D&D 5E New class concepts

[MoonSong]

(I am also on the fence about sorcerer needing to be a class, wizard with metamagic and maybe sub subclass choices might have done it.)

No, sorcerer tells a completely different story from the wizard and has a different casting stat. Also the wizard class gets a subclass too late to accommodate the sorcerer. "I was born with innate magical power so I had to first be very smart and study a lot to learn magic like any other mortal who wasn't born with it and only later in life I got to have that magical power that I was born with, yet I'm still tied to the spellbook, have to prepare spells every morning and have to be very smart because I'm in fact delusional and I'm a wizard that only got to learn a way to hack spells a few times per day".

But at least concept for the first two make story sense.

"I'm strong but not that smart, so I become really good at killing things."
"I'm an extremely smart wizard and have learned powerful magics."

"I was born with innate magical power-- either it wildly flows through me or I have a dragon ancestor. And what do I do with that innate magical power? I forsake it and instead go learn some bizarre methods to contact some extraplanar entity and then bargain my life away to get different magical power! Because apparently the magic I was born with wasn't good enough."

Sure... the occasional player might actually design a character and history for which this set of circumstances could possibly make a little sense. But based upon the number of posters here who keep talking about their sorcerer warlocks and how it's always JUST about their "build"... tells me that most of them just handwaved away their stories for MOAR POWER!

Which is fine. Good for them. And in exchange for that, they have to accept that there are some of us here who are going to say that they think it's lame. But that really shouldn't matter to those people, because why should some rando on the internet saying their illogical storywise min-maxing is lame bother them? They should just be able to laugh it off. But if they CAN'T laugh it off and it bothers them that I was disparaging their "build" because I find "builds" that make no attempt at actual storytelling ridiculous... then that's a pretty good indication that they probably know I'm right and they have no choice but get defensive about it.

One reason I've never played that sorcerer/warlock combo. On paper it looks good, but in practice I've never needed it, my characters go and behave a certain way that would never freely turn and sell their souls to a shady entity. However with Xanatar's out, the Celestial patron kind of makes sense for a Divine Soul, your divine parent sent a celestial servant to aid you! They teach you how to fight and lend you some of their power so you don't tire as often. Because honestly, a low level sorcerer tires too easily and has very little options for spells.

 

[Yaarel]

The Jedi Knight is the best ‘gish’, a warrior-mage wielding a magic blade with range attacks, and has a story that expresses a compelling archetype.

One of my favorite warrior-mage concepts is a pure mage who studies melee-range magic. The magical effects somewhat resemble superheroes. This warrior-mage trains to be a supersoldier to defend a wizard realm, but does so by means of magic, rather than by means of martial physical training.

 

[mellored]

Sure... the occasional player might actually design a character and history for which this set of circumstances could possibly make a little sense. But based upon the number of posters here who keep talking about their sorcerer warlocks and how it's always JUST about their "build"... tells me that most of them just handwaved away their stories for MOAR POWER!)

Ask the next fighter you see why they took +2 Str, or the next wizard why they took fireball.

I'll bet you the answer will also be "MOAR POWER!". Not "I want my character to lift heavy things", or "I'm a fire wizard".

 

[DEFCON 1]

One reason I've never played that sorcerer/warlock combo. On paper it looks good, but in practice I've never needed it, my characters go and behave a certain way that would never freely turn and sell their souls to a shady entity. However with Xanatar's out, the Celestial patron kind of makes sense for a Divine Soul, your divine parent sent a celestial servant to aid you! They teach you how to fight and lend you some of their power so you don't tire as often. Because honestly, a low level sorcerer tires too easily and has very little options for spells.

Absolutely. If you have a Divine Soul / Celestial then the story of how the character comes to be has a much easier time making sense. Even Shadow Sorcerer into Shadowfell-inspired Hexblade is going along the right track. It'd be wonderful though if those players who go on and on here about their Sorlocks actually talk about that aspect of their characters as though that stuff actually mattered to them, rather than just saying stuff like "Well, since Eldritch Blast goes off of character level and not class level I needed to take Sorcerer for the Font of Magic which allows me to--" blah blah blah.

