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.
Nobody is saying it's wrong, just that it's aesthetically jarring due to its "science-y" sound.
In addition, Ancestry would have given us a convenient adjective form ("ancestral," like "racial") that we could use to refer to and distinguish abilities granted to a character by their species. (For a variety of reasons, "special" doesn't work nearly as well.)
Regardless, it's not going to affect my table since we never had a hang-up with race/racial and will likely continue using those. I totally understand why WotC is distancing the printed game from those two terms though.
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 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
A thought recently occurred to me that Thief might be the one on the chopping block. Its features are things they could conceivably give to all rogues by making them baseline. Stealth Attack can simply be a Cunning Strike option, Second-Story Work is akin to base Ranger's Roving, Fast Hands and UMD are things every rogue could do in prior editions etc. And Thief's Reflexes is a pretty neat T4 ability.
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.
Nobody is saying it's wrong, just that it's aesthetically jarring due to its "science-y" sound.
In addition, Ancestry would have given us a convenient adjective form ("ancestral," like "racial") that we could use to refer to and distinguish abilities granted to a character by their species. (For a variety of reasons, "special" doesn't work nearly as well.)
Regardless, it's not going to affect my table since we never had a hang-up with race/racial and will likely continue using those. I totally understand why WotC is distancing the printed game from those two terms though.
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 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
A thought recently occurred to me that Thief might be the one on the chopping block. Its features are things they could conceivably give to all rogues by making them baseline. Stealth Attack can simply be a Cunning Strike option, Second-Story Work is akin to base Ranger's Roving, Fast Hands and UMD are things every rogue could do in prior editions etc. And Thief's Reflexes is a pretty neat T4 ability.
I can see what you are saying but it looks like WotC is reluctant to get rid of stuff from the 2014 PHB and just update it. Now, things like some cleric and wizard subclasses are not being included for the sake of symmetry, each class having 4 subclasses. But I’m sure those not included will be in future supplemental books. Since Rogue didn’t have more than 4 subclasses in the PHB I would be surprised if they were not in the new book.
We will just have to wait and see
Edit: in the video they said there will be more in depth videos on the PHB coming soon so hopefully we will have an answer in the next few weeks
I thought this chat was great. Seems most things are on track and moving right along, and the excitement from the development team is always a bit of a delight to watch.
Regarding what Rogue subclass gets cut, I think they have to go Soul Knife, Thief, Assassin, Arcane Trickster. A lot of 5.5 has been centered around giving players the ability to play a diverse set of archetypes within a class. This spread gives them their Psionic (already confirmed), preserves “default Rogue” (much like Champion makes the cut, Wizards likes to have a default subclass in the PHB), gives a more “evil” option and covers the sneaky killer archetype, and gives an option with some more magical utility. Swashbuckler also covers an important rogue playstyle - but my gut says “default, ‘evil’, Magic” is the spread Wizards will be inclined to go with.
Personally, I would rather they use Swashbuckler over Soul Knife - I think it is the more important base to cover - but their reasoning of not wanting psionic subclasses feeling out-of-place due to limited distribution makes sense. Alas, the poor Mystic - with psionics getting such a presence in the PHB, the already effectively-zero chances of this rather fascinating UA officially seeing the light of day inch ever closer to oblivion.
I thought this chat was great. Seems most things are on track and moving right along, and the excitement from the development team is always a bit of a delight to watch.
Regarding what Rogue subclass gets cut, I think they have to go Soul Knife, Thief, Assassin, Arcane Trickster. A lot of 5.5 has been centered around giving players the ability to play a diverse set of archetypes within a class. This spread gives them their Psionic (already confirmed), preserves “default Rogue” (much like Champion makes the cut, Wizards likes to have a default subclass in the PHB), gives a more “evil” option and covers the sneaky killer archetype, and gives an option with some more magical utility. Swashbuckler also covers an important rogue playstyle - but my gut says “default, ‘evil’, Magic” is the spread Wizards will be inclined to go with.
Personally, I would rather they use Swashbuckler over Soul Knife - I think it is the more important base to cover - but their reasoning of not wanting psionic subclasses feeling out-of-place due to limited distribution makes sense. Alas, the poor Mystic - with psionics getting such a presence in the PHB, the already effectively-zero chances of this rather fascinating UA officially seeing the light of day inch ever closer to oblivion.
To be fair, we don't actually know which rogue got cut for SK yet. Personally I think Swashbuckler has better odds of remaining than Assassin despite not being in the prior PHB. Assassin still had wonky features even in the UA, plus the subclass name doesn't scream "heroic team player" which is likely what they want more of for core. (See also Necromancer Wizard and Death Cleric not making the cut for 2024.)
