L&L class list time

[Envyus]

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140728

Also every class will be able to use magic in some form.

[Chaosvii7]

I'm a little let down that every class but the Cleric and Wizard only gets two to three archetypes per class. I expected all of them to get at least four, but I'm not too torn up about it because options is options, and I know that it's the majority of the breadth of expanded content that we'll see on the part of 5e. That said, every single option available to every single class sounds incredibly enticing to me. There isn't a single archetype that I don't want to try as a player. They all seem to present enticing options to make a variety of characters and each one archetype is engaging to me as something that I'd like to explore in the form of a character.

So my hype is down, but my expectations are still as well met as I'd ever want them to be.

[Envyus]

Well I also found out that the Death Domain Cleric and the Oath of the Blackguard will be in the DMG. I am guessing some other stuff will be there too.

[Noldo]

I'm a little let down that every class but the Cleric and Wizard only gets two to three archetypes per class. I expected all of them to get at least four, but I'm not too torn up about it because options is options, and I know that it's the majority of the breadth of expanded content that we'll see on the part of 5e. That said, every single option available to every single class sounds incredibly enticing to me. There isn't a single archetype that I don't want to try as a player. They all seem to present enticing options to make a variety of characters and each one archetype is engaging to me as something that I'd like to explore in the form of a character.

So my hype is down, but my expectations are still as well met as I'd ever want them to be.

One can always reason that there are actually 10 variants for Fighter (3 fighters, 3 paladins, 2 rangers and 2 barbarians) and 8 variants for Rogue (3 rogues, 2 bards and 3 monks).

Still, at the same count there would be 9 variants of Cleric (7 clerics and 2 druids) and 13 variants of Wizard (8 wizards, 2 sorceres and 3 warlocks).

[Tholomyes]

Well, pretty disappointed that, despite the fact that we were told that there would be 3 sub-classes per class, a lot of the classes have only two subclasses. Probably the breakpoint for not buying into the launch. Whether I'll pick it up eventually depends on how good the supplements are, and how long I'll have to wait for a price drop.

[comk59]

Not totally sure how I feel about these. I was especially thrown by the Paladin's "oath of vengeance", since I played my paladins as just one step away from that.

[Chaosvii7]

Well I also found out that the Death Domain Cleric and the Oath of the Blackguard will be in the DMG. I am guessing some other stuff will be there too.

I hope that means there'll be extra Sorcerous Origins available in the DMG as well. I'm not interested in Wild magic(I never play the chaos angle if I can help it) and the Draconic origin makes for interesting characters, but it feels like it just makes Dragonborn Sorcerers feel lazy, and kind of overshadowed considering that anybody can have the blood of a dragon, but Dragonborn are special because they have the...blood of a...dragon?

I mean, I know the origin of Dragonborn was different across the last two editions, but I'm assuming that the Dragonborn are also going to double as the token half-dragon race, giving it it's own niche instead of making just anything and everything a potential half-dragon like in 3.X.

[Beleriphon]

I mean, I know the origin of Dragonborn was different across the last two editions, but I'm assuming that the Dragonborn are also going to double as the token half-dragon race, giving it it's own niche instead of making just anything and everything a potential half-dragon like in 3.X.

From what I recall dragonborn are the offspring of dragons that didn't hatch into actual dragons (also a true breeding species). At least that's what I remember seeing somewhere from WotC about dragonborn. Which makes sorcerer's different in that the sorcerer has some kind of connection to dragons, either through blood relations or some other magic.

[Yorrin]

Well I also found out that the Death Domain Cleric and the Oath of the Blackguard will be in the DMG. I am guessing some other stuff will be there too.

Source? This interests me very much, not only because I like to play Death Clerics but also because it means they really are going back to "evil is kept separate from good, preferably out of reach of players."


I'm a little let down that every class but the Cleric and Wizard only gets two to three archetypes per class

I'm pretty sure I called this somewhere else. That being said I largely agree with the rest of your assessment in that I'm not really too broken up about it. Sorcerer needs some more options, and the lack of a Str based Rogue is dissapointing, but other than that I see no problems with the current list in terms of providing enough fun playable options (though I'm always a fan of more Cleric domains rather than less...)

[akaddk]

I was definitely hoping for a more even spread of archetypes between the classes. It just adds weight to the whole "spellcasters rule" argument.

[Callin]

Pretty Darn Excited Here.

Figured most of those would be in but seeing it confirmed is nice. I now really cant wait for the PHB release so I can see the mechanics of em.


Edit: Also is it just me or did EVERY class other than Barbarian get a spell list now?

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I was actually hoping that the Fighter would get 2 archetypes, one for the basic fighter and then the battle master.

Only because that would mean of the 6 pages, 2 for intro and such, 1 for Champion, and a whopping 3 for maneuvers and such.

Damn.

Though the Eldritch Knight evocation/abjuration might be fun too :p

[Morty]

Holy smoke, this is hilarious. Clerics and wizards get more sub-classes than half of the other classes combined.

[Callin]

I really wouldnt call the Wizard Schools a Subclass. I mean if Evocation was any indicator then they are going to be very lackluster. Domains on the other hand looked pretty cool.

[Morty]

And if Champion is any indication, a lot of other sub-classes are going to be lackluster, so it evens out.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Holy smoke, this is hilarious. Clerics and wizards get more sub-classes than half of the other classes combined.

Well the cleric and wizard are about 8 or 9 pages each and everyone else has about... 6 or 7.

