(Occultist is better than Witch, because reasons listed earlier in this thread)
Occultist is "person who studies the occult". Any character with Arcana can credibly be called an occultist, and probably 90% of wizards should be.
And a paladin was a knight who served in Charlemagne's court. I think it's fair to take some liberties with the name to make it fit a more general term. Paladin was too specific, while Occultist is too general, but the name doesn't have to be absolutely perfect, it just has to fit (which Occultist happens to do).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
(Occultist is better than Witch, because reasons listed earlier in this thread)
Occultist is "person who studies the occult". Any character with Arcana can credibly be called an occultist, and probably 90% of wizards should be.
And a paladin was a knight who served in Charlemagne's court. I think it's fair to take some liberties with the name to make it fit a more general term. Paladin was too specific, while Occultist is too general, but the name doesn't have to be absolutely perfect, it just has to fit (which Occultist happens to do).
Occultist is ok for a name. My only concern would be idiots equating 'Occultist' with 'Cultist.' As for anyone with Arcana skill being an occultist, well, every martial class and for that matter, even the casters are technically 'fighters,' yet that semantic quibble has never been an issue in 40 years....
I agree.
(Also, for the confusion part, those people can pick up a dictionary or go to Google to look up the definition of occult.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
As I hear it, the worldbuilding in 4e was actually pretty stellar. They actually explained the Forgotten Realms in a way that got people excited to play there. Considering that in 5e they kinda completely forgot to do any worldbuilding at all until they released SCAG, and then SCAG was...not good...I gotta wonder why people bagged on 4e so hard.
People came down on 4e D&D pretty hard, the chief complaint about the game was that it was not D&D. When Wizards of the Coast asked the fan base what D&D was after 4e failed based on such feedback, the answer they came up with is that if you start removing stuff from the game and get to a point where removing something would result in the game not being identifiable as D&D anymore by the majority of D&D players, that's how you know what D&D is.
This was the lesson WotC learned in 4e, what not to do with D&D, how removing or changing certain aspects of the game simply cannot be done and still successfully sell the books to D&D fans. This however is more of a philosophical construct then a mechanical one. Certain some mechanics like Vancian Magic is forever a foundation for D&D, but hidden beneath this conversation was a far more intangible and rather surprising discovery about how D&D fans viewed their game.
One of these lessons was that if you simply reduce D&D play down to its bare essentials "Encounters", people will reject that too. It had turned out that they were very wrong about the idea that all D&D players wanted was a really great, balanced combat mechanic with a focus on options and expansive roles. Quite to the contrary, what people wanted was for D&D to be a story focused RPG with a simple combat mechanic. This is why 5e was very much a process of removing things and making space for role-playing, its a game that was intentionally de-evolved and I believe this trend will continue into 6e.
It became clear that while D&D players were deeply concerned with the mechanics, in large part most mechanics are ignored by most tables because they were very focused on the narrative of the game, so when you create a game in which the mechanics are an inescapable requirement for play, it doesn't work. This is why 5e has a much less defined mechanics, where mechanical constructs are fairly lose. Its where the advantage/disadvantage system came from, because it turned out that having lots of + this or - modifiers, no matter how well you thought them out and balanced didn't actually matter to D&D players, they didn't really use them as written and rather eyeballed most things anyway. It's why they removed feats as core part of the game and created the feather light optional version we have in 5e. It turned out despite agonizing over feat selection to build that perfect character, at the table the vast majority of players would forget to use their feats, GM's would not include feats in narrative storytelling and they got under players and GM's feet more often then they helped to define characters.
A lot of these lessons came out during the play-testing when Wizards of the Coast stopped listening to what players and GM's where saying and started simply watching what people where doing at the tables during the play sessions. 5e was not built on player feedback, it was built on observation of players.
Things I predict will change by the time 6e comes out.
1. Complete removal of skills from the game. I think its become quite clear at this point that skills and ability score checks are the same thing. They will remove skills a bury special knowledge and skills into the class, backgrounds and we may even see a new narrative talent selection concept.
