I don't know the ratio of players who started with 5E vs those who started with any earlier edition, but I'd bet that ratio doesn't support the notion of D&D being nostalgia driven (anymore). Pre-5E I'd have felt differently, but the growth during those editions doesn't compare to what's been happening the last couple of years.
So thats the thing, right.
I think it is still heavily nostalgia ONLY because of who are on the design teams. The big voices are D&D "Vets", and now with the shift towards being more inclusive, adding more voices etc we're STARTING to see some love for new things, but we also keep going back to the Realms since its the official setting of 5th.
I think it's worth noting in the same breath that we're past the clock on edition lifespan more than we've seen in almost 20 years. 3rd to 4th was 8 years, including the 3.5 revamp, and 4th to 5th was 6 years. Both of the editions it was announced about 1.5-2 years prior to the new one that work on the next edition was being done. We're about to hit the 7 year milestone of 5th in August(PHB release, not D&D Next) with ZERO mention of 5.5 or 6th, an it's honestly the contrary. Everything announced lately has been "5th is love, 5th is life, no plans for 6th in the foreseeable future."
How does that affect "what's next?" Well, we're seeing it. The release schedule for books is ramping up. New settings, wacky ideas being playtested that are contrary to the core belief of how classes/subclasses work. Core ideas for the D&D for life crew, new ideas for the D&D is my new life crew. I'm honestly super excited for all of it. I think a 5-8 release schedule for an edition stifles creativity in the lore sense, which is what it SHOULD be about.
I think it is still heavily nostalgia ONLY because of who are on the design teams. The big voices are D&D "Vets", and now with the shift towards being more inclusive, adding more voices etc we're STARTING to see some love for new things, but we also keep going back to the Realms since its the official setting of 5th.
Eeeeeh... I mean, the game needs a main, supported, setting for DMs who don't want to create their own. WotC went back to the Realms for that, sure, but we only got a Ravenloft setting book this year and the other classic settings are probably going to be for next year (possibly not both of them either). That's not exactly a nostalgic track record. Yes, the adventures are FR-centric but again, the game needs a main setting and the FR are it for 5E and other than the SCAG and the info interspersed among those modules we haven't been flooded with FR material either. If this was heavy nostalgia only recently shifting a bit towards the new and fresh, I wonder what we'd called it if we got a proper FR book or two year one, Ravenloft year 2, Dragonlance year 3, an Underdark book year 4 and so on.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Why release an edition when 5e is still selling like hot cake for its genre. If things start to dip into a very negative realm, releasing a new edition makes a lot more sense. But so far 5e doesn't feel like its at the end of its lifetime. I say we're midway. Come back 2026 :D
I think it is still heavily nostalgia ONLY because of who are on the design teams. The big voices are D&D "Vets", and now with the shift towards being more inclusive, adding more voices etc we're STARTING to see some love for new things, but we also keep going back to the Realms since its the official setting of 5th.
Eeeeeh... I mean, the game needs a main, supported, setting for DMs who don't want to create their own. WotC went back to the Realms for that, sure, but we only got a Ravenloft setting book this year and the other classic settings are probably going to be for next year (possibly not both of them either). That's not exactly a nostalgic track record. Yes, the adventures are FR-centric but again, the game needs a main setting and the FR are it for 5E and other than the SCAG and the info interspersed among those modules we haven't been flooded with FR material either. If this was heavy nostalgia only recently shifting a bit towards the new and fresh, I wonder what we'd called it if we got a proper FR book or two year one, Ravenloft year 2, Dragonlance year 3, an Underdark book year 4 and so on.
Well, almost all of the adventures that have been published are a throwback to a module from prior editions, so that is a point for nostalgia being at least a part of 5e.
I think it is still heavily nostalgia ONLY because of who are on the design teams. The big voices are D&D "Vets", and now with the shift towards being more inclusive, adding more voices etc we're STARTING to see some love for new things, but we also keep going back to the Realms since its the official setting of 5th.
