D&D 5E Character Concepts you cannot make in 5E

[dmgorgon]

Thankfully, we won't be restricted by the concept of character rolls in D&D Next. With that said, I think it's very ignorant to blame D&D Next for not providing all the class concepts before it's even launched.

Personally, I really want to see an Abjuration and Diviner specialists in D&D Next, but I'm not going to rebuke the system simply because they didn't include them in the PHB. give the system time, wait for a book a subclasses to be released. The devs have already made it clear that subclasses will be allowed to contain their own sub systems. In addition, D&D Next makes it very easy to create your own class. You don't have to develop 30 levels of powers to create a new subclass in D&D Next. I'm sure there will be a house rules forum with many great suggestions. Perhaps you can even contribute.

 

[Hussar]

It was a failing of sorts. In at least the cases of the Bard, Druid and Monk, it was a failure to support PC types that went back 30+ years, usually present in the most core of books.

Moving something well-established from core to supplement is risky to say the least. I can say anecdotally that it was a turnoff for many gamers I know, myself included. While I did warm to 4Ed a bit as it expanded, the damage was done by that point.

I've always been of the opinion that 4e was built around RPGA play. Bards and monks were not that popular of a class in RPGA play so I think they figured they could put them off and no one would get too fussed. But it really IMO hit the gnome effect all over again.

 

[Jester David]

For the life of me I can't figure out how to make a defender Wizard either. Their extremely low hp and low AC make it difficult. If you were to take the Dwarf and armor feat then you would have the AC, but then you still wouldn't have the hp. The only hope is to spam defensive spells and then you low out in effectiveness as anything but a damage soaker.

I was thinking about this recently. A mountain dwarf wizard could wear medium armour and should have a decent AC. And one fear gets them heavy armour.
An average fighter likely has a 12 Con. So they start with 11hp and gain 7hp each jebel. A defender wizard could double down on Con, and a 16 Con means they start with 9hp and 7hp each level.
So a dwarf defender wizard is only down 2hp. And if there's a feat that boosts hp that'll help.
And a level dip into fighter (or two) would really strengthen the character, but only minimally impact spellcasting.

Still, a defender wizard has never really been something you could design in earlier editions. I'm more interested in builds that were viable in the PHBs of earlier editions. That's the real test.

Still, with subclasses, backgrounds, and the larger feats, 5e is pretty flexible and can make done pretty diverse classes. Customizing classes takes a lot less space; a single big accessory will produce a nice amount of options.

 

[Blackwarder]

I can't play a Human Fighter, an Elven Wizard or a Halfling Rogue in 5e... guess i'll have to wait till it's released.

Warder

 

[KidSnide]

Well, obviously the game isn't out yet, but I think there are a few areas you can identify that aren't well supported by the playtest rules (or their obvious extension):

- We haven't seen rules for summoner (or pet) versions of any of the classes, so you can't play a druid that focuses on friendly forest animals or a wizard that focuses on conjured creatures summoned for battle.

- The ranger is build as a "magical" class, so it is difficult to play a non-magical ranger. You can hack something together by taking 1 level of ranger (or maybe rogue) and then focusing on fighter or barbarian, but you're missing out on any iconic higher level ranger abilities (favored enemy, natural explorer, hide in plain sight, master stalker, etc...)

- There are no psionics rules yet, so it's difficult to play a psion / psionicist or a psychic warrior / battlemind without seriously refluffing a wizard or paladin (and accepting a bunch of abilities that don't quite make sense).

- The light cleric goes in the direction of a caster-focused cleric, but I'm not sure it's quite reaches the divine-themed invoker-style caster that focuses on offensive magic. The druid circle of the land does that for nature deities, but this is hard to make this work with more traditional deities.

-KS

 

[Khashir]

Wild Mage (4E or 2E versions)

Preamble: I agree that it's unfair to compare an unfinished edition to fully developed editions. Even if all the info is available to make any new edition the über-encompassing thingamajig, there are real-life resource constraints, deadlines, etc., that make this unfeasible.

Having said that, I think this thread could be a great resource for WotC to see what concepts people miss, so that they can work on bringing those back.

For me, it's the 2E Wild Mage (with Nahal's Reckless Dweomer and Chaos Shield), together with the 4E Wild Sorcerer (melee, using Sorcerous Blade Channeling and Wild Spellfury; the char had high defenses). The concept of the latter was basically a sorcerer bursting with so much power, that being near it was a bad idea (both at-wills, Chaos Bolt and Burning Spray, had a chance of hitting more than one enemy per casting, triggering Wild Spellfury multiple times).

The closest I'm seeing to this right now is a Sorcerer with Sentinel and War Caster feat, but given that you can only take one reaction per round, still far from ideal.

 

[Stalker0]

I find it unfair to compare an unfinished edition still in develpment over fully finished and well supported editions in order to try identify character concepts you can't make yet. Sure there is undoubtly character concepts not achievable yet in 5E. I question the true goal of this thread though?

In what previous edition could you make such fighter without all those deficiencies enemurated?

The avenger from 4e is the closest I can think of. You wear no armor but wield the biggest sword you can. That said the avenger didn't have the ac of a fully armored fighter either

 

[ppaladin123]

The avenger from 4e is the closest I can think of. You wear no armor but wield the biggest sword you can. That said the avenger didn't have the ac of a fully armored fighter either

Is the unarmored part the key to Avenger flavor? Because the Oath of Vengeance Paladin is pretty much the 4e avenger in plate armor and fills the "holy assassin" and "violent zealot" roles quite nicely.

 

[GameDoc]

Is this assuming point buy or standard array for ability scores? 4d6-drop lowest can often yield a set of hefty scores, particularly for humans. That would let you have both high strength and dexterity without necessarily having to settle for two dump stats. Also, with bounded accuracy, a moderate charisma score can make a character who is socially capable. I'd say a 17 Dex, 16 Str, 14 Cha fighter with a chain shirt and great-sword fits the bill. Not that hard to achieve with a rolled-stat human.

 

[Henry]

Khashir, while I think you have great intentions, it will help to remind people replying that this thread is OVER SIX MONTHS OLD - I think people loking at earlier pages first might be caught up in arguments of people long gone or who might have even forgotten about the points mentioned.