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

[Pssthpok]

I'd honestly get rid of half the classes if I had my druthers, but if I'm forced to ditch one, I'd have to ditch the warlock.

Why?

Because the warlock so easily usurps so many other classes and I'm only allowed to kick one. Warlocks cover clerics, druids, paladins, and sorcerers. None of those classes have to exist thanks to the warlock. C'est la vie. Bye bye, warlock.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

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.

Normally I like unique casting frameworks. A lot. In 3E, I loved incarnum and the Tome of Magic classes to death (even if two of the three were basically unplayable). And of course I loved the original warlock. In 4E, the uniformity of the powers system was the one thing that chafed the most, and I welcomed psionics and the Essentials line as breaths of fresh air. So that's where I'm coming from.

The thing is, the 5E warlock's mechanics feel to me like a half-baked unique casting framework. Kludged together. Noncommittal. Inelegant. Between invocations, spell slots, and mystic arcana, it's got three different avenues of spellcasting, like the writers couldn't decide on how it was supposed to work. The fact that it's the only class which doesn't use the standard spell slot system, and it's a mess, really makes it feel like the odd one out. That's why it got my vote. If it had been a closer adaptation to the clean and simple 3E warlock, then I'd agree with you that we could do without the sorcerer instead.

 

[Mercule]

Normally I like unique casting frameworks. A lot. In 3E, I loved incarnum and the Tome of Magic classes to death (even if two of the three were basically unplayable). And of course I loved the original warlock. In 4E, the uniformity of the powers system was the one thing that chafed the most, and I welcomed psionics and the Essentials line as breaths of fresh air. So that's where I'm coming from.

The thing is, the 5E warlock's mechanics feel to me like a half-baked unique casting framework. Kludged together. Noncommittal. Inelegant. Between invocations, spell slots, and mystic arcana, it's got three different avenues of spellcasting, like the writers couldn't decide on how it was supposed to work. The fact that it's the only class which doesn't use the standard spell slot system, and it's a mess, really makes it feel like the odd one out. That's why it got my vote. If it had been a closer adaptation to the clean and simple 3E warlock, then I'd agree with you that we could do without the sorcerer instead.

I'll agree that the 5E Warlock lost some of what made the 3E class gear, mechanically (truly going all day long). I think what 5E introduced is still interesting, though. In fact, I've considered using the 5E Warlock mechanic to build a new Artificer class.

I can totally understand what you're saying, though. There is room for improvement in Warlock. Having both Sorcerer and Warlock is redundant. The two bits of classes could be easily merged into one. I think that, even if it took some work, the Warlock is a better starting point for both, mechanically.

 

[SwivSnapshot]

I refuse to vote if I can only pick one. Everything but the fighter, cleric, thief and wizard can go as far as I'm concerned- they're just sub-class or multi-class variants of the big four.

 

[Kichwas]

Actually the opposite, the designers can't let go of the wizard and put subtle things to discourage you from playing anything else. Going from the playtest, sorcerer, turn into a mosnter, warlock grow old and ugly, psion sorry mystic scarred by the horrors of the far realm....You play either a wizard or you are a deformed ugly insane freak of nature. Be a disgusting monster or play a wizard!

Except... it wasn't until WotC bought D&D that we had anything else? And where did they start, a class that at launch of 3e was basically the same as a Wizard, except you didn't need to memorize spells, with the exchange that you only got a limited number.

And ever since then they have been constantly coming up with new tangents for a class they clearly dislike - but are too scared of tradition to kill off.

I started this half joking, but that doesn't mean I don't have a point here. We went from 1974 to 2000 with basically the Wizard and somewhat the Illusionist. Suddenly we're getting all kinds of classes that are basically near identical.

 

[JetstreamGW]

Though I like all the classes, for the purposes of the thread I suppose I'd have to kill the Monk. Its thematic is kinda weird when compared to the rest of the classes.

If one must die, let it be Monk... Though my second choice would probably be the Sorcerer. It's alright, but as presented in core I think it could have been more interesting, or at least had more options. And given the Unearthed Arcanas that have come out related to it, apparently WotC agrees.

Edit: Oh and I guess when I say the second choice would be Sorcerer, what I think I really mean is that I'd take the Sorcerer, mash it together with the Warlock, and make one class out of both of them that actually makes sense. I like the Warlock, but it's strangely constructed.

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.

Because Western monks don't have a particular tradition of unarmed fighting and don't say anything about Ki.

Western monks are just cloistered or itinerant priests, usually.

 

[Azurewraith]

I voted paladin as well hes just a cleric when it all boils down to it. Casts holy spells(as a cleric does) Plate(cleric) God(cleric) and on and on. I would make the paladin a cleric subclass and just make him slightly more martial and make him swear an oath to his gods ideals.

 

[discosoc]

That was a tough choice between monk and warlock. Both really should just be specializations of other classes, if anything.

 

[Zardnaar]

I voted Monk. Because Monks.

 

[Bluenose]

Cleric. As we're all aware from the Warlord thread if you can't identify a character that can't be modelled without a particular class, that class doesn't need to exist. And I can't identify any characters that need all the Cleric abilities, so it's obviously superfluous.