D&D 5E Obsolete Classes From Previous Editions

[Tony Vargas]

Obsolete classes: anything but Cleric, Fighter, Mage, and Thief.

I question the inclusion of Thief in that list.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Tony Vargas]

I question the inclusion of anything other than Fighting Man.

I mean, who needs a Magic User when you have Magic Items? Or, put another way, when all you have is a sword, all your problems look like orcs, amirite?

urknott. ;P

Seriously, though, the Thief is a newfangled denizen introduced in the Greyhawk supplement, only the Fighter, Magic-User, and Cleric have the foundational ultra-legitimacy of being in the original Men & Magic booklet!
(Yes, I prefaced that with 'seriously.' … yes, I know what 'irony' is, why do you ask?)

(Also the Thief/Rogue is unjustifiable once you introduce a workable skill system to the game - which, admittedly, didn't happen for 25 years, so I can see how folks got used to having it around.)

Though I could see just Fighting Man and Magic Man.
Well, /Person/, we can't be sexist in the 21st century, now can we?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Tony Vargas]

Howzabout Fighting Dude.

Instead of "roll initiative" you'd say "waaaaazzup!"

Dude is unisex, right?

No, a 'Dude' is a guy knocking around the old west in city-slicker duds. Thus 'Dude Ranch.'


Definition of dude (Entry 1 of 2)
1 : a man extremely fastidious in dress and manner : dandy
2 : a city dweller unfamiliar with life on the range (see range entry 1 sense 3b)
especially : an Easterner in the West
3 informal : fellow, guy



...so it'd have to be Persun of Physical Conflict Resolution.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Tony Vargas]

Maybe ...

'Sup, Magic Brah? Kindly spare sum fireballz?

Or, "Persun of Supernatural Challenge-Obviation, please Thermally Sanction the opposing group of alternatively-moral individuals while they are still in proximity to eachother."

 

[MoonSong]

Cross quoting form another thread:

The key problem I see with 'doing' the 3.x Sorcerer in 5e (the 5e Sorcerer does the 4e Sorcerer fine, it just needs to cover each 'build' with a sub-class), is, again, that lack of player options to customize the character. Each sorcerer you could have made in 3.x would require a sub-class tailored to it.

That's a funny thing. While the sorcerer sorely needs more obvious subclasses -limited by the release schedule, the designers had to choose, even if the other four or five proposed subclasses had made the cut, that's but the tip of the iceberg- the designers kept scrapping the bottom of the barrel to give the wizard a token archetype in the same book. We could expect a few setting-speciffic wizard subclasses, but beyond a generalist -that is hard to do- or even a lich oriented subclass there's not much thematic room to expand it. Yet the wizard apparently obsoletes the sorcerer?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Cross quoting form another thread:


That's a funny thing. While the sorcerer sorely needs more obvious subclasses -limited by the release schedule, the designers had to choose, even if the other four or five proposed subclasses had made the cut, that's but the tip of the iceberg- the designers kept scrapping the bottom of the barrel to give the wizard a token archetype in the same book. We could expect a few setting-speciffic wizard subclasses, but beyond a generalist -that is hard to do- or even a lich oriented subclass there's not much thematic room to expand it. Yet the wizard apparently obsoletes the sorcerer?

All I can say is, they're called WIZARDS of the Coast for a reason. ;P

 

[gyor]

Obsolete classes: anything but Cleric, Fighter, Mage, and Thief.

That one made me wish we had a down votes option.