2. Removal of Sub-Classes Its clear that Sub-Classes was a nice idea because it gave the game a way for characters to grow into customized concepts, but I don't think they accounted for the fact that if you turn the game into a very narrative experience that people will become super creative with character concepts during character creation and they would end up forever in a loop of complaints about not enough choices at character creation and in general. Waiting for 3rd level to become the character you designed doesn't work in that a narrative atmosphere. The game will move back to 8-12 core classes that will have a far more robust set of selections and choices made at character creation and as you level, choices that they can continually expand upon as they release adventures and setting material with a robust explanation in the DMG on how to create these options yourself.
3. Feats will disappear You can expect that Feats will disappear from the game entirely even as optional rules. I think at this point its become quite clear that Feats, no matter how many different ways they have tried to implement always create major balance issues for the game and when they surveyed the 5e community last year, the vast majority of tables weren't using them with balance being the primary reasoning for it.
I also predict that 6e will be announced no later than 2022 and released no later then 2024.
If did half of what you predict, they would lose me as a customer. As you said, you can only take away so much before it is no longer the same game.
1: I love the skills, and they let your character feel good at more than just hitting things, and that they have knowledge about certain specialist topics.
2: I think subclasses could have been done well, in a way which opened up things for player modification more easily, while actually reducing bloat. I don't think subclasses are a lost cause, just really badly done.
3: Feats are another thing which adds flavor and fun, and one of the few ways in the current system to diverge your class from the 'on the rails' progress. Their mistake was doing feat or asi. That just means you can pick fun, or having your character actually viable.
Keep in mind that the time which it makes economic sense to make 6e can vary. It wouldn't always be a guaranteed money paycheck.
If 5e is top of the world and everyone is loving it, many will be reluctant to change no matter how good 6e is. They've dumped a ton of money into 5e books, enjoy the system, and see no reason to move on.
If 5e is feeling old and tired, it's flaws gradually becoming more obvious to even the casual players, and there has been a content drought for a while, people will be much more likely to leap onto 6e.
At the moment 5e still seems to lean towards the former, with only a minority being unhappy with parts of the system.
Keep in mind that the time which it makes economic sense to make 6e can vary. It wouldn't always be a guaranteed money paycheck.
If 5e is top of the world and everyone is loving it, many will be reluctant to change no matter how good 6e is. They've dumped a ton of money into 5e books, enjoy the system, and see no reason to move on.
If 5e is feeling old and tired, it's flaws gradually becoming more obvious to even the casual players, and there has been a content drought for a while, people will be much more likely to leap onto 6e.
At the moment 5e still seems to lean towards the former, with only a minority being unhappy with parts of the system.
This is "assumption logic" and I understand why in conversation we can come to that conclusion, it does make sense that it would work like this. But realistically its not how the D&D community works its just how it talks. D&D is an entertainment hobby, if you they announced tomorrow "surprise 6e is ready and it will be available tomorrow", they wouldn't be able to print the books fast enough. There has never been a time in the history of D&D when people refused to buy the core books. Even 4e core books were sold out the moment they dropped, no matter what anyone said about them, every D&D fan had to have it. Its just the way this community operates.
Sure everything that happens afterwards will be based on the opinions of the fan base, did they like the system etc.. but when core books for a new edition comes out, I doesn't matter under what circumstances that happens, that book will be on everyone's shelf and it would on yours to and the reason is that the next time you want to run a campaign and you say 5e, everyone around will say hell no, lets play 6e. I had to endure 2 years of that in 4e, I hated the system with a passion, but you couldn't convince anyone to play anything but 4e after release. It was new D&D it had to be played and you were a Gronard if you refused to get onboard.
Well now I cannot agree with that entirely. When they announced 4e I completely stopped purchasing any and all WotC products including M:tG until at least a year after 5e launched and I started to hear good things consistently.
I know I’m not the only person to do that, I’m not that unique. Not everyone will always jump on a new system. Especially if they only recently invested in the current system.
Well now I cannot agree with that entirely. When they announced 4e I completely stopped purchasing any and all WotC products including M:tG until at least a year after 5e launched and I started to hear good things consistently.
