Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mephista" data-source="post: 7109238" data-attributes="member: 6786252">For the Warlock, I'm actually going to have to say "maybe?"Now, the modern 5e warlock is supposed to include the hexblade and the binder as well in the core chasis.  Pre-3e warlocks were just wizards with some infernal issues.  3e warlocks really were the first time they stood on their own as a distinct entity, as well as introducing the idea of the Binder and the Hexblade.   In 4e, we got the warlock back, going strong in the AEDU system, but also introduced some new ideas - fey and star pacts really got a chance to shine (no pun intended) instead of just the fiendish.  We had a number of abilities that relied on making trades and bargains.   The hex-blade's Curse made its way into core class.  4e actually established the warlock as a mix of oWarlock, Binder and Hexblade as the same root class.  Then along comes 5e.  While the fluff for the warlock is going strong, there's not a lot of mechanics to back it up, which is a shame.  So, in terms of the raw "make a deal for power" bits, I'm actually going to say that 5e isn't that great.  4e "warlock" handled that particular archetype better.   That said, 3e's binder does the whole warlock pact-for-power archetype better than any other class before or since.Likewise, I'm going to have to go with 4e for the sorcerer archetype as well.  In 3e and 5e, "dragon" is really just a fancy background for justifying an alternate wizard spell progression.  You don't actually feel like a dragon in any way.   In 4e, you actually had abilities that mimic breath weapons, claws, and more.  Things that actually felt like they lived up to "dragon magic."  Same with the chaos magic.   5e bards don't feel like actual bards to me.  Their magic and their abiltiies don't really mesh with the idea of magic-music as I understand it.  Too disconnected.  A strong class, but not a musical one, imho.  Same for 4e.   I don't like the part-druid aspects, again because that's nature-animist magic, not music-magic.  I'm actually going to have to go with 2e's bard, I think, where it branched off the rogue.  Fighter doesn't have an archetype beyond  being very good in weapon combat.  So, "none."   Barbarian... honestly, I think the barbarian archetype is kind of problematic, and is in dire need of revision.  Monk...  I do prefer 5e's version.  It feels like a good step in the right directions.Wizard and Cleric in 5e I do like the best so far.  Druid and Ranger have kind of flexible, non-firm archetypes, so they're kind of odd in a lot of cases.  No one's sure exactly what they are.I think 5e's paladin is a huge improvement over previous editions.  Its evolved into a kind of holy warrior fully distinct from the fighter and cleric, or a fighter/cleric even.  Not sure how I feel about the rogue.  The base rogue archetype is still the acrobat-thief.  Always has been, always will be.  Assassin, arcane trickster, swashbuckler, etc are all branches off this core idea.  I think that earlier editions handled the focus on acrobatics and thief skills better than later editions, but that's because I think the later editions had an increasingly stronger focus on combat / war game style.  That could just be in my head, and its not really the classes' fault, because it was reflective of the game as a whole at any given time - thief is hard to play when the game revolves around everything being a fight.   5e does better than 4e and 3e, but I don't know if its better than anything else.</blockquote>

Verification