D&D 5E (2014) Survivor 5e- What Core Class Needs to Go

[epithet]

Tuck is a Friar, not a Priest.

Tuck's class is Monk.

I don't know where everyone gets this idea that the monk has to be oriental in origin. There were a lot of European monks, and there still are. They focus on introspection and beer. Some of them make lovely furniture, too.

But mostly beer.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Lanefan]

Voted Barbarian, because all along it should have been a sub-RACE of Human with a magic-hating background and not a class at all. Dumb stupid idea.

If I could have voted again, Warlock would be next - what the hell is a Warlock anyway?

After that, Sorcerer - so that Wizards can steal their (non-)memorization mechanics from their rotting corpses - and Bard, which just doesn't work right and never really has.

And while I don't like Paladins as they are I do think there's lots of room in the game for a Knight-like class, so I'd rather see them rebuilt into Cavaliers than removed entirely. See below for what becomes of their holy side...

Rogue should be renamed back to Thief, but kept.

And to fill the holes created by removing the classes noted above, I propose Illusionist, Necromancer, and War Cleric (taking in the Paladin's holy bits but open to all alignments).

Lan-"Friar Tuck is a CLERIC. So much so, in fact, that he's always been my go-to example whenever someone asks me what a D&D Cleric is all about"-efan

 

[GX.Sigma]

I voted Warlock. Because if Warlocks are a thing, then what the heck are Clerics? The coexistence of Cleric and Warlock as core classes implies that there is a very big difference between "real gods" and "not gods," which I don't like.

I like the idea of crazy cultists worshiping random weird things and getting powers from their beliefs and rituals. In old-school D&D, those would be Clerics. In 5e, they aren't Clerics (because their powers are not from a god), and they aren't Warlocks (because their powers are not from a pact). They're definitely not Sorcerers or Wizards or Bards or Druids. So what are they?

 

[Talmek]

Monk. Least genre-appropriate for a prototypical fantasy campaign, and the slack for an "unarmed fighter" or "brawler" could easily be picked up by the Fighter, either by Fighting Style or sub-class.

This is why I voted Monk. I could see if I was running an "Oriental Adventures"-esque campaign, but it's hard for me to imagine an unarmored, unarmed (or minimally armed) martial artist type in a western medieval campaign. Sure, there may have been monasteries in my world, but they don't "fit" like temples do with the clerics & paladins in my world.

 

[Dausuul]

The poll doesn't ask which classes are broken. Not sure how or why you're coming to that conclusion. Especially since they really aren't broken. Not in 1e, and not in 5e. "Not doing exactly what I want how I want it" =/= broken. But specific to this poll, asking which classes people can do away with is a totally different question than which classes people feel is broken. It's like creating poll "Which is your least favorite ice cream" and coming to the conclusion that the ones with the most votes are the most unhealthy.

Yeah, I don't think any of the classes are "broken." I think ranger is the class that has the most trouble coming up with a distinctive identity of its own, so that's the one I voted to get the axe.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

First, we kill the monk, because he got kung fu in our generic western European fantasy.

Next, we axe the warlock and sorcerer, because they're just wizards in drag.

 

[Fralex]

I voted Warlock. Because if Warlocks are a thing, then what the heck are Clerics? The coexistence of Cleric and Warlock as core classes implies that there is a very big difference between "real gods" and "not gods," which I don't like.

I like the idea of crazy cultists worshiping random weird things and getting powers from their beliefs and rituals. In old-school D&D, those would be Clerics. In 5e, they aren't Clerics (because their powers are not from a god), and they aren't Warlocks (because their powers are not from a pact). They're definitely not Sorcerers or Wizards or Bards or Druids. So what are they?

I tend to view the difference as clerics have their spells granted by a god, while warlocks have their patrons teach them the spells themselves. If a patron disowned him, he'd still be able to use the secrets he learned and cast the spells. If a god left a cleric, that magic would leave with it.

 

[Mercule]

Sorcerer.

It was a great mechanical addition, when it was introduced in 3E. The 5E changes to the way Wizard slots work really takes the wind out of that niche, though. Also, the more they try to add flavor to the class, the more it becomes apparent that what mechanics do exist are extremely mismatched to that flavor. The Sorcerer mechanics look more like someone with magical OCD than someone with magic coursing through their veins.

This became especially apparent, to me, during the conversations around the new Psion (er.. Mystic). What I've always used psionics for is to represent people who, for one reason or another, have some inherent magic. It didn't work quite like a caster. There are no words, gestures, or materials; you make the magic happen by internal power and force of will. That's what fits the flavor of the Sorcerer. Using the same casting mechanics as a Wizard who needs to manipulate "the Weave" makes absolutely no sense.

There's not necessarily anything wrong with the shell of the class. It would just serve much better as a framework to hang things like Warmage, Beguiler, etc. on than Wild Mage, Dragon-blooded, and Favored Soul. If you want to include those, and do so using the existing spell list, rather than inventing an entirely new mechanic, there is a way to do it.

The Warlock provides a much more unique casting framework. It is clearly designed to feel different. Pull the Sorcerer subclasses out and tweak them for Warlock. then add a "Pact of the Blood" to represent those born to power, rather than having struck a bargain. That's what I've done for my game. A Blood Pact Dragon-blood is just peachy balanced against anything else at the table and it feels a lot more interesting, compared to the Wizard than she did as a Sorcerer.

Lots of people are saying Warlock, because you don't need both it and the Sorcerer. I agree, but I think their solution is backwards. Kill the Sorcerer, keep the Warlock.

 

[fuindordm]

I voted sorcerer, because I like having more than one version of arcane spellcasting but four is way too much (and three of them are Cha-based!).

I might have chosen bard or warlock instead, but the sorcerer is bland in comparison. And the storyline of "my magic comes from an ancestor" could just as well be rolled into the stories of the other classes ("only those with innate magic can learn to use it"). Then the bard and wizard are just complementary traditions of arcane magic, and the warlock is left as the class for people who were so desperate for power that they enter into a dark bargain to get their innate magic.

So I say, kill the sorcerer, stick the metamagic into a "Generalist" specialization of the wizard, and breath a sigh of relief.