Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What PHB class are you most anticipating?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 6331837" data-attributes="member: 18"><p>That's like saying a 4E Swordmage is "basically a Fighter/Mage from 3.5".</p><p></p><p>It's severely misleading! <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>The Psychic Warrior was basically a sub-par melee combatant (3/4 BAB, d8hp), with a few extra feats, and some psionic powers on the side (surprisingly few/weak ones, given, y'know, Clerics, who got the same BAB, HP, similar proficiencies, and full spell progression AND special abilities AND more skill points).</p><p></p><p>The Battlemind is a fully-formed ass-kicking terror of a class (albeit easier than most to "build wrong") with a ton of totally badass powers which it does not share with any other class, and which further, the Psychic Warrior also did not have. The Battlemind <em>constantly</em> uses low-mid-powered psionic effects like hyper-speed/Jedi speed, fear, weak mind-control.</p><p></p><p>I say this having played and enjoyed both Psychic Warriors and Battleminds! They are not similar in actual play, or in terms of actual abilities. It's pretty silly, imo, to point out the big differences in Ardents (correctly) then claim those two were "basically the same"!</p><p></p><p>Personally I voted for Barbarian, because in the last two playtests, it was an awesome class. Well-designed, diverse, conceptually AND mechanically interesting, and most importantly ALLOWING FOR "NAKED" BARBARIANS!</p><p></p><p>So I'm really worried that WotC have nerfed it into the ground in some way, because they clipped the wings of Fighters fairly significantly (for no apparent reason - they actually added complexity to the most simple Fighter, in doing so), and narrowed down how Rogues can operate (though we can hope that is merely a product of Basic-ness), and Barbarian is another martial-damage-oriented class. Thus I'm very keen to see what has happened.</p><p></p><p>After that, Bard and Druid are next on my list. I'm praying that Bard has LOST 3E-style idiocy like "Sneak, sneak, sneak!" (to quote a certain webcomic) and is no longer required to gain proficiency in a zillion musical instruments (when other classes are proficient in dozens of weapons or the like...), or forced to use musical instruments under any circumstance, actually (Skalds don't play your dirty lutes and bongos!). Druid was looking really good too, and could so easily go so wrong.</p><p></p><p>Ranger is at the opposite end - I want to see it, but it was basically a rolling disaster through the entire Playtest, without any sort of consistent or working concept beyond "Er... he has Cheesy Detective Show-style Tracking I guess?". In October he was one of the weakest combatants, particularly the so-called Colossus Slayer, who was probably the weakest class at damaging a single, tough enemy! (iirc - maybe Clerics were behind him!), which isn't really appropriate. I expect that, as they upped the DPR of the Rogue a hell of a lot, they'll notice this. If they don't, oh boy.</p><p></p><p> [MENTION=1288]Mouseferatu[/MENTION] - Talking in extremely vague concepts, virtually every idea for a class has appeared in D&D at some point. The Marshall is, in it's very vague concept, similar to a Warlord. In terms of actual abilities, how it plays, and so on, the resemblance is basically nil. However it <strong>does</strong> have a real 3.5E precedessor, from the Book of 9 Swords or whatever it was called - a couple of the styles in there are clearly proto-Warlord (I want to say Something Wolf... or Wolf Something).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 6331837, member: 18"] That's like saying a 4E Swordmage is "basically a Fighter/Mage from 3.5". It's severely misleading! :) The Psychic Warrior was basically a sub-par melee combatant (3/4 BAB, d8hp), with a few extra feats, and some psionic powers on the side (surprisingly few/weak ones, given, y'know, Clerics, who got the same BAB, HP, similar proficiencies, and full spell progression AND special abilities AND more skill points). The Battlemind is a fully-formed ass-kicking terror of a class (albeit easier than most to "build wrong") with a ton of totally badass powers which it does not share with any other class, and which further, the Psychic Warrior also did not have. The Battlemind [I]constantly[/I] uses low-mid-powered psionic effects like hyper-speed/Jedi speed, fear, weak mind-control. I say this having played and enjoyed both Psychic Warriors and Battleminds! They are not similar in actual play, or in terms of actual abilities. It's pretty silly, imo, to point out the big differences in Ardents (correctly) then claim those two were "basically the same"! Personally I voted for Barbarian, because in the last two playtests, it was an awesome class. Well-designed, diverse, conceptually AND mechanically interesting, and most importantly ALLOWING FOR "NAKED" BARBARIANS! So I'm really worried that WotC have nerfed it into the ground in some way, because they clipped the wings of Fighters fairly significantly (for no apparent reason - they actually added complexity to the most simple Fighter, in doing so), and narrowed down how Rogues can operate (though we can hope that is merely a product of Basic-ness), and Barbarian is another martial-damage-oriented class. Thus I'm very keen to see what has happened. After that, Bard and Druid are next on my list. I'm praying that Bard has LOST 3E-style idiocy like "Sneak, sneak, sneak!" (to quote a certain webcomic) and is no longer required to gain proficiency in a zillion musical instruments (when other classes are proficient in dozens of weapons or the like...), or forced to use musical instruments under any circumstance, actually (Skalds don't play your dirty lutes and bongos!). Druid was looking really good too, and could so easily go so wrong. Ranger is at the opposite end - I want to see it, but it was basically a rolling disaster through the entire Playtest, without any sort of consistent or working concept beyond "Er... he has Cheesy Detective Show-style Tracking I guess?". In October he was one of the weakest combatants, particularly the so-called Colossus Slayer, who was probably the weakest class at damaging a single, tough enemy! (iirc - maybe Clerics were behind him!), which isn't really appropriate. I expect that, as they upped the DPR of the Rogue a hell of a lot, they'll notice this. If they don't, oh boy. [MENTION=1288]Mouseferatu[/MENTION] - Talking in extremely vague concepts, virtually every idea for a class has appeared in D&D at some point. The Marshall is, in it's very vague concept, similar to a Warlord. In terms of actual abilities, how it plays, and so on, the resemblance is basically nil. However it [B]does[/B] have a real 3.5E precedessor, from the Book of 9 Swords or whatever it was called - a couple of the styles in there are clearly proto-Warlord (I want to say Something Wolf... or Wolf Something). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What PHB class are you most anticipating?
Top