D&D 5E To much 5th edition content?

[Older Beholder]

I think the slow release strategy has been extremely successful.
The quality of quantity approach means we're still a long way from bloat, while still having enough material to realize almost anything you could want/need.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I've said in the past I think this could be fixed by adding a new fighting style for Direct The Strike and a couple of maneuvers including one that makes someone spend hit dice.

Aberrant Mind Sorcerer hits almost every single point of a sorcerer. Uses power points (fully interchangeable between metamagic and spells) and has all the psionic abilities/spells including getting to use them like psionics.

The swordmage is very different from the other two. Delivering a spell through a sword should, I agree, be a thing - but it's starting to drift into the territory of the Paladin smite spells (with the Paladin having expanded massively thematically and pressuring Gish classes because of it)

Agreed

Storm Herald Barbarian has Tundra as one of the choices and Circle of the Land Druids get arctic as a choice. There should however be both clerics and sorcerers of winter.

Bards certainly have unique spells. I don't think they have many but they definitely have Vicious Mockery as a cantrip and Dissonant Whispers at first level. (Note: this does not include subclass poaching). Possibly unique spells for subclasses would be an idea.

Both Ranger and Paladin qualify here.

Im guessing your aren't a big fan of psionics because a sorcerer is not the same as a psionicist.

You don't even have to pick that subclass to replicate that list of "psionlike things" except the ignore component part . Every sorcerer can have spelllpoints and use the spells-that-once-were-psionic-powers.

Not going to argue that old chestnut, but it's rare to find a fan of psionics who thinks 5e has psionics in it.

 

[HammerMan]

Bards certainly have unique spells. I don't think they have many but they definitely have Vicious Mockery as a cantrip and Dissonant Whispers at first level. (Note: this does not include subclass poaching). Possibly unique spells for subclasses would be an idea.

yes bards have great unquie spells (maybe not enough but that's a granular argument) what they don't have is weapon or martial enhancing unique spells.

Both Ranger and Paladin qualify here.

both are divine (Druid like and cleric like) and even then only 1 or 2 ranger spells and the smite spells really do that much.

I would argue the Paladin is the BEST example of the idea

in fact I often find when making arcane swordsman NPCs I am taking spells from paladin ranger and wizard and making up some completely new features for my NPC.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Classes is the main thing. Of which warlord is the most obvious. We have battlemaster which has a few support focused features, but in the end it's still a front line hit things class.

We still don't have a psion either. And despite having tons of gish subclasses, we don't have any which replicate how the swordmage/duskblade/magus acted in prior editions.

No playable plant race which is a shame. They're such a meme in pathfinder and I wish DnD has something similar.

No ice/winter themed subclasses for any class which is surprising.

Of course you can get a pretty good warlord with and bard/battle master MC. Actually I wish there were far fewer classes and concepts handled by feats and multi classing instead.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

Of course you can get a pretty good warlord with and bard/battle master MC. Actually I wish there were far fewer classes and concepts handled by feats and multi classing instead.

Except you can't. The entire thing about warlord is that it's a support class which isn't magic. Saying 'just play a magic class' defeats the point completely. A battlemaster is 75% smashing stuff, 25% support. It's like saying eldritch knight would be a good replacement for wizard.

Multiclassing is an awful replacement for classes. Sure a cleric/fighter could in theory remove the need for a 'divine fighter' class (paladin), but it will always just play like half a cleric and half a fighter. It won't have unique mechanics of its own. A full class can bring a lot more to the table than a subclass or multiclass.

 

[Vael]

TBH, I've never really cared for a la carte multiclassing as 3rd and 5e do it, so character concepts that rely on it don't interest me much. Though I know this is just my personal taste.

 

[HammerMan]

Except you can't. The entire thing about warlord is that it's a support class which isn't magic. Saying 'just play a magic class' defeats the point completely. A battlemaster is 75% smashing stuff, 25% support. It's like saying eldritch knight would be a good replacement for wizard.

100% this

the ability of 4e to play a party with no magic, but no real holes in the tactics of D&D was amazing. Having a fighter a rogue a ranger a warlord was very similar to a other edition fighter cleric mage thief

the fluff of devotion for clerics and druids rubs some the wrong way... and having OTHER healer/leader/buffer types helped.

Multiclassing is an awful replacement for classes. Sure a cleric/fighter could in theory remove the need for a 'divine fighter' class (paladin), but it will always just play like half a cleric and half a fighter. It won't have unique mechanics of its own. A full class can bring a lot more to the table than a subclass or multiclass.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Except you can't. The entire thing about warlord is that it's a support class which isn't magic. Saying 'just play a magic class' defeats the point completely. A battlemaster is 75% smashing stuff, 25% support. It's like saying eldritch knight would be a good replacement for wizard.

Multiclassing is an awful replacement for classes. Sure a cleric/fighter could in theory remove the need for a 'divine fighter' class (paladin), but it will always just play like half a cleric and half a fighter. It won't have unique mechanics of its own. A full class can bring a lot more to the table than a subclass or multiclass.

I disagree and want different things than you. No worries, we can both be right in what we want. It is not a right/wrong or can/can’t issue. Just a difference of opinion and desires

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

100% this

the ability of 4e to play a party with no magic, but no real holes in the tactics of D&D was amazing. Having a fighter a rogue a ranger a warlord was very similar to a other edition fighter cleric mage thief

the fluff of devotion for clerics and druids rubs some the wrong way... and having OTHER healer/leader/buffer types helped.

My point would be wether or not the warlord/bard/fighter is using magic or not is just fluff. This was must obvious in 4e because you have basically then”power,” just one is called a “spell” and another is called an “exploit,” IRC.

so just say your bard/battle master hybrid is not using his/her magic but knowledge, charm, and wit instead.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Except you can't. The entire thing about warlord is that it's a support class which isn't magic. Saying 'just play a magic class' defeats the point completely. A battlemaster is 75% smashing stuff, 25% support. It's like saying eldritch knight would be a good replacement for wizard.

It is only magic if you call it magic. In 4e the warlords powers were magic by another name. The worked just like a wizard’s spells. It is all fluff.