Eeeeeh... I mean, the game needs a main, supported, setting for DMs who don't want to create their own. WotC went back to the Realms for that, sure, but we only got a Ravenloft setting book this year and the other classic settings are probably going to be for next year (possibly not both of them either). That's not exactly a nostalgic track record. Yes, the adventures are FR-centric but again, the game needs a main setting and the FR are it for 5E and other than the SCAG and the info interspersed among those modules we haven't been flooded with FR material either. If this was heavy nostalgia only recently shifting a bit towards the new and fresh, I wonder what we'd called it if we got a proper FR book or two year one, Ravenloft year 2, Dragonlance year 3, an Underdark book year 4 and so on.
We're saying the same things, just in different words. I totally agree, and I want Faerun to be the official setting. Content creation is so much easier when you have one big focal point, and I think that's what the vets on the team are trying to do. Then you have voices like Makenzie, who has credits on the Strixhaven UA, and per her BIO shes only been into D&D for 3-4 years. She joined DURING this edition, and that's amazing. Same thing with Taymoor, who had a hand in one of the candldekeep adventures and helped pen the Draconic Options UA, working on existing lore that's there AND new stuff. It's easier for them to work on new stuff because you don't have the hammer above you on "What if I mess it up, an it doesn't align with what already happened?" and I think for D&D fans that's a very real thing. When the lore doesn't make sense, people get VOCAL. FAST.
The lore exists in all of the modules happening at once, right. It exists in outside content too though, and that's where it gets messy. The Starlight Enclave is going to be a canonical rewrite on the history of Drow come August, but when will we see that in a 5th book? Probably not for a good bit, sadly.
These are the things I think of in the coming ahead things, not so much "What subclass am I gonna get" but more "How is the big picture of the game evolving" and it definitely is.
I think any claims of nostalgia are making some presumptions as to how much players are actually invested in FR. Yes it's a default setting because it's a vanilla flavored kitchen sink that anyone can play anything in. It's also literally inconsequential in terms of WotC literal world building. Case in point Tyranny of Dragons took place in 1489. Descent into Avernus takes place 3 years later as if it never happened. The major events in the FR that were integrated into prior editions just sort of happen ... with little canonical ramifications other than maybe a timestamp in a fan supported wiki. I mean the greatest continuity you see in 5e FR are the silly obelisk puzzles, the punchline of which is
"bye, have fun making up ancient history your 9th-10th level party can have an impact in!"
Nostalgia done well usually has some sort of reverence to bring the revering into reverie. 5e hasn't done that. Easy reference isn't nostalgia, it's utility convenience. FR exists not as a way to push some game developing meta narrative. FR exists to ground games for players who don't have a table with the time or interest in investing in world building, or at best want someone to literally draw them a map so they can build it out from there. FR is not something one needs a handle on to play any of the modules well beyond what the module provides. The game may grow mechanically, but the default world exists in stasis, because it's inessential. Sure Drow lore may expand Drow history ... but in no way diminish the Drow/Elf schism story that's driven that conflict for centuries/millenia in FR time and decades in RL, because it's not essential), but through geographically remote isolation that will render the impact on the world "optional." 5e's secret motto seems "if you don't like it, cool, you do you and maybe you'll like our next set of options" I think that's fine for 5e's goal to be something for everyone.
It's hard to develop a strong bond with a world where ... nothing of consequence ever really happens.
Another angle coming from the origin point I started with, was the Cult of the Dragon anything like what the Cult of the Dragon was in prior editions? The original goal of the Cult of the Dragon and what its usurpers were doing in 5e was done in a way that pretty much usurped the lore/nostalgic Cult (dracoliches, and some really big ones, some of whom were so wicked but so magically talented they got a pass from Mystra) in favor of a more superficial understanding of ungrounded lore (Tiamat). Descent into Avernus spends a lot of time talking about Baldur's Gate ... but not really in a way that's built off that location's legacy beyond a location name and it's a "rough kinda town."
Ok, take this with a grain of salt (or a heaping pile of it) but the Strixhaven UA got me thinking if the idea of subclasses that span several classes could be a look at what might be coming ahead in next edition whether that’s 1 year or 15 years down the road.
I do believe this is a view into the future of D&D, but it’s not the view you think it is.
