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

[Halivar]

When 4E was released, there was no druid, monk, psion, or bard. There was no swordmage. You couldn't make them. Is this a failing of 4E? No. Because the system expanded to address these issues eventually, as 5E will undoubtedly do, as well.

 

[Mistwell]

I mean if you could make your character concepts without it costing you mechanical effectiveness, would you be offended or angry or whatever at 5E? I don't think you would. You could continue to play how you always have, so why not try to allow the other play styles into the game?

It's the argument that all conceivable character concepts must be mechanically supported by the game (which is what I think you're saying) that I don't think of as a "playstyle". No version of the game has ever been able to do that, and I don't think any version of the game could ever do that. To be a playstyle, you must have played D&D that way before and prefer that style of play using some prior set of rules.

So instead of viewing it as a playstyle, I view it as more of an attitude. "Support all conceivable character concepts mechanically" is something I view similar to "make the game a competitive board game" or "make the game a cooperative card game" or "make the game about space opera". It's never been any of those things, and it's not a "style" of "play" anyone can expect from the game given the nature of the game.

D&D is still going to fit into the box of "Dungeons and Dragons" which carries certain basic assumptions, including "it's not a board or a card game" and "it's not a game about space combat" and "it's not going to mechanically support every single character concept you can conceive of like GURPS." D&D is going to support certain established tropes, at least initially, and it's not going to vary much from those traditional D&D tropes in the player's handbook.

As they get more expansion books out, presumably we'll see more and more character concepts supported (probably through sub-classes), but even at the end of the the life cycle of this new version of the game, it still won't mechanically support every conceivable character concept - because that's just not what D&D does as a game. There's a certain range of fantasy tropes it will cover, and it will mostly stay within that range, just like it always has.

Beyond that, you're going to need to depend on your own imagination, and working with your DM, and the customization tools they provide in that module. That's what's needed most to realize character concepts that fall outside the range they're going to work with.

 

[SkidAce]

Specify what you mean by "Defender Wizard", considering the role of "defender" doesn't actually exist outside the design scope of 4E.

As for the fighter, yes, you can absolutely make that character. Put your highest stats in Dex, Str and Charisma. Wear light armour. Wield a heavy weapon. Choose a Background that gives you social skills. Pick a feat that makes you better at heavy weapons. Boom. It's that easy.
If you're going to say your character is not as good at heavy weapons as someone who put more points in strength, well, they're also not as mobile and nible as you, and don't have the kind of social skills you do. You're giving up some (minor) specialisation for a broader scope of abilities. You're going to be just 1 or 2 points behind the specialised guy anyway.

+1 For cosmic truth!

 

[DMZ2112]

When 4E was released, there was no druid, monk, psion, or bard. There was no swordmage. You couldn't make them. Is this a failing of 4E? No. Because the system expanded to address these issues eventually, as 5E will undoubtedly do, as well.

It's also a fair point that in D&D5 it's not as necessary to wait for Wizards to catch up to your needs -- class design is comparatively simple. Which to me is a huge selling point for D&D5 over D&D4.

And I'll reiterate that my favorite D&D5 playtest character -- and indeed, one of my favorite characters ever -- was a bard. Lightfoot halfling minstrel illusionist loremaster. Best bard I've ever played in any edition of D&D.

 

[Cadence]

For other classes sure. It might be a little unrealistic, but a Fighter is supposed to be best at combat and it accomplishes that through the use of weapons and armor.

It should be able to use any combination of those effectively.

More effectively than other classes does not necessarily mean effectively. If someone wants to be a taffeta and spoon fighter, I want the game to have the mobile fighter with rapier and light armor and the heavy armored fighter with big sword to both mince him with ease. This is because with equal effort and training, it seems like better equipment > worse or no equipment. If they're putting some of their combat training into other skills, then they should be even worse still in a fight.

You did previously say you don't want the light-armor/big-weapon/skilled fighter to necessarily be equal to the standard one in a straight-up fight... just to belong in the same ring. That seems reasonable to me. In 3.5, would a Rogue who-subbed out back-stab for bonus combat feats (from UA) and who had toughness and the one martial weapon proficiency be kind of what you're picturing (except in terms of the class name you had to write down)? Or maybe a skirmisher ranger from PF?

See above. Conan the Barbarian had no armor and used a two-handed sword. You'll note that he did not 'rage' and was exceptionally skilled having come out of the gladiatorial pits. So he wasn't an actual barbarian class, he was a barbarian as a sub-race to human.

I was about to start listing examples from Howard's stories (clearly not single class fighter, if even mostly fighter; wore armor when appropriate; etc...) ... you mean the movie Conan though?

