It's not a big deal, but I will miss the domains and arcane traditions from the current edition. I love wizards, not so much the clerics (just kidding!)
I'm in disbelief that they did not include the Hexblade for the Warlock. I was under the impression that's the most popular subclass.
Hexblade is popular for the one first-level ability of using Charisma as weapon damage, (and maybe medium armor.). The flavor is very often ignored. The Hex warrior powers are likely being folded into Pact of the Blade now, which will be available as an invocation to all warlocks. This is from the playtest, so is subject to change, but very likely.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Coriana - Company of the Grey Chain Wagner - Dragon Heist: Bards. Corwin - A Dungeon-Delving Campaign Group C Sharinn - The Truth Beneath the Surface DM - The Old Keep
Far far far too many classes and subclasses. The game would be infinitely better if there were 4 classes, and a max of 3 subclasses in each.
Fighter would subsume Paladin and Ranger as subclasses
Cleric would absorb Druid as a subclass.
Bard become a subclass of Rogue.
Barbarians, Monks, Sorcerers, and Warlocks are consigned to the dustbin of history. The game becomes simpler, yet still provides players with far more combinations and permutations of PC's that a player can run through in a lifetime. And yes, simpler is better. DM's are happier, and a happy DM is a happy table.
Far far far too many classes and subclasses. The game would be infinitely better if there were 4 classes, and a max of 3 subclasses in each.
Fighter would subsume Paladin and Ranger as subclasses
Cleric would absorb Druid as a subclass.
Bard become a subclass of Rogue.
Barbarians, Monks, Sorcerers, and Warlocks are consigned to the dustbin of history. The game becomes simpler, yet still provides players with far more combinations and permutations of PC's that a player can run through in a lifetime. And yes, simpler is better. DM's are happier, and a happy DM is a happy table.
As a long time DM, I have to disagree with everything you said here. Please don't presume to speak for other DMs.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
Far far far too many classes and subclasses. The game would be infinitely better if there were 4 classes, and a max of 3 subclasses in each.
Fighter would subsume Paladin and Ranger as subclasses
Cleric would absorb Druid as a subclass.
Bard become a subclass of Rogue.
Barbarians, Monks, Sorcerers, and Warlocks are consigned to the dustbin of history. The game becomes simpler, yet still provides players with far more combinations and permutations of PC's that a player can run through in a lifetime. And yes, simpler is better. DM's are happier, and a happy DM is a happy table.
Based on your posts, what makes you happy as a DM would not make my players happy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Coriana - Company of the Grey Chain Wagner - Dragon Heist: Bards. Corwin - A Dungeon-Delving Campaign Group C Sharinn - The Truth Beneath the Surface DM - The Old Keep
Far far far too many classes and subclasses. The game would be infinitely better if there were 4 classes, and a max of 3 subclasses in each.
Fighter would subsume Paladin and Ranger as subclasses
Cleric would absorb Druid as a subclass.
Bard become a subclass of Rogue.
Barbarians, Monks, Sorcerers, and Warlocks are consigned to the dustbin of history. The game becomes simpler, yet still provides players with far more combinations and permutations of PC's that a player can run through in a lifetime. And yes, simpler is better. DM's are happier, and a happy DM is a happy table.
You know, even in AD&D, we had lot of classes xD
I'm not saying you're wrong, just that every table is different.
Far far far too many classes and subclasses. The game would be infinitely better if there were 4 classes, and a max of 3 subclasses in each.
Fighter would subsume Paladin and Ranger as subclasses
Cleric would absorb Druid as a subclass.
Bard become a subclass of Rogue.
Barbarians, Monks, Sorcerers, and Warlocks are consigned to the dustbin of history. The game becomes simpler, yet still provides players with far more combinations and permutations of PC's that a player can run through in a lifetime. And yes, simpler is better. DM's are happier, and a happy DM is a happy table.
As a long time DM, I have to disagree with everything you said here. Please don't presume to speak for other DMs.