WotC has stated since the beginning of the edition that moving forward, everything would be designed as backwards compatible, and I think they really mean it. I’ve suspected it for a while, but now I’m pretty sure that my suspicion is correct. The reason WotC feels confident they are going to be able to deliver on that is because they realized that they already do that. This should look fairly familiar to some people:
It’s an M:tG standard rotation, the list of which sets are included in standard play. Every so many months a new “Core Set” comes out indicating what is core, then WotC takes the audience to an exotic location (or three, depending) where things work in strange and fantastic ways (block specific mechanics) before the next “core” comes out and we take another swing ‘round to somewhere else. They’re now doing the same thing with D&D, but they’re labeling it differently so we don’t have apoplexy. If they released a new “core set” for D&D every year we would be sharpening our pitchforks and preparing extra torches. So instead we get a new “[Somebody’s Something] of Everything” that establishes a new “core” before they take us round again. The use of PB for features that permitted the last “rotation” will be mostly phased into the background and this “block” we have radical Lineages that cross creature types, and radical subclasses that cross classes for casters. The next “Baby’s Diaperload of Everything” will come out, consolidate everything for us, and then next time it will be something else. Inevitably someone will ask if that’s the new future of D&D and it’ll be a bit before every else catches on, but it’ll happen.
We are obviously already getting replacement Dragonborn, the future format for Sorcerers is shaping up too. Once enough of the PHB content is either obsolete or has already been redesigned, we will get a new Core 3 with the updates, but it will still fit with all of this stuff. It may still say 5th, or maybe it’ll say 6th on the cover, but it won’t matter because it likely be a v.5.1.0, and the sorcerers will have gotten beefed like the latest subclasses, the Dragonborn will have been beefed like the new ones in UA currently. The DMG will have better crafting mechanics, the monsters in the MM will have bonus actions but no alignment. Whatever else they creep between now and then will be included. Otherwise the game will likely remain largely unchanged.
Ok, take this with a grain of salt (or a heaping pile of it) but the Strixhaven UA got me thinking if the idea of subclasses that span several classes could be a look at what might be coming ahead in next edition whether that’s 1 year or 15 years down the road.
I do believe this is a view into the future of D&D, but it’s not the view you think it is.
WotC has stated since the beginning of the edition that moving forward, everything would be designed as backwards compatible, and I think they really mean it. I’ve suspected it for a while, but now I’m pretty sure that my suspicion is correct. The reason WotC feels confident they are going to be able to deliver on that is because they realized that they already do that. This should look fairly familiar to some people:
It’s an M:tG standard rotation, the list of which sets are included in standard play. Every so many months a new “Core Set” comes out indicating what is core, then WotC takes the audience to an exotic location (or three, depending) where things work in strange and fantastic ways (block specific mechanics) before the next “core” comes out and we take another swing ‘round to somewhere else. They’re now doing the same thing with D&D, but they’re labeling it differently so we don’t have apoplexy. If they released a new “core set” for D&D every year we would be sharpening our pitchforks and preparing extra torches. So instead we get a new “[Somebody’s Something] of Everything” that establishes a new “core” before they take us round again. The use of PB for features that permitted the last “rotation” will be mostly phased into the background and this “block” we have radical Lineages that cross creature types, and radical subclasses that cross classes for casters. The next “Baby’s Diaperload of Everything” will come out, consolidate everything for us, and then next time it will be something else. Inevitably someone will ask if that’s the new future of D&D and it’ll be a bit before every else catches on, but it’ll happen.
We are obviously already getting replacement Dragonborn, the future format for Sorcerers is shaping up too. Once enough of the PHB content is either obsolete or has already been redesigned, we will get a new Core 3 with the updates, but it will still fit with all of this stuff. It may still say 5th, or maybe it’ll say 6th on the cover, but it won’t matter because it likely be a v.5.1.0, and the sorcerers will have gotten beefed like the latest subclasses, the Dragonborn will have been beefed like the new ones in UA currently. The DMG will have better crafting mechanics, the monsters in the MM will have bonus actions but no alignment. Whatever else they creep between now and then will be included. Otherwise the game will likely remain largely unchanged.
That’s the future of D&D I see in all of this.
