D&D General The best representations of the power fantasies D&D has had

[Neonchameleon]

I just thought I'd go through the 5e classes to see what were the best representations of the archetype and power fantasy of the class any edition had had.

Barbarian. This one goes to 5e in a comfortable walk. Honestly no one likes the 1e thing, the 3.0 and 3.5 ones were just angy fighters. And the 4e ones, although actually varied and interesting were too fiddly for the Hulk Smash class.

Bard. No one. No D&D class has ever given me the feeling of being an actual bard with their own magic of music and the heart. I have fondness for all of the 2e, 3.5, 4e, and 5e bards but none of them scratch the itch. (The 1e and 3.0 bards are for different reasons both just bad).

Cleric. I have never seen a cleric in any edition that made me think "this character is empowered by the magic of prayer and divine beings". The ineffables are too easily effed. The closest to a cleric that doesn't feel "mechanics first" to me has been the 4e Malediction Invoker that at least paid a price for their power.

Druid. I'm again giving this to 5e. Largely for the versatility of the 5e wildshaping and the way it's used by the subclasses.

Fighter. This one I have several options for because the fighter is a big archetype. And 5e comes close to some of the highs.

• 2e Fighter. Simple, mighty, resilient. What more do you want?
• 4e Fighter. A tactical master that commands the battlefield and no one dares to take their eyes off.
• 4e Warlord. Someone at home in battle who can adapt to the foe, yell at people to get back on their feet because their granny could do better, and shout warnings at the last minute. I think this could be put into the fighter - but 5e doesn't.

Monk. 4e takes this, in part by being the most functional of any edition (with only 5e also even making basic functionality) and partly from the techniques combining a move-trick with an attack.

Paladin. I have two contenders here.

• 5e Paladin. Taking forward the vows (and lack of falling meaning you no longer need a stick up your posterior) of 4e, the 5e paladin's smites are just nice all round.
• 3.5 Crusader (Tome of Battle). The random flow of which of your normal maneuvers you get makes for an interesting and different class with thematic abilities and just a touch of the unexpected. And is the closest to an actual divine class I've seen in any edition; prayers for aid should not be regular as clockwork.

Ranger. Again there are a lot of contenders here - but most versions of the ranger don't quite land for me. The 5e one in particular (with or without Tasha's) feels more like a hedge wizard than a ranger; there's far too much spellcasting here. By contrast the 4e PHB ranger feels like a skirmish fighter who's spent a little time as a boy scout. And the 1e Ranger was just Aragorn: the Class. I think overall I have to very grudgingly give it to the 4e Essentials hunter and possibly scout.

Rogue. 4e made the huge upgrade of putting things onto minor (a.k.a. bonus a.k.a. swift) actions as part of the class features, and 5e took this on. But honestly I find the 5e rogue boring to play - and that it doesn't really give me the "you are using your wits and slipperiness on the edge" that I feel that the rogue should; Sneak Attack is painfully easy to get. So I'm going for the 4e Thief.

Sorcerer. The Sorcerer was invented for 3.0 and the 3.0 and 3.5 Sorcerers were wannabe wizards. 4e actually used the fluff and theming (Sorcerers are the "everything else" caster who aren't book learners, channeling the wild, or having patrons). But this actually goes two ways.

• 4e Elementalist. The simple "I burn it" class that goes alongside the barbarian for simple and effective mechanics. Pick an element and get stuff to go with it.
• 5e Tasha's Sorcerers. The 5e PHB sorcerer is crippled by not knowing enough spells. But give two extra spells per level from the subclass (and retcon it to the pre-Tasha's sorcerers) and the sorcerer works well as a build-your-own class.

Warlock. Much as it breaks my heart to not nominate the 4e warlock, and much as I'd like some of the Curse-shenanigans of 4e (and want the Vestige and Sorcerer King patrons back), the 5e Warlock is just more interesting and versatile with stronger theming.

