Continuing our series, lets look at classes. Which ones made the grade?
This is right now a pure read analysis, playtime may change my experience, but lets see how the items "feel" upon initial read.
Also note, not all items are listed here. I am only highlighting things that I think are especially good or notably bad. Items that are just solid are not noted. This is going to be doubly important for classes, as I feel they are often very "personal" depending on what fantasy motiffs are highlighted. So I am only going to pick classes I feel really standout.
Last note, I am looking at subclasses "in detail" (that's a different thread), but I am considering them to highlight what the class is generally expected to do and what they might have access to.
Winners
Adept: The monk is one of the lower rated classes at least on forums like Enworld, and so the bar is already low for this class. But the Adept does seem to be a very solid step up, not just in ability but in class design. The "ala cart" style class feature picking is very unique and allows for a ton of build options with the class....and I think the class seems to have addressed many of the perceived weaknesses with the monk class.
Cleric: The O5e is probably the most "white bread" class. Its fine, but you really have to work to bring it to life. Meanwhile I think A5e does a wonderful job of using mechanics to highlight clerical flavor. The class highlights the religious beliefs and behaviors that clerics deal with, as well as the notion that they are often the "pillars" of a society. I really "feel" the cleric when I read this class in a way I never did in O5e.
Fighter: I think you could argue that the Fighter got the most love in LU. Its now dripping with cool abilities and is the hallmark of the new maneuver system. The simple ability to specialize in a few maneuvers suddenly opens up a huge swath of different fighter builds, all distinctly different because of that small tweak.
Rogue: Though I don't think its as improved as some others on this list, in some ways this class is the most impressive to me, because the Rogue is already a really good class in O5e. And yet, I still think this class shows real improvement to the design. I think the rogue more than all of the classes was looking for ways to customize their skills, and the new expertise die system plus their "knacks" allows the rogue to really tailor their skill sets to exactly what they want to do. Combine that with some nice flexible options (the ability to choose what defensive options you have as a rogue is wonderful), and you just have a class that really knocks it out of the park.
Warlock: Another class I give credit to the designers for finding a way to take a really solid O5e class and make it even cooler. This class really got a boost to flexibility, in how you cast spells, in how you use eldritch blast, in what your casting stat is, heck even though the book gives you recommendations on your bonus spell known based on patron.....nothing requires you to take them if you work it through with your DM. I also like the fact that the Patron is cited more as a secondary character with this class, there are a lot of notes of "the patron leaves this for you in the morning" or "the patron takes that away at the end of the day"....aka better highlighting the fact that this entity is out there working its will. I also appreciated the attention in splitting Invocations into various "spheres", allowing the warlock to pick up some invocations that aren't the strongest on the power scale while not sacrificing their combat strength.
Losers
Berserker: Is the LU berserker "bad"? Not in the slightest, but for me the bar was very high with the Barbarian. I think O5e really nails the Barbarian class, I have had lots of players use it, and I have been amazed time and again how players seamlessly embrace the mechanics and just go hog wild. I think the issue here is that the standard LU treatment is actually the opposite of what the class stands for. The Berserker requires more tracking and more thought than the Barbarian....and this is a distinct "non-thinking" kind of class. Further, the generalization of reckless attack really took away a key element of what made the Barbarian special.
Sorcerer: Another class that is generally considered fairly "lame" in O5e, there was a lot of open space to make this class great. And....I think it missed the mark. Now don't get me wrong, this is still a better class than O5e...but when I compare it to the improvements made in the Wizard class and especially the Warlock one....it feels like the sorceror just gets left out in the cold once again. I feel like the new class gets "more", but its still missing the flavor of "innate magic" that makes a sorceror who they are. Honestly, I feel like the warlock is just a better sorceror.
Honorable Mention: Ranger
So I actually do think the A5e ranger is a lot better than its O5e one, and it offers a lot of the niches missing originally. However, the reason it didn't make the winner cut for me was the subclasses. I really don't like the fact that my choices are "cast spells or have a pet". I think a lot of ranger niches are the "lone warrior" concept, and the fact you can't do that with A5e subclasses I consider a big problem. Now you can argue "just use O5e subclasses", but as the books are designed to work on their own, I am judging it based on that.
