D&D 5E Legends and Lore July 28: Keeping it Classy

[Savage Wombat]

I thought the point of the Eldritch Knight was to serve as the fighter component of a fighter/wizard multiclass build, not to be a full-blown gish* on its own.

[size=-2]*Yes, that's right, I just used "gish" to refer to a generic warrior/spellcaster instead of a specific githyanki fighting order. You wanna make something of it?[/size]

Yes I do. Step outside, and whatever you do don't look up.

 

[Mouseferatu]

[size=-2]*Yes, that's right, I just used "gish" to refer to a generic warrior/spellcaster instead of a specific githyanki fighting order. You wanna make something of it?[/size]

Yes. Yes, I do. Keyboards at ten paces, good sir!

(Gah! Way-of-Shadow'd! )

 

[Minigiant]

I'll really have to wait and see. But I am non encouraged by what is shown.

My favorite trickster type was the "controllable spikey damage" and tough guy. Both 3e and 4e supported them at start and gave a lot of support as the edition aged. The way 5e setups classes penalizes multiclassesing too much as you don't get ability score improvements nor feat until you get 4 levels of a class.

So I was hoping for a roguish fighter subclass or a fightery rogue subclass in the PHB for support for the thug/brute. Much how they did EKs and Arcane Trickster since they know fighter/mages stink.

 

[occam]

I really hope that the Eldritch Knight bucks the trend of previous editions attempts and enables the creation of a decent fighter-mage.

I don't know that that's even necessary. I've already played decent fighter/mages -- mountain dwarf wizard, multiclassed war cleric/wizard -- without a special subclass. With proficiency/attack bonuses being leveled across classes (so attack bonuses don't fall behind), the wizard's higher hit points (matching the rogue's old hp), and lack of spellcasting penalties for wearing armor, it's easy to work up a character who can stand in melee for a while and be effective with weapons, while still possessing a full complement of spells, if that's what you want. The main thing you need to get somehow is a decent AC. Is it the best melee fighter? No, but it's not bad. Is it as good as a magic-focused wizard? Pretty darn close. It's easily better than any gish option 3e or prior.

The somewhat simpler classes and beefier feats in this edition, along with things like common spell slot progression, has enabled a lot of flexibility in character design that I'm really appreciating. I can't wait to try out ideas and see what's possible.

 

[Andor]

That's problematic, though, Mouse, because new subclasses can only be used by new PCs.

It's the same as the background issue, only worse. With a background, it's cool, but it's a choice you make once, and cannot ever make again. It's the same (AFAIK!) with sub-classes, but at least they keep on giving you stuff as you go.

Well, yes and no. You only get one sub-class per class and only at third level (presumable to reduce the temptation of dipping for sub-classes.) But you could theoretically pick up 6 sub-classes by 18th level if you were so inclined. And rolled really really well for stats, since you need to meet the prerequisites and spent your whole carrier dodging stat boosts.

At any rate the point is you can pick up more than one sub-class but it requires extensive multi-classing, which has it's own baked in disincentives.

 

[the Jester]

Any DM who's not a jerk should have the good grace to let a player rebuild their character when a more appropriate class to fit the player's concept comes along.

That's very one-true-way of you. Some groups find rebuilding an existing character to take advantage of material in a new book just because it's suddenly been published to be too jarring. That doesn't mean that they're all jerks.

 

[CM]

That's very one-true-way of you. Some groups find rebuilding an existing character to take advantage of material in a new book just because it's suddenly been published to be too jarring. That doesn't mean that they're all jerks.

Luckily, I don't have to game with any of these types of folks. Life's too short to get hung up on the game to such a degree. Jerk was probably a poor choice of words though. How about hard-nose?

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

So if people are finding the subclasses restrictive compared to, say, 3e, let's compare them to their 3e equivalents, shall we?

Barbarians, monks, rangers, sorcerers, paladins: The 3e version of each of these classes would fall entirely into a single one of their 5e version's subclass. Totem warrior, ninja, elementalist, beastmaster, wild mage, avenger, and green knight are all concepts you couldn't achieve in 3e without multiclassing or prestige classes. So really the 5e versions are using subclasses to expand these archetypes, not restrict them.

