D&D 5E Starting to Hate Hexblades

[TwoSix]

Note that a player could enjoy that as only one of many things they want, and many players like flexing system mastery within constraints, even if (often especially if) it means they don't overshadow other players. Once you get a knack for systems, it's hard to un-see the synergies that exist.

In other words: multiclassing doesn't mean munchkin.

Oh, absolutely not. As both someone that both enjoys multiclassing and enjoys powergaming, I would never assert that.

 

[Don Durito]

Thanks. There are a few neat new ones in here, as well as some familiar ones I'd expect to see, like Blur, Strength, and Vampiric Touch.

But no Fireball or Magic Missile!

These days they might be 'iconic'. Back then we thought they were boring.

 

[Don Durito]

why do you think those were changed to fighter and wizard?

Do you honestly think those are that much better?

Fighter is only better because it's no longer gender specific.

wizard is clearly better than magic user.

I believe WotC considered changing "Fighter' to "Warrior' for 3rd edition but chickened out.

Shame.

 

[Mannahnin]

But no Fireball or Magic Missile!

These days they might be 'iconic'. Back then we thought they were boring.

Pretty sure I saw Magic Missile and several variants of it in there.

 

[cbwjm]

Pretty sure I saw Magic Missile and several variants of it in there.

You did. Torment had magic missiles, a fire version of the spell, and rain of anger (I think that's the name) which was a beefier version if magic missile dealing 1d4+2 per missile.

 

[Scott Christian]

I played every individual class but pointed out one of my rules is don't deliberately build a bad character.

Sorry, I did not have time to read the entire thread. If it has been explained, apologies.

But, would you mind clarifying this statement?

 

[ECMO3]

the cleric would have benefited from being wider conceptually.

I think they all would have. The four original 1970s classes (including Dwarf, Elf, Halfling) were very much designed around stereotypes and tropes based either on myth or real middle ages history (or myth from the middle ages)

The cleric was the worst of these because it used concepts associated specifically with Christian warrior-priests in the 9th-14th century Europe and then applied them to what was supposed to be a polytheistic world.

For example the no edged weapons comes specifically from Clergy in the battle of hastings who had to carry maces and actually were not allowed to use edged weapons ..... so clerics of the God of murder can't use daggers because of this obscure peice of history from a real life battle some 1910 years prior.

 

[ECMO3]

"Y'know, I wanna make a pact with a Fey Being to pick up a few specific class features, and then never again have anything to do with my warlock patron" and it just -happens-.

This is a huge problem I think. The rest is not that big a deal and usually easily explained, especially if level up happens on downtime.

The Warlock as a class is broken in my opinion because of the pact. It makes little sense and to be honest I don't find it very fun if the DM makes a story out of it either. It becomes a distraction from the campaign unless it is the campaign. And in the latter case that means you have one main PC and bunch of sidekicks.

I think they should have done the warlock mechanic different. Through study of dark arts and witchcraft you take the powers from a divine being (they are not given willlingly and there is no pact). You siphon off minute amounts of power from a demigod or other high level power to fuel your spells and abilities.

Some of the early D&D warlocks in novels subscribed to this philosophy and you could keep all the current powers and abilities, just get rid of the pact itself which is the most troubling part.

 

[ECMO3]

Except 4e! Where multiclassing was actually quite balanced in most cases. There were a couple edge cases (ironically, the hybrid Paladin|Warlock, though for very different reasons), but the balance overall was quite good. MC feats were probably a little too strong as standalone feats, but not to the point of being unbalanced.


Sigh. The irony of yet another 4e method of doing things being crapped on for being terrible....and then getting copied by 5e and being called great.

Yes 4E was balanced all right. Everything in the game classes, monsters, races, rules ...... it all sucked equally.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Do you honestly think those are that much better?

Fighter is only better because it's no longer gender specific.

Nah, Fighter is way better than Fighting Man. The Gendered name was bad, but "Fighting Person" sounds just as stupid as "Fighting Man", and is way worse of a name than "Fighter". I do wish that they'd just rename the "Fighter" to "Warrior", because that name is way more evocative, but it's just yet another sacred cow that D&D has to hang on to.

(I mean, seriously, how cool would it have been back in the 1e/2e era when they made full books/player guides for different classes called "Warriors and Wizards" for the name-change from "Fighting Man" and "Magic User"!?!? Alliteration ftw! This is "Dungeons and Dragons", after all, not "Dungeons and Winged-Lizards".)