I know I’m not the only person to do that, I’m not that unique. Not everyone will always jump on a new system. Especially if they only recently invested in the current system.
Of course not, there is always dissension in the ranks, 4e had a lot of fans and when 5e was announced so quickly after its essentials launch, people were pretty mad, there were actual attempts at organising boycotts. It was the same when 3.5 was announced and released, people were pretty mad especially since 3.5 was supposed to be compatible with 3rd edition but it actually really wasn't and for those that can remember that far back, 2nd edition also had its decision and split.
In all cases however the protesting and posturing proved to be just that and while they lost some old customers in these transition, they always ended up gaining a lot more than they lost. This conversation however, the one we are having right now, we always have with every edition and the conversation is always the same. "if they release, I won't play" was always the most common type of thread before every edition of the game. The idea of "I invested in this game" is a song that existed with every edition and the circumstances of 5 are no different then they were prior to 3e, 4e or 5e. The game is 6 years old, which is the average for an edition of the game, if it lasts another year or two it will be well above average for an edition.
Also and just a warning, but you can expect a really hostile reception from the D&D community when 6e comes out and you complain about it. You will become the Gronard, an old timer who refuses to get with the time. People will flame you, argue with you and treat you like crap because you play "the old edition" which will be described as "garbage" as soon as 6e comes out. You will effectively be me on these forums, where everyone assumes you are just out of touch, an old relic just for playing an older edition and refusing to try the new one.
We are relics. Anyone who remembers putting Elf as their class, or how to calculate THAC0, or what it was like to gain proficiency with a new single weapon on level-up, or what it was like for a 1st level “Magic User” to prepare a Spell Slot.... Anyone who remember not only that “Dual Classing” and “Multiclassing” we’re separate things, but why they were separate things...
We are the old guard.
Besides, I already get flamed for my opinions half the time. So what’s new? 🤷♂️
Also and just a warning, but you can expect a really hostile reception from the D&D community when 6e comes out and you complain about it. You will become the Gronard, an old timer who refuses to get with the time. People will flame you, argue with you and treat you like crap because you play "the old edition" which will be described as "garbage" as soon as 6e comes out. You will effectively be me on these forums, where everyone assumes you are just out of touch, an old relic just for playing an older edition and refusing to try the new one.
Just a note?
Telling everyone that Wizards is a terrible company, that D&D 5e has a ton of problems and everyone should switch to a different game, that asking the company to make 5e better at doing 5e things is not only a waste of time (which it probably is) but also a Betrayal of D&D and the Holy Spirit of Gygax, and that all of us whippernsappers are too young to realize it's all happened before and the ruleset released in 198X was the one and only true way to play any sort of tabletop RPG from Tolkienite Fantasy to Space Noir?
...dooeeesn't quite fly on the forum dedicated to people who're making use of the official 5e digital tool set.
Errybuddy here is playing the same game. Just like I get told to fly and go **** myself every time I express frustration with that game and a desire for it to more closely align with rules everybody else hates, you're gonna get the same pushback. You're lucky, at least. Your rules exist. All your friends live in the same geographical region. You can play OD&D Red Box Edition whenever you like, ne?
A good number of people have spoken up in forums and social media in favor of a Psionicist. I’m pretty sure it’s safe to say that somewhere in the neighborhood of 20-35% of the D&D consumer base wants one. That’s popular enough in my book.
One issue with "Solve everything with subclasses!" is that subclasses come with all the baggage from the core class they're subbing for. Much of which will often dilute, pollute, or even outright destroy the particular aesthetic one is shooting for.
A lot of folks want a Shaman class, for example. A primal spellcaster bound to the land that consorts with spirits and directs nature's fury against enemies of the wilds. Pretty much everyone has, at some point, said "why aren't you just, y'know...playing a Druid?"