But the more I think about it, the more I wouldn't mind if Thief got cut and its features getting rolled into the base Rogue.
I thought this chat was great. Seems most things are on track and moving right along, and the excitement from the development team is always a bit of a delight to watch.
Regarding what Rogue subclass gets cut, I think they have to go Soul Knife, Thief, Assassin, Arcane Trickster. A lot of 5.5 has been centered around giving players the ability to play a diverse set of archetypes within a class. This spread gives them their Psionic (already confirmed), preserves “default Rogue” (much like Champion makes the cut, Wizards likes to have a default subclass in the PHB), gives a more “evil” option and covers the sneaky killer archetype, and gives an option with some more magical utility. Swashbuckler also covers an important rogue playstyle - but my gut says “default, ‘evil’, Magic” is the spread Wizards will be inclined to go with.
Personally, I would rather they use Swashbuckler over Soul Knife - I think it is the more important base to cover - but their reasoning of not wanting psionic subclasses feeling out-of-place due to limited distribution makes sense. Alas, the poor Mystic - with psionics getting such a presence in the PHB, the already effectively-zero chances of this rather fascinating UA officially seeing the light of day inch ever closer to oblivion.
To be fair, we don't actually know which rogue got cut for SK yet. Personally I think Swashbuckler has better odds of remaining than Assassin despite not being in the prior PHB. Assassin still had wonky features even in the UA, plus the subclass name doesn't scream "heroic team player" which is likely what they want more of for core. (See also Necromancer Wizard and Death Cleric not making the cut for 2024.)
But the more I think about it, the more I wouldn't mind if Thief got cut and its features getting rolled into the base Rogue.
I don’t know if it’s about what got cut. The PHB only has 3 subclasses to begin with (their, assassin, arcane trickster) so it’s about what gets added.
Sure, swashbuckler was in the UA but I don’t think that it was a given that this was their pick for the fourth slot. And even if it was I think it would go before the other original subclasses. To this point, they specifically mentioned necromancer early in the UA process as one of the wizards subclasses, but then dumped it. So swashbuckler (and I think to lesser degree the others) don’t have special protection because it was out there.
The fact that they have cut several Cleric and Wizard subclasses out of the PHB shows that no subclass is truly safe from getting the axe. Simply being in the current PHB does not get you a spot in the next PHB.
I thought this chat was great. Seems most things are on track and moving right along, and the excitement from the development team is always a bit of a delight to watch.
Regarding what Rogue subclass gets cut, I think they have to go Soul Knife, Thief, Assassin, Arcane Trickster. A lot of 5.5 has been centered around giving players the ability to play a diverse set of archetypes within a class. This spread gives them their Psionic (already confirmed), preserves “default Rogue” (much like Champion makes the cut, Wizards likes to have a default subclass in the PHB), gives a more “evil” option and covers the sneaky killer archetype, and gives an option with some more magical utility. Swashbuckler also covers an important rogue playstyle - but my gut says “default, ‘evil’, Magic” is the spread Wizards will be inclined to go with.
Personally, I would rather they use Swashbuckler over Soul Knife - I think it is the more important base to cover - but their reasoning of not wanting psionic subclasses feeling out-of-place due to limited distribution makes sense. Alas, the poor Mystic - with psionics getting such a presence in the PHB, the already effectively-zero chances of this rather fascinating UA officially seeing the light of day inch ever closer to oblivion.
To be fair, we don't actually know which rogue got cut for SK yet. Personally I think Swashbuckler has better odds of remaining than Assassin despite not being in the prior PHB. Assassin still had wonky features even in the UA, plus the subclass name doesn't scream "heroic team player" which is likely what they want more of for core. (See also Necromancer Wizard and Death Cleric not making the cut for 2024.)
But the more I think about it, the more I wouldn't mind if Thief got cut and its features getting rolled into the base Rogue.
It would be interesting to find along side the Death Cleric, we get Assassin, Necromancer, and a couple others in the DMG.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
They definitely need another evil/antagonist subclass or two in the DMG if they’re not going to put NPC blocks designed to exist outside of a combat encounter in the MM anymore.
I don’t know if it’s about what got cut. The PHB only has 3 subclasses to begin with (their, assassin, arcane trickster) so it’s about what gets added.
Sure, swashbuckler was in the UA but I don’t think that it was a given that this was their pick for the fourth slot. And even if it was I think it would go before the other original subclasses. To this point, they specifically mentioned necromancer early in the UA process as one of the wizards subclasses, but then dumped it. So swashbuckler (and I think to lesser degree the others) don’t have special protection because it was out there.
