D&D 5E What classes do you want added to 5e?

[JediGamemaster]

I have a problem with a deity simply shouting someone's wounds closed.

ok, start a thread about why you don't like clerics see how far it goes... I think GMforpowergames said he would like that thread earlier...

 

[Guest 6801328]

I think all this stuff about external agents (while relevant, technically) is a distraction from the main point: that when you say "Your character is inspired by my character" you are hijacking my right to roleplay my character, not just in terms of physical action (e.g. as a Hold Person spell, or Grappling him might do), but his very thoughts and emotions. It is categorically no different from saying, "Your character is in love with my character."

Sorry, but I will never support the inclusion of a class that even has that ability, let alone on one whose core concept is based on such an ability.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I can play this game, too!

"I don't want magic healing."

"So does that mean you don't want magic healing to work on you, either?"

"No, I just don't want to use magic myself."

"So you won't use any magic items?"

"No, I mean I won't cast any spells."

"So you'd be ok with a magical healing ability that wasn't actually 'Spellcasting'..." <-- Roll Perception vs. DC 1 to notice that's a statement not a question

no game (well I guess D&D is the game) I want to know what it would take to make it acceptable... and it was choice that I was addressing...

I think all this stuff about external agents (while relevant, technically) is a distraction from the main point: that when you say "Your character is inspired by my character" you are hijacking my right to roleplay my character, not just in terms of physical action (e.g. as a Hold Person spell, or Grappling him might do), but his very thoughts and emotions. It is categorically no different from saying, "Your character is in love with my character."

Sorry, but I will never support the inclusion of a class that even has that ability, let alone that is based on that ability.

but when given a choice you didn't like that any better...

If someone falls in love with me they gain X bonus in no way forces you... or back on point "If the character chooses to be inspired he gains X bonus" should address this

 

[TwoSix]

I think all this stuff about external agents (while relevant, technically) is a distraction from the main point: that when you say "Your character is inspired by my character" you are hijacking my right to roleplay my character, not just in terms of physical action (e.g. as a Hold Person spell, or Grappling him might do), but his very thoughts and emotions. It is categorically no different from saying, "Your character is in love with my character."

And, to repeat, that isn't what's happening unless you say it is.

 

[Guest 6801328]

no game (well I guess D&D is the game) I want to know what it would take to make it acceptable... and it was choice that I was addressing...

but when given a choice you didn't like that any better...

If someone falls in love with me they gain X bonus in no way forces you... or back on point "If the character chooses to be inspired he gains X bonus" should address this

But don't you see why it's a choice trap? "Ok, anybody who declares their character is in love with mine will get the following cool bonuses..."

"Hmm....well, I was going to play a Spock-like, emotionless Monk, but I really need that +2 so...sure...he now has a huge crush on the Half-orc."

It becomes a choice between roleplaying and minmaxing. Sure, you can change your fluff to make it look like roleplaying, but it's really just frosting on top of the minmaxing. It's a blurring of the line between what belongs to roleplaying and and what belongs to mechanics.



Here's what I'd be ok with. And by 'ok' I mean 'I think this would be really cool':

1. A general mechanic that tracked/measured interpersonal bonds.
2. The ability for any character to leverage those bonds to, say, restore HP, that worked in proportion to the strength of the bond.
3. Ideally, the ability would work best when both players 'participated', in the sense of investing a resource (an action, a hit die, a spell slot, whatever.)
4. Something available to all classes...say a Feat...that improved the efficacy of that ability.
5. A class that made it easier to use that ability (e.g., as a bonus action rather than an action, or could be done silently, or whatever) but didn't otherwise increase efficacy beyond the level determined by the bond.

Really the ONLY thing I object to about Warlord concepts is that I don't think leadership, inspiration, admiration, etc. belongs in a class. You shouldn't get to be Captain America (to other PCs*) because you chose the Captain America class. You should get to be Captain America because you earn that respect from the other players and their characters.


*Again, I'd be totally, 100% fine with a class that had Captain America-like influence over NPCs, even though in general I think that should be more about level than class choice.

 

[Aldarc]

ok, start a thread about why you don't like clerics see how far it goes... I think GMforpowergames said he would like that thread earlier...