Answer: **** WILD SHAPE FOREVER. I absolutely detest that ability because it has poisoned the well on what people think 'druids' are for decades. Druids are not "primal spellcasters that consort with spirits and direct nature's fury" to a classic D&D player. Druids are nothing but closet furries whose entire purpose in life is to let people play out their damned werewolf fantasies without having to deal with actual lycanthropy. Nobody is ALLOWED to play a druid that doesn't Wild Shape, because every goddamned jackass in the world thinks that stupid ability is the only reason druids exist. I hate Wild Shape. I hate it, I hate it, I hate it, and it absolutely interferes with me playing druids because a druid that does not use Wild Shape is much akin to a cleric that does not use Channel Divinity, or a paladin that doesn't Smite. You can absolutely play that way, but you're foregoing a huge chunk of your class' intended strength and you'll always know it.
A 'Shaman' subclass bolted onto the Druid chassis, the way so many people think it should be, would have to deal with the fact that it's a druid and thus expected to turn into bears at a moment's notice. Never mind that the player cannot reconcile why their 'Shaman' is turning into a bear despite that making absolutely no god damned sense - they'll do it and like it or they can just not play D&D.
Does that mean Wizards should build a 'Shaman' class for those folks who might want to be druid-adjacent but cannot stand ****ing Wild Shape? Probably not - but it does mean "just make a subclass, idiot" doesn't work for those who actively dis-want the baggage from an existing core class.
A) I have a circle of shepherd druid in my game who is now level 11 and has wildshaped maybe 5 times in the entire year plus we've been playing so your first point is pretty much your own baggage.
B) look at subclasses like circle of the spore druid and circle of the stars druid that add features that change the way wildshape works, you don't like wild shape as is? Great, make a shaman subclass that turns wildshape into something like a living totem that does some things. Yeah maybe you can't completely remove a base class feature but you can definitely co-opt it.
A good number of people have spoken up in forums and social media in favor of a Psionicist. I’m pretty sure it’s safe to say that somewhere in the neighborhood of 20-35% of the D&D consumer base wants one. That’s popular enough in my book.
I suspect psi is popular, yes. Likewise the warlord and a more functional gish ('magus' per se isn't something I've heard anyone talking about). Not clear that any of them require a class.
On the bright side, I think this forum post shows people want more classes
Well, the post did include a survey; and, despite the heated advocacy and some creative projects spun from it, over half the respondents weren't keen on adding classes to the game, a bit over 10/% actually want _less_ classes in game, and about a solid third wants more classes (vs. 2/3 for status quo or reduction, I was hoping for an "ambivalent" category myself). Assuming the participants are a similar cohort to a sample that would be used in actual market research, I don't know if that's a metric that would lead a publisher to add more, or push a licensed digital toolset to support it (though maybe Tasha's feature variant will allow someone to finesse it ... though has anyone noticed while Frostmaiden is on the Developers list, Tasha's isn't?).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
And a paladin was a knight who served in Charlemagne's court. I think it's fair to take some liberties with the name to make it fit a more general term. Paladin was too specific, while Occultist is too general, but the name doesn't have to be absolutely perfect, it just has to fit (which Occultist happens to do).
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I agree.
(Also, for the confusion part, those people can pick up a dictionary or go to Google to look up the definition of occult.)
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
If did half of what you predict, they would lose me as a customer. As you said, you can only take away so much before it is no longer the same game.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I second Golaryn. At that point, I'd just put on a cape and tell my group to meet up in the woods, we're LARPing.
Oh wow I hope those don't come to pass.
1: I love the skills, and they let your character feel good at more than just hitting things, and that they have knowledge about certain specialist topics.
2: I think subclasses could have been done well, in a way which opened up things for player modification more easily, while actually reducing bloat. I don't think subclasses are a lost cause, just really badly done.
3: Feats are another thing which adds flavor and fun, and one of the few ways in the current system to diverge your class from the 'on the rails' progress. Their mistake was doing feat or asi. That just means you can pick fun, or having your character actually viable.
Also my bet is 2028 for 6e release.
Keep in mind that the time which it makes economic sense to make 6e can vary. It wouldn't always be a guaranteed money paycheck.
If 5e is top of the world and everyone is loving it, many will be reluctant to change no matter how good 6e is. They've dumped a ton of money into 5e books, enjoy the system, and see no reason to move on.