Some people believe the game sprung fully formed and perfect from the brow of Gary Gygax, and any variation from his vision is tantamount to heresy
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Far far far too many classes and subclasses. The game would be infinitely better if there were 4 classes, and a max of 3 subclasses in each.
Fighter would subsume Paladin and Ranger as subclasses
Cleric would absorb Druid as a subclass.
Bard become a subclass of Rogue.
Barbarians, Monks, Sorcerers, and Warlocks are consigned to the dustbin of history. The game becomes simpler, yet still provides players with far more combinations and permutations of PC's that a player can run through in a lifetime. And yes, simpler is better. DM's are happier, and a happy DM is a happy table.
You know, even in AD&D, we had lot of classes xD
I'm not saying you're wrong, just that every table is different.
Yeah, you are looking at ver 2, not 1e there. Monks and Bards existed in 1e, but both were edge cases, and needed insane rolls as a threshold to build one. Barbarians were an add-on by Gygax in the UA when Williams pressured him to create more "stuff" to get TSR out of a financial hole.
I'm in disbelief that they did not include the Hexblade for the Warlock. I was under the impression that's the most popular subclass.
The main reason it's popular was Cha to Attack and Damage, which got folded into Pact of the Blade. Hexblade's other features are actually pretty lackluster, so I think this approach was the best of both worlds.
It's not a big deal, but I will miss the domains and arcane traditions from the current edition. I love wizards, not so much the clerics (just kidding!)
I guess it's to give each class equal treatment.
I have little doubt their next book after core will be to update the remaining Wizard Schools, add more Cleric Domains, and update other subclasses from earlier in 5e to post-Tasha design standards.
Disappointing that the Swashbuckler didn’t make it through: I’d rather have had that than the Assassin.
I thought this at first too - but Assassin is actually really good now (see Colby's official preview of the full subclass here) especially as a ranged rogue thanks to Roving Aim. They might be a better ranged rogue than Scout now.
I can tell you that wotc is going down the wrong path. Pathfinder is light years ahead of wotc in building ever more complex games/builds, and wotc would be far better served to go the route of simplifying the game, as opposed to stealing as many ideas as they can from Pazio.
Eh, 5R/5.5e is nowhere near PF2 in terms of complexity and fiddliness.
im sorry fey wonderer got in but drakewarden didnt? the only class/subclass about riding on a dragon in Dungeons and DRAGONS?
They needed Beastmaster (because that's the most iconic/core ranger concept, even more than Hunter imo) and so having a second pet-ranger in core would've been redundant.
Drakewarden doesn't really need an update, but if it got one it would be outside core.
also oath of glory over conquest or redemption? and wizards just lost so many subclasses ig shocked blade singer wasnt in there
Redemption is just another goody-two-shoes Paladin, Devotion already fills that role. Conquest is too overtly evil for core.
As for Bladesinger, they should finish out the standard wizard schools (i.e. Enchanter, Necromancer, Conjurer and Transmuter) before revisiting that one. You can use the Tasha's version until then.
I can tell you that wotc is going down the wrong path. Pathfinder is light years ahead of wotc in building ever more complex games/builds, and wotc would be far better served to go the route of simplifying the game, as opposed to stealing as many ideas as they can from Pazio.
Eh, 5R/5.5e is nowhere near PF2 in terms of complexity and fiddliness.
im sorry fey wonderer got in but drakewarden didnt? the only class/subclass about riding on a dragon in Dungeons and DRAGONS?
They needed Beastmaster (because that's the most iconic/core ranger concept, even more than Hunter imo) and so having a second pet-ranger in core would've been redundant.
Drakewarden doesn't really need an update, but if it got one it would be outside core.
also oath of glory over conquest or redemption? and wizards just lost so many subclasses ig shocked blade singer wasnt in there
Redemption is just another goody-two-shoes Paladin, Devotion already fills that role. Conquest is too overtly evil for core.