No one is going to start that thread because most of us are decent enough people who recognize that our personal opposition to a class or concept does not provide sufficient grounds for hindering something that others may enjoy at their table.

I think all this stuff about external agents (while relevant, technically) is a distraction from the main point: that when you say "Your character is inspired by my character" you are hijacking my right to roleplay my character, not just in terms of physical action (e.g. as a Hold Person spell, or Grappling him might do), but his very thoughts and emotions. It is categorically no different from saying, "Your character is in love with my character."

Sorry, but I will never support the inclusion of a class that even has that ability, let alone on one whose core concept is based on such an ability.

Respectfully, that is your main point in the discussion, but not necessarily the main point in this broader discussion. Furthermore, you should not take that sentiment to be a universal. You may not, but sometimes comes across that way in my reading of your posts. Are you telling me that as a player I should feel that my ability to roleplay my character is being hijacked? I get that this is your opinion, and I don't want to invalidate your personal feelings in that regard, but it also feels that you are implying that I should feel upset about how another player's warlord abilities exist in relation to my own character. As someone who has played across from warlords, I never once had any inclination, notion, or knee-jerk emotional reaction to a warlord using their abilities on my character as some sort of roleplaying hijacking orchestrating my relational feelings. So no, I disagree with your assertion that this is "categorically no different from saying..." since that has not been my experience of seeing the warlord in play at all. Is your reading of the class the only right one? Should others be denied from playing a class they enjoyed because of your quibble of fluff that they don't share?

Edit: You should not read this with a hostile tone. There is frustration, but a degree of emotional openness that I hope will be helpful in communicating how it feels on my end reading your opposition to these warlord abilities.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Should others be denied from playing a class they enjoyed because of your quibble of fluff that they don't share?

Uh, I don't work for Wizards, so I'm just expressing my opinion about the class.

But as long as we're talking about "quibbles of fluff" how about the "and it must be non-magical healing" fluff? I have as much trouble understanding that requirement...in a game full of magic and fantasy...as you have understanding why I feel inspirational healing impinges on my own player agency.

 

[TwoSix]

But don't you see why it's a choice trap? "Ok, anybody who declares their character is in love with mine will get the following cool bonuses..."

"Hmm....well, I was going to play a Spock-like, emotionless Monk, but I really need that +2 so...sure...he now has a huge crush on the Half-orc."

I've gotta say, roleplaying a emotionless monk trying to hide his unrequited love for his half-orc companion sounds flipping awesome to me.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I've gotta say, roleplaying a emotionless monk trying to hide his unrequited love for his half-orc companion sounds flipping awesome to me.

The same thought crossed my mind as I typed it, but I hope you see the point: I'd be letting a desire for mechanical benefit drive my roleplaying decisions. Which maybe is better than not even having a choice of whether or not I'm in love with the Half-orc, but is still a false choice.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

But don't you see why it's a choice trap? "Ok, anybody who declares their character is in love with mine will get the following cool bonuses..."

no I don't not any more then if I don't like your character and you offer me a healing potion and I say no...

"Hmm....well, I was going to play a Spock-like, emotionless Monk, but I really need that +2 so...sure...he now has a huge crush on the Half-orc."

I guess you wanted the +2 more then you wanted to roleplay... of course since you are in full control at all times you could just make a choice...

It becomes a choice between roleplaying and minmaxing.

oh, so not only do you need to have a choice but it has to be an equal one...

try this:

Ispireing word: if you are inspired XXXX if you are not inspired you can instead get mad and XXXX or feel humiliated and gain XXXX all of the XXXX's are equal to heal 1 HD + cha mod

Really the ONLY thing I object to about Warlord concepts is that I don't think leadership, inspiration, admiration, etc. belongs in a class. You shouldn't get to be Captain America (to other PCs*) because you chose the Captain America class. You should get to be Captain America because you earn that respect from the other players and their characters.

what is the difference with a bard, a cleric, or a wizard and a warlod??

You shouldn't get to be harry potter (to other PCs*) because you chose the harry potter class class.
You shouldn't get to be a ninja (to other PCs*) because you chose the ninja class class.
You shouldn't get to be healer (to other PCs*) because you chose the healer class class.