If 5e is feeling old and tired, it's flaws gradually becoming more obvious to even the casual players, and there has been a content drought for a while, people will be much more likely to leap onto 6e.
At the moment 5e still seems to lean towards the former, with only a minority being unhappy with parts of the system.
Well now I cannot agree with that entirely. When they announced 4e I completely stopped purchasing any and all WotC products including M:tG until at least a year after 5e launched and I started to hear good things consistently.
I know I’m not the only person to do that, I’m not that unique. Not everyone will always jump on a new system. Especially if they only recently invested in the current system.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
We are relics. Anyone who remembers putting Elf as their class, or how to calculate THAC0, or what it was like to gain proficiency with a new single weapon on level-up, or what it was like for a 1st level “Magic User” to prepare a Spell Slot.... Anyone who remember not only that “Dual Classing” and “Multiclassing” we’re separate things, but why they were separate things...
We are the old guard.
Besides, I already get flamed for my opinions half the time. So what’s new? 🤷♂️
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I gotta say I'm pretty hyped for the mess that 6e will cause when announced. No matter which direction it goes in, it will cause havoc.
😂😂
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Just a note?
Telling everyone that Wizards is a terrible company, that D&D 5e has a ton of problems and everyone should switch to a different game, that asking the company to make 5e better at doing 5e things is not only a waste of time (which it probably is) but also a Betrayal of D&D and the Holy Spirit of Gygax, and that all of us whippernsappers are too young to realize it's all happened before and the ruleset released in 198X was the one and only true way to play any sort of tabletop RPG from Tolkienite Fantasy to Space Noir?
...dooeeesn't quite fly on the forum dedicated to people who're making use of the official 5e digital tool set.
Errybuddy here is playing the same game. Just like I get told to fly and go **** myself every time I express frustration with that game and a desire for it to more closely align with rules everybody else hates, you're gonna get the same pushback. You're lucky, at least. Your rules exist. All your friends live in the same geographical region. You can play OD&D Red Box Edition whenever you like, ne?
Please do not contact or message me.
Yurei, BigLiz,
Cálmate caballeros. I already gave the Mods enough stress this week. Why not settle a bit and give them a break at least until next week.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
On the bright side, I think this forum post shows people want more classes
popular ones seem to be
psionic
magus
shaman
witch
rune stuff
antipaladin/death knight
Warlord too! It's one I see talked about a lot.
We have far too few people in this thread to really say what's popular. Those are all "At least one person wants it and is willing to talk it up".
add to the list a non magical archer/gunslinger lol
A New DM up against the World
A good number of people have spoken up in forums and social media in favor of a Psionicist. I’m pretty sure it’s safe to say that somewhere in the neighborhood of 20-35% of the D&D consumer base wants one. That’s popular enough in my book.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
A) I have a circle of shepherd druid in my game who is now level 11 and has wildshaped maybe 5 times in the entire year plus we've been playing so your first point is pretty much your own baggage.
B) look at subclasses like circle of the spore druid and circle of the stars druid that add features that change the way wildshape works, you don't like wild shape as is? Great, make a shaman subclass that turns wildshape into something like a living totem that does some things. Yeah maybe you can't completely remove a base class feature but you can definitely co-opt it.
I suspect psi is popular, yes. Likewise the warlord and a more functional gish ('magus' per se isn't something I've heard anyone talking about). Not clear that any of them require a class.
Well, the post did include a survey; and, despite the heated advocacy and some creative projects spun from it, over half the respondents weren't keen on adding classes to the game, a bit over 10/% actually want _less_ classes in game, and about a solid third wants more classes (vs. 2/3 for status quo or reduction, I was hoping for an "ambivalent" category myself). Assuming the participants are a similar cohort to a sample that would be used in actual market research, I don't know if that's a metric that would lead a publisher to add more, or push a licensed digital toolset to support it (though maybe Tasha's feature variant will allow someone to finesse it ... though has anyone noticed while Frostmaiden is on the Developers list, Tasha's isn't?).
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.