D&D 5E Legends and Lore July 28: Keeping it Classy

[Savage Wombat]

I thought the point of the Eldritch Knight was to serve as the fighter component of a fighter/wizard multiclass build, not to be a full-blown gish* on its own.

[size=-2]*Yes, that's right, I just used "gish" to refer to a generic warrior/spellcaster instead of a specific githyanki fighting order. You wanna make something of it?[/size]

Yes I do. Step outside, and whatever you do don't look up.

 

[Mouseferatu]

[size=-2]*Yes, that's right, I just used "gish" to refer to a generic warrior/spellcaster instead of a specific githyanki fighting order. You wanna make something of it?[/size]

Yes. Yes, I do. Keyboards at ten paces, good sir!

(Gah! Way-of-Shadow'd! )

 

[Minigiant]

I'll really have to wait and see. But I am non encouraged by what is shown.

My favorite trickster type was the "controllable spikey damage" and tough guy. Both 3e and 4e supported them at start and gave a lot of support as the edition aged. The way 5e setups classes penalizes multiclassesing too much as you don't get ability score improvements nor feat until you get 4 levels of a class.

So I was hoping for a roguish fighter subclass or a fightery rogue subclass in the PHB for support for the thug/brute. Much how they did EKs and Arcane Trickster since they know fighter/mages stink.

 

[occam]

I really hope that the Eldritch Knight bucks the trend of previous editions attempts and enables the creation of a decent fighter-mage.

I don't know that that's even necessary. I've already played decent fighter/mages -- mountain dwarf wizard, multiclassed war cleric/wizard -- without a special subclass. With proficiency/attack bonuses being leveled across classes (so attack bonuses don't fall behind), the wizard's higher hit points (matching the rogue's old hp), and lack of spellcasting penalties for wearing armor, it's easy to work up a character who can stand in melee for a while and be effective with weapons, while still possessing a full complement of spells, if that's what you want. The main thing you need to get somehow is a decent AC. Is it the best melee fighter? No, but it's not bad. Is it as good as a magic-focused wizard? Pretty darn close. It's easily better than any gish option 3e or prior.

The somewhat simpler classes and beefier feats in this edition, along with things like common spell slot progression, has enabled a lot of flexibility in character design that I'm really appreciating. I can't wait to try out ideas and see what's possible.

 

[Andor]

That's problematic, though, Mouse, because new subclasses can only be used by new PCs.

It's the same as the background issue, only worse. With a background, it's cool, but it's a choice you make once, and cannot ever make again. It's the same (AFAIK!) with sub-classes, but at least they keep on giving you stuff as you go.

Well, yes and no. You only get one sub-class per class and only at third level (presumable to reduce the temptation of dipping for sub-classes.) But you could theoretically pick up 6 sub-classes by 18th level if you were so inclined. And rolled really really well for stats, since you need to meet the prerequisites and spent your whole carrier dodging stat boosts.

At any rate the point is you can pick up more than one sub-class but it requires extensive multi-classing, which has it's own baked in disincentives.

 

[the Jester]

Any DM who's not a jerk should have the good grace to let a player rebuild their character when a more appropriate class to fit the player's concept comes along.

That's very one-true-way of you. Some groups find rebuilding an existing character to take advantage of material in a new book just because it's suddenly been published to be too jarring. That doesn't mean that they're all jerks.

 

[CM]

That's very one-true-way of you. Some groups find rebuilding an existing character to take advantage of material in a new book just because it's suddenly been published to be too jarring. That doesn't mean that they're all jerks.

Luckily, I don't have to game with any of these types of folks. Life's too short to get hung up on the game to such a degree. Jerk was probably a poor choice of words though. How about hard-nose?

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

So if people are finding the subclasses restrictive compared to, say, 3e, let's compare them to their 3e equivalents, shall we?

Barbarians, monks, rangers, sorcerers, paladins: The 3e version of each of these classes would fall entirely into a single one of their 5e version's subclass. Totem warrior, ninja, elementalist, beastmaster, wild mage, avenger, and green knight are all concepts you couldn't achieve in 3e without multiclassing or prestige classes. So really the 5e versions are using subclasses to expand these archetypes, not restrict them.

Wizards, clerics: these classes are restricted by school and domain in 3e too, and in the wizard's case those restrictions are far more onerous in 3e.

Warlock: not in 3e core, but the 4e version had different pacts, and like with clerics and sorcerers, the pact seems so essential to the class that you really need it from level 1.

Fighters: This is a slightly weird case, since the 3e fighter was more flexible than the Champion but didn't have maneuvers like the Battlemaster.

Rogues, bards: These are the only two classes, IMO, that are "sliced up" in 5e but were whole in 3e.

 

[Branduil]

So if people are finding the subclasses restrictive compared to, say, 3e, let's compare them to their 3e equivalents, shall we?

Barbarians, monks, rangers, sorcerers, paladins: The 3e version of each of these classes would fall entirely into a single one of their 5e version's subclass. Totem warrior, ninja, elementalist, beastmaster, wild mage, avenger, and green knight are all concepts you couldn't achieve in 3e without multiclassing or prestige classes. So really the 5e versions are using subclasses to expand these archetypes, not restrict them.

Wizards, clerics: these classes are restricted by school and domain in 3e too, and in the wizard's case those restrictions are far more onerous in 3e.

Warlock: not in 3e core, but the 4e version had different pacts, and like with clerics and sorcerers, the pact seems so essential to the class that you really need it from level 1.

Fighters: This is a slightly weird case, since the 3e fighter was more flexible than the Champion but didn't have maneuvers like the Battlemaster.

Rogues, bards: These are the only two classes, IMO, that are "sliced up" in 5e but were whole in 3e.

The original 3e Ranger was even worse than that... his archetype was "really sucky TWF Fighter with a couple more skills and a few Druid spells."

 

[ppaladin123]

I thought the point of the Eldritch Knight was to serve as the fighter component of a fighter/wizard multiclass build, not to be a full-blown gish* on its own.

[SIZE=-2]*Yes, that's right, I just used "gish" to refer to a generic warrior/spellcaster instead of a specific githyanki fighting order. You wanna make something of it?[/SIZE]

I think they can certainly be combined effectively. A trasmutation wizard with 5 levels of eldritch knight fighter would be quite potent....based on the alpha document at least. That said I hope they did pump the EK up a bit and perhaps let it use some transmutation spells too...since flight and physical augmentation are also big parts of the fighter/mage concept for a lot of people (you can probably do this more easily with the school of valor bard in the alpha right now, which is odd).