Wizard. Here I'm going for the 3.0 version or possibly the 2e version of the class. Full Vancian Casting I think should be brought back for the wizard and only the wizard. It makes it clear it really is earned magic that they are using - and also gives them more of a power budget for their classes. And further separates them from the sorcerer.

Artificer. Not a PHB class - but the only one to be added to 5e post-launch, the Artificer has only been in three editions. The 4e one was a clean miss, not actually making things. The 3.5 was an OP fiddly class. And the 5e one, thanks to spells having fixed levels is significantly worse at making permanent things like Continual Flames or Teleportation Circles than the wizard and also can't make permanent magic items. The subclasses are good (balance issues aside) and they don't get nearly so much dumpster diving through everything. So just a miss; they need their own versions of spells like Fabricate, and to craft a permanent item per level.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

i honestly think artificers should be martial characters with the ability to cast rituals like a full caster and features focused around using (and making, obviously) magic items better then anyone else. when i think artificer, i don't think of a caster, i think iron man or batman - martials with tools for basically any situation you can think of.

...ok, batman's probably multiclassed into rogue and monk, but still.

 

[overgeeked]

I’d say 4E across the board. Peak power fantasy in D&D. Everyone was capable and had a stack of cool things they could do. The only class fantasy that didn’t work for was the players whose class fantasy for the wizard is being orders of magnitude better than everyone else.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I’d say 4E across the board. Peak power fantasy in D&D. Everyone was capable and had a stack of cool things they could do. The only class fantasy that didn’t work for was the players whose class fantasy for the wizard is being orders of magnitude better than everyone else.

I was never able to get over the presentation of 4e classes feeling like they all the same reskinned stack of cool things to do. As a result, none of them felt like any kind of power fantasy to me, because none of them felt special to me.

 

[TwoSix]

Agree with most of the OP. The only other candidate I’d nominate is the 2e Specialty Priests (and the incredibly flexible Skills and Power cleric) for being the customizable champions of pretty much any deity you could think of.

 

[Zardnaar]

Hmm interesting concept.

Artificer. Failure in every edition but 2E as its a wizard subclass. Otherwise 5E barely.

Bards. Lots of issues here but I liked the 3.5 one. Main problem wrong it was wrong edition but it's the most powerful one ever made if you cheesed it.

Cleric. 2E specialty priest not quite a cleric. Power level 3.0 bit meh.

Barbarian. Big meh but probably 5E.


Druid. 1E hands down laughs at modern versions outside maybe level 2.

Fighter. 2E depending on the rules. Otherwise 5E. Assuming you want to kill things.

Monk. Probably 4E. Not familiar with it otherwise BG3. Failure in multiple editions.

Paladin. 5E. It's very powerful and flavourful.

Ranger. 1E or 5E pick your poison.

Rogue/Thief. Brute damage 3.5, interesting 4E.

Warlock 5E. First time I've cared.

Wizard. 2E due to kits, subclasses and I like the spells. Fun lobbing fireballs and magic missiles.

 

[Quickleaf]

Wizard. Here I'm going for the 3.0 version or possibly the 2e version of the class. Full Vancian Casting I think should be brought back for the wizard and only the wizard. It makes it clear it really is earned magic that they are using - and also gives them more of a power budget for their classes. And further separates them from the sorcerer.

Interesting discussion. I was actually curious about what you're saying here...

Full Vancian Casting was where the wizard had to select which spell was in each spell slot, so for example if you had 4 1st-level spell slots you had to say, "these two are magic missiles, this one is identify, and this one is sleep."

I'm curious why you think that gives them "more of a power budget"?

Because it seems more limiting than the current 5e take.

For example, an 8th level wizard with 18 (+4) Intelligence gets to prepare 12 spells from their spellbook, and then use their spell slots to cast any of those spells as they see fit.

Whereas with Full Vancian Casting, the wizard gets 4/3/3/2 spells – still 12 spells, but now those slots are locked in so less versatility.