Wizards, clerics: these classes are restricted by school and domain in 3e too, and in the wizard's case those restrictions are far more onerous in 3e.

Warlock: not in 3e core, but the 4e version had different pacts, and like with clerics and sorcerers, the pact seems so essential to the class that you really need it from level 1.

Fighters: This is a slightly weird case, since the 3e fighter was more flexible than the Champion but didn't have maneuvers like the Battlemaster.

Rogues, bards: These are the only two classes, IMO, that are "sliced up" in 5e but were whole in 3e.

 

[Branduil]

So if people are finding the subclasses restrictive compared to, say, 3e, let's compare them to their 3e equivalents, shall we?

Barbarians, monks, rangers, sorcerers, paladins: The 3e version of each of these classes would fall entirely into a single one of their 5e version's subclass. Totem warrior, ninja, elementalist, beastmaster, wild mage, avenger, and green knight are all concepts you couldn't achieve in 3e without multiclassing or prestige classes. So really the 5e versions are using subclasses to expand these archetypes, not restrict them.

Wizards, clerics: these classes are restricted by school and domain in 3e too, and in the wizard's case those restrictions are far more onerous in 3e.

Warlock: not in 3e core, but the 4e version had different pacts, and like with clerics and sorcerers, the pact seems so essential to the class that you really need it from level 1.

Fighters: This is a slightly weird case, since the 3e fighter was more flexible than the Champion but didn't have maneuvers like the Battlemaster.

Rogues, bards: These are the only two classes, IMO, that are "sliced up" in 5e but were whole in 3e.

The original 3e Ranger was even worse than that... his archetype was "really sucky TWF Fighter with a couple more skills and a few Druid spells."

 

[ppaladin123]

I thought the point of the Eldritch Knight was to serve as the fighter component of a fighter/wizard multiclass build, not to be a full-blown gish* on its own.

[SIZE=-2]*Yes, that's right, I just used "gish" to refer to a generic warrior/spellcaster instead of a specific githyanki fighting order. You wanna make something of it?[/SIZE]

I think they can certainly be combined effectively. A trasmutation wizard with 5 levels of eldritch knight fighter would be quite potent....based on the alpha document at least. That said I hope they did pump the EK up a bit and perhaps let it use some transmutation spells too...since flight and physical augmentation are also big parts of the fighter/mage concept for a lot of people (you can probably do this more easily with the school of valor bard in the alpha right now, which is odd).

 

[Saint&Sinner]

Batman in not a 1st level character

Since Batman is not a 1st level character why can't upper level feats, multi-classing, etc create a way to make what you'd like?

 

[Klaus]

I am shocked that they didn't include either the Thug Fighter or Brute Rogue. Both are iconic in 3e and 4e.

How can I be Batman now. Fighter/rogues never cut it. They never do.

Wanna show the dragon who is the night.

I suspect what you need is a Monk that follows the Way of Shadow. And a Cloak of the Bat.

 

[Minigiant]

Since Batman is not a 1st level character why can't upper level feats, multi-classing, etc create a way to make what you'd like?

The character I based him off of was Jason Todd. I evolved into a Batman clone quickly. I had only slightly above average Dex and would rely on leaping on people and clobbering the survivors.


DM thought a recurring clown villain was sooooooo hilarious.

I suspect what you need is a Monk that follows the Way of Shadow. And a Cloak of the Bat.

Maybe. I gotta see how tough the monk is. The playtest ones were as squishy as rogues.

Cloak of the Bat. Essential for the build. Activate cloak of the bat, falling sneak attack, and twf next turn.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

So I multi Ranger and Rogue, and have little knives on the inside of my wrist for SA damage, and two med size axes for two weapon fighting.... and a white hood

 

[Gradine]

So I multi Ranger and Rogue, and have little knives on the inside of my wrist for SA damage, and two med size axes for two weapon fighting.... and a white hood

Don't forget to take Athlete so you can climb at full speed.