I wasn't surprised about any of this, just mildly hoped the fighter would get some loving.

I am ght be in the wrong system, oh well homebrew exists for a reason. I have a Setting Sun Fighter archetype that needs a few kinks worked out that seems to be able to work within 5e.

[obryn]

...because, you see, if there's one thing full spellcasters needed, it was more options!

[Demonic Spoon]

...because, you see, if there's one thing full spellcasters needed, it was more options!

Honestly I wish full spellcasters were by default more restricted in what spells they could get. I would have liked to see the spell list be a lot more locked down. Only illusionists, for example, get the full gamut of illusion spells, whereas mages of other schools get a more limited subset.

Alas..

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Honestly I wish full spellcasters were by default more restricted in what spells they could get. I would have liked to see the spell list be a lot more locked down. Only illusionists, for example, get the full gamut of illusion spells, whereas mages of other schools get a more limited subset.

Alas..

Maybe the PHB and by extension the basic PDF will have school restrictions?

Perhaps rules for it will be in the dmg?

A max of 3 schools of magic should be enough for any full caster.

[obryn]

Honestly I wish full spellcasters were by default more restricted in what spells they could get. I would have liked to see the spell list be a lot more locked down. Only illusionists, for example, get the full gamut of illusion spells, whereas mages of other schools get a more limited subset.

Alas..
This was never going to happen, because a Wizard with a handful of spell schools won't feel like a 3e Wizard.

I mean, I agree - and there's even precedent with the 1e Illusionist - but it wasn't really ever on the table for 5e.

[Person_Man]

Instead of some sort of rational division based on game mechanics or 4E style Roles, the organization of the classes and subclasses seems to be based entirely on what the base classes in every previous edition other were (minus the polarizing Warlord), and what were the most popular builds using of those classes.

Sorcerer, Wizard, and Bard all have 9th level spellcasting using extremely similar spellcasting mechanics and spell lists. Seems like they should have been part of the same Magic User (or whatever people want to call it) base class.

Cleric and Druid both have 9th level spellcasting. I'm guessing that their spell lists will also be extremely similar. Seems like they should have been part of the same Priest (or whatever) base class.

Or they could have just organized all the spellcasters together into a single base class, and given each of them different Schools. But at that point, they could have just adopted Legend style tracks (which would have been awesome).

Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, and Barbarian are all likely to be the "basic" options. You get a few signiture abilities (Action Surge, Second Wind, Rage, etc) plus Extra Attacks and more Ability Score Increases. Seems like they should have been part of a Warrior (or whatever) base class.

Rogue seems to stand alone. In earlier editions, the Bard was a subclass, but now the Bard seems to be very similar to the Sorcerer.

I'm not sure where the Warlock fits. If they end up getting up to 9th level arcane spells through a backdoor Pact or Patron class ability, that should just be represented on their chart, and they should be a Magic User subclass. But my general feeling is that "half casters" like the 2E/3E Paladin, Ranger, and Bard always had terrible balance issues.

Not sure how Eldritch Knight is going to get spells when its based on the Fighter, or the Arcane Trickster since its based on the Rogue. Seems like those should be Magic User subclasses, since anything else is just going to end up being a nerfed and far less useful/optimial spellcasting option.

40 subclasses (plus more in the DMG?) just seems like its way, way too many for new players to wade through. (And at this point, anyone who hasn't been involved in the play test are all new or new-ish players).

And it seems horribly duplicative for players to have to re-read through the same hit die, proficiency, and base game mechanics as they're repeated throughout multiple classes.

I'm not understanding the rationale, if there is one.

[T.G. Oskar]

Surprised in some of the options, disappointed with others.

The Barbarian is pretty self-explanatory: the Berserker and the Totem Warrior are based on some of the last playtests, and if it looks like such, the Berserker will be the default path (though all Barbarians get Rage; this makes the Berserker Barbarian's Rage even stronger), whereas the Totem Warrior will have its own sub-set of choices (so you have the Eagle Totem Barbarian, Wolf Totem Barbarian, and so on; no Lion Totem Barbarian, unless the PHB throws a curve). In that case, the Barbarian gets about 6 choices (Berserker, plus 5 different variants for Totem Warrior) instead of 2.

Disappointed that the Bard lost a cool college like the College of Wit (Fascinate, improved Confusion, a wide-area fear effect that doesn't require Bardic Performance, etc.) for College of Lore (probably like the Bardic Sage from Unearthed Arcana, boosting its Bardic Knowledge class feature or getting it exclusively). College of Valor is mostly a Skald-type character, getting proficiency in martial weapons and medium armor plus a few moves that further improve combat. If what some people say is true and the Bard gets 9th level spells, the Bard is potentially the most broken class in game because it has a bit of EVERYTHING. Hoping that was a joke from the designer's part.

The Druid gets the same as some of the last playtests: Circle of the Land has about 5-6 choices (one per terrain), and effectively makes him a sort of Geomancer (from the Final Fantasy games), expanding its spell list based on the terrain. Circle of the Moon expands the options a Druid can transform beyond simple animals: black bears, for example, will require being on this Circle, but you probably get no more spells. So it's a choice between more spells and more Wild Shape forms. Oh, and no animal companion, it seems.

