• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

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

I know it's half a year ago, but the OPs concept seems pretty easy to build, a high Str and Wis Barbarian with the Eagle Totem features. If having Rage as a class feature is a deal breaker, call it something like Focus. Pick up Insight and the talky skill of your choice (Intimidation pairs well with Strength if you're willing to be creative with it) and you're set.

If you're creative enough to come up with a character concept that doesn't fit in 5e's base constraints you ought to be creative enough to tweak and reskin the rules to get where you want to go.

It's also important to not force a square peg into a round hole. Saying you want a "defender wizard" in 5e is meaningless; 5e's classes aren't designed to fit into neatly established roles the way 4e did. Most classes are hybrid, or can function in multiple roles, but most classes can't fulfill them all. I so far haven't seen much clamoring for a "leader barbarian"(though they kinda gave us one anyway) or a "controller rogue" (oh, the endless search for the Martial Controller, how I don't miss you).

It would be interesting to see what concepts exist that can't really be made with 5e as is, and what suggestions folks have to achieve them.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

It's also important to not force a square peg into a round hole. Saying you want a "defender wizard" in 5e is meaningless.

I need to have another look at the feat that lets you cast a spell when someone provokes an opportunity attack, in combination with the Sentinel feat. You might be able to make a defender wizard after all. Seriously, anyone becomes a defender with Sentinel, as long as they have an oppo that's scary (and enough defenses to not just die to one tanked attack).
 

I think the problems is lok says character concept then complains when a class does it that isnt a fighter. When your going for character concept doesnt matter you use whatever classes does it then you call your finished PC whatever the whatever. The one concept I truly cant make in 5th is unfortunatly the warlord. The battlemaster just doesnt cut it.
 

I think the problems is lok says character concept then complains when a class does it that isnt a fighter. When your going for character concept doesnt matter you use whatever classes does it then you call your finished PC whatever the whatever. The one concept I truly cant make in 5th is unfortunatly the warlord. The battlemaster just doesnt cut it.

I think you are doing the same thing. Warlord means so much more then the 4e class. I can make a Warlord using the definition of the word in 5e (I like a good multi classed Fighter/Bard for it) but it won't look anything like the 4e version.
 




A guy who doesn't fight in any way- you know, a "face" type character. Granted, I couldn't do that in any edition of D&D...
You could sorta do it in 4E by playing a "lazy warlord" (instead of attacking, you just give attacks to everybody else in the party). But yeah, D&D has never supported that concept very well.
 

I can't believe I necro'ed

Khashir, while I think you have great intentions, it will help to remind people replying that this thread is OVER SIX MONTHS OLD - I think people loking at earlier pages first might be caught up in arguments of people long gone or who might have even forgotten about the points mentioned.

My apologies--I'd been out of the community for a while (so, didn't realise folks were talking about this as far back as Feb), and this seemed like an appropriate question to ask, given the recent release.
 


Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top