Unlike Necromancer, they actually playtested Swashbuckler though and it got a passing grade. It's not like Brawler that simply flunked out.
Well, Death Cleric was never a PHB option in the first place, so I don’t know how much you can read into that.
Point - who knows, maybe they'll do a round of "dark subclasses" in the DMG and that's where things like Death Cleric, Oathbreaker Oath of Corruption Paladin, Assassin Rogue, Necromancer Wizard etc will show up.
The fact that they have cut several Cleric and Wizard subclasses out of the PHB shows that no subclass is truly safe from getting the axe. Simply being in the current PHB does not get you a spot in the next PHB.
They were cut, not because “no subclass is safe” it’s because cleric had like 7 subclasses and wizard 8. While other classes had 2 or 3. So they are going for “all classes get 4 subclasses, period” approach. So something had to go, for symmetry’s sake.
The fact that they have cut several Cleric and Wizard subclasses out of the PHB shows that no subclass is truly safe from getting the axe. Simply being in the current PHB does not get you a spot in the next PHB.
They were cut, not because “no subclass is safe” it’s because cleric had like 7 subclasses and wizard 9. While other classes had 2 or 3. So they are going for “all classes get 4 subclasses, period” approach. So something had to go, for symmetry’s sake.
That just means that they need to have 4 subclasses, not that they have to use what was in the existing PHB.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
JMO but "species" is the most neutral--not perfectly neutral--term for the different types of PCs in DnD. IMO any other term such as race, ancestry, lineage, etc. tend to connote more meanings that tend to circulate in toxic sub-cultures around the world. Moreover, it's a platitude that the transition to "species" is only an issue if people make it an issue. Once we accept that some sensitive issues can never be eliminated from history or the human condition, we tend to develop some amount of tolerance for people who make good faith efforts to minimize the impact of such issues /steps off soapbox
The fact that they have cut several Cleric and Wizard subclasses out of the PHB shows that no subclass is truly safe from getting the axe. Simply being in the current PHB does not get you a spot in the next PHB.
They were cut, not because “no subclass is safe” it’s because cleric had like 7 subclasses and wizard 9. While other classes had 2 or 3. So they are going for “all classes get 4 subclasses, period” approach. So something had to go, for symmetry’s sake.
That just means that they need to have 4 subclasses, not that they have to use what was in the existing PHB.
That is true. But they are keeping close to what was in the PHB in 2014 for backwards compatibility’s sake, etc. For example, they’re not getting rid of any spells from the 2014 PHB (no matter how problematic some are) and just updating them or adding new/non-PHB spells.
That is true. But they are keeping close to what was in the PHB in 2014 for backwards compatibility’s sake, etc. For example, they’re not getting rid of any spells from the 2014 PHB (no matter how problematic some are) and just updating them or adding new/non-PHB spells.
We shall see when the next videos come out.
Hey, don't crush my dream that Crawford "accidentally" hits the delete button while Simulacrum is highlighted 😛
JMO but "species" is the most neutral--not perfectly neutral--term for the different types of PCs in DnD. IMO any other term such as race, ancestry, lineage, etc. tend to connote more meanings that tend to circulate in toxic sub-cultures around the world. Moreover, it's a platitude that the transition to "species" is only an issue if people make it an issue. Once we accept that some sensitive issues can never be eliminated from history or the human condition, we tend to develop some amount of tolerance for people who make good faith efforts to minimize the impact of such issues /steps off soapbox
I can absolutely live with "species".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Nobody is saying it's wrong, just that it's aesthetically jarring due to its "science-y" sound.
In addition, Ancestry would have given us a convenient adjective form ("ancestral," like "racial") that we could use to refer to and distinguish abilities granted to a character by their species. (For a variety of reasons, "special" doesn't work nearly as well.)
Regardless, it's not going to affect my table since we never had a hang-up with race/racial and will likely continue using those. I totally understand why WotC is distancing the printed game from those two terms though.
^ Yeah, that.
A thought recently occurred to me that Thief might be the one on the chopping block. Its features are things they could conceivably give to all rogues by making them baseline. Stealth Attack can simply be a Cunning Strike option, Second-Story Work is akin to base Ranger's Roving, Fast Hands and UMD are things every rogue could do in prior editions etc. And Thief's Reflexes is a pretty neat T4 ability.