 

[Eirikrautha]

Did anyone else notice this: "A sorcerer's magic arises from a sorcerous origin"?

Uhhh, Mike, in the dictionary under "redundant" it says "see redundant"...

 

[gyor]

If you want Batman go Avenger Paladin and get Tavern Brawler and pump dex and strength.

They even call the subclass the Dark Knight. And with find Steed you can summon a Giant Bat.

Hunter's Mark Spell allows you to deal more damage and track the spells target, Oath of Enimity channel divinity power gives you advantage agianst the target. He can cast haste on himself and it will work on his giant bat mount.

Soul of Vengence allows you to wack the target of your oath of enimity if they attack anyone else, Relentless Avenger allows you to move half your speed when you hit someone with an attack of opportunity, and Avenging Angel allows you to grow wings (bat cloak) and fly while projecting an aura of menance (causing fear) against any enemies that come near you. I could continue.

Tavern Brawler boost strength, gives him unarmed fighting and improvised weapon fighting, with grappling as a bonus action.

I'd say the Ninja Monk is more Nightcrawler, stealthy, bamphing ability, good unarmed attacks and wasn't Nightcrawler a monk or something at one time.

Fighter Battlemaster or Champion with Shield Master and Tavern Brawler is Captain America.

Monk of the 4 Elements or Barbarian Totem Warrior is Superman.

Dr. Strange is a Warlock.

She-ra Fey Bladelock maybe. Or Fey Knight.

Wolverine Champion Fighter.

Storm Tempest Domain Cleric. Use Magic Iniate feat to get shock grasp.

Godzilla, Dragonborn with an enlargement spell.

Lady Death, Eldrich Knight.

Purgatory Tiefling Dragon Sorceror.

Blink Tiefling (without horns) Fey Bladelock

Wonder Woman, Monk of the Way of the Open Hand.

Collosus Druid of the Circle of the Moon, becoming a Earth(metal) Elemental.

 

[Li Shenron]

Well, yes and no. You only get one sub-class per class and only at third level (presumable to reduce the temptation of dipping for sub-classes.) But you could theoretically pick up 6 sub-classes by 18th level if you were so inclined. And rolled really really well for stats, since you need to meet the prerequisites and spent your whole carrier dodging stat boosts.

At any rate the point is you can pick up more than one sub-class but it requires extensive multi-classing, which has it's own baked in disincentives.

Or use the DMG option to mix'n'match different subclasses features.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Or use the DMG option to mix'n'match different subclasses features.

Is this rumor, or do we know for a fact this is planned? And do we know if it includes guidelines for mixing features from subclasses of two separate parent classes? (I'm bugged that, from what we've heard/seen, the druid lacks an animal companion option like the ranger has. )

 

[Minigiant]

It is not just the Barman build. The subclasses shown display either a lack of creativity, a lack of appreciation to older edition builds, or a scheme to sell later books.

For example, I could name 4 other very popular rogue archetypes that had mechanical backing in previous editions.

• The Artful Dodged build. This is the Improved Feint rogue of 3e and the Artful rogue rogue of 4e. Feint as a Cunning action would be good. Same with Charisma to damage if you feint.bonus languages and fast talking. A lot is there.
• The Strength rogue. This is the rogue who takes a weapon proficiency feat in 3e or the brutal scoundrel of 4e or the melee rogue of 1e and 2e. A lot of overlap with the thug. Medium armor and Sneak Attack with a longsword or battleaxe.
• The Scout. This is the scout class and wilderness rogue of 3e, the 4e rogue with tons of movement powers, or the "noncombat" rogue of earlier editions. Bonus speeds. Tracking. Skrimishing. Search as a Cunning action.
• The Acrobat. Well the thief stole have his stuff. The Scout with take half what is left. And the monk left of what's left after the other two is done. Acrobatic charges. Balance class features. Leaps and controlled falls. Redundant if you include the scout and aren't creative.

The many thing that get me is... these were in earlier playtest.
Why'd they take them out?
Like shouldn't the rogue, the skills class, have many subclasses which focus on a suite of skills?
Are they holding it for the Book of Rogue or are they saying "have your DM do it"?