Todd Kenreck got Crawford and Perkins to sit down and talk about the new PHB today:
Some interesting tidbits:
1) The PHB is in the print-proofing/printout-review stage, i.e. last chance for text updates No change to the expected release date .
2) Confirmation on what the 4th Fighter Subclass will be (Psi Warrior. Called it)
3) Confirmation that the Tasha Subclasses that are going to core went through their own internal round of playtesting and adjustments. (My guess is that this includes things like Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul Sorcerer having their bonus spells removed, but no details yet.)
4) Soulknife is going to be core now - not sure which of the other rogue subclasses it's replacing (my guess is Swashbuckler, but it could be Assassin too - I don't see them removing Thief or Arcane Trickster.)
5) In addition to every subclass getting its own piece of art, several spells will also. This includes spells that are tied to specific D&D characters, e.g. we will see Bigby casting Bigby's Hand, Melf casting his Acid Arrow, Tasha casting her Hideous Laughter etc.
5) New rules guidance that wasn't in the original PHB, such as adjudicating illusions and breaking objects (the latter of which previously required jumping back and forth between the PHB and DMG). Reiteration that the new PHB will have feats and spells that weren't present in core before, or may even be new to the game entirely.
Swashbuckler was never in the PHB though. There were only ever three Rogue Subclasses (Arcane Trickster, Assassin's and Thief), so if they're adding just Soulknife, then it brings it up to the four they promised.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Swashbuckler was never in the PHB though. There were only ever three Rogue Subclasses (Arcane Trickster, Assassin's and Thief), so if they're adding just Soulknife, then it brings it up to the four they promised.
Swashbuckler was playtested, and personally I’d prefer Assassin got dropped over it. Or, honestly, maybe it will be Thief. That’s arguably the one that puts the least individual spin on the class.
I would be kind of embarrassed to see Thief and Soulknife in the same source book. Like we're all just supposed to act like those archetypes are balanced against each other. That might be the most egregious example of the difference between PHB subclasses and Tasha's subclasses.
Swashbuckler was never in the PHB though. There were only ever three Rogue Subclasses (Arcane Trickster, Assassin's and Thief), so if they're adding just Soulknife, then it brings it up to the four they promised.
Swashbuckler was in the last Rogue UA (UA6), so it was slated for the PHB - hence me saying Soulknife likely replaced that one. (Frankly though, like Ace of Rogues, I'm hoping for Assassin. It was certainly improved in UA6, but still pretty meh. At least Swashbuckler makes your rogue unique.)
Very exciting. Really curios to see what changes they've made to the playtest material and what else they've added since then.
Bard and Ranger will need some pretty significant changes vs their most recent UA versions.
Looking forward to see how ranger comes out since it is one of my favorite classes. Since they'll have Gloomstalker, I'm really curios to see what the final verions of Hunter and Beastmaster will be to convince players to use those over Gloomstalker.
Todd Kenreck got Crawford and Perkins to sit down and talk about the new PHB today:
Thanks for posting this, I hope they don't drop the ball on these rules. But I feel they already did, as they are saying Species is the term they went with. Wrong choice IMO. I could rant for hours why Species is worse than the old term, I was hoping for Ancestry or something that felt more setting appropriate. Forbearers is good. But at last they have probably already started to print Species in new material leading up to book launch,
Todd Kenreck got Crawford and Perkins to sit down and talk about the new PHB today:
Thanks for posting this, I hope they don't drop the ball on these rules. But I feel they already did, as they are saying Species is the term they went with. Wrong choice IMO. I could rant for hours why Species is worse than the old term, I was hoping for Ancestry or something that felt more setting appropriate. Forbearers is good. But at last they have probably already started to print Species in new material leading up to book launch,
I would be kind of embarrassed to see Thief and Soulknife in the same source book. Like we're all just supposed to act like those archetypes are balanced against each other. That might be the most egregious example of the difference between PHB subclasses and Tasha's subclasses.
UA6 thief is actually quite good -- it specifically permits using magic items with fast hands (a disputed feature in the 2014 rules)
I voted for Ancestry, with "Lineage" as a runner-up if they didn't want to be seen as stealing from Paizo. (And even if they were, who cares, Paizo stole plenty from them!)