As for Bladesinger, they should finish out the standard wizard schools (i.e. Enchanter, Necromancer, Conjurer and Transmuter) before revisiting that one. You can use the Tasha's version until then.
redemption maybe a goody goody two shoes paladin but they have more depth then a glory one does (ya i know it depends on the player and all) but redemption feels like the good side of oathbreaker. oathbreak has an evil feel to it were redemption could have been the good side
Far far far too many classes and subclasses. The game would be infinitely better if there were 4 classes, and a max of 3 subclasses in each.
Fighter would subsume Paladin and Ranger as subclasses
Cleric would absorb Druid as a subclass.
Bard become a subclass of Rogue.
Barbarians, Monks, Sorcerers, and Warlocks are consigned to the dustbin of history. The game becomes simpler, yet still provides players with far more combinations and permutations of PC's that a player can run through in a lifetime. And yes, simpler is better. DM's are happier, and a happy DM is a happy table.
Based on your posts, what makes you happy as a DM would not make my players happy.
I play 1e, 5e , Pathfinder, Basic Fantasy, and Everyday heroes, on a weekly or bi-weekly basis. I have vast experience in various game systems, far more than the typical 5e player/DM.
And I can tell you that wotc is going down the wrong path. Pathfinder is light years ahead of wotc in building ever more complex games/builds, and wotc would be far better served to go the route of simplifying the game, as opposed to stealing as many ideas as they can from Pazio. It is called product differentiation. Simplify D&D, and let Pazio keep the people that want a really complex game.
Thank goodness for both the player base and the company that you are not on the development team. Hasbro wants to sell products. Player options sell the most products. The only way this makes any sense from a business standpoint is if they are going to add in far more character customization options (not suggesting that is a bad thing) in player-targeted products, making the game more complex, not less.
redemption maybe a goody goody two shoes paladin but they have more depth then a glory one does (ya i know it depends on the player and all) but redemption feels like the good side of oathbreaker. oathbreak has an evil feel to it were redemption could have been the good side
1) I kinda hope we DON'T get Oathbreaker back, at least not under that name. Now that Paladins can be any alignment, it doesn't make sense for every paladin who breaks their Oath to end up in one specific evil subclass. A Vengeance Paladin could break their oath by choosing to show mercy for example. Oathbreaker should just be Oath of Corruption or something.
2) I actually like Glory because it can cover a wide variety of concepts and alignments. You could go for traditional heroism or be a Jerk Jock like Gaston.
1) I kinda hope we DON'T get Oathbreaker back, at least not under that name
Oathbreaker's strongest power is "get the PCs murdered by buffing your enemies", even if the goal is a more evil paladin than you can already achieve with Vengeance, I'd probably go with Conquest.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
source: https://www.polygon.com/24180523/dnd-dungeons-dragons-2024-phb-dmg-core-rulebooks-revealed
EDIT: added a note to indicate which classes are new in this edition.
I'm in disbelief that they did not include the Hexblade for the Warlock. I was under the impression that's the most popular subclass.
It's not a big deal, but I will miss the domains and arcane traditions from the current edition. I love wizards, not so much the clerics (just kidding!)
I guess it's to give each class equal treatment.
Hexblade is popular for the one first-level ability of using Charisma as weapon damage, (and maybe medium armor.). The flavor is very often ignored. The Hex warrior powers are likely being folded into Pact of the Blade now, which will be available as an invocation to all warlocks. This is from the playtest, so is subject to change, but very likely.
Coriana - Company of the Grey Chain
Wagner - Dragon Heist: Bards.
Corwin - A Dungeon-Delving Campaign Group C
Sharinn - The Truth Beneath the Surface
DM - The Old Keep
Disappointing that the Swashbuckler didn’t make it through: I’d rather have had that than the Assassin.
I never liked the assassin as a class of any kind.
For me its just something someone does for a living. There is no reason a caster could not be an assassin. Or a fighter.
Far far far too many classes and subclasses. The game would be infinitely better if there were 4 classes, and a max of 3 subclasses in each.
