D&D 5E What Would Your Perfect 50th PHB Class List Be?

[DEFCON 1]

Sorry, but how is my sorcerer working to join a paladin order and finally making it not story based? Or making a pact with an eldritch god in desperation? Without dynamic multiclassing we lose that kind of character evolution. Not even subclasses are a proper substitute, because 1) they happen at set levels, which most of the time won't align with the plot 2) they are set in stone once taken, you only get one, and once the level where you pick one comes, you cannot change paths. This is what I call the "Reformed assassin problem". Having an assassin that doesn't want to kill anymore and wants to turn a new leaf, but due to not having dynamic multiclassing can only get better at killing people and can never learn anything that isn't dictated by that choice at first-third level. The whole setup is extremely inflexible, and demands I sacrifice my individual character narrative in favor of a platonic one that somehow would be better despite being a white room creation that is always the same despite what actually transpires in-game?

One person who does it "correctly" does not wipe away all the others that don't.

Believe me... I wouldn't bring up the point if I ever saw comments on the boards here about all Fighter / Druid multiclasses that were occurring, or Barbarian / Monk multiclasses, or Cleric / Wizards. But we rarely if ever do. The only times I ever see people commenting on multiclasses (either positively or negatively or asking for advice) always seem to be in regards to Sorcedins, Bardlocks, Bardadins, Sorlocks etc. All the ones which just happen to all be the four CHA primary classes, all of which just happen to have the most synergy and power gain because of the mechanical abilities matching up as a result.

Look, I'm as much on your side as possible... I wish everything in the game was narratively motivated rather than mechanically. But I know that's just not the way it is. You might be the one that does it the way I'd like it do be... but so long as you're one out of thousands that don't, you'd end up being the unfortunately casualty if I ever got my way.

But in truth, that isn't anything you'll ever actually have worry about, because I know full well I'm never going to GET my way. LOL. Multiclassing isn't ever going to be removed, so you'll be able to continue playing the way you wish (and which I appreciate), and I'll just have to continue to find a lot of what I see on these boards a bit bleh. But that's fine... this game isn't for me alone so I can't actually get mad about it.

 

[Baron Opal II]

I quote both of you, because it is the same basic idea. Why do you want to keep sorcerer and wizard/warlock as subclasses of a parent class? What is your rationale? Because from what I have seen, you either end up with differences so watered down that one of the classes might as well not exist -or worse the result fails to capture both- or you end up with something that is two entirely separate classes that only happen to not be able to multiclass with each other. Even supposing one gets the perfect balance, I'm not so sure how it would look like?

For me, I see very little mechanical difference but strong backstory difference between sorcerers and wizards.

Don't get me wrong, I can really get behind a difference between learned and reflexive magic. But it seems to me that the options are different manipulations of the same spell list. Wizards have an open ended spell resource. A constraint on that is wizards have enhanced abilities due to a guild or specialty, so they will tend to focus on those spell themes first. Sorcerers have a closed spell resource, but instead of having thematic abilities or enhancements, there are enhancements that can be applied to any spell that are known by the sorcerer.

I consider the warlock to be strongly thematically different from the two of them, as they are bargaining for their abilities. They also have access to more unique abilities based on their patron(s).

 

[Scribe]

For me, I see very little mechanical difference but strong backstory difference between sorcerers and wizards.

Don't get me wrong, I can really get behind a difference between learned and reflexive magic. But it seems to me that the options are different manipulations of the same spell list. Wizards have an open ended spell resource. A constraint on that is wizards have enhanced abilities due to a guild or specialty, so they will tend to focus on those spell themes first. Sorcerers have a closed spell resource, but instead of having thematic abilities or enhancements, there are enhancements that can be applied to any spell that are known by the sorcerer.

I consider the warlock to be strongly thematically different from the two of them, as they are bargaining for their abilities. They also have access to more unique abilities based on their patron(s).

Learned (Wizard) Innate (Sorcerer) Borrowed (Warlock)

Thematically, thats really it for me for those 3. I would pitch the Warlock as something different from this pact system, and have it be people who are using powers they have not earned through study or birth, and the consequences of that should be reflected mechanically, but thats just me.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Learned (Wizard) Innate (Sorcerer) Borrowed (Warlock)

Thematically, thats really it for me for those 3. I would pitch the Warlock as something different from this pact system, and have it be people who are using powers they have not earned through study or birth, and the consequences of that should be reflected mechanically, but thats just me.

borrowed logically also includes all divine casters as your using someone else's power to cast miracles.

 

[Scribe]

borrowed logically also includes all divine casters as your using someone else's power to cast miracles.

It does, and someone on the Wizards staff has cracked a joke about this before.

A Cleric is just a Warlock, with a Divine Patron. Something to that effect.

I dont like it at all.