That is an interesting take and hadn’t thought of it in that way. Not an M:tG guy (although did play with some friends briefly when it first came out many years ago. But hadn’t followed it since)
The UA is so clunky it will have to be seen how they polish it up. And if they come out with martial variants in one of the other books coming out.
A bunch of ... actually pretty insightful thought snipped for brevity
That’s the future of D&D I see in all of this.
QUIT YOUR DAY JOB AND BECOME A PROPHET!
I think what you're speaking actually expands, with reference to actual business practices in Magic, what I was expecting in 2024, some sort of "consolidated edition" ... where the core books maintain the basic mechanics of play (d20 and polyhedral resolution, spells lots, proficiencies etc) but makes things like floating ability score mods (though the "classic races" will likely still be offered as examples or templates), lineage reworks, and debugged sorcerer will be more present as options in the core rules. And then the versioning cycle continues as long as the market allows for it.
Even as someone who really doesn't care for the two "everything" books (they just read to me as thin overall, Tasha's more so than XtGE actually, even though it's options are arguably more radical) and preferred the focus of Ravensloft (my dream would be future modifications to play would be offered in focused setting on concepts, like draconic options in a dragon book, plane-touched and planewalking options in a planes book etc), I'd say you've recognize a principle that may well be at play in D&D product line development..
Yrah, I think the stuff will be in focuses setting related books, and then just consolidated into a “Li’l Niblet of Everything” from now on.
I honestly thought 3e was going to go like this. Then I thought 3.5 was just to get over the stutters. Then I gave up on them for a long time. But I think they finally got that recto-cranial extraction surgery.
When talking about 5e being nostalgia-driven, you can't just look at the settings released. Look at the core design. It was absolutely designed as a return to "classic D&D." Wish is regressive. Fireball being objectively better than other damaging spells for its level is regressive. Wild Shape and Beast Companion relying on monster stat blocks is regressive. Nods to 1-2e are everywhere and several 3-4e mechanics were abandoned entirely. When you first started playing, it felt like old D&D.
WotC needed folks to come back. Come back and DM for new players. And it totally worked. But I agree that the demographic has shifted enough that they don't need to angle that way anymore. They've sucked in all the grognards and now they're going to rely on the new players to pull them into the future. I don't think this means every product is going to be revolutionary, but it does feel like the chains have been loosened quite a bit.
At any rate, it makes sense that they try the unconventional stuff in crossover products like this. Purists will reject the setting anyway, so why restrict the content to their tastes?
So thats the thing, right.
I think it is still heavily nostalgia ONLY because of who are on the design teams. The big voices are D&D "Vets", and now with the shift towards being more inclusive, adding more voices etc we're STARTING to see some love for new things, but we also keep going back to the Realms since its the official setting of 5th.
I think it's worth noting in the same breath that we're past the clock on edition lifespan more than we've seen in almost 20 years. 3rd to 4th was 8 years, including the 3.5 revamp, and 4th to 5th was 6 years. Both of the editions it was announced about 1.5-2 years prior to the new one that work on the next edition was being done. We're about to hit the 7 year milestone of 5th in August(PHB release, not D&D Next) with ZERO mention of 5.5 or 6th, an it's honestly the contrary. Everything announced lately has been "5th is love, 5th is life, no plans for 6th in the foreseeable future."
How does that affect "what's next?" Well, we're seeing it. The release schedule for books is ramping up. New settings, wacky ideas being playtested that are contrary to the core belief of how classes/subclasses work. Core ideas for the D&D for life crew, new ideas for the D&D is my new life crew. I'm honestly super excited for all of it. I think a 5-8 release schedule for an edition stifles creativity in the lore sense, which is what it SHOULD be about.
