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

[neobolts]

Warlock. Because the masses rose up and said "We need another caster mechanic! Preferably one that tracks spells in two different way because bookkeeping is the heart and soul of D&D!" Oh wait...that never happened.

 

[epithet]

...
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.

Eh, I just replace the word "ki" with the word "beer" and it all makes a lot more sense. Monks are pacifists--beer is the great unifying force in the history of civilization, and nothing pacifies a rampaging orc more than being knocked unconscious. Makes a lot more sense than trying to shoehorn a lot of "crouching manticore, hidden wyvern" stuff into a setting like Greyhawk.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I voted Ranger. I almost voted Fighter--I dislike it that much--but my dislike is because I feel the mechanics don't live up to the promise, not because I think the class isn't appropriate.

All the issues with trying to balance the pet have demonstrated, to me, that the Ranger is just not really well-thought-out. It also has the "class features turned into spells" issue that I UTTERLY LOATHE about the Paladin, but worse as some are really critical to its function (Hunter's Mark) but it has limited spells known. Plus, the abilities make very little sense--why is it magical that a Ranger can shoot at multiple things? Who CARES if it's with a bonus action it's still ridiculous--particularly for a fifth-level spell!!

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Mercule]

Eh, I just replace the word "ki" with the word "beer" and it all makes a lot more sense. Monks are pacifists--beer is the great unifying force in the history of civilization, and nothing pacifies a rampaging orc more than being knocked unconscious. Makes a lot more sense than trying to shoehorn a lot of "crouching manticore, hidden wyvern" stuff into a setting like Greyhawk.

Scarlet Brotherhood. Who doesn't love adding Nefarious Nazi Ninjas* to their setting?

*alliteration works best with the rule of three

 

[Remathilis]

All of them. We only need two classes: warrior and spellcaster. Everything else is a subclass or multi class.

Reduction by any rationale will eventually lead to this assertion. Anything less is personal bias.

 

[Mercule]

All of them. We only need two classes: warrior and spellcaster. Everything else is a subclass or multi class.

Reduction by any rationale will eventually lead to this assertion. Anything less is personal bias.

What about skill-monkey?

 

[akr71]

All of them. We only need two classes: warrior and spellcaster. Everything else is a subclass or multi class.

Reduction by any rationale will eventually lead to this assertion. Anything less is personal bias.

I can see that working.

What about skill-monkey?

Also, skills should be class independent IMO. If you want to invest in skills, do so, but it shouldn't be at the expense of class abilities. Perhaps ABI, Feat or Skill Increase...

 

[Remathilis]

What about skill-monkey?

Handled by background and skill selection. A rogue subclass of warrior could give the class expertise or additional skill selections if you wanted.

 

[Mercule]

Handled by background and skill selection. A rogue subclass of warrior could give the class expertise or additional skill selections if you wanted.

OK. I'll buy that. If needed, spend a feat to gain X skills.

Taken to its logical conclusion, though, that train of thought gets to character points for build (one class with the ability to select/buy features). That then goes to character points for advancement. I like those systems just fine, but it wouldn't be D&D. The class/level system is the heart of what makes D&D. It adds enough structure to avoid analysis paralysis for casual/new players, but (the heart of changes since late 2E) adds enough options to avoid boredom in advanced players.

One of the things that killed 3E was the feat/class/thing bloat. By the end, it would have been less complex to use Hero or GURPs. There's a balance.

You have to have enough options, without having too many. That's probably a range, but it's still a problem of scarcity -- only so many slot to fill, so use them wisely. If people feel some meaningful options aren't being met (warlord, psion, artificer), and we're anywhere near that sweet spot, it makes sense to ask what resources are being spent poorly. I don't know what "the number" is, but my guess is somewhere in the 10-15 range*, with sub-classes multiplying that by virtue of turning one question into two. Right now, we've got twelve classes, which is right in the middle of that range.

Personally, I'd happily trade the Sorcerer for a good Psion or the Barbarian for an Artificer. That does go back to your point of subjectivity. But, that's what discussion is for: seeing if there's common thoughts on a topic.


* This number is very subjective. I picked a range that "feels right" for mass consumption.