 

[Reynard]

Since every edition is essentially its own game to some degree or another, i don't think it is a fair comparison. The 1E Druid and the 5E Druid, for example, are completely different classes with completely different class fantasies attached to them.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Interesting discussion. I was actually curious about what you're saying here...

Full Vancian Casting was where the wizard had to select which spell was in each spell slot, so for example if you had 4 1st-level spell slots you had to say, "these two are magic missiles, this one is identify, and this one is sleep."

I'm curious why you think that gives them "more of a power budget"?

Because it seems more limiting than the current 5e take.

For example, an 8th level wizard with 18 (+4) Intelligence gets to prepare 12 spells from their spellbook, and then use their spell slots to cast any of those spells as they see fit.

Whereas with Full Vancian Casting, the wizard gets 4/3/3/2 spells – still 12 spells, but now those slots are locked in so less versatility.

My guess is that, yes while vancian casting itself is a restriction, imposing it thus reduces the amount of power budget of all the spellcasting they do get uses and therefore it frees up room for them to get other features, even if those other features just turn out to be more vancian spell slots.

 

[Remathilis]

Since every edition is essentially its own game to some degree or another, i don't think it is a fair comparison. The 1E Druid and the 5E Druid, for example, are completely different classes with completely different class fantasies attached to them.

This is very important to remember.

Each edition is built on very different assumptions of what it means to be X class. You can track any class in 5e and look at its origins and five at least 5 different classes that look or play almost nothing like the others. Some classes feel pretty close (wizard, with the exception of 4e, all feels built on the same chassis, while bard hasn't looked remotely similar twice.)

That said, if you want how close it hews to the trope, here is mine.

Artificer: I kinda feel the original was best at the builder/gadget trope, but it was very hard to play that.

Barbarian: they all suck? No, that's not fair. The 5e one is fun to play if a little over note, but it's hard to make them unique vs fighters without resorting to supernatural abilities.

Bard: if the core concept is Jack of all trades, 2e bard. If the concept is a magical entertainer, I'm going to say 4e at least feels it's not just a fighter/mage/thief hybrid.

Cleric: if we're allowing 2e specialty priests, you cannot best the diversity of that. If not, uhh I'm going 5e. The domain system feels the most fleshed out of them.

Druid: an odd inverse relationship exists: the farther the druid gets from a specific cult with strange rules, the more playable it gets. As such, I kinda think 3.5 threads the needle between nature priests and specific religion the best.

Fighter: the idea of 3e's build your own class with feats is simply amazing. Too bad they botched it with feat trees and prestige classes.

Monk: Monk spent the majority of its life as the weird mechanics class that never quite worked. At least 4e did not feel UP or like it was using rules for a different game.

Paladin: the reverse of druid, the easier it became to play, the more fun it was to do so. 5e got this one right.

Ranger: Aragorn the class was far too niche. Surprisingly, I'm going with 2e. 2e laid down that a D&D ranger should be (light armor, tracking, stealth, a few spells and two weapons) and every edition since that has tried to do that again and failed. It's a quirk of the system that 2e was able to make a ranger with niche protection, and it will never work that well again.

Rogue: IMHO, the only class that has gotten better with each iteration. AD&D thieves sucked past 5th level unless you were multiclassed. 3e rogues were MAD and SA immunity made them useless in a lot of situations. 4e got so close, but then they opted for stupid weapon restrictions (dagger, rapier and crossbow? Seriously?) but 5e rogues are straight gas.

Sorcerer: umm... Can I do a write in vote for Pathfinder? 3e sorcs were weak, 4e sorcs were pigeonholed, and 5e took the worst of both. That said, I have high hopes for the 24 sorcerer...

Warlock: 4e made them feel like a real class, not a homebrew class that somehow ended up in the PHB.

Wizard: you can't beat the raw power of 3e wizards. It was broken and glorious.

But even then, you have to compare apples to apples. As cool as a 4e monk or bard was, it would not work outside the design of 4e. The 2e ranger only works because there was no skill system of any worth. Ultimately, each has it's strengths and weaknesses.

Except sorcerer. That's pure weakness across the board.