D&D 5E Obsolete Classes From Previous Editions

[Zardnaar]

Only in the most broad possible sense.

The Hexblade is closer to the avenger than the vengeance paladin is.

There’s nothing like the warden in 5e.

They were kind of weak concepts though. If you didn't play 4E what is an Invoker or Avenger? Ones probably a wizard the other one is in Marvel movies. Same thing as Warden.

More than a few classes in 2E and 3E have similar problems.

 

[Charlaquin]

Vociferously disagree.

The assassin of 4e is, at best, covered by the shadow monk.

The rogue assassin is a great infiltrator and poisoner, but doesn’t cover anything but the 3.5 prestige class.

Erm... I was thinking of the AD&D Class, actually. I do miss the 4e Assassin and its Essentials counterpart, the Executioner though. The Executioner wasn’t great, but god damn did it have style.

 

[the Jester]

Only in the most broad possible sense.

The Hexblade is closer to the avenger than the vengeance paladin is.

There’s nothing like the warden in 5e.

The oath of vengeance paladin literally has the main avenger feature as a channel divinity option. And the oath of the ancients seems extremely warden-y to me. Of course neither one is an exact one-for-one conversion, but I don't think we'll find much of anything that is in this thread. And I think both of those are far closer equivalents than anything is equivalent to the warlord, for example.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Erm... I was thinking of the AD&D Class, actually. I do miss the 4e Assassin and its Essentials counterpart, the Executioner though. The Executioner wasn’t great, but god damn did it have style.

Ah, fair enough! And yeah, for sure the Executioner was really fun to play.

The oath of vengeance paladin literally has the main avenger feature as a channel divinity option. And the oath of the ancients seems extremely warden-y to me. Of course neither one is an exact one-for-one conversion, but I don't think we'll find much of anything that is in this thread. And I think both of those are far closer equivalents than anything is equivalent to the warlord, for example.

It’s still a heavily armored tank warrior with little in the way of mobility who uses physical might as the primary means of taking down their target.

It doesnt fill the concept.

edit: The Hexblade does get very close. The only thing it’s missing is some divine offense spells, but as a DM I’d let the player change Eldritch Blast and some other spells to radiant damage. With stuff like Relentless Hex invocation, and several teleportation spells, it only a bit more mobile than the vengeance Paladin, but in every other aspect it hits the mark where the paladin never will.

 

[Ancalagon]

Ninja is a Rogue or shadow Monk.

The PHB specifically says that the shadow monk is a ninja. However, most people miss it *because ninjas are hard to see*.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

To be clear, being obsolete means that the character concept can already be represented with existing game mechanics. A character class is defined purely by its concept (the fluff), and not at by the mechanical representation of that concept (the crunch). That being said:

Druids are obsolete, because Clerics can take the Nature domain. Wardens are obsolete, for the same reason.

Paladins are obsolete, because Clerics can take the War domain.

Warlords are obsolete, because Fighters can take the Battle Master sub-class. Swashbucklers are obsolete, because Fighters already get Dexterity to damage with finesse weapons. Rangers are obsolete, because Fighters can use a bow, and take an appropriate background. Barbarians are obsolete, because Fighters can use heavy weapons, and take an appropriate background. Knights are obsolete, because Fighters can take an appropriate background. Duskblades and Swordmages are obsolete, because Fighters can take the Eldritch Knight subclass.

War Mages are obsolete, because Wizards can take damage spells. Bards are obsolete, because Wizards can take non-damaging spells, and an appropriate background.

Beguilers are obsolete, because Rogues can take the Arcane Trickster sub-class. Assassins are obsolete, because Rogues can take the Assassin sub-class.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[The Crimson Binome]

So ... I have an idea. What if we have the classes that we need. I'm thinking ... hmm... maybe Fighter? .... Wizard? .... Cleric! Okay, one more ..... how about Rogue!

That should cover it, right?

There are still a lot of classes which can't be covered with that. Dragon Shamans and Dragonfire Adepts are near the top of the list, but you also have Psions, and Savants (or Factotums, same thing), and the Hexblade class from 3.5 (which is not conceptually similar to any later Hexblade).

 

[Jer]

If you didn't play 4E what is an Invoker or Avenger? Ones probably a wizard the other one is in Marvel movies.

An invoker is a wizard that specializes in invocation, obviously.

An avenger is a wandering Chaotic fighter who has reached Name level and decided to take an oath with a Chaotic religion, of course. (D&D Companion set - which is what I always think of whenever anyone talks about the 4e avenger...)

 

[Remathilis]

Two things-

1. Bolded for truth. PREACH IT!

2. So ... I have an idea. What if we have only the classes that we need. I'm thinking ... hmm... maybe Fighter? .... Wizard? .... Cleric! Okay, one more ..... how about Rogue!

That should cover it, right?

Meh. Just give casters access to healing magic and allow warriors to sub out heavy armor and multiple attacks for improved skills and one big-damage hit. Then you only need a caster and a warrior class. Everything else is subclasses and multi-classing.

Reductio Ad Absurdum.