This is right now a pure read analysis, playtime may change my experience, but lets see how the items "feel" upon initial read.
Also note, not all items are listed here. I am only highlighting things that I think are especially good or notably bad. Items that are just solid are not noted. This is going to be doubly important for classes, as I feel they are often very "personal" depending on what fantasy motiffs are highlighted. So I am only going to pick classes I feel really standout.
Last note, I am looking at subclasses "in detail" (that's a different thread), but I am considering them to highlight what the class is generally expected to do and what they might have access to.
Winners
Adept: The monk is one of the lower rated classes at least on forums like Enworld, and so the bar is already low for this class. But the Adept does seem to be a very solid step up, not just in ability but in class design. The "ala cart" style class feature picking is very unique and allows for a ton of build options with the class....and I think the class seems to have addressed many of the perceived weaknesses with the monk class.
Cleric: The O5e is probably the most "white bread" class. Its fine, but you really have to work to bring it to life. Meanwhile I think A5e does a wonderful job of using mechanics to highlight clerical flavor. The class highlights the religious beliefs and behaviors that clerics deal with, as well as the notion that they are often the "pillars" of a society. I really "feel" the cleric when I read this class in a way I never did in O5e.
Fighter: I think you could argue that the Fighter got the most love in LU. Its now dripping with cool abilities and is the hallmark of the new maneuver system. The simple ability to specialize in a few maneuvers suddenly opens up a huge swath of different fighter builds, all distinctly different because of that small tweak.
Rogue: Though I don't think its as improved as some others on this list, in some ways this class is the most impressive to me, because the Rogue is already a really good class in O5e. And yet, I still think this class shows real improvement to the design. I think the rogue more than all of the classes was looking for ways to customize their skills, and the new expertise die system plus their "knacks" allows the rogue to really tailor their skill sets to exactly what they want to do. Combine that with some nice flexible options (the ability to choose what defensive options you have as a rogue is wonderful), and you just have a class that really knocks it out of the park.
Warlock: Another class I give credit to the designers for finding a way to take a really solid O5e class and make it even cooler. This class really got a boost to flexibility, in how you cast spells, in how you use eldritch blast, in what your casting stat is, heck even though the book gives you recommendations on your bonus spell known based on patron.....nothing requires you to take them if you work it through with your DM. I also like the fact that the Patron is cited more as a secondary character with this class, there are a lot of notes of "the patron leaves this for you in the morning" or "the patron takes that away at the end of the day"....aka better highlighting the fact that this entity is out there working its will. I also appreciated the attention in splitting Invocations into various "spheres", allowing the warlock to pick up some invocations that aren't the strongest on the power scale while not sacrificing their combat strength.
Losers
Berserker: Is the LU berserker "bad"? Not in the slightest, but for me the bar was very high with the Barbarian. I think O5e really nails the Barbarian class, I have had lots of players use it, and I have been amazed time and again how players seamlessly embrace the mechanics and just go hog wild. I think the issue here is that the standard LU treatment is actually the opposite of what the class stands for. The Berserker requires more tracking and more thought than the Barbarian....and this is a distinct "non-thinking" kind of class. Further, the generalization of reckless attack really took away a key element of what made the Barbarian special.
Sorcerer: Another class that is generally considered fairly "lame" in O5e, there was a lot of open space to make this class great. And....I think it missed the mark. Now don't get me wrong, this is still a better class than O5e...but when I compare it to the improvements made in the Wizard class and especially the Warlock one....it feels like the sorceror just gets left out in the cold once again. I feel like the new class gets "more", but its still missing the flavor of "innate magic" that makes a sorceror who they are. Honestly, I feel like the warlock is just a better sorceror.
Honorable Mention: Ranger
So I actually do think the A5e ranger is a lot better than its O5e one, and it offers a lot of the niches missing originally. However, the reason it didn't make the winner cut for me was the subclasses. I really don't like the fact that my choices are "cast spells or have a pet". I think a lot of ranger niches are the "lone warrior" concept, and the fact you can't do that with A5e subclasses I consider a big problem. Now you can argue "just use O5e subclasses", but as the books are designed to work on their own, I am judging it based on that.
Last edited:
