Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer Creatures
Frozen Sick
D&D Beyond Basic Rules
Basic Rules (2014)
Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in- Marketplace
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer CreaturesFrozen SickD&D Beyond Basic RulesBasic Rules (2014)Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in
I agree with this. The biggest argument in favor of grouping monks with priests relies on out-of-game expectations about monks. They fit pretty cleanly into the warrior group in my opinion.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Fighters, Barbarians and Monks all tend to have "stamina point" systems - ki, rages, superiority dice/psi points/arcane arrow uses/etc.
Pally, clerics and druids can all channel divinity for stuff.
Expert classes all have EXPERTISE trait. Why did I caps that?
From a purely mechanical perspective, it makes more sense to group similar mechanics together.
Monks I can see as a "martial divine class" along with Barbs being the "martial primal"
Between the feats, the class groupings, and the customizable capstones, I'm loving the potential modular character customization here. I really hope they don't fall short with like, only three unique feats per class. I love the idea of meaningful choice being put into your character to the point where while your fighter and my fighter have some core abilities in common, they would also have the potential to be wildly different and unique from each other.
I see the design philosophy behind inspiration on a 1 instead of a 20, but I think in the spirit of the game, it belongs on the 20. The idea of someone rolling a 20 and everyone at the table cheering I feel like is just so much part of that spirit that we should keep 20's as cause for celebration.
I wonder how many subclasses will be provided for us to test the new class designs with.
Rolling a 20 is a cause for celebration because you get the effects of rolling a 20, such as a critical hit.
Another interesting thing. Fighting Styles.
Fighter is a Warrior.
Pally a priest.
Ranger is Expert.
We need a mage with Fighting Styles!
I vote Sorcerer.
By the sounds of this Artificers won't be added to the PHB and will be left behind the curve when all the classes get changed, this saddens me.
Warlock for me; it is close to a half caster anyway.
I hope Artificers don't get left behind to far since they won't be added to the PHB.
I agree, but I feel bad for Sorcerers so wanted to throw them a bone.
Very cool concepts. I look forward to testing them.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
One per class, according to the video.
I believe they were, yes, but they were full casters in 3e.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Ah, I missed that. Thanks.
48 subclasses. I wonder if they’ll be even-handed with them, or if they’ll still be heavier on one class as opposed to another.
Sorcerers so need love....
I imagine it will be similar to the current PHB with the lion's share going to Wizard and Cleric, but 48 is more than we got in 5e to start with.
Considering clerics need at least twenty of those subclasses, guessing everybody else gets two.
Please do not contact or message me.
Given that 48 divides cleaning into 12, I suspect they are going for 4 a class, but we will see.
So were Ranger but we already have confirmation that Ranger is Expert and not Warrior. Given that in the video they said it would be best for a party to balance itself by having 1 person from each group, I am suspecting an even 3/3/3/3 split of PHB classes. Paladin being closest to Cleric and Druids being sort of nature priests, I suspect it'll be those three for Priest group.