I can see what you are saying but it looks like WotC is reluctant to get rid of stuff from the 2014 PHB and just update it. Now, things like some cleric and wizard subclasses are not being included for the sake of symmetry, each class having 4 subclasses. But I’m sure those not included will be in future supplemental books. Since Rogue didn’t have more than 4 subclasses in the PHB I would be surprised if they were not in the new book.
We will just have to wait and see
Edit: in the video they said there will be more in depth videos on the PHB coming soon so hopefully we will have an answer in the next few weeks
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I thought this chat was great. Seems most things are on track and moving right along, and the excitement from the development team is always a bit of a delight to watch.
Regarding what Rogue subclass gets cut, I think they have to go Soul Knife, Thief, Assassin, Arcane Trickster. A lot of 5.5 has been centered around giving players the ability to play a diverse set of archetypes within a class. This spread gives them their Psionic (already confirmed), preserves “default Rogue” (much like Champion makes the cut, Wizards likes to have a default subclass in the PHB), gives a more “evil” option and covers the sneaky killer archetype, and gives an option with some more magical utility. Swashbuckler also covers an important rogue playstyle - but my gut says “default, ‘evil’, Magic” is the spread Wizards will be inclined to go with.
Personally, I would rather they use Swashbuckler over Soul Knife - I think it is the more important base to cover - but their reasoning of not wanting psionic subclasses feeling out-of-place due to limited distribution makes sense. Alas, the poor Mystic - with psionics getting such a presence in the PHB, the already effectively-zero chances of this rather fascinating UA officially seeing the light of day inch ever closer to oblivion.
To be fair, we don't actually know which rogue got cut for SK yet. Personally I think Swashbuckler has better odds of remaining than Assassin despite not being in the prior PHB. Assassin still had wonky features even in the UA, plus the subclass name doesn't scream "heroic team player" which is likely what they want more of for core. (See also Necromancer Wizard and Death Cleric not making the cut for 2024.)
But the more I think about it, the more I wouldn't mind if Thief got cut and its features getting rolled into the base Rogue.
Well, Death Cleric was never a PHB option in the first place, so I don’t know how much you can read into that.
I don’t know if it’s about what got cut. The PHB only has 3 subclasses to begin with (their, assassin, arcane trickster) so it’s about what gets added.
Sure, swashbuckler was in the UA but I don’t think that it was a given that this was their pick for the fourth slot. And even if it was I think it would go before the other original subclasses. To this point, they specifically mentioned necromancer early in the UA process as one of the wizards subclasses, but then dumped it. So swashbuckler (and I think to lesser degree the others) don’t have special protection because it was out there.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
The fact that they have cut several Cleric and Wizard subclasses out of the PHB shows that no subclass is truly safe from getting the axe. Simply being in the current PHB does not get you a spot in the next PHB.
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
It would be interesting to find along side the Death Cleric, we get Assassin, Necromancer, and a couple others in the DMG.
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
They definitely need another evil/antagonist subclass or two in the DMG if they’re not going to put NPC blocks designed to exist outside of a combat encounter in the MM anymore.
Unlike Necromancer, they actually playtested Swashbuckler though and it got a passing grade. It's not like Brawler that simply flunked out.
Point - who knows, maybe they'll do a round of "dark subclasses" in the DMG and that's where things like Death Cleric,
OathbreakerOath of Corruption Paladin, Assassin Rogue, Necromancer Wizard etc will show up.They were cut, not because “no subclass is safe” it’s because cleric had like 7 subclasses and wizard 8. While other classes had 2 or 3. So they are going for “all classes get 4 subclasses, period” approach. So something had to go, for symmetry’s sake.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
That just means that they need to have 4 subclasses, not that they have to use what was in the existing PHB.
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
JMO but "species" is the most neutral--not perfectly neutral--term for the different types of PCs in DnD. IMO any other term such as race, ancestry, lineage, etc. tend to connote more meanings that tend to circulate in toxic sub-cultures around the world. Moreover, it's a platitude that the transition to "species" is only an issue if people make it an issue. Once we accept that some sensitive issues can never be eliminated from history or the human condition, we tend to develop some amount of tolerance for people who make good faith efforts to minimize the impact of such issues /steps off soapbox
Started playing AD&D in the late 70s and stopped in the mid-80s. Started immersing myself into 5e in 2023
That is true. But they are keeping close to what was in the PHB in 2014 for backwards compatibility’s sake, etc. For example, they’re not getting rid of any spells from the 2014 PHB (no matter how problematic some are) and just updating them or adding new/non-PHB spells.
We shall see when the next videos come out.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Hey, don't crush my dream that Crawford "accidentally" hits the delete button while Simulacrum is highlighted 😛
I can absolutely live with "species".