Eeeeeh... I mean, the game needs a main, supported, setting for DMs who don't want to create their own. WotC went back to the Realms for that, sure, but we only got a Ravenloft setting book this year and the other classic settings are probably going to be for next year (possibly not both of them either). That's not exactly a nostalgic track record. Yes, the adventures are FR-centric but again, the game needs a main setting and the FR are it for 5E and other than the SCAG and the info interspersed among those modules we haven't been flooded with FR material either. If this was heavy nostalgia only recently shifting a bit towards the new and fresh, I wonder what we'd called it if we got a proper FR book or two year one, Ravenloft year 2, Dragonlance year 3, an Underdark book year 4 and so on.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Why release an edition when 5e is still selling like hot cake for its genre. If things start to dip into a very negative realm, releasing a new edition makes a lot more sense. But so far 5e doesn't feel like its at the end of its lifetime. I say we're midway. Come back 2026 :D
Well, almost all of the adventures that have been published are a throwback to a module from prior editions, so that is a point for nostalgia being at least a part of 5e.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
We're saying the same things, just in different words. I totally agree, and I want Faerun to be the official setting. Content creation is so much easier when you have one big focal point, and I think that's what the vets on the team are trying to do. Then you have voices like Makenzie, who has credits on the Strixhaven UA, and per her BIO shes only been into D&D for 3-4 years. She joined DURING this edition, and that's amazing. Same thing with Taymoor, who had a hand in one of the candldekeep adventures and helped pen the Draconic Options UA, working on existing lore that's there AND new stuff. It's easier for them to work on new stuff because you don't have the hammer above you on "What if I mess it up, an it doesn't align with what already happened?" and I think for D&D fans that's a very real thing. When the lore doesn't make sense, people get VOCAL. FAST.
The lore exists in all of the modules happening at once, right. It exists in outside content too though, and that's where it gets messy. The Starlight Enclave is going to be a canonical rewrite on the history of Drow come August, but when will we see that in a 5th book? Probably not for a good bit, sadly.
These are the things I think of in the coming ahead things, not so much "What subclass am I gonna get" but more "How is the big picture of the game evolving" and it definitely is.
I think any claims of nostalgia are making some presumptions as to how much players are actually invested in FR. Yes it's a default setting because it's a vanilla flavored kitchen sink that anyone can play anything in. It's also literally inconsequential in terms of WotC literal world building. Case in point Tyranny of Dragons took place in 1489. Descent into Avernus takes place 3 years later as if it never happened. The major events in the FR that were integrated into prior editions just sort of happen ... with little canonical ramifications other than maybe a timestamp in a fan supported wiki. I mean the greatest continuity you see in 5e FR are the silly obelisk puzzles, the punchline of which is
"bye, have fun making up ancient history your 9th-10th level party can have an impact in!"
Nostalgia done well usually has some sort of reverence to bring the revering into reverie. 5e hasn't done that. Easy reference isn't nostalgia, it's utility convenience. FR exists not as a way to push some game developing meta narrative. FR exists to ground games for players who don't have a table with the time or interest in investing in world building, or at best want someone to literally draw them a map so they can build it out from there. FR is not something one needs a handle on to play any of the modules well beyond what the module provides. The game may grow mechanically, but the default world exists in stasis, because it's inessential. Sure Drow lore may expand Drow history ... but in no way diminish the Drow/Elf schism story that's driven that conflict for centuries/millenia in FR time and decades in RL, because it's not essential), but through geographically remote isolation that will render the impact on the world "optional." 5e's secret motto seems "if you don't like it, cool, you do you and maybe you'll like our next set of options" I think that's fine for 5e's goal to be something for everyone.
It's hard to develop a strong bond with a world where ... nothing of consequence ever really happens.
Another angle coming from the origin point I started with, was the Cult of the Dragon anything like what the Cult of the Dragon was in prior editions? The original goal of the Cult of the Dragon and what its usurpers were doing in 5e was done in a way that pretty much usurped the lore/nostalgic Cult (dracoliches, and some really big ones, some of whom were so wicked but so magically talented they got a pass from Mystra) in favor of a more superficial understanding of ungrounded lore (Tiamat). Descent into Avernus spends a lot of time talking about Baldur's Gate ... but not really in a way that's built off that location's legacy beyond a location name and it's a "rough kinda town."
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I do believe this is a view into the future of D&D, but it’s not the view you think it is.
