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

[Plaguescarred]

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?

What are some character concepts you cannot make in 5E that you could in previous editions. Please explain why you cannot make them also.

For me I find it hard to make a light armor, heavy weapon fighter with any penchant for skills or socialization. This is due to having to put your highest stats in Dex to make up for the AC loss, thus making you a very low damage heavy weapon user. Then you also cannot use non Dex based skills with any hope of being successful for any but the easiest checks.

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

 

[JamesonCourage]

Character concept I can't make: A fighter with all the versatility and power that a wizard has but in a distinctly fightery form.

I'd like to see any edition do this. I don't think I've seen this, and I expected more out of 4e here. I have a Fighter (Knight) in the 4e game I'm running, and while he has some stuff outside of combat, it's incredibly limited compared to the Wizard (Sha'ir). Outside of combat, he has the Athletics, Endurance, Heal and Intimidate skills, though the latter two both have low ability modifiers. She has the encounter cantrips that allow her to substitute Arcana for Stealth, Diplomacy, and Intimidate, as well as Prestidigitation, and the History, Arcana, Nature, and Dungeoneering skills (with History and Arcana keying off of a high attribute). Oh yeah, she also has ritual casting.

In combat, the Wizard is more versatile. Sure, the Knight is one of the simple classes, but at best, if we substituted for a regular ol' PHB Fighter, he'd about tie her (they'd both control some via marks or zones / Hypnotism, and though he'd be more survivable, she'd have range).

Before 4e, I heard a lot about how "mundanes" were given more "narrative control" and the like. While I think this is true to some extent (the skill system being very open helps), it's nowhere near equal. When I read @pemerton's play reports and I see a spellcaster use a spell to affect creatures through a mirror, I think "no way the Fighter has stuff like that." At best, he's used Come and Get It on some water, but that's about the only instance I can think of off-hand. (He does have followers, but that could be done with any class, and I've wondered before if pemerton gave it to the Fighter to help him gain some narrative control that the class seems to distinctly lack.)

Yes, 4e evened things up in combat, but I don't even feel versatility has been matched there (with things like Arcane Gate offering more versatility than what Fighters get in or out of combat... and again, we're not touching on rituals or cantrips, which the base Wizard gets for free).

Now, a player recently added a Ranger (Scout) to my game; he definitely seems versatile in and out of combat (melee, ranged, good movement, Wilderness Knacks, etc.). But Fighters? Not from what I can tell.

(Side note: I'm taking a shot at 4e, but not with malice, as I've had a lot of fun running it, and it's my only current campaign; I'd love to see a 5e that gives Fighters some options, too. I think the Scout, as he's built, with Wilderness Knacks, good skills, versatile combat abilities, and Martial Practices is very robust. I'd love to see something like this for Fighters in comparison to 5e spellcasters. What I'm saying, though, is that I don't think any edition has handled Fighters well yet in this area.)

 

[Lokiare]

I can create any character concept I desire with 5e.

Because the rules are not the game.

When you learn this, you will probably enjoy all versions of D&D more.

When you realize you are paying WotC for nothing (because the rules are not the game) maybe you'll wake up and stop buying D&D products.

Until then the mechanics are the game, because everything else can be had without buying a single D&D product.

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?

That's strange, because I find it completely fair. They even have survey data and DDi data to pinpoint the popular character concepts, so they really have no excuse for not building this stuff into 5E and really a flexible 5E would be able to accomodate every combo of options equally while still remaining balanced.

Actually I would like to question the goals of your posts as well. Every time I point out a flaw and/or how to fix said flaw, you start attacking my posts with a vengeance along with Mistwell. You don't even do me the courtesy of staying within the forum rules and constantly personal attack me or dictate my opinions to me. I'd much rather you and others follow the general rules of debate so that if we all work together we could accomplish something positive, instead of constantly having to fight off semantic arguments, red herrings, straw men, and the like.

I gave a great example in another thread of how they could equalize the armor types for Fighters. Since Fighters are supposed to be 'best at combat' they should be able to use weapons and armor in ways no other class can. Thus a lightly armored Fighter weilding a heavy weapon should be an easy concept to build rather than gimping the character.

In fact they can do a matrix chart with one column being armor type, and the other being weapon keyword. Then make sure they can make viable characters under each.

They can do the same thing for complexity. Make sure there are simple fighters and complex fighters as well as simple casters and complex casters.

I'm trying to work toward making a 5E we can all like and play rather than just some of us. So instead of being adversarial, provide facts and numbers that would allow us to both get what we want.

I'd like to see any edition do this. I don't think I've seen this, and I expected more out of 4e here. I have a Fighter (Knight) in the 4e game I'm running, and while he has some stuff outside of combat, it's incredibly limited compared to the Wizard (Sha'ir). Outside of combat, he has the Athletics, Endurance, Heal and Intimidate skills, though the latter two both have low ability modifiers. She has the encounter cantrips that allow her to substitute Arcana for Stealth, Diplomacy, and Intimidate, as well as Prestidigitation, and the History, Arcana, Nature, and Dungeoneering skills (with History and Arcana keying off of a high attribute). Oh yeah, she also has ritual casting.