Fighter would subsume Paladin and Ranger as subclasses
Cleric would absorb Druid as a subclass.
Bard become a subclass of Rogue.
Barbarians, Monks, Sorcerers, and Warlocks are consigned to the dustbin of history. The game becomes simpler, yet still provides players with far more combinations and permutations of PC's that a player can run through in a lifetime. And yes, simpler is better. DM's are happier, and a happy DM is a happy table.
As a long time DM, I have to disagree with everything you said here. Please don't presume to speak for other DMs.
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
Based on your posts, what makes you happy as a DM would not make my players happy.
Coriana - Company of the Grey Chain
Wagner - Dragon Heist: Bards.
Corwin - A Dungeon-Delving Campaign Group C
Sharinn - The Truth Beneath the Surface
DM - The Old Keep
You know, even in AD&D, we had lot of classes xD
I'm not saying you're wrong, just that every table is different.
Source: https://adnd2e.fandom.com/wiki/Classes
Some people believe the game sprung fully formed and perfect from the brow of Gary Gygax, and any variation from his vision is tantamount to heresy
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Yeah, you are looking at ver 2, not 1e there. Monks and Bards existed in 1e, but both were edge cases, and needed insane rolls as a threshold to build one. Barbarians were an add-on by Gygax in the UA when Williams pressured him to create more "stuff" to get TSR out of a financial hole.
The main reason it's popular was Cha to Attack and Damage, which got folded into Pact of the Blade. Hexblade's other features are actually pretty lackluster, so I think this approach was the best of both worlds.
I have little doubt their next book after core will be to update the remaining Wizard Schools, add more Cleric Domains, and update other subclasses from earlier in 5e to post-Tasha design standards.
I thought this at first too - but Assassin is actually really good now (see Colby's official preview of the full subclass here) especially as a ranged rogue thanks to Roving Aim. They might be a better ranged rogue than Scout now.
Thanks for sharing that Link!
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
im sorry fey wonderer got in but drakewarden didnt? the only class/subclass about riding on a dragon in Dungeons and DRAGONS?
also oath of glory over conquest or redemption? and wizards just lost so many subclasses ig shocked blade singer wasnt in there
Eh, 5R/5.5e is nowhere near PF2 in terms of complexity and fiddliness.
They needed Beastmaster (because that's the most iconic/core ranger concept, even more than Hunter imo) and so having a second pet-ranger in core would've been redundant.
Drakewarden doesn't really need an update, but if it got one it would be outside core.
Redemption is just another goody-two-shoes Paladin, Devotion already fills that role. Conquest is too overtly evil for core.
As for Bladesinger, they should finish out the standard wizard schools (i.e. Enchanter, Necromancer, Conjurer and Transmuter) before revisiting that one. You can use the Tasha's version until then.
redemption maybe a goody goody two shoes paladin but they have more depth then a glory one does (ya i know it depends on the player and all) but redemption feels like the good side of oathbreaker. oathbreak has an evil feel to it were redemption could have been the good side
Thank goodness for both the player base and the company that you are not on the development team. Hasbro wants to sell products. Player options sell the most products. The only way this makes any sense from a business standpoint is if they are going to add in far more character customization options (not suggesting that is a bad thing) in player-targeted products, making the game more complex, not less.
1) I kinda hope we DON'T get Oathbreaker back, at least not under that name. Now that Paladins can be any alignment, it doesn't make sense for every paladin who breaks their Oath to end up in one specific evil subclass. A Vengeance Paladin could break their oath by choosing to show mercy for example. Oathbreaker should just be Oath of Corruption or something.
2) I actually like Glory because it can cover a wide variety of concepts and alignments. You could go for traditional heroism or be a Jerk Jock like Gaston.
Oathbreaker's strongest power is "get the PCs murdered by buffing your enemies", even if the goal is a more evil paladin than you can already achieve with Vengeance, I'd probably go with Conquest.