5E Obsolete Classes From Previous Editions

lowkey13

I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
I question the inclusion of Thief in that list.
I question the inclusion of anything other than Fighting Man.

I mean, who needs a Magic User when you have Magic Items? Or, put another way, when all you have is a sword, all your problems look like orcs, amirite?
 
I question the inclusion of anything other than Fighting Man.

I mean, who needs a Magic User when you have Magic Items? Or, put another way, when all you have is a sword, all your problems look like orcs, amirite?
urknott. ;P

Seriously, though, the Thief is a newfangled denizen introduced in the Greyhawk supplement, only the Fighter, Magic-User, and Cleric have the foundational ultra-legitimacy of being in the original Men & Magic booklet!
(Yes, I prefaced that with 'seriously.' … yes, I know what 'irony' is, why do you ask?)

(Also the Thief/Rogue is unjustifiable once you introduce a workable skill system to the game - which, admittedly, didn't happen for 25 years, so I can see how folks got used to having it around.)

Though I could see just Fighting Man and Magic Man.
Well, /Person/, we can't be sexist in the 21st century, now can we?
 
Howzabout Fighting Dude.
Instead of "roll initiative" you'd say "waaaaazzup!"

Dude is unisex, right?
No, a 'Dude' is a guy knocking around the old west in city-slicker duds. Thus 'Dude Ranch.'


Definition of dude (Entry 1 of 2)
1 : a man extremely fastidious in dress and manner : dandy
2 : a city dweller unfamiliar with life on the range (see range entry 1 sense 3b)
especially : an Easterner in the West

3 informal : fellow, guy



...so it'd have to be Persun of Physical Conflict Resolution.
 

lowkey13

I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
Instead of "roll initiative" you'd say "waaaaazzup!"



No, a 'Dude' is a guy knocking around the old west in city-slicker duds. Thus 'Dude Ranch.'


Definition of dude (Entry 1 of 2)
1 : a man extremely fastidious in dress and manner : dandy
2 : a city dweller unfamiliar with life on the range (see range entry 1 sense 3b)
especially : an Easterner in the West

3 informal : fellow, guy



...so it'd have to be Persun of Physical Conflict Resolution.
Maybe ...

'Sup, Magic Brah? Kindly spare sum fireballz?
 
Maybe ...

'Sup, Magic Brah? Kindly spare sum fireballz?

Or, "Persun of Supernatural Challenge-Obviation, please Thermally Sanction the opposing group of alternatively-moral individuals while they are still in proximity to eachother."
 
Last edited:

MoonSong

Rules-lawyering drama queen... Be nice plz n_n
Cross quoting form another thread:
The key problem I see with 'doing' the 3.x Sorcerer in 5e (the 5e Sorcerer does the 4e Sorcerer fine, it just needs to cover each 'build' with a sub-class), is, again, that lack of player options to customize the character. Each sorcerer you could have made in 3.x would require a sub-class tailored to it.
That's a funny thing. While the sorcerer sorely needs more obvious subclasses -limited by the release schedule, the designers had to choose, even if the other four or five proposed subclasses had made the cut, that's but the tip of the iceberg- the designers kept scrapping the bottom of the barrel to give the wizard a token archetype in the same book. We could expect a few setting-speciffic wizard subclasses, but beyond a generalist -that is hard to do- or even a lich oriented subclass there's not much thematic room to expand it. Yet the wizard apparently obsoletes the sorcerer?
 
Cross quoting form another thread:


That's a funny thing. While the sorcerer sorely needs more obvious subclasses -limited by the release schedule, the designers had to choose, even if the other four or five proposed subclasses had made the cut, that's but the tip of the iceberg- the designers kept scrapping the bottom of the barrel to give the wizard a token archetype in the same book. We could expect a few setting-speciffic wizard subclasses, but beyond a generalist -that is hard to do- or even a lich oriented subclass there's not much thematic room to expand it. Yet the wizard apparently obsoletes the sorcerer?
All I can say is, they're called WIZARDS of the Coast for a reason. ;P
 

reelo

Explorer
That one made me wish we had a down votes option.
Why's that?
With those four, all your bases are covered: Martial , arcane magic, divine magic, and utility.
All the other classes are just variations on those themes.
 

TwoSix

Lover of things you hate
Heck, even the division between Wizard and Cleric is doing too much work codifying the magic system.

Just use the UA Sidekick classes: Warrior, Expert, Spellcaster.
 
We should just have one class; Adventurer, and everything else done with talents, feats, powers, or similar customization mechanics.

There, we've reduced obsolete classes down to the most basic: none.
 

Advertisement

Top