Level Up (A5E) My take on an A5e class lineup

[glass]

As I have said in several threads already, I am strongly of the opinion that the classes in A5e should not have the same names as (or a one to one mapping with) the classes in the PHB. Everyone else seems to be assuming that it will be reruns of all the PHB classes (plus warlord).

There are several reasons for this, but a big one is to free the designers from specific name associations. Also to cover roughly the same bases as the PHB classes when not used standalone, without stepping too much on the toes of any PHB class if they are used together.

On the off chance that I am not completely barking up the wrong tree, this is roughly what I would do for the class list:

​

Dreadnought​

Strength-based, heavy-armoured martial guys, with at-will manoeuvres and encounter powers (a la the Bo9S or 4e). Optionally, full-on proper Defenders in the 4e sense.​

​

Quickblade​

Dex-based, light armoured warriors. Sorta equivalent to Rogues, but with no more skill emphasis than any other martial (all martials would get more skills than caster classes). Again, at-will and per-encounter manoeuvres.​

​

Warlord​

Basically the 4e Warlord. Their Inspiring Word equivalent would allow the targets to expend Hit Dice in the middle of an encounter (with a bonus). No magic. Optionally (perhaps as a subclass feature), they have a squad of soldiers to boss a round.​

​

Oathsworn​

Discipline-focussed mystical warrior, conceptually merging the monk and paladin. Would have armoured and unarmored variants as subclasses. Might or might not have actual spells. The placeholder name is a hat tip to Monte Cook’s Arcana Evolved, but it would not necessarily be that much like that class.​

​

Mage​

Arcane pure caster, more or less mapped to the PHB Wizards. The difference here (and I know a bunch of people would object to this, but this is my list) is that we bring vancian magic into 5e. Optional specialisation, but probably not by school (not sure what instead - colour magic maybe).​

​

Elementalist​

Primal pure caster. Part way between a casting focussed Druid and Wizard. Optional specialisation in a particular element.​

​

Shifter​

Shapeshifting primal warrior - the other half of druids. Supernatural, but probably not spell-casting. Possibly some inspiration from 4e Warden.​

​

Factotum​

Jack-of-all-trades-class, loosely inspired by the 3.5 class of the same name.​

​

Channeler​

Channels pure magical/elemental energy for damage and other effects. Overtly magical, but much simpler than any spell caster. The only class in this book not to have a choice every level.​

​

Psion​

Obviously going to exist, since psionics was apparently popular in the poll. Not sure how it should work, except probably point based.​

​

Synthesist​

A kinda generic half-&-half class for other classes. Its own features would be about combining various things, but most of its abilities would come from other classes (as in pick two other classes at first level, and then pick stuff from them). Not easy to implement, but an idea I like. EDIT: There would be a breakdown for each class as to what a synthesist could get from them. The Synthesists own abilities would have prerequisites such as "martial class and caster class" for a feature about combining spellcasting with casting (like Magus spell combat for example). ​

And that is almost it. Not sure how (or if) to do divine classes, bit otherwise the above is a pretty decent list. While the specifics are perhaps a little idiosyncratic, the general approach is the right one IMNSHO. Obviously, the names are placeholders - any of them could be changed, and some of them would have to be!

What do you think? What would your lists be?

_
glass.

 

[DND_Reborn]

What do you think? What would your lists be?

I think making efforts to free designers is a good idea, but sorry, my list would follow the classes in the PHB both for ease of translation and backward compatibility.

If I was making a whole new game, I would be more inclined to change things, however.

Really not trying to rain on your parade, so I'll step back now and see what others have to say. Good luck with it!

 

[Morrus]

Everyone else seems to be assuming that it will be reruns of all the PHB classes (plus warlord).

That's pretty much the plan. We want the game to be as familiar as possible.

 

[Undrave]

Dreadnought
Strength-based, heavy-armoured martial guys, with at-will manoeuvres and encounter powers (a la the Bo9S or 4e). Optionally, full-on proper Defenders in the 4e sense.

I know it's a feat, but I always felt like 'Sentinel' would make a good (sub)class name.

Factotum
Jack-of-all-trades-class, loosely inspired by the 3.5 class of the same name.

That name might run afoul of copyright laws though. Maybe a 'Loremaster' or a generic 'Adventurer' or something?

Channeler
Channels pure magical/elemental energy for damage and other effects. Overtly magical, but much simpler than any spell caster. The only class in this book not to have a choice every level.

It'd be cool if it was a CON caster, since channeling raw energy puts a strain on their body!