The Fighter gets Eldritch Knight. Ugh. Don't take me wrong with this, but this seems a bit like a cop-out: the class meant to be the combat specialist suddenly gets magic. Maybe the terms changed and what it gets is more internal (think Physical Adept from Shadowrun), boosting the enhancement bonus of any weapon it wields or getting resistances against some energy types, or maybe even getting cool actions like spending your reaction to parry a spell. That makes it "magical" without giving it spells. Then again, having Multiclass as an option and not a core ability means there must be a way to get sword and spell in conjunction. Also harkens to the time where Elves were a class.

The Monk got Way of Shadow in addition to its other styles. No idea how it works, but probably has something from the Invisible Blade ACF (meaning some limited form of invisibility). Way of the Open Hand will be the "default" Monk (getting Quivering Palm and probably Stunning Attack), and Way of the Four Elements will be choice-based like the Fighter's Battlemaster path. Then again: maybe Way of Shadow will be a way to make a Ninja, before the designers and developers decide to make the third version of Oriental Adventures once they release some campaign settings (mostly Forgotten Realms and Eberron, and maybe Dragonlance).

The Paladin retains Oath of Devotion (the default, so to speak, as it gets Turn Undead as its ability to Channel Divinity and some abilities related to protection) and Oath of Vengeance (making it a sort of Avenger). Surprised, though, that the "Green Warden" option remained: the Oath of the Ancients makes for a great Paladin of Obad-Hai, Ehlonna, Balinor, and other nature deities. Surprised on that one.

The Ranger, on the other hand...it seems Favored Enemy will once again be a class feature? Or ditched altogether? The new archetypes for them involve being a more offensive and agile version of the "Green Warden"/Oath of the Ancients Paladin, or...getting a bunch of Animal Companions. One of my players will be happy if that is to happen. However, I really can't say whether one of these two options will have many sub-options to make it collapse into two (whether it'll work like the Barbarian's Totem Warrior or the Druid's Circle of the Land).

The Rogue retains the Assassin from the earlier playtests (proficiency with disguise and poison kits, backstabs making automatic crits...lovely stuff), but also get the Arcane Trickster, which is...a combination of the PrC and probably Spellthief. I mean, it focuses on Illusions and Enchantments, which were two of the Spellthief's choices. Also feels like a cop-out, but I strangely allow this more to a Rogue than to a Fighter. No idea why (and I fully support an archetype that makes the Fighter more like a Warblade, or more like a Marshal).

The Sorcerer is kinda disappointing. I honestly thought Wild Magic would be integrated to the class given how it was described in the class' fluff, but it ends up being one of their "Sorcerous Origins". The other one is...Draconic. Maybe the designers and developers didn't want an overlap between the Sorcerer's Origins and the Warlock's Patrons, but the fluff alone could distinguish them. You can already expect a Celestial Origin, a Fiendish Origin, a Fey Origin, a Necromantic Origin (where one of your ancestors was some sort of vampire or turned into a lich, and that runs in your veins, letting you get more necromancy for your buck) and maybe an origin where you're from a line of Wizards and thus work like some sort of Ultimate Magus. That last one would be kinda broken, though (Arcanist, anyone?). Also: while the Barbarian and the Druid have ways to have more than one path (Barbarian definitely, Druid arguably) and the Ranger might have a "sub-choice" path of its own, the Sorcerer is the only official class without three paths, because the Draconic and Wild Magic origins are pretty clear-cut.

The Warlock, on the other hand, gets the three Patrons from before: Fey, Fiendish, and Star (heh, "Great Old One"...seems not only Paizo likes their Lovecraft...) That probably means the Far Realm will make a reappearance, and so does the explanation of just about everything. Fun thing, though, is that it makes perfect sense in Eberron to do so (you made a Pact with a Daelkyr, which is pretty much a Great Old One if they acted like Tzimisces).

And yeah: it's pretty evident that other sourcebooks will have more Paths for people. Definitely can see an Oath of the Blackguard in the DMG (for those who want to play Evil characters), but not sure what else. Since the DMG will probably have the options for setting-sensitive races, maybe the same will be done with Paths? Like, the Path of the Red Wizard? Though, that'll be weird, as the Path of the Red Wizard means you have to further specialize in one path. Same for Dragonlance's High Sorcery (though probably the Robes of the Archmagi will be definitely tied to Dragonlance in this way). It'll be rare to see a new class, it seems.

[Envyus]

Well, pretty disappointed that, despite the fact that we were told that there would be 3 sub-classes per class, a lot of the classes have only two subclasses. Probably the breakpoint for not buying into the launch. Whether I'll pick it up eventually depends on how good the supplements are, and how long I'll have to wait for a price drop.

They never said we would get 3 sub classes per class.

Also it should be noted that the Wizard who has the most subclasses does not really have any room to expand them as they get one for each school of magic. So there is not really a way to expand them. All of the other classes are super easy to introduce new sub classes to.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

They never said we would get 3 sub classes per class.

Also it should be noted that the Wizard who has the most subclasses does not really have any room to expand them as they get one for each school of magic. So there is not really a way to expand them. All of the other classes are super easy to introduce new sub classes to.

Mix two or three schools of magic together to make a new school.

Dread Necro would be Conjuration + Necromancy.

[rlc]

Edit: Also is it just me or did EVERY class other than Barbarian get a spell list now?

"[T]he totem warrior channels the magic of beasts to augment his or her rage."

[Inevitability]

Honestly I wish full spellcasters were by default more restricted in what spells they could get. I would have liked to see the spell list be a lot more locked down. Only illusionists, for example, get the full gamut of illusion spells, whereas mages of other schools get a more limited subset.