In either case, I'm pretty sure you could certainly make a very effective unarmored/big weapons fighter compared to all the other PCs in the game if everyone else had standard PC builds and they let you have the 68 point ability score build Conan would have (calculated using the point buy for PF).

(All of the write-ups I've ever seen have him something like 18/17-18/18/12-15/11-15/14-17 - - http://old.enworld.org/Inzeladun/conan.htm , http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?622972-4e-Conan-the-Barbarian-NPC , or the stats from the old D&D module are in the middle of http://dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=60964&hilit=conan+stats&start=60 ).

 

[Kobold Stew]

(All of the write-ups I've ever seen have him something like 18/17-18/18/12-15/11-15/14-17 - - http://old.enworld.org/Inzeladun/conan.htm , http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?622972-4e-Conan-the-Barbarian-NPC , or the stats from the old D&D module are in the middle of http://dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=60964&hilit=conan+stats&start=60 ).

Robert E. Howard showed up that day with his character sheet, and said to the DM, "Really! I rolled them at home and this is what I got!"

 

[the Jester]

[MENTION=83996]Lokiare[/MENTION], I'm going to attack your basic assumptions here.

First of all, a fighter with lighter armor should have a lower AC than a fighter with heavier armor, other things being equal. A high Dex can mitigate this to some extent, but if you want to play a class who is focused on weapons and armor and intentionally ignore one of its main benefits, especially when the system offers other ways to achieve your goals, doesn't make the system flawed. It's like when, in early 4e, a player would talk about his character concept- an archer fighter- and then freak out that the best choice wasn't actually the fighter class, but rather a ranger (probably).

Is the light-armor-big-weapon-fighter-class supported in any edition but 3e? Not AFAICS. Certainly, in 2e and earlier editions, heavy armor was always better than light armor- unless you were trying to swim! I suppose you could say that 3e supported this concept, or at least enabled it, but 3e would let you it-bash together virtually ANY concept once it had enough feats, prestige classes, base classes, racial levels, planar levels, other substitute levels, etc. You know, not just after the game was actually released but years after, once it had had time to mature and for lots of supplements to fill in lots of the weird gaps ("hey, do we have a way to apply Intelligence to initiative instead of Dexterity yet?").

4e didn't support this archetype either, at least not actively. All 4e fighters are pretty well expected to wear scale armor or better (unless there are some builds in weird places that I'm unfamiliar with).

Ahhh- but take the "fighter class" away and every edition can give you what you want, just as 4e can make that "archer fighter" as a ranger or rogue. Depending on the edition, you can play a barbarian; a ranger; a rogue; a bard; a prestige class or multiclass combination. You just have to accept that fighters are good at some of what you want, but there are classes that do it better. If you still want to play that type of fighter, fine, but you made a suboptimal choice. That means the result will be suboptimal, as well.

As to your defender wizard, I'm not even clear what that even means. Do you mean a frontline fighter who just happens to be a wizard? When has D&D ever supported that?? The closest I can think of pre-3e involves weird broken kits, and you still end up as a non-frontline combatant who gets cut to pieces in melee. In 3e, if you add enough feats and prestige classes, you can certainly do it- but you're hardly a wizard at all anymore by that time. And what's the difference between that and going fighter/mage in 5e?

I don't think your complaints hold water. Suboptimal choices ought to be suboptimal; there's no need to make crappy armor equal to good armor. That defeats the purpose of good armor- there's no reason to pay 600 gp for something that is no better than something that costs you 5 gp. Nor, do I think, should a wizard in melee be anywhere near as effective as a fighter. This isn't an issue of playstyle; it's an issue of balance. Why play a fighter at all if a wizard can stand in the front and throw fireballs?

It seems that your whole argument rests on the idea that every combination should be equally good. I simply disagree. A fighter with a dagger and leather armor should, in combat with an equal-level fighter, be seriously disadvantaged when the other guy has a bow, sword, shield and plate armor. A wizard in melee combat should be seriously disadvantaged against any fighter of comparable level.

 

[Wulfgar76]

Have fun with your game before 5E gets shelved because it could not bring in enough income.

While this was supposed to be a snappy parting shot, it frankly puts everything you've ever posted into its proper perspective.

 

[DMZ2112]

While this was supposed to be a snappy parting shot, it frankly puts everything you've ever posted into its proper perspective.

I can't give you more experience right now.

 

[PinkRose]

Did it for ya!

And thank you Lokaire, I will have fun with my 5e, before I shelve it next to my 4e, 3.5e, 3e, 2e, AD&D, & D&D books on my shelves, where I keep all my favourite versions of D&D.
Though I am surprised, that by your tone, it appears that you don't like 5e.