I think making efforts to free designers is a good idea, but sorry, my list would follow the classes in the PHB both for ease of translation and backward compatibility.

If I was making a whole new game, I would be more inclined to change things, however.

Really not trying to rain on your parade, so I'll step back now and see what others have to say. Good luck with it!

I'd personally replace all the Subclasses if I was going to just copy the PHB.

 

[tetrasodium]

As I have said in several threads already, I am strongly of the opinion that the classes in A5e should not have the same names as (or a one to one mapping with) the classes in the PHB. Everyone else seems to be assuming that it will be reruns of all the PHB classes (plus warlord).

There are several reasons for this, but a big one is to free the designers from specific name associations. Also to cover roughly the same bases as the PHB classes when not used standalone, without stepping too much on the toes of any PHB class if they are used together.

On the off chance that I am not completely barking up the wrong tree, this is roughly what I would do for the class list:

​

Dreadnought​

Strength-based, heavy-armoured martial guys, with at-will manoeuvres and encounter powers (a la the Bo9S or 4e). Optionally, full-on proper Defenders in the 4e sense.​

​

Quickblade​

Hex-based, light armoured warriors. Sorta equivalent to Rogues, but with no more skill emphasis than any other martial (all martials would get more skills than caster classes). Again, at-will and per-encounter manoeuvres.​

​

Warlord​

Basically the 4e Warlord. Their Inspiring Word equivalent would allow the targets to expend Hit Dice in the middle of an encounter (with a bonus). No magic. Optionally (perhaps as a subclass feature), they have a squad of soldiers to boss a round.​

​

Oathsworn​

Discipline-focussed mystical warrior, conceptually merging the monk and paladin. Would have armoured and unarmored variants as subclasses. Might or might not have actual spells. The placeholder name is a hat tip to Monte Cook’s Arcana Evolved, but it would not necessarily be that much like that class.​

​

Mage​

Arcane pure caster, more or less mapped to the PHB Wizards. The difference here (and I know a bunch of people would object to this, but this is my list) is that we bring vancian magic into 5e. Optional specialisation, but probably not by school (not sure what instead - colour magic maybe).​

​

Elementalist​

Primal pure caster. Part way between a casting focussed Druid and Wizard. Optional specialisation in a particular element.​

​

Shifter​

Shapeshifting primal warrior - the other half of druids. Supernatural, but probably not spell-casting. Possibly some inspiration from 4e Warden.​

​

Factotum​

Jack-of-all-trades-class, loosely inspired by the 3.5 class of the same name.​

​

Channeler​

Channels pure magical/elemental energy for damage and other effects. Overtly magical, but much simpler than any spell caster. The only class in this book not to have a choice every level.​

​

Psion​

Obviously going to exist, since psionics was apparently popular in the poll. Not sure how it should work, except probably point based.​

​

Synthesist​

A kinda generic half-&-half class for other classes. Its own features would be about combining various things, but most of its abilities would come from other classes (as in pick two other classes at first level, and then pick stuff from them). Not easy to implement, but an idea I like. EDIT: There would be a breakdown for each class as to what a synthesist could get from them. The Synthesists own abilities would have prerequisites such as "martial class and caster class" for a feature about combining spellcasting with casting (like Magus spell combat for example). ​

And that is almost it. Not sure how (or if) to do divine classes, bit otherwise the above is a pretty decent list. While the specifics are perhaps a little idiosyncratic, the general approach is the right one IMNSHO. Obviously, the names are placeholders - any of them could be changed, and some of them would have to be!

What do you think? What would your lists be?

_
glass.

Using different names would avoid a lot of "wait is that the fighter from phb or..." confusion from ever happening. I think that's a reasonably decent list and agree with a lot of it. Some notes tough:

• that shifter should be designed to wear armor or not just like everyone else instead of some halfass sometimes balanced against sometimes not no metal armor deity & setting specific lore
• On the mage... as much as it might enrage some people, but I agree on vancian magic. A lot of the old force multiplier aspect that things like a 3.5 "god wizard" & such brought to the table with buffs & save or suck/save or lose was because of the restrictions it imposed, theknown/prep list& spontaneous casting just does not impose anywhere near enough limitation to afford that sort of focus. Not every casting class needs to be vancian but there should be differences in spell lists both in terms of spells and the levels that shared spells are obtained.

It'd be cool if it was a CON caster, since channeling raw energy puts a strain on their body!

There is already precedent in the form of how eberron's aberrant marks work using con for destructive effects

 

[glass]

I think making efforts to free designers is a good idea, but sorry, my list would follow the classes in the PHB both for ease of translation and backward compatibility.

But having a clear and distinct class list increases "ease of translation and backward compatibility". To meet the other goals, a Fighter class in A5e would be different from the PHB Fighter in everything but name, so calling it the same name would only create confusion IMNSHO.



That's pretty much the plan. We want the game to be as familiar as possible.

That's a shame. Still, thanks for confirming!




That name [Factotum] might run afoul of copyright laws though. Maybe a 'Loremaster' or a generic 'Adventurer' or something?

Yes, that was the name I was thinking of when I said some would have to change (along with Warlord).




It'd be cool if it was a CON caster, since channeling raw energy puts a strain on their body!

That would make sense, but would obviously invite comparison with the PF1 Kineticist. But since that is not a bad place to look for 
inspiration anyway I am not sure it is a problem.

Synthesist
A kinda generic half-&-half class for other classes. Its own features would be about combining various things, but most of its abilities would come from other classes (as in pick two other classes at first level, and then pick stuff from them). Not easy to implement, but an idea I like.

Quoting myself because I had another thought while I was at the gym, to address my lack of divine classes. Lets call it the Divinate for now, it woul use the same "half-class" mechanic as the Synthesist, but only one half with the other half being divine. So the god of magic would have Divinate (Mages). Everyone might have Divinates of martial classes as temple guardians, but the god of war would probably have more.

Probably moot now, but I am still interested in peoples lists and/or comments on my list if people want to give them...

_
glass.

 

[Charlaquin]

But having a clear and distinct class list increases "ease of translation and backward compatibility". To meet the other goals, a Fighter class in A5e would be different from the PHB Fighter in everything but name, so calling it the same name would only create confusion IMNSHO.

I agree, but I think simple name changes would solve that problem.

Fighter -> Warrior
Rogue -> Scoundrel
Cleric -> Priest
Wizard -> Mage
Paladin -> Templar
Ranger -> Hunter
Monk -> Martial Artist
Druid -> Shaman
Bard -> Skald
Barbarian -> Berserker
Sorcerer -> Wilder(?)
Warlock -> Witch

 

[TwoSix]

I agree, but I think simple name changes would solve that problem.

Fighter -> Warrior
Rogue -> Scoundrel
Cleric -> Priest
Wizard -> Mage
Paladin -> Templar
Ranger -> Hunter
Monk -> Martial Artist
Druid -> Shaman
Bard -> Skald
Barbarian -> Berserker
Sorcerer -> Wilder(?)
Warlock -> Witch

I’m really not sure how confusing a conversation that goes like this is:

“What are you playing?”
“A wizard.”
“Regular one, or that new book?”
“New book.”
“Ok, cool.”

Making people learn all new class names just to forestall a 5 second conversation that’s already infrequent seems to me to be a wasted effort.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I’m really not sure how confusing a conversation that goes like this is:

I dont think its really a matter of confusion. I see it a matter of presentation, theme and flair.

Use new names because they sound cool, add to the flair of the game and make the classes as presented ''your thing'' instead of conforming to tradition. No need to have more reasons than that! Its not an obligation either, it just a matter of taste!

fighter: Warrior
Ranger: Wandererer or Strider
Druid: Warden
Paladin: Champion
Rogue: Waghalter
Wizard: Mage
Bard: Sage
Sorcerer: Scion
Warlock: Occultist
Barbarian: Wilder
Monk: Disciple
Cleric: Adept
(Bonus) Artificer: Magewright
(Bonus) Warlord: Warlord

I mean, if you kept Wizard and Warlock/Witch as is, half of the classes would start with a W, how awesome is that!?

 

[TwoSix]

I dont think its really a matter of confusion. I see it a matter of presentation, theme and flair.

Use new names because they sound cool, add to the flair of the game and make the classes as presented ''your thing'' instead of conforming to tradition. No need to have more reasons than that! Its not an obligation either, it just a matter of taste!

fighter: Warrior
Ranger: Wandererer or Strider
Druid: Warden
Paladin: Champion
Rogue: Waghalter
Wizard: Mage
Bard: Sage
Sorcerer: Scion
Warlock: Occultist
Barbarian: Wilder
Monk: Disciple
Cleric: Adept
(Bonus) Artificer: Magewright
(Bonus) Warlord: Warlord

I mean, if you kept Wizard and Warlock/Witch as is, half of the classes would start with a W, how awesome is that!?

I'm perfectly good with that rationale. I just don't think "it's confusing" holds a lot of weight.