Alas..

You know, I've played with the idea of splitting wizards up in x individual classes, each of which is focused on an individual school.

In 3.5 terms, that means there'd be no wizard, but instead you'd choose to play a Warmage, a Beguiler, a Dread Necromancer... You get the idea.

[Tholomyes]

They never said we would get 3 sub classes per class.

Also it should be noted that the Wizard who has the most subclasses does not really have any room to expand them as they get one for each school of magic. So there is not really a way to expand them. All of the other classes are super easy to introduce new sub classes to.They actually did say that every class other than the Sorcerer (who would only get two) and the Cleric and Wizard (who would get 7 and 8 respectively) would have three subclasses. I'd link to where I found the source, but the page has since been edited. I'm sure there's an interview that has the actual text out there, but I can't find it.

[obryn]

They never said we would get 3 sub classes per class.

Also it should be noted that the Wizard who has the most subclasses does not really have any room to expand them as they get one for each school of magic. So there is not really a way to expand them. All of the other classes are super easy to introduce new sub classes to.
Not really. Sha'ir, Witch, Elementalist, Scholar, Red Wizard, etc.

[T.G. Oskar]

Not really. Sha'ir, Witch, Elementalist, Scholar, Red Wizard, etc.

Sha'ir is viable, but it'd work better once the Forgotten Realms campaign setting sourcebook is released, or if they make an Al'Qadim release. It'd involve a Gen Familiar getting spells rather than specializing in a school. A variant that involves Genie heritage could be a good Sorcerous Origin.

Witch seems more in-line with Sorcerer or Warlock than Wizard. In fact, the Archfey Patron for the Warlock would make for a good Witch. I mean, it's still viable, but difficult to adjudicate. At most, it could be that you gain Druid spells on your Wizard's spellbook, but just as likely a Circle for Druids that nets them Wizard spells. That is, if going by the usual description. Most likely the Witch path will return Wizards their familiar, but then again, a Druid could probably benefit just as much. That's the problem with the Witch: it overlaps with too many classes, and not just the ones that are thematically similar t the Wizard.

Elementalist is mostly Evocation in a nutshell. Focusing on elemental spells rather than schools is potentially viable, but also really narrow and weird, particularly since most "elemental" spells are Evocation spells.

Scholar...the Bard has the College of Lore, so they make better Scholars. Still viable, but it'd be less attuned to empowering your spells and more gaining out-of-combat benefits. Probably something like the Bard's Bardic Knowledge (treat any roll between 1-9 as a 10 for all Intelligence skills related to knowledge).

I already explained why the Red Wizard is simultaneously viable and non-viable. The path taken by Wizards IS already similar to that of Red Wizards, except they sacrifice more access to spells for focused specialization. I expect to see something related to them, but if they manage to pull Red Wizards of Thay, they MUST have Wizards of High Sorcery, which actually get unique powers for taking the White, Red or Black robes.

[akaddk]

I expect to see something related to them, but if they manage to pull Red Wizards of Thay, they MUST have Wizards of High Sorcery, which actually get unique powers for taking the White, Red or Black robes.

Unique powers? Why? Is this some fifth age silliness? Dragonlance was great in 1e and then got completely trashed in 2e. The divisions of the alignments didn't have different powers in 1e, they simply had greater or lesser power based on the cycles of the moons and different XP/spell progression tables. This represented the difference between the philosophies perfectly because black was all about the fastest route to power so they levelled up faster but didn't get as many spells overall. I'd hate to see them get different powers simply because they have to use the same XP table. That seems to lack... imagination and doesn't truly reflect the philosophical differences.

[T.G. Oskar]

Unique powers? Why? Is this some fifth age silliness? Dragonlance was great in 1e and then got completely trashed in 2e. The divisions of the alignments didn't have different powers in 1e, they simply had greater or lesser power based on the cycles of the moons and different XP/spell progression tables. This represented the difference between the philosophies perfectly because black was all about the fastest route to power so they levelled up faster but didn't get as many spells overall. I'd hate to see them get different powers simply because they have to use the same XP table. That seems to lack... imagination and doesn't truly reflect the philosophical differences.

More like Third Edition silliness. Haven't you seen the Dragonlance Campaign Setting book?

Your mileage may vary regarding its "official" condition, but the Wizards of High Sorcery in 3rd Edition were Prestige Classes. They weren't optional, if speaking in terms of story; if you didn't take the Test by 5th level, you either didn't progress or became a Renegade and got hunted. The first thing they got was the equivalent of the Red Wizard's Focused Specialization, and then they got five Order Secrets which involved increased caster level for certain spells, free metamagic boosts, and so on. So yeah: not pulling this off from thin air, but drawing from facts. If curious and you have said book, you can see the "unique powers" each Order gets by reading pages 75 and 76.

Given how these differences work, and to cater to Wizard players entering Krynn, chances are we'll see all three Orders of High Sorcery having their own path. You know, just like how Harpers will get their share of paths from each class. Alternatively, they might pull off a "Red Wizard of Thay" and add a section where you justify how each path exists within game. Yet...which one do you think will generate more money: a bit of fluff to tie it with existing crunch, or new crunch with its own fluff?

[akaddk]

So yeah: not pulling this off from thin air, but drawing from facts.