And that's really what seems to be the whole point of this thread. Complaining about the lack of more classes/options, or the focus not on the proper types of classes/options, when in truth those options always end up being nothing more than just game mechanics used to try and game the system for more powerful "builds". What these options actually are and how do they define a character doesn't matter... all that matters is new ways to build ubercrap.

Which again... if that's what some people want, good for them. But I for one am glad that WotC has chosen on this go around to not cater to them. You've got 3E and Pathfinder for those who wish to Pun-Pun their way to fortune and glory... it's going to be a long, hard road before 5E ever gets you there.

 

[Parmandur]

Absolutely. If you have a Divine Soul / Celestial then the story of how the character comes to be has a much easier time making sense. Even Shadow Sorcerer into Shadowfell-inspired Hexblade is going along the right track. It'd be wonderful though if those players who go on and on here about their Sorlocks actually talk about that aspect of their characters as though that stuff actually mattered to them, rather than just saying stuff like "Well, since Eldritch Blast goes off of character level and not class level I needed to take Sorcerer for the Font of Magic which allows me to--" blah blah blah.

And that's really what seems to be the whole point of this thread. Complaining about the lack of more classes/options, or the focus not on the proper types of classes/options, when in truth those options always end up being nothing more than just game mechanics used to try and game the system for more powerful "builds". What these options actually are and how do they define a character doesn't matter... all that matters is new ways to build ubercrap.

Which again... if that's what some people want, good for them. But I for one am glad that WotC has chosen on this go around to not cater to them. You've got 3E and Pathfinder for those who wish to Pun-Pun their way to fortune and glory... it's going to be a long, hard road before 5E ever gets you there.

Especially given that WotC has said that their data shows that the vast majority of players are about story ideas and don't care about build at all.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The paladin? You can explain what a paladin is and what they do without making reference to being a warrior and that it casts divine spells.

- The paladin is a holy knight that takes a supreme oath to uphold a specific ideal, whether it be honor, nature, or vengeance against those who have wronged the people that the paladin defends.

Knight = Warrior
'Holy' in the context of D&D strongly implies supernatural power of divine origin, like casting - if we want to overlook that, then a Fighter with appropriate background, Bond & Flaw would cover it

- The ranger is a master of the wilderness, a scout that defends nature and the wilds from those that would do it harm.

Can't say I much care for that, but a Druid or a rogue with the outlander background would cover it.

 

[MoonSong]

Absolutely. If you have a Divine Soul / Celestial then the story of how the character comes to be has a much easier time making sense. Even Shadow Sorcerer into Shadowfell-inspired Hexblade is going along the right track. It'd be wonderful though if those players who go on and on here about their Sorlocks actually talk about that aspect of their characters as though that stuff actually mattered to them, rather than just saying stuff like "Well, since Eldritch Blast goes off of character level and not class level I needed to take Sorcerer for the Font of Magic which allows me to--" blah blah blah.

Funnily -wow is that a word?-, I would never consider eldritch blast for that potential PC. I don't blast, well mostly don't. I would instead relish on the possibility of getting the utility that warlock brings. The pet, the extra cantrips and spells known, access to the shortbow, the invocations (detect magic and speak animals at will? touch telepathy? good stuff) and well the ability to recover slots.

 

[steeldragons]

(I am also on the fence about sorcerer needing to be a class, wizard with metamagic and maybe sub subclass choices might have done it.)

Yes. Yes it would have.

Irrational neuroses against intelligence and book-learning notwithstanding.

 

[MoonSong]

Yes. Yes it would have.

Irrational neuroses against intelligence and book-learning notwithstanding.

Yes, I'm irrational, neurotic and hysteric. What makes you think I could handle a character that is all rational, stoic and centered? Or is it that you don't want me to play at all?

 

[DEFCON 1]

Knight = Warrior
'Holy' in the context of D&D strongly implies supernatural power of divine origin, like casting - if we want to overlook that, then a Fighter with appropriate background, Bond & Flaw would cover it

Can't say I much care for that, but a Druid or a rogue with the outlander background would cover it.

Well, I'm not trying to convince you that the paladin and ranger should or shouldn't be full classes... I'm illustrating why an arcane warrior half-caster full class has never achieved that same level of ubiquity.