What have you been fear mongering about ? I seem to have missed it.
The video does mention Bards have access to the arcane list and possibly all 3 lists with magical secrets.
Several times I've commented that it feels like they dropped class spell lists and have Power Source (Arcane, Divine, Primal) spell lists instead. Some people have NOT reacted well to that comment and called it fearmongering
What do y'all think the fresh Community Outrage is gonna be about? Dead gods know there can't possibly be any excitement or eagerness to engage with the system. Curious what folks're betting the new "THIS CANNOT STAND, WIZARDS!" issue is gonna be. Obviously the spell lists are gonna be a big one, and I'm not thinking that'll feed into people snarling about "sameyness" because classes are grouped now. But I'm also betting we're gonna see a strong undercurrent of discontent over feats even more strongly becoming core rules rather than optional things. Lots of people ban feats in an attempt to outlaw munchkinism, betting those folks are gonna be letting us know how awful we are for wanting choices and options in our tabletop game about making choices and selecting options.
My outrage issue is not having an arcane half caster class on release.
Hm!! So, the pdf comes with Arcane, Divine and Primal spells up to level 9. No mention of a bard spell list. HM!!!!! It seems I have more fuel for my so called "baseless fearmongering" now! Muhahahahhahahahahhahaa!!!!!
So, at a guess, we're going to see Fighter, Barbarian and Monk as "Warrior" class, Warlock, Wizard, Sorcerer as "Mage" class, Paladin, Cleric and Druid as Priest class to go along with our four Expert classes....
We will find out tomorrow but I felt he was fairly clear that each class would have access to one of the spell categories but also have a unique list, so a bard might have arcane but also have 20 unique bard spells, wiz the same with all those fun named one on theirs etc. If its just arcane with no unique options for each class i feel that would be a bad call, though I guess easier to balance.
Also group features. So they mentioned Expert (obviously), Priest and Mage, wonder what the 4th group will be. Sounds kind of like a return to roles, hopefully they aren't restricted like that but will have to see.
Did they say Priest and Mage? I only caught Expert and Warrior.
It's mentioned at 14:00 in the video, I missed warrior group at that point. Talking about things the expert classes will get, Jermey said, "They will get things from the warrior group, the mage group & the priest group".
My guess is:
Priest: Cleric, Druid, Paladin
Mage: Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock
Warrior: Fighter, Barbarian Monk
those are just guesses tho.
seems reasonable Paladin might be a edge case you should put them in Priest or warriors.
If you put them in priests that would give them access to priest feats meaning probably boosting spellcasting. While if they are put in the warrior groups warrior feats would probably give them more of a combat focus.
Prediction : Paladins will have a ability like the following ( going with your suggestion that they are in the Priest group for this example) Martial versatility: you also qualify for warrior feats that have a level requirement of half your level or lower.
On a certain level, I can also see Monks being priests…. Just saying.
Also group features. So they mentioned Expert (obviously), Priest and Mage, wonder what the 4th group will be. Sounds kind of like a return to roles, hopefully they aren't restricted like that but will have to see.
Did they say Priest and Mage? I only caught Expert and Warrior.
It's mentioned at 14:00 in the video, I missed warrior group at that point. Talking about things the expert classes will get, Jermey said, "They will get things from the warrior group, the mage group & the priest group".
My guess is:
Priest: Cleric, Druid, Paladin
Mage: Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock
Warrior: Fighter, Barbarian Monk
those are just guesses tho.
seems reasonable Paladin might be a edge case you should put them in Priest or warriors.
If you put them in priests that would give them access to priest feats meaning probably boosting spellcasting. While if they are put in the warrior groups warrior feats would probably give them more of a combat focus.
Prediction : Paladins will have a ability like the following ( going with your suggestion that they are in the Priest group for this example) Martial versatility: you also qualify for warrior feats that have a level requirement of half your level or lower.
On a certain level, I can also see Monks being priests…. Just saying.
I think it depends on if each group having a gimmick. Like all experts have expertise(not sure I like that but fine), do all priests have channel divinity if so I don't think monk translates well, ki/channel divinity seems off paladins already get it and re flavoring wild shape into a channel divinity seems to make sense, and if they go this route what is the thing all warriors get, all mages get etc.
What do y'all think the fresh Community Outrage is gonna be about?
I have faith that you can think of something soon enough to present as community-wide outrage.
As for my opinion, I think it was a good idea to start the discussion of class groups with one that includes the ranger. I expect a lot of eyes will be on the beastmaster subclass to see the newest take on it. Also, I really enjoy them switching inspiration to Natural 1 on d20 tests rather than on rolling a 20. It gives an opportunity to fail forward, and "fail fishing" is going to have more negative baggage in general, and therefore less incentive, than crit fishing would. And I am definitely looking forward to seeing what is (and what isn't) in the spell lists. I think that is going to inform us more than a little bit about which spells will be class-specific.
One thing I am curious about now that capstones are at level 18 is whether the level 20 boons are going to be class level 20 or character level 20.
Alternatively, Warlocks could be considered a sort of Priest….. though there’s no one better than them to take a slot in mage. Monk just fits better thematically.
Monk only fits "Priest" if you exclude all nontraditional monks from the bracket. Find me one person willing to call Beauregard Lionett a 'Priest'. I'll wait.
The groups are also not intrinsically required to be equal. Warrior can contain four while Priest contains two. And, much like how the Expert group contains both a noncaster and a full flight spellcaster, different groups can have different approaches to the group's overall theme. The dingdong being classified as a 'Priest' doesn't mean it cannot have martial features. It merely means the dingdong is aligned with the 'Holy' part of Holy Warrior as much or more than the Warrior part.