Wasn't saying you were, merely that I don't consider anything after 1e Dragonlance material to be of any use whatsoever :)

I really hope they put out a Dragonlance book for 5e that retcons the entire setting back to the glory days before it was ruined. And then we could have proper Wizards of High Sorcery instead of prestige classes and giving them extra "powers".

In fact, I think I'm going to go off and make my own versions of the four sub-classes right now.

Han shot first, btw.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Not really. Sha'ir, Witch, Elementalist, Scholar, Red Wizard, etc.

4e Witch had a fantastic at-will power, or at least access to it, I'm not sure if it was a general spell or what... But when I made a witch with the character builder it popped up.

It was a wind wall that pushed targets. Walls being shapable you could make a box around you and make it act as a burst.

I would love to see that as a Cantrip.

Minor Wind Wall
Casting: 1 Action
Components: V S
Effect: You produce a wall a number of feet long equal to your casting score. All creatures caught in it take 1d8 damage and are bullrushed back 5' unless they pass a strength or constitution saving throw. Creatures adjacent to the wall feel a breeze but are otherwise uneffected by the wall.

At level x and z increase the damage by 1d8 each time. At level y the push is 10'.

[Morty]

You know, I've played with the idea of splitting wizards up in x individual classes, each of which is focused on an individual school.

In 3.5 terms, that means there'd be no wizard, but instead you'd choose to play a Warmage, a Beguiler, a Dread Necromancer... You get the idea.

That leads straight to class bloat, though. It's better to have one wizard class that needs to pick which schools it can use and which it can't. Then, wizard sub-classes can revolve around different styles of using magic... like, say, sorcerer or warlock. Funny that...

[SpawnOfMorbo]

That leads straight to class bloat, though. It's better to have one wizard class that needs to pick which schools it can use and which it can't. Then, wizard sub-classes can revolve around different styles of using magic... like, say, sorcerer or warlock. Funny that...

Shut your mouth! Don't be spreading blasphemy!!!!


Actually I agree with you, I would much prefer it to work your way but sadly... The world would end if we kept class bloat out of the game.

Though really I could see a class that wasn't the sorcerer that used Cha as the primary casting stat. Choose Divine, Primal (arcane), or Pact Magic at first level.

This determines your starting package, additional profs, and one saving throw.

Divine: Favored Soul
Primal (Arcane): Sorcerer
Pact: Warlock

Then at level XYZ whatever you gain subclass choices. At level MNO you gain your invocations or whatever.

Then you have your Int caster (mage: wizard, witch, archivist), wis casters (priests: cleric, druid, and shaman), and your cha based casters (caster synonym: sorcerer, warlock, favored soul).

You have e classes, one for each stat, with each having a sub-option and an option after that. Make each class deeper not make the class choice wider.

[Demonic Spoon]

That leads straight to class bloat, though. It's better to have one wizard class that needs to pick which schools it can use and which it can't. Then, wizard sub-classes can revolve around different styles of using magic... like, say, sorcerer or warlock. Funny that...

Wizard subclasses would work better for that. Specialists in a particular school of magic could benefit from more specific abilities than just "access to x school of magic". The 3.5 Dread Necromancer after all wasn't just a wizard with only necromancy spells.

[Morty]

Yes, except the whole point is to avoid wizards having more subclasses than three other classes put together. They can still get class features based on a school they pick.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Yes, except the whole point is to avoid wizards having more subclasses than three other classes put together. They can still get class features based on a school they pick.

Now now, it isn't Wizard of the Coast for nothing.

[T.G. Oskar]

Wasn't saying you were, merely that I don't consider anything after 1e Dragonlance material to be of any use whatsoever :)

I really hope they put out a Dragonlance book for 5e that retcons the entire setting back to the glory days before it was ruined. And then we could have proper Wizards of High Sorcery instead of prestige classes and giving them extra "powers".

In fact, I think I'm going to go off and make my own versions of the four sub-classes right now.

Han shot first, btw.

My bone to pick is turning Knights of Solamnia into prestige classes that are nearly impossible to achieve because of the forced requirements of following the Measure, but again, YMMV. Wizards of High Sorcery had it easy: the Knights of the Crown, the Sword and the Rose were changed almost three times, the latter two when the Dragonlance books were published outside of WotC. Considering the third version used Alternate Class Features for it, I wonder why they didn't just worked it a bit more cleverly.

Then again, seeing what they did to the Forgotten Realms (the Spellplague at first, then the Sundering; no other setting suffers more from edition shifts than FR), that they didn't muddle Dragonlance any further after 3rd Edition should be a miracle. Both settings are too sensitive to edition shifts, particularly since they can be affected greatly by design or development decisions (e.g. the Dragonborn being core in 4e and now 5e). Even Eberron, a setting designed almost by nature to adjust to edition shifts, suffered a bit (the way Dragonmarks were handled), even though the story wasn't moved.

Still: it's a matter of taste. It'll be hard to return to the "glory days" when there are books that deal with the aftermath of the War of the Souls, particularly those aspects related to Mina. Doing a reboot for the sake of nostalgia could work, but eventually it'll have to catch on to the new novels. A setting almost entirely consistent of fluff rather than crunch could sell, but Marketing won't see it as good enough, so the best you can hope is that they do something good with the Wizards of High Sorcery (and by definition, with the Knights of Solamnia) than hope for a reboot where all the unusual changes are erased. I'm kinda steeling for when they mention whatever they do to Eberron.

BTW: It was his sled.

[Beleriphon]

I'm kinda steeling for when they mention whatever they do to Eberron.

BTW: It was his sled.


Its not the big of a deal of Eberron. The rules are similar enough to 3.x that its not that big a deal and a good portion of what classes can do for the setting can probably be covered by backgrounds. I guess the artificer class is different enough to necessitate a new subclass (maybe wizard?) or even class with its own subclasses. Shifts probably deserve their own races, and in fact the race+subrace paradigm seems particuarly well suited to shifters.

Keith Baker a few times has posted independently that they looked at pushing the time line forward for 4E but ultimately decided they didn't want to do that since it somewhat invalidated the whole point of the setting as a D&D setting with specifically set up for carte blanche play from the "current" date forward.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Its not the big of a deal of Eberron. The rules are similar enough to 3.x that its not that big a deal and a good portion of what classes can do for the setting can probably be covered by backgrounds. I guess the artificer class is different enough to necessitate a new subclass (maybe wizard?) or even class with its own subclasses. Shifts probably deserve their own races, and in fact the race+subrace paradigm seems particuarly well suited to shifters.

Keith Baker a few times has posted independently that they looked at pushing the time line forward for 4E but ultimately decided they didn't want to do that since it somewhat invalidated the whole point of the setting as a D&D setting with specifically set up for carte blanche play from the "current" date forward.

As a person who doesn't used published settings all that much, I kinda hope they would just reset the universe and change some things up.

We can fluff it as Ao and The Lady of Pain (or whatever) did the horizontal bop and it reset time and space.

[T.G. Oskar]

Its not the big of a deal of Eberron. The rules are similar enough to 3.x that its not that big a deal and a good portion of what classes can do for the setting can probably be covered by backgrounds. I guess the artificer class is different enough to necessitate a new subclass (maybe wizard?) or even class with its own subclasses. Shifts probably deserve their own races, and in fact the race+subrace paradigm seems particuarly well suited to shifters.

What mostly worries me is how they handle Dragonmarks. I'm really at a loss there.

Races shouldn't be that difficult: Shifters, indeed, benefit a lot from race + subrace. You can have Longstride Shifters and Razorclaw Shifters and Dreamsight Shifters and Beasthide Shifters as subraces, and each one will be distinct enough. Changelings might also benefit from race + subrace, though their distinctions are subtler (Passer, Believer, Reality Seeker). Warforged might appear in the DMG or MM, and from the looks of one of the playtests, they won't have race + subrace (until when psionics are released, maybe, in which case you can have normal Warforged and Psiforged); Kalashtar will be a bit harder, but not that difficult.

Classes won't be difficult either. I believe the Artificer will be a new class, because of the way it works. A Wizard expy will really ruin its fluff, given how infusions work. Other classes might have new subclasses (Druids, for once, will have the five sects as subclasses of their own), and maybe some old favorites will reappear (probably not Planar Shepherd or Sovereign Speaker, but Knight Phantom and Bone Knight probably will, though Knight Phantom will probably be Eldritch Knight anyways).

However, it's on Dragonmarks where I draw blank. In both 3e and 4e they were feats, but now feats are optional. However, they are feats that had to improve on their own, so they work more like subraces: a Human may sacrifice its prowess with all ability scores to get the Mark of Sentinel or the Mark of Passage. Even then, the powers they get are unusual: 3e had spell-like abilities and skill bonuses, while 4e had Rituals which they could use even without Ritual Casting. The way some spells are restricted is also notable.

There's also the issue with Dragonshards, but there's a way to handle that, and it'll be known to Shadowrun players (in short: use Eberron dragonshards as Sustaining Foci, while Khyber dragonshards can act as Weapon Foci and Siberys dragonshards as Power Foci).

[Beleriphon]

However, it's on Dragonmarks where I draw blank. In both 3e and 4e they were feats, but now feats are optional. However, they are feats that had to improve on their own, so they work more like subraces: a Human may sacrifice its prowess with all ability scores to get the Mark of Sentinel or the Mark of Passage. Even then, the powers they get are unusual: 3e had spell-like abilities and skill bonuses, while 4e had Rituals which they could use even without Ritual Casting. The way some spells are restricted is also notable.

There's also the issue with Dragonshards, but there's a way to handle that, and it'll be known to Shadowrun players (in short: use Eberron dragonshards as Sustaining Foci, while Khyber dragonshards can act as Weapon Foci and Siberys)

Dragonshards are easy enough to use true. I'd imagine that a number of them will involve providing advantage to skills or other rolls. I can even imagine that the Dragonmarks will go that route surprisingly often. They might use feats for them still, but I also don't know exactly what would work there really what the feats being optional. I could see some of the effects being tied into backgrounds but that stops character from being Dragonmarked character from using other backgrounds. Replacing a racial ability with the Dragonmark might work as well, but I'm at a bit of a loss otherwise.

[Jon D]

I'd use backgrounds for Dragonmarks, personally. Have Dragonmarked Heir, Abberant and one for the overclocked marks, throw in a chart that bases your mark off of your race (if you get one), and another for empowering your mark (either through levels or feats) and done.

[ImperiousLeader]

Dragonmarked (or Member of Dragonmarked House) as a background, with a Feat for enhanced dragonmarks. Potentially a custom subclass or two.

Artificers will be interesting. We don't have rules for making Magic Items, and that's a major part of the Artificer's shtick. Regardless, it will be a challenge. The 3.5 class was cool, but fiddly and difficult to run. The 4e class was pretty good mechanically, but lost a lot of the flexibility that I think is the hallmark of the Artificer ... they didn't feel quite right.

