D&D 5E Obsolete Classes From Previous Editions

[the Jester]

gish

Aaargh

 

[Teemu]

There are still a lot of classes which can't be covered with that. Dragon Shamans and Dragonfire Adepts are near the top of the list, but you also have Psions, and Savants (or Factotums, same thing), and the Hexblade class from 3.5 (which is not conceptually similar to any later Hexblade).

Dragon shamans and dragonfire adepts are people with dragon magic. 5e has the draconic bloodline sorcerer, so that's covered. 3.5 hexblades use curses, so do 5e warlocks.

 

[gyor]

Barbarian. 2E is the only edition that got it right -- it's a kit/PrC/archetype for an angry Fighter. Associating totems with rage makes as much sense as associating backstab with spell slots and would be better put on a ranger or (theoretic) warden class archetype. As it stands, the class is a hot mess of random "big, angry fighter" gears.

I guess that's not so much "obsolete" as "pointless", though. So, a more in-line answer:

Binder. I loved the concept of this class, in 3.5. In 5E, it could be quite well represented with a Vestige patron for Warlock.

No, 4e made that mistake and it was aweful, it had none of the dark creepy flavour of the Binder. Binder and Speciality Priest are my top picks for bringing back a class.

 

[Staffan]

2. Beguiler. Another 3.5 class from the PHB 2. I liked this class a lot in 3.5 but the lore bard basically covers it. It's not an exact match but they both cast illusion and enchantment type spells and wear light armor and you could build a lore bard that conceptually duplicates the Beguiler.

I don't know. The beguiler also included a lot of rogue-like elements, such as having an equivalent of sneak attack for magic, which I thought made for a cool addition to just being an illusionist/mindbleeper.

 

[Staffan]

No, 4e made that mistake and it was aweful, it had none of the dark creepy flavour of the Binder. Binder and Speciality Priest are my top picks for bringing back a class.

I could see a Vestiges pact for warlocks that allowed the warlock to swap out spells and invocations by making pacts with different vestiges, but at that point you might as well make a new class entirely.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

If a class is published in Pathfinder or by a third party then it isn't so obsolete. Really obsolete would be when the mark of identity isn't enough popular. For example the warlord is a 5th Ed. by 3rd party class.

 

[Mercule]

No, 4e made that mistake and it was aweful, it had none of the dark creepy flavour of the Binder. Binder and Speciality Priest are my top picks for bringing back a class.

Didn't see the 4E Binder. I'm totally in agreement about the specialty priest, though. Wolud love to see that return.

 

[Mistwell]

As the title say. What classes from previous editions are obsolete in 5E.

SORCERER.

What?

On a more serious note, I miss the Warden, and I don't think it was adequately replaced.

 

[Retreater]

SORCERER.

What?

On a more serious note, I miss the Warden, and I don't think it was adequately replaced.

Man, I hate wardens. I'm DMing a 4E campaign, and his ridiculous AC and crazy defender abilities ruin all my monsters' plans. Haha

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Dragon shamans and dragonfire adepts are people with dragon magic. 5e has the draconic bloodline sorcerer, so that's covered. 3.5 hexblades use curses, so do 5e warlocks.

You can't represent a non-spellcasting class by just turning it into a spellcaster. Spellcasting is an immutable and class-defining concept.