest, as does a Buddhist "monk".
A more multicultural term is "clergy", which is any official religious function, including priest, teacher, psychic, sibling/monk/nun, and so on.
A more multicultural term is "clergy", which is any official religious function, including priest, teacher, psychic, sibling/monk/nun, and so on.
Blue Orange
Gone to Texas
They need a word that isn't 'cleric'. It's not clear paladins are clergy, which are formal leaders within established religions. A paladin could easily be following a solitary path of dedication, and a druid could be protecting the forest all by themselves. Of course, 'priest' is even more specific.
'Monks' really ought to be 'martial artists', though--it's an old reference to Shaolin monks from the 1970s that really doesn't apply to most monastic groups (which are much closer to clerics in D&D terms).
'Monks' really ought to be 'martial artists', though--it's an old reference to Shaolin monks from the 1970s that really doesn't apply to most monastic groups (which are much closer to clerics in D&D terms).
CleverNickName
Limit Break Dancing
This sounds familiar. It wasn't that long ago that I was arguing for only having 4 classes and making everything else a subclass.
EDIT: Found it. Turns out, I've been advocating for this for a while now.
www.enworld.org
www.enworld.org
www.enworld.org
EDIT: Found it. Turns out, I've been advocating for this for a while now.
D&D 5E - Challenge: Invent a PHB Class List with 6 Classes
Warrior Rogue Priest Mage Psion Basically like 2E. Everything else is an MC or subclass Could boil it down to 3. Expert Spellcaster Warrior
www.enworld.org
Revised 6E prediction thread
Yes, there have been many prediction threads about 6e in the past. This thread isn't mean to predict when 6e will come out, but when it does, what changes do you expect to see based on what you've seen WoTC do in the past few years in regards to errata, rules changes, design directions, etc...
www.enworld.org
D&D General - Class or Subclass importance
I don't think parent classes are bad. However I don't think all the common expanded archetype in Modern D&D can fit into 3 or 4 parent classes without glut and bloat. Monks, alchemists, tinkers, beastmasters, tacticians, scholars, jaguars, and artificers don't fit the fighter/caster/thief nor...
www.enworld.org
Will do!
Hope: That when they say warriors are "masters of combat who can deal and endure many wounds", they mean it and intend to have that be a thing that distinguishes those classes as opposed to "these are classes without expertise or spellcasting". ESPECIALLY so for monks.
Fear: That these are ad hoc groups rather than coherent categories--that, for example, paladins, rangers, and fighters will have far more in common mechanically and in-setting than, say, paladins and druids, such that anytime there is a cool magic item or feat for 'warrior classes' there will be a little disclaimer that says rangers and paladins can use it too. And, inversely, that there won't be many cool magic items or feats for 'priest classes' because, thematically, druids don't have much in common with clerics and paladins.
While you guys' predictions make sense (and I would likely enjoy such changes) I am quite skeptical that WotC would make this degree of changes in the new rules (even though it's not a lot). Judging by what we've seen, the classes in the expert group don't differ a lot from their current iterations--features have been moved around, modified, and rationalized, but not many features have been added that are new or conceptually different. The ranger for example, had already gotten expertise via the Tasha's revisions, though it went by a different name.
I suspect paladins, for example, will be very nearly the same as they are currently; just as fighty as fighters, but with some features renamed, moved around, or made to be more similar to other features (i.e. proficiency times per day, once on your turn only, etc.).
I look forward to being proved wrong!
Levistus's_Leviathan
5e Freelancer
This isn't exactly the same. The classes within the different class groups have some pretty major differences: hit die, different spell progression (for the classes that get spells), and most class features being different just to name a few.This sounds familiar. It wasn't that long ago that I was arguing for only having 4 classes and making everything else a subclass.
EDIT: Found it. Turns out, I've been advocating for this for a while now.
D&D 5E - Challenge: Invent a PHB Class List with 6 Classes
Warrior Rogue Priest Mage Psion Basically like 2E. Everything else is an MC or subclass Could boil it down to 3. Expert Spellcaster WarriorRevised 6E prediction thread
Yes, there have been many prediction threads about 6e in the past. This thread isn't mean to predict when 6e will come out, but when it does, what changes do you expect to see based on what you've seen WoTC do in the past few years in regards to errata, rules changes, design directions, etc...D&D General - Class or Subclass importance
I don't think parent classes are bad. However I don't think all the common expanded archetype in Modern D&D can fit into 3 or 4 parent classes without glut and bloat. Monks, alchemists, tinkers, beastmasters, tacticians, scholars, jaguars, and artificers don't fit the fighter/caster/thief nor...