Aside from Shifters, I don't see the need for Subraces. I always agreed with Eberron's creator that subraces are not a great idea, and I don't think we'll see Changeling, Kalashtar or Warforged subraces.

[Human Paragon 3]

Artificers may not be possible at all in 5e given that there are no item stores.

[eastmabl]

However, it's on Dragonmarks where I draw blank. In both 3e and 4e they were feats, but now feats are optional. However, they are feats that had to improve on their own, so they work more like subraces: a Human may sacrifice its prowess with all ability scores to get the Mark of Sentinel or the Mark of Passage. Even then, the powers they get are unusual: 3e had spell-like abilities and skill bonuses, while 4e had Rituals which they could use even without Ritual Casting. The way some spells are restricted is also notable.

I'd say that you would want to take dragonmarks one of two ways, and have the end result be a cantrip or spell of some kind. Let's use House Jorasco and the mark of healing. A least dragonmark could be a background or an alternate subrace, and the power granted is a cantrip of some kind.

For example, the background House Jorasco will grant a cantrip of Spare the Dying, or something of that ilk. Something flavorful, and nothing crazy that's going to break the system open. Alternatively, if you'd like to do a subrace, make a "House Jorasco halfling (HJH)." Instead of getting the tchotchkes that the stout and lightfoot halflings get, give HJH advantage on Medicine checks and a cantrip (like Spare the Dying) in lieu of the +1 stat increase.

Personally, I prefer the subrace option, and I think that the background would flow naturally from each house (or create dissonance - why does your halfling assassin exhibit the mark of healing?).

Lesser and greater dragonmarks should be either (1) feats or (2) substitutes for ability score improvements (yes, I know these are just like feats). They could grant other cantrips, or abilities limited by short or long rests before they recharge - for example, an ability that requires touch, and heals 1d8+x HP, or an ability that doesn't require touch, and heals 1d4+x HP.

Feats could easily be introduced into the game, even though they are an optional rule for Basic D&D. Eberron already has a history of introducing optional rules and adding them to the system. For example, action points were only optional under Unearthed Arcana, but the Artificier class has an ability which was assumed to use action points. Also, you've bought a book that isn't free

Alternatively, if you want to play "NO FEATS," just call it by a different name. Add a section under the House Jorasco halfling subrace that when the House Jorasco halfling has the option to improve an ability score, they can instead choose to take a lesser mark of healing at X level and a greater mark of healing at Y level. This could be a limited exception to those who hold by the "NO FEATS" rule that doesn't open up pandora's box to everyone else.

As for an abberant dragonmark, certain races have the option of eschewing an ability score increase past X level in order to exhibit an abberant dragonmark. They're either cantrips or abilities limited by short/long rests.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Artificers may not be possible at all in 5e given that there are no item stores.

I would love to see the Artificer be a rogue archetype that makes consumable magic items. You can only make so many at a time, they go inert after a few hours and thus aren't worth squat to sell.

Come on, everyone wants to hear "Sneak Attack tanglebriar bag"

[wolfstone]

I tried the link several times, but it won't work. :(

[Tholomyes]

I tried the link several times, but it won't work. :(

The new D&D website caused broken links, which is probably the least of the problems with the new site.

Here (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/keeping-it-classy) is the new link.

[wolfstone]

That one works. Thanks. :)

[T.G. Oskar]

I'd say that you would want to take dragonmarks one of two ways, and have the end result be a cantrip or spell of some kind. Let's use House Jorasco and the mark of healing. A least dragonmark could be a background or an alternate subrace, and the power granted is a cantrip of some kind.

For example, the background House Jorasco will grant a cantrip of Spare the Dying, or something of that ilk. Something flavorful, and nothing crazy that's going to break the system open. Alternatively, if you'd like to do a subrace, make a "House Jorasco halfling (HJH)." Instead of getting the tchotchkes that the stout and lightfoot halflings get, give HJH advantage on Medicine checks and a cantrip (like Spare the Dying) in lieu of the +1 stat increase.

Personally, I prefer the subrace option, and I think that the background would flow naturally from each house (or create dissonance - why does your halfling assassin exhibit the mark of healing?).

Lesser and greater dragonmarks should be either (1) feats or (2) substitutes for ability score improvements (yes, I know these are just like feats). They could grant other cantrips, or abilities limited by short or long rests before they recharge - for example, an ability that requires touch, and heals 1d8+x HP, or an ability that doesn't require touch, and heals 1d4+x HP.

Feats could easily be introduced into the game, even though they are an optional rule for Basic D&D. Eberron already has a history of introducing optional rules and adding them to the system. For example, action points were only optional under Unearthed Arcana, but the Artificier class has an ability which was assumed to use action points. Also, you've bought a book that isn't free

Alternatively, if you want to play "NO FEATS," just call it by a different name. Add a section under the House Jorasco halfling subrace that when the House Jorasco halfling has the option to improve an ability score, they can instead choose to take a lesser mark of healing at X level and a greater mark of healing at Y level. This could be a limited exception to those who hold by the "NO FEATS" rule that doesn't open up pandora's box to everyone else.

As for an abberant dragonmark, certain races have the option of eschewing an ability score increase past X level in order to exhibit an abberant dragonmark. They're either cantrips or abilities limited by short/long rests.