WotC has stated since the beginning of the edition that moving forward, everything would be designed as backwards compatible, and I think they really mean it. I’ve suspected it for a while, but now I’m pretty sure that my suspicion is correct. The reason WotC feels confident they are going to be able to deliver on that is because they realized that they already do that. This should look fairly familiar to some people:
It’s an M:tG standard rotation, the list of which sets are included in standard play. Every so many months a new “Core Set” comes out indicating what is core, then WotC takes the audience to an exotic location (or three, depending) where things work in strange and fantastic ways (block specific mechanics) before the next “core” comes out and we take another swing ‘round to somewhere else. They’re now doing the same thing with D&D, but they’re labeling it differently so we don’t have apoplexy. If they released a new “core set” for D&D every year we would be sharpening our pitchforks and preparing extra torches. So instead we get a new “[Somebody’s Something] of Everything” that establishes a new “core” before they take us round again. The use of PB for features that permitted the last “rotation” will be mostly phased into the background and this “block” we have radical Lineages that cross creature types, and radical subclasses that cross classes for casters. The next “Baby’s Diaperload of Everything” will come out, consolidate everything for us, and then next time it will be something else. Inevitably someone will ask if that’s the new future of D&D and it’ll be a bit before every else catches on, but it’ll happen.
We are obviously already getting replacement Dragonborn, the future format for Sorcerers is shaping up too. Once enough of the PHB content is either obsolete or has already been redesigned, we will get a new Core 3 with the updates, but it will still fit with all of this stuff. It may still say 5th, or maybe it’ll say 6th on the cover, but it won’t matter because it likely be a v.5.1.0, and the sorcerers will have gotten beefed like the latest subclasses, the Dragonborn will have been beefed like the new ones in UA currently. The DMG will have better crafting mechanics, the monsters in the MM will have bonus actions but no alignment. Whatever else they creep between now and then will be included. Otherwise the game will likely remain largely unchanged.
That’s the future of D&D I see in all of this.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
That is an interesting take and hadn’t thought of it in that way. Not an M:tG guy (although did play with some friends briefly when it first came out many years ago. But hadn’t followed it since)
The UA is so clunky it will have to be seen how they polish it up. And if they come out with martial variants in one of the other books coming out.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
QUIT YOUR DAY JOB AND BECOME A PROPHET!
I think what you're speaking actually expands, with reference to actual business practices in Magic, what I was expecting in 2024, some sort of "consolidated edition" ... where the core books maintain the basic mechanics of play (d20 and polyhedral resolution, spells lots, proficiencies etc) but makes things like floating ability score mods (though the "classic races" will likely still be offered as examples or templates), lineage reworks, and debugged sorcerer will be more present as options in the core rules. And then the versioning cycle continues as long as the market allows for it.
Even as someone who really doesn't care for the two "everything" books (they just read to me as thin overall, Tasha's more so than XtGE actually, even though it's options are arguably more radical) and preferred the focus of Ravensloft (my dream would be future modifications to play would be offered in focused setting on concepts, like draconic options in a dragon book, plane-touched and planewalking options in a planes book etc), I'd say you've recognize a principle that may well be at play in D&D product line development..
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Thank you. Lol
Yrah, I think the stuff will be in focuses setting related books, and then just consolidated into a “Li’l Niblet of Everything” from now on.
I honestly thought 3e was going to go like this. Then I thought 3.5 was just to get over the stutters. Then I gave up on them for a long time. But I think they finally got that recto-cranial extraction surgery.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
When talking about 5e being nostalgia-driven, you can't just look at the settings released. Look at the core design. It was absolutely designed as a return to "classic D&D." Wish is regressive. Fireball being objectively better than other damaging spells for its level is regressive. Wild Shape and Beast Companion relying on monster stat blocks is regressive. Nods to 1-2e are everywhere and several 3-4e mechanics were abandoned entirely. When you first started playing, it felt like old D&D.
WotC needed folks to come back. Come back and DM for new players. And it totally worked. But I agree that the demographic has shifted enough that they don't need to angle that way anymore. They've sucked in all the grognards and now they're going to rely on the new players to pull them into the future. I don't think this means every product is going to be revolutionary, but it does feel like the chains have been loosened quite a bit.
At any rate, it makes sense that they try the unconventional stuff in crossover products like this. Purists will reject the setting anyway, so why restrict the content to their tastes?
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm