D&D 5E Blow it up! What class need to be completely re-worked in 5e?

[Belltent]

I hate to burst your delicate little snow-globe, but gamers that also follow sports are not the preciously unique snowflakes that our mothers told us that we were.

In my experience I would say that it might be a slightly smaller percentage than average people, but not by too much. Most gamers I talk to can also talk a good game about sports. There are also things in common between gamers and people that play fantasy sports, and I know plenty of people that do both.

I think you may be the in the snowglobe. I have very many sports friends and very many gamer friends. Those two groups only share one person and that one person is me. I played last night and no one was wondering where Kyle Lowry would go, whether Sid came back too soon, or laughing maniacally at the bears (mitch trubisky?!?!?!? Really??? Oh god I love it go pack go)

To answer the OPs question though, yeah, barb, ranger, and fighter all clearly fight for some of the same space. Of the three I see fighters the fewest by far at tables. I think they come with the least amount of built in thematic material to conceive around.

I think druid full casting gimps wildshape, and I think wildshape gimps full casting. Let's split those two up. Shaman and Druid?

Sorcerer can do cool things, but a lot of times I think it just ends up feeling and reading like a less good wizard. I think they also go a long time between getting new and exclusive toys to play with.

 

[Aldarc]

I think druid full casting gimps wildshape, and I think wildshape gimps full casting. Let's split those two up. Shaman and Druid?

Nope, or I will fight you over that decision to your grave.

 

[Belltent]

Nope, or I will fight you over that decision to your grave.

You don't think upper mid level wildshaping sucks? I think upper mid level wildshaping sucks. Sure would be nice if I could maul this dude for more than one round without getting knocked out of my wildshape

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

But why, story wise, would a fighter be able to use more magic items than someone else?
What makes a fighter special (besides bigger numbers)?

Yeah, I forgot to add to the name ''fighter'' should be changed to ''Delver'' or ''Adventurer'' or whatever. The logic behind the ''more magic items'' is a problem. But lets keep it simple: if the Artificer craft a new magic item when he levels up, if the wizard acquire a new spell for his spellbook when he levels up, if the beastmaster train a beast when he levels up, then maybe we should just say that the Delver acquires a new magic items on level up, the details left to the player/DM.

The Delver/Fighter is special because he do not have magic powers to fight against the powers ol evil, so he needs to be able to acquire them through a lot of magical devices.

 

[Aldarc]

You don't think upper mid level wildshaping sucks? I think upper mid level wildshaping sucks. Sure would be nice if I could maul this dude for more than one round without getting knocked out of my wildshape

I think that I said that I vehemently disagree with your idea to split up a druid's shapeshifting and their fullcasting. Nothing more.

 

[Belltent]

I think that I said that I vehemently disagree with your idea to split up a druid's shapeshifting and their fullcasting. Nothing more.

Ugh, it's too early for this.

I find moon druids to eventually reach an unfulfilling playstyle.

I feel as if being tied to a full caster necessitated some reduction in potential power to the aformentioned moon druid.

I would like to see a version where wildshaping could continue to be their primary mode of operation.

Detatching full casting could provide a justifiable reason to increase said potential power.

Ergo, I would like a version where the two are seperated.

Also you threatened to fight me until I died. "Oh, but i never said died, i said 'to the grave' nothing more."

 

[Aldarc]

Ugh, it's too early for this.

I find moon druids to eventually reach an unfulfilling playstyle.

I feel as if being tied to a full caster necessitated some reduction in potential power to the aformentioned moon druid.

I would like to see a version where wildshaping could continue to be their primary mode of operation.

Detatching full casting could provide a justifiable reason to increase said potential power.

Ergo, I would like a version where the two are seperated.

Also you threatened to fight me until I died. "Oh, but i never said died, i said 'to the grave' nothing more."

You act as if 5th edition offers the only vision of a druid.

 

[Belltent]

You act as if 5th edition offers the only vision of a druid.

No, I act as if this is a 5th ed forum.

 

[Aldarc]

No, I act as if this is a 5th ed forum.

Really? Then why do you treat the Moon Druid as the "Druid" and the Land Druid as an unfortunate roadbloack in your goal to make the druid into something that it's not? If you want to spend your time tanking and fighting in animal forms your sole prerogative, then you should just make another class entirely. Full stop. But it's important to understand that a druid in D&D is a fullcaster with shapeshifting. And when you propose that a druid is the shapeshifter and that the shaman is the fullcaster, that there will be people who play druids like myself who will oppose the destruction of one of their favorite classes and what makes it appealing.

 

[TwoSix]

Really? Then why do you treat the Moon Druid as the "Druid" and the Land Druid as an unfortunate roadbloack in your goal to make the druid into something that it's not? If you want to spend your time tanking and fighting in animal forms your sole prerogative, then you should just make another class entirely. Full stop. But it's important to understand that a druid in D&D is a fullcaster with shapeshifting. And when you propose that a druid is the shapeshifter and that the shaman is the fullcaster, that there will be people who play druids like myself who will oppose the destruction of one of their favorite classes and what makes it appealing.

Not sure I get this. If you had a nature themed class focused on shapeshifting, with no casting, and a nature themed class focused on spellcasting, with no shapeshifting, couldn't you just multiclass to advance both abilities?

Or is this a semantic debate about what a class name "should" mean?