I think you hit the spot on why it's so difficult. Dragonmarks are a combination of subrace, background and feat: it doesn't work as a Background because it's racial-specific (only Humans can have the Mark of Making, Mark of Passage or Mark of Sentinel, and most marks are limited to one race except for the Mark of Finding which is shared by Humans and Half-Orcs); it works as a subrace but the Dragonmark most of the times complements, not replaces, what a race offers (the Dragonmark works as a way to grant some worth to the Core races to an extent, because only the Core races got them: none of the new races got it, at least until 4e where supposedly they were open to all races). It could work as a feat (you don't have to choose a Dragonmark as part of character creation) and thus replace one of your ability score increments, but with Eberron being mostly a low-level world: of the highest characters in Khorvaire alone, the only two 20th level characters are almost deific in nature (one is Oelian of the Wardens, the other is Erandis) and the following one is also deific in nature (the Lord of Blades at 15th level). One of the key aspects of a Dragonmark is that it could be developed by a low-level character (straight from 1st level), which completely ruins the effect of a feat.

As for what it actually does: a cantrip could be quite powerful, particularly as Least Dragonmarks were originally 1st-level spells limited in use to 1 or 2 uses, and mostly utility spells. As a set of unique abilities...that would be awesome, since it'd distinguish Dragonmarks way beyond granting spells to non-casters.

There's also the thing with the Siberys dragonmark: it's not gained at 1st level, it's completely unpredictable, but insanely powerful. That's the kind of thing that *could* be a feat, but it'd dilute and minimize the worth of a feat by itself: it simply couldn't be a background or sub-race, and making it replace your sub-class is insulting.

That's the thing, though: it's difficult to peg something as intrinsic to Eberron as a Dragonmark just by judging on the Basic Rules. Maybe when the game matures a bit we might see how it can be developed, but as it stands, making Dragonmarked PCs will be next to impossible.

[da_chicken]

The new D&D website caused broken links, which is probably the least of the problems with the new site.

Here (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/keeping-it-classy) is the new link.

Oh my God, they didn't redirect their links? They just decided to break all D&D links?! ****ing amateur hour over there.

[akaddk]

Oh my God, they didn't redirect their links? They just decided to break all D&D links?! ****ing amateur hour over there.
To be fair, their website designers, whoever they have ever been over the last ten or so years, have always been terrible. It's not like anything has changed.

At least it looks pretty.

[eastmabl]

I think you hit the spot on why it's so difficult. Dragonmarks are a combination of subrace, background and feat: it doesn't work as a Background because it's racial-specific (only Humans can have the Mark of Making, Mark of Passage or Mark of Sentinel, and most marks are limited to one race except for the Mark of Finding which is shared by Humans and Half-Orcs); it works as a subrace but the Dragonmark most of the times complements, not replaces, what a race offers (the Dragonmark works as a way to grant some worth to the Core races to an extent, because only the Core races got them: none of the new races got it, at least until 4e where supposedly they were open to all races). It could work as a feat (you don't have to choose a Dragonmark as part of character creation) and thus replace one of your ability score increments, but with Eberron being mostly a low-level world: of the highest characters in Khorvaire alone, the only two 20th level characters are almost deific in nature (one is Oelian of the Wardens, the other is Erandis) and the following one is also deific in nature (the Lord of Blades at 15th level). One of the key aspects of a Dragonmark is that it could be developed by a low-level character (straight from 1st level), which completely ruins the effect of a feat.

As for what it actually does: a cantrip could be quite powerful, particularly as Least Dragonmarks were originally 1st-level spells limited in use to 1 or 2 uses, and mostly utility spells. As a set of unique abilities...that would be awesome, since it'd distinguish Dragonmarks way beyond granting spells to non-casters.

There's also the thing with the Siberys dragonmark: it's not gained at 1st level, it's completely unpredictable, but insanely powerful. That's the kind of thing that *could* be a feat, but it'd dilute and minimize the worth of a feat by itself: it simply couldn't be a background or sub-race, and making it replace your sub-class is insulting.

That's the thing, though: it's difficult to peg something as intrinsic to Eberron as a Dragonmark just by judging on the Basic Rules. Maybe when the game matures a bit we might see how it can be developed, but as it stands, making Dragonmarked PCs will be next to impossible.

Agreed. As I mulled it over, it seemed that cantrips would be potentially overpowered or far too weak, since you have the potential for using it all the time. I think special abilities, either once per day or subject to short/long rest, might be the way to go mechanically.

[Doug Lampert]

One of the key aspects of a Dragonmark is that it could be developed by a low-level character (straight from 1st level), which completely ruins the effect of a feat.

You'd have to have a special rule for Eberon only that either
a) Everyone of a race that can take dragonmarks gets an extra feat at level 1. This allows Eberon to up-power the races a bit.
or
b) You can trade 4 ability points for a level 1 feat. (Comparable to the alternate human cost.)
or
c) You can take a dragonmark feat at level 1, but if you do then your level 4 feat or ability increase is skipped.
or
d) Only humans can have a dragonmark at level 1.
or
e) Something else.

The lack of a feat at level 1 and the existence of characters with a dragonmark at level 1 is solvable and feats are the obvious way to model dragonmarks.

[RedWarlock]

I would say race-specific background, personally, Scion of House X. Dragonmarks developing in other backgrounds would come from mix-and-match custom-built backgrounds that combined other details with the mark feature. Plus maybe a feat for developing a mark later in life, and a high-level feat (a necessary exception for specific circumstances) for Siberys marks.