D&D 5E What Classes do you really want to see in D&D Next?

Advilaar

Explorer
Is the Pathfinder druid over powered? I can't say. We (my group) play Pathfinder but haven't had a druid yet. Maybe someone else care to chime in.

I have not played pathfinder, but i have looked at the rules and know about druids from both 3.5 and 4e. The 3.5 druid and PF druid are around the same from what I read.

One of the main complaints from two of the folks that played with me is that the druid was almost too good at being a hybrid. He could summon a Tendriculous, morph into a T rex, and eat you while you are being struck by lightning multiple times... and if he got wounded to much turn into a house fly and heal up to come back for more. Particularly at very high levels. Why roll anything but a druid, cleric, or wizard?

Don't get me wrong. the above scenario is epic as hell. But I like the guy playing the fighter at my table to feel useful and do epic stuff, too.

But, it is a dead horse. There were many threads about CoDzilla. But, I do not think they should have totally declawed the druid, either in the name of "roles".
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
As a whole, no D&D class or combination thus far published truly models the Adepts, but Hexblades are a lot closer than are Bards. Adepts have arcane abilities that more closely resemble the full spectrum of spells that wizards or sorcerers have- illusions, direct damage, abjurations, etc.- though not as powerful (generally speaking) as full wizards. If they break their taboos, they lose power. And those that know their taboos have increased power over them.

To truly model an Adept with a Hexblade, you'd have to put some bite into failing to abide by the terms of their pact. A lot more would need to be done to do likewise with a Bard.
 

Stacie GmrGrl

Adventurer
I have to admit, the inclusion of such things as Duskblade and the like make me go yuk. would people be content to see these as Prestige Classes however?

Oh God I hope not... I hated Prestige Classes... a great concept done horribly not well.

Now... what would be cool to me is if they set it up where a base Class advanced into more advanced, and more specific, offshoots.
~~ Take the Rogue, have it set where upon reaching a certain level it then offers three or four more specific options... like paragon paths in 4e, just not called that. Maybe from starting as a Rogue you can then become a Assassin, Shadowdancer, Ninja, or Spellthief. Your still a Rogue from the base Class, but you then get more specific Assassin abilities, as an example. Just make it part of the Class.
 

Frostmarrow

First Post
Oh God I hope not... I hated Prestige Classes... a great concept done horribly not well.

Now... what would be cool to me is if they set it up where a base Class advanced into more advanced, and more specific, offshoots.
~~ Take the Rogue, have it set where upon reaching a certain level it then offers three or four more specific options... like paragon paths in 4e, just not called that. Maybe from starting as a Rogue you can then become a Assassin, Shadowdancer, Ninja, or Spellthief. Your still a Rogue from the base Class, but you then get more specific Assassin abilities, as an example. Just make it part of the Class.

Everytime they formalize a character concept that concept is somehow barred from the imagnation. "My fighter is a mercenary. No, not the subclass mercenary nor the prestige class mercenary. He's a mercenary in that he fights for money, he is just bad news. No, he does not have the mercenary issue eye-patch with +2 intimidate bonus from page 72 in The Book of All Fighter Stereotypes but he does have an eye-patch. See?"
 

Moon_Goddess

Have I really been on this site for over 20 years!
I have not played pathfinder, but i have looked at the rules and know about druids from both 3.5 and 4e. The 3.5 druid and PF druid are around the same from what I read.

One of the main complaints from two of the folks that played with me is that the druid was almost too good at being a hybrid. He could summon a Tendriculous, morph into a T rex, and eat you while you are being struck by lightning multiple times... and if he got wounded to much turn into a house fly and heal up to come back for more. Particularly at very high levels. Why roll anything but a druid, cleric, or wizard?

Don't get me wrong. the above scenario is epic as hell. But I like the guy playing the fighter at my table to feel useful and do epic stuff, too.

But, it is a dead horse. There were many threads about CoDzilla. But, I do not think they should have totally declawed the druid, either in the name of "roles".

Ok, don't get me wrong, I never said that pathfinder Druid is not CoDzilla. (I agree that it is) The argument wasn't if all these things being given to one character is OP, the original statement was
Shapechanging is broken or purely cosmetic, there is no middle-ground.

And I said that I feel that pathfinder's shapechanging on it's druid is not purely costmetic, yet is controlled and is not overpowered.

At 4th level you can go to a small creature and get +2 Dex, or medium creature and get +2 str. and if the creature has a list of abilities you can get them too, but not just anything you can find ploughing through the MM.

Here, this... Beast Shape - Pathfinder_OGC
 

Is the Pathfinder druid over powered? I can't say. We (my group) play Pathfinder but haven't had a druid yet. Maybe someone else care to chime in.

I haven't played a lot of Pathfinder, but I did play in a game with a druid.

Between Wild Shape, pets, and animal summoning... I don't know if it was overpowered, but it was incredibly annoying. Slowed the game to a crawl.
 


Kobold Stew

Last Guy in the Airlock
Supporter
I haven't played a lot of Pathfinder, but I did play in a game with a druid.

Between Wild Shape, pets, and animal summoning... I don't know if it was overpowered, but it was incredibly annoying. Slowed the game to a crawl.

This is the Druid that I would like to see and play.
 

TwinBahamut

First Post
I have to admit, the inclusion of such things as Duskblade and the like make me go yuk. would people be content to see these as Prestige Classes however?
No, I would not be content with that at all. For one thing, that would entail a return to the 3E multiclassing and prestige class system, which I hope we can avoid. More important, though, is that the Duskblade is a great idea for a main class, has previously existed as a main class, and by this thread is clearly popular as such.

I see no reason whatsoever to relegate such a cool class to being a secondary option, simply because it makes you say "yuk". You've got to admit, that is rather petty and selfish on your part. You could at least provide some justification for your dislike so we can discuss it properly.

Everytime they formalize a character concept that concept is somehow barred from the imagnation. "My fighter is a mercenary. No, not the subclass mercenary nor the prestige class mercenary. He's a mercenary in that he fights for money, he is just bad news. No, he does not have the mercenary issue eye-patch with +2 intimidate bonus from page 72 in The Book of All Fighter Stereotypes but he does have an eye-patch. See?"
This is only really true for really bad class design, and doesn't work when generalized out as a complaint against having more classes.

Sure, if you design a class called the Mercenary, and its concept begins and ends with "it's a mercenary that fights for money", then it is a bad class for a hundred reasons beyond your complaint. I don't want that kind of class in D&D and I'm the guy who wants a hundred classes.

Classes should create new mechanical options. They should make character concepts that are impossible with the existing rules and classes into possibilities. They should fill roles that have not been done before and create new opportunities for players to express their imagination in novel ways. This is why they should exist to create entirely new mechanics that can be flavored in many ways (as with many good classes), rather than be attempts to straightjacket flavor to poorly executed and dull mechanics (like in your example).

Overall, there are so many things that D&D simply has never done with its classes that we are very, very far from the point where we need to worry about well-designed classes stepping on each other's concepts and limiting player imagination.
 

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
For one thing, that would entail a return to the 3E multiclassing and prestige class system, which I hope we can avoid.

Having seen ZERO 5Ed material, having been thoroughly unimpressed by 4Ed multiclassing and finding the Hybrid rules almost OK, I have to ask, what kind of multiclassing- if any- do you prefer?
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top