What I wonder is whether Crawford's just being a coy teasing jerk when he says this system makes it easier to introduce new base classes later on, or if Wizards actually has long range plans to do that thing and this is setting a foundation. Only time will tell, but it's worth thinking about. If one can think at all amidst all the knee-jerk outrage and incessant demands that Wizards Stop Changing Things and just keep everything exactly the way it is right now forever.
Rules of Three, there's a symmetry and judging from the production values of the vid, it's clear D&D likes its symmetrical structures (I was left thinking maybe JC and Todd are the same person, you never see them together after all):
Experts: Rangers, Rogues, Bards
Arcanists/Mage: Wizards, Sorcerer, Warlock (magic source: study for it, born with it, deal for it)
Priests: Clerics, Druids, Paladins
Warriors: Fighters, Barbarians, Monks
And THEN in 2030 with Admodeus's Offer of Everything you get another grouping:
Problem Children: Artificers, Psions and Gish
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.
What have you been fear mongering about ?
I seem to have missed it.
The video does mention Bards have access to the arcane list and possibly all 3 lists with magical secrets.
Several times I've commented that it feels like they dropped class spell lists and have Power Source (Arcane, Divine, Primal) spell lists instead. Some people have NOT reacted well to that comment and called it fearmongering
My outrage issue is not having an arcane half caster class on release.
I wouldn't be surprised if Paladin was a Warrior class while Monk was a Priest class, to be honest. Even if Monks are mostly about punching people.
How do you expect them to make money if they don't rehash all the 5e things over 5 $60 supplements.
I would be surprised if the one other class besides Cleric that gets Channel Divinity is not a Priest class.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
We will find out tomorrow but I felt he was fairly clear that each class would have access to one of the spell categories but also have a unique list, so a bard might have arcane but also have 20 unique bard spells, wiz the same with all those fun named one on theirs etc. If its just arcane with no unique options for each class i feel that would be a bad call, though I guess easier to balance.
On a certain level, I can also see Monks being priests…. Just saying.
With Spells I feel
If you can cast arcane spells, you get list A.
If you are a Bard, you get List A and B
If you are a Lore Bard, you get List A, B, and C.
Yeah I feel like that is a miss, the choice between customization and effect isn't one you should push on the player imo.
I think it depends on if each group having a gimmick. Like all experts have expertise(not sure I like that but fine), do all priests have channel divinity if so I don't think monk translates well, ki/channel divinity seems off paladins already get it and re flavoring wild shape into a channel divinity seems to make sense, and if they go this route what is the thing all warriors get, all mages get etc.
I have faith that you can think of something soon enough to present as community-wide outrage.
As for my opinion, I think it was a good idea to start the discussion of class groups with one that includes the ranger. I expect a lot of eyes will be on the beastmaster subclass to see the newest take on it. Also, I really enjoy them switching inspiration to Natural 1 on d20 tests rather than on rolling a 20. It gives an opportunity to fail forward, and "fail fishing" is going to have more negative baggage in general, and therefore less incentive, than crit fishing would. And I am definitely looking forward to seeing what is (and what isn't) in the spell lists. I think that is going to inform us more than a little bit about which spells will be class-specific.
One thing I am curious about now that capstones are at level 18 is whether the level 20 boons are going to be class level 20 or character level 20.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
If you consider druidic shapeshifting to be a kind of divine channeling....
Yes, Wild Shaping progresses more like Channel Divinity than Ki.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Pallys we’re a Warrior subclass in 2e.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Power Source spell lists, bard not being half caster, over/under powered feats, more Crit complaints, rogue/caster divide.
Crazier things have happened. Weren't sorcerers originally half casters early in the D&D Next playtest?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Cleric: the spiritual connection to your God
Druid: the spiritual connection to Nature
Monk: the spiritual connection to your Self
Alternatively, Warlocks could be considered a sort of Priest….. though there’s no one better than them to take a slot in mage. Monk just fits better thematically.
Monk only fits "Priest" if you exclude all nontraditional monks from the bracket. Find me one person willing to call Beauregard Lionett a 'Priest'. I'll wait.
The groups are also not intrinsically required to be equal. Warrior can contain four while Priest contains two. And, much like how the Expert group contains both a noncaster and a full flight spellcaster, different groups can have different approaches to the group's overall theme. The dingdong being classified as a 'Priest' doesn't mean it cannot have martial features. It merely means the dingdong is aligned with the 'Holy' part of Holy Warrior as much or more than the Warrior part.
What I wonder is whether Crawford's just being a coy teasing jerk when he says this system makes it easier to introduce new base classes later on, or if Wizards actually has long range plans to do that thing and this is setting a foundation. Only time will tell, but it's worth thinking about. If one can think at all amidst all the knee-jerk outrage and incessant demands that Wizards Stop Changing Things and just keep everything exactly the way it is right now forever.
Please do not contact or message me.
Rules of Three, there's a symmetry and judging from the production values of the vid, it's clear D&D likes its symmetrical structures (I was left thinking maybe JC and Todd are the same person, you never see them together after all):
Experts: Rangers, Rogues, Bards
Arcanists/Mage: Wizards, Sorcerer, Warlock (magic source: study for it, born with it, deal for it)
Priests: Clerics, Druids, Paladins
Warriors: Fighters, Barbarians, Monks
And THEN in 2030 with Admodeus's Offer of Everything you get another grouping:
Problem Children: Artificers, Psions and Gish
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.