But yeah, it does look like "Species" somehow won 😮💨
How exactly is species wrong, particularly in spec-fic parlance as opposed to strict scientific terminology? Stuff like ancestry and lineage honestly implies that everyone shares a common root far enough back, which is objectively not how the origins have been framed as recently as the UAs for the race/species updates.
How exactly is species wrong, particularly in spec-fic parlance as opposed to strict scientific terminology? Stuff like ancestry and lineage honestly implies that everyone shares a common root far enough back, which is objectively not how the origins have been framed as recently as the UAs for the race/species updates.
It's not that species is wrong per se, it's that it has all the same problems as the term it's replacing. So the people who don't like "race" still don't like "species", and the people who are okay with "species" by and large were fine with "race".
It's sort of a perfect compromise in that nobody gets what they want.
How exactly is species wrong, particularly in spec-fic parlance as opposed to strict scientific terminology? Stuff like ancestry and lineage honestly implies that everyone shares a common root far enough back, which is objectively not how the origins have been framed as recently as the UAs for the race/species updates.
I will open a new thread to answer this, as I have a great response, but I do not want to derail this thread, as it would cause further discussion in another direction.
I voted for Ancestry, with "Lineage" as a runner-up if they didn't want to be seen as stealing from Paizo.
Both ancestry and lineage are significantly worse than species, as they aren't fundamentally group identifiers in the first place, they're used to describe parentage (for example, you wouldn't say a tiefling has tiefling ancestry -- you would say a tiefling has fiend ancestry).
How exactly is species wrong, particularly in spec-fic parlance as opposed to strict scientific terminology?
The usual grumble about species is that it sounds overly scienc-ey (pretty much an aethetic complaint; the word was used in Latin translations of Aristotle's biology in a way that's recognizably related to modern use) or that it's inaccurate (true but irrelevant as no alternatives are any better; we don't have an accurate term because nothing like D&D species exists in the real world).
And that's really the issue: if there was actually a clearly superior term, it would have shown up already. There isn't.
I wonder if soulknife, psi warrior, aberrant mind means they're planning on more pisonics. Or of it's more like, here's your psionics. Enjoy them. Now be quiet about them and don't expect much more.
I wonder if soulknife, psi warrior, aberrant mind means they're planning on more pisonics. Or of it's more like, here's your psionics. Enjoy them. Now be quiet about them and don't expect much more.
They haven't UA'd another mystic as a part of one D&D, and I doubt WotC would have diverted any of their efforts toward developing an entirely new class.
I wonder if soulknife, psi warrior, aberrant mind means they're planning on more pisonics. Or of it's more like, here's your psionics. Enjoy them. Now be quiet about them and don't expect much more.
You forgot GOOlock. Anyway, they're not going to do a psionic primary class, so other than maybe a psionic monk I'm not sure what they'd create.
I would be surprised to see Thief and/or Assassin removed. Thief and Assassin were the classes in 1E before Rogue was a thing, so has history in the game.
Todd Kenreck got Crawford and Perkins to sit down and talk about the new PHB today:
Some interesting tidbits:
1) The PHB is in the print-proofing/printout-review stage, i.e. last chance for text updates No change to the expected release date .
2) Confirmation on what the 4th Fighter Subclass will be (Psi Warrior. Called it)
3) Confirmation that the Tasha Subclasses that are going to core went through their own internal round of playtesting and adjustments. (My guess is that this includes things like Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul Sorcerer having their bonus spells removed, but no details yet.)
4) Soulknife is going to be core now - not sure which of the other rogue subclasses it's replacing (my guess is Swashbuckler, but it could be Assassin too - I don't see them removing Thief or Arcane Trickster.)
5) In addition to every subclass getting its own piece of art, several spells will also. This includes spells that are tied to specific D&D characters, e.g. we will see Bigby casting Bigby's Hand, Melf casting his Acid Arrow, Tasha casting her Hideous Laughter etc.
5) New rules guidance that wasn't in the original PHB, such as adjudicating illusions and breaking objects (the latter of which previously required jumping back and forth between the PHB and DMG). Reiteration that the new PHB will have feats and spells that weren't present in core before, or may even be new to the game entirely.