 

[Mind of tempest]

It does, and someone on the Wizards staff has cracked a joke about this before.

A Cleric is just a Warlock, with a Divine Patron. Something to that effect.

I dont like it at all.

why?

 

[Scribe]

why?

A Cleric has a patron. They need to spread the faith, and for doing so and acting in accordance to their patron's wishes, they are able to channel the power of the divine.

Fair enough right? Now, to ME (and again this is my own view) a mortal channeling divine power, the power of creation? Thats potent stuff. That isnt something a mortal should just get to tap into and walk away free and clear, and so to me, power of this deal is that the Patron is somehow protecting the Cleric from exposure to this pure stuff of the cosmos.

A Warlock, is different. A Warlock is not born into Magic like a Sorcerer. They have not dedicated time, study, education like a Wizard, and they do not need to have faith, dedication, and zeal, for their Patron, like a Cleric.

To me, a Warlock should be more a thief of that power. Its not theirs at all, and they do not need to align with that which grants that power, and so to me, there should be a cost associated with accessing it.

Why does Cthulu, even care to notice, and grant power, to a GOO lock? If I find a tome, which lets me tap into the Far Realm, and use power that I have no mastery over, I'm a Warlock, and there should be some kind of cost to that, which CLEARLY differentiates the class, from what a Cleric is.

I like the class, Warlock, I really do, but it just sticks out as being flawed in some way. To me, it should be a Con based caster, and if you use powers, it should cost you HP, or some kind of damage, because its power that isnt yours.

Again, just my take on it though.

 

[Minigiant]

A Cleric has a patron. They need to spread the faith, and for doing so and acting in accordance to their patron's wishes, they are able to channel the power of the divine.

Fair enough right? Now, to ME (and again this is my own view) a mortal channeling divine power, the power of creation? Thats potent stuff. That isnt something a mortal should just get to tap into and walk away free and clear, and so to me, power of this deal is that the Patron is somehow protecting the Cleric from exposure to this pure stuff of the cosmos.

A Warlock, is different. A Warlock is not born into Magic like a Sorcerer. They have not dedicated time, study, education like a Wizard, and they do not need to have faith, dedication, and zeal, for their Patron, like a Cleric.

To me, a Warlock should be more a thief of that power. Its not theirs at all, and they do not need to align with that which grants that power, and so to me, there should be a cost associated with accessing it.

Why does Cthulu, even care to notice, and grant power, to a GOO lock? If I find a tome, which lets me tap into the Far Realm, and use power that I have no mastery over, I'm a Warlock, and there should be some kind of cost to that, which CLEARLY differentiates the class, from what a Cleric is.

I like the class, Warlock, I really do, but it just sticks out as being flawed in some way. To me, it should be a Con based caster, and if you use powers, it should cost you HP, or some kind of damage, because its power that isnt yours.

Again, just my take on it though.

This kinda goes back to a discussion in the "why do evil gods exist" thread.

But basically the often broken and inconsistent lore is: mortals can't steal power from gods. They can steal power from lesser beings like fiends, fey, and Cthulus.

Warlocks is just the lesser contract of Cleric that weaker beings can make.

 

[Mind of tempest]

A Cleric has a patron. They need to spread the faith, and for doing so and acting in accordance to their patron's wishes, they are able to channel the power of the divine.

Fair enough right? Now, to ME (and again this is my own view) a mortal channeling divine power, the power of creation? Thats potent stuff. That isnt something a mortal should just get to tap into and walk away free and clear, and so to me, power of this deal is that the Patron is somehow protecting the Cleric from exposure to this pure stuff of the cosmos.

A Warlock, is different. A Warlock is not born into Magic like a Sorcerer. They have not dedicated time, study, education like a Wizard, and they do not need to have faith, dedication, and zeal, for their Patron, like a Cleric.

To me, a Warlock should be more a thief of that power. Its not theirs at all, and they do not need to align with that which grants that power, and so to me, there should be a cost associated with accessing it.

Why does Cthulu, even care to notice, and grant power, to a GOO lock? If I find a tome, which lets me tap into the Far Realm, and use power that I have no mastery over, I'm a Warlock, and there should be some kind of cost to that, which CLEARLY differentiates the class, from what a Cleric is.

I like the class, Warlock, I really do, but it just sticks out as being flawed in some way. To me, it should be a Con based caster, and if you use powers, it should cost you HP, or some kind of damage, because its power that isnt yours.

Again, just my take on it though.

This kinda goes back to a discussion in the "why do evil gods exist" thread.

But basically the often broken and inconsistent lore is: mortals can't steal power from gods. They can steal power from lesser beings like fiends, fey, and Cthulus.

Warlocks is just the lesser contract of Cleric that weaker beings can make.

why not just fusion them then?

 

[Scribe]

why not just fusion them then?

Because they are distinctly different concepts, and that should be represented mechanically.