In combat, the Wizard is more versatile. Sure, the Knight is one of the simple classes, but at best, if we substituted for a regular ol' PHB Fighter, he'd about tie her (they'd both control some via marks or zones / Hypnotism, and though he'd be more survivable, she'd have range).

Before 4e, I heard a lot about how "mundanes" were given more "narrative control" and the like. While I think this is true to some extent (the skill system being very open helps), it's nowhere near equal. When I read @pemerton's play reports and I see a spellcaster use a spell to affect creatures through a mirror, I think "no way the Fighter has stuff like that." At best, he's used Come and Get It on some water, but that's about the only instance I can think of off-hand. (He does have followers, but that could be done with any class, and I've wondered before if pemerton gave it to the Fighter to help him gain some narrative control that the class seems to distinctly lack.)

Yes, 4e evened things up in combat, but I don't even feel versatility has been matched there (with things like Arcane Gate offering more versatility than what Fighters get in or out of combat... and again, we're not touching on rituals or cantrips, which the base Wizard gets for free).

Now, a player recently added a Ranger (Scout) to my game; he definitely seems versatile in and out of combat (melee, ranged, good movement, Wilderness Knacks, etc.). But Fighters? Not from what I can tell.

(Side note: I'm taking a shot at 4e, but not with malice, as I've had a lot of fun running it, and it's my only current campaign; I'd love to see a 5e that gives Fighters some options, too. I think the Scout, as he's built, with Wilderness Knacks, good skills, versatile combat abilities, and Martial Practices is very robust. I'd love to see something like this for Fighters in comparison to 5e spellcasters. What I'm saying, though, is that I don't think any edition has handled Fighters well yet in this area.)

Yep, 4E moved in the right direction, but didn't quite make it to the finish line, which is why 5E is so frustrating. They had a chance to make everyone happy, but seem bent on only pleasing a certain group.

 

[Manbearcat]

While I'll agree all day long that the light armored, duelist/fencer/skirmisher needs to be supported with robust mechanical options and comparable mechanical effectiveness out of the box (because the archetype is so prolific), do we really have to do this for every single edition? Every new edition release gets the unfair comparison with the prior edition after several years of splats and Dragon magazine support. You won't be able to able to make every stray archetype right out of the box. As with 4e's (very light) refluffing of a PHB1 Ranger to get a light armored Fighter (it carried every bit of the heft but the name on the tin...while simultaneously having to carry little to no baggage of the wilderness warrior theme), you're probably going to have to perform some mild refluffing to get some of the more esoteric (or even slightly less prolific) archetypes.

While I have plenty of issues with the 5e design ethos, being able to support the vast swath of archetypes of the prior editions, out of the box, is certainly not one of them. Its an unrealistic, and unfair, expectation.

 

[Cadence]

Since Fighters are supposed to be 'best at combat' they should be able to use weapons and armor in ways no other class can. Thus a lightly armored Fighter weilding a heavy weapon should be an easy concept to build rather than gimping the character.

Which doesn't mean they should be able to make every combination of armor and weapon work well.

I'm trying to get a good picture in my head. Do you have a favorite historical example of an effective light-armor heavy-weapon fighter that wasn't outclassed by some pre-firearms better weapons or armor?

 

[Falling Icicle]

Character concept I can't make: A fighter with all the versatility and power that a wizard has but in a distinctly fightery form.

Tenser's transformation.

In all seriousness, what you're asking for has never existed in any edition of D&D ever, nor should it. A class that's meant to be super specialized in one thing should obviously not be as versatile as a class that has versatility as its focus. Nor would it be at all fair to wizards if another class could have all the same advantages without any of the drawbacks wizards pay for them.

 

[SkidAce]

I can create any character concept I desire with 5e.

Because the rules are not the game.

When you learn this, you will probably enjoy all versions of D&D more.

Yup.


...must spread etc...

 

[Jester David]

I can't make my 3e summoner wizard. And he was mostly PHB.
But I image it, like most hard concepts, will come when the round out the content.

 

[Umbran]

Ladies and gentlemen,

Apparently, the number of times we need to say this is not limited. Once more:

DON'T MAKE IT PERSONAL

That's pretty darned simple. Address the logic of the post, not the person of the poster. We know several of you who have seen this message multiple times, but fail to put it into practice. So, enough wagging a stern finger at you. The next person to make the discussion about the poster, rather than the logic of the post, can probably expect to get a week long vacation from the site. Those of you who find individual posters so annoying that you cannot exercise this minimum of self-control we ask will probably want to explore the wonders of the Ignore List feature.

In general - play nice. Be good to one another. It isn't hard.

If you have questions about this, please take it to e-mail or PM with one of the moderation staff.

 

[Minigiant]

You can get a half orc with 18/16/12/8/9/10 with a greataxe, leather armor, and advantage on Intimidate checks. That's a very serviceable AC 14 before picking fighting style and skills from background.

However my rage mage stinks until they make a feat or subclass for it.