Interesting.
Swashbuckler was never in the PHB though. There were only ever three Rogue Subclasses (Arcane Trickster, Assassin's and Thief), so if they're adding just Soulknife, then it brings it up to the four they promised.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Very exciting. Really curios to see what changes they've made to the playtest material and what else they've added since then.
Swashbuckler was playtested, and personally I’d prefer Assassin got dropped over it. Or, honestly, maybe it will be Thief. That’s arguably the one that puts the least individual spin on the class.
I would be kind of embarrassed to see Thief and Soulknife in the same source book. Like we're all just supposed to act like those archetypes are balanced against each other. That might be the most egregious example of the difference between PHB subclasses and Tasha's subclasses.
Bard and Ranger will need some pretty significant changes vs their most recent UA versions.
Swashbuckler was in the last Rogue UA (UA6), so it was slated for the PHB - hence me saying Soulknife likely replaced that one. (Frankly though, like Ace of Rogues, I'm hoping for Assassin. It was certainly improved in UA6, but still pretty meh. At least Swashbuckler makes your rogue unique.)
I am extremely happy that Soul Knife and Psi Warrior are going into the PHB. I just wish Undead Warlock had made it in to the PHB as well.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Looking forward to see how ranger comes out since it is one of my favorite classes. Since they'll have Gloomstalker, I'm really curios to see what the final verions of Hunter and Beastmaster will be to convince players to use those over Gloomstalker.
Thanks for posting this, I hope they don't drop the ball on these rules. But I feel they already did, as they are saying Species is the term they went with. Wrong choice IMO. I could rant for hours why Species is worse than the old term, I was hoping for Ancestry or something that felt more setting appropriate. Forbearers is good. But at last they have probably already started to print Species in new material leading up to book launch,
Yeah, Species is definitely not the best choice.
UA6 thief is actually quite good -- it specifically permits using magic items with fast hands (a disputed feature in the 2014 rules)
I voted for Ancestry, with "Lineage" as a runner-up if they didn't want to be seen as stealing from Paizo. (And even if they were, who cares, Paizo stole plenty from them!)
But yeah, it does look like "Species" somehow won 😮💨
How exactly is species wrong, particularly in spec-fic parlance as opposed to strict scientific terminology? Stuff like ancestry and lineage honestly implies that everyone shares a common root far enough back, which is objectively not how the origins have been framed as recently as the UAs for the race/species updates.
Ah, I must've missed that. Glad to hear it. I love Rogues, but the current version of the Thief is just sad.
It's not that species is wrong per se, it's that it has all the same problems as the term it's replacing. So the people who don't like "race" still don't like "species", and the people who are okay with "species" by and large were fine with "race".
It's sort of a perfect compromise in that nobody gets what they want.
I will open a new thread to answer this, as I have a great response, but I do not want to derail this thread, as it would cause further discussion in another direction.
Both ancestry and lineage are significantly worse than species, as they aren't fundamentally group identifiers in the first place, they're used to describe parentage (for example, you wouldn't say a tiefling has tiefling ancestry -- you would say a tiefling has fiend ancestry).
The usual grumble about species is that it sounds overly scienc-ey (pretty much an aethetic complaint; the word was used in Latin translations of Aristotle's biology in a way that's recognizably related to modern use) or that it's inaccurate (true but irrelevant as no alternatives are any better; we don't have an accurate term because nothing like D&D species exists in the real world).
And that's really the issue: if there was actually a clearly superior term, it would have shown up already. There isn't.
I wonder if soulknife, psi warrior, aberrant mind means they're planning on more pisonics. Or of it's more like, here's your psionics. Enjoy them. Now be quiet about them and don't expect much more.
They haven't UA'd another mystic as a part of one D&D, and I doubt WotC would have diverted any of their efforts toward developing an entirely new class.
You forgot GOOlock. Anyway, they're not going to do a psionic primary class, so other than maybe a psionic monk I'm not sure what they'd create.
I would be surprised to see Thief and/or Assassin removed. Thief and Assassin were the classes in 1E before Rogue was a thing, so has history in the game.
But who knows
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?