D&D 5E Which of these UA subclasses do you HATE?

[Coroc]

The original ranger got random, rather unusual, followers at 8th level, I think it was. It could include something like a band of pixies or a green dragon, IIRC. They also got the 1st level Druid Animal Friendship spell, which could be - and, can be in 5e -used to get an animal or few to hang out with you, Grizzly-Adams-style.

So, yeah, the Druid and Ranger, from the beginning, could have 'pets.'

It's not like archery & TWF, which the original ranger wasn't especially well-suited to, and, indeed, based on it's considerable stat qualifications, was if anything less likely to have the DEX to do well.

And let us not forget the 1e 2d8 starting hp which made him possibly the potential survivor. I can't tell from experience other than in gold box games since I started pnp in 2e.

 

[Tonguez]

It has a unique power to break plots.

Some fantasy storylines make discovering the True Name of some entity or other a key plot point. Arch-fiends and the like go to great ends to conceal them. And now some 2nd level wizard can come along and uncover the deepest secret with no effort at all, and there is nothing even the most powerful arch-fiend can do to stop them.

Im not so sure thats a major issue since the level 2 power is a Charm effect and the likes of Orcus and Demogorgon have Immunity to Charm. But yes I can see that being an issue with something like a Ancient Dragon or the like.

I can also see the issue with too much metamagic in an already magic saturated game.

But True Names are a major fantasy trope so its great to see them being utilised in game.

I'm not particularly hung up on identifying it as specifically the "Be the Nameless One" subclass. Fiction is full of heroes back from death, or the verge of it. The Crow, Ghost Rider, the Bride from Kill Bill, the recent fad for reincarnation stories in anime, the list goes on.

But I make it a deliberate policy not to treat anything in D&D as something indented to replicate an outside character. Take inspiration from them, sure, but square peg into a round role is an understatement for how badly trying to directly import characters can go. Even characters from a D&D video game.

the reference in my head was the Crow (who could possibly pass as a rogue, but not so much the Bride or Ghost Rider). The main issue for me is that this class seems too much like a video game character and not a subclass. A PC ‘ghost/crow/revenant’ should be treated as a Background or a template Not a rogue.

 

[Leatherhead]

So out of curiosity what’s wrong with Onomancy?

Three things:

• It's a Wizard subclass. Wizard subclasses generate more hate than normal because people still have baggage from 3.x days.
• It replicates metamagic via an alternative mechanic. People are paranoid about the Sorcerer's toes being trod on by anything. Which is doubly weird because Sorcerers have done more than their fair share of stomping on other classes feet.
• The concept of True Names makes the class weird. In previous lore True Names were hidden divine serial numbers that constituted win conditions for campaigns. With the Onomancer, people automatically know and can even change their True Name. Also what used to be a game winning utterance is now used to grant basic things like extra damage or a penalty on saving throws. The incongruities between the renditions are too great of a gap.

There just isn't anything salvageable from the idea. For starters, a wizard subclass that mimics a sorcerer isn't ever going to get enough approval to make it past UA. But this one was unique in that the mechanics and even the lore threw people off.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

The protagonist in Planescape: Torment CRPG (which is excellent BTW).

I remember now.

That was an interesting character. Very cool.

Would be difficult to make it work well as a player character though.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

There is only one person I ever saw say they actively hated the warlord. “I don’t see a need” doesn’t mean hate. Maybe if some people wouldn’t take anything that isn’t glowing support as “you’re a h4ter!”, maybe there wouldn’t be so much drama.

Otherwise I’m anxious to see all of these people saying they hate the warlord or psion, as opposed to people just disagreeing with you

For the record i voted "hate" for all the classes. But i hate psions the most. Just a random side note.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

For the record i voted "hate" for all the classes. But i hate psions the most. Just a random side note.

There aint no psionity clause.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

There aint no psionity clause.

Huh?

 

[Seramus]

I'm sure someone has already mentioned this, but doesn't the Psion subclass resemble a Starcraft Templar / Archon?

"My life for Athas!"

 

[Gladius Legis]

All.

Tbh i also voted all. I actually hate 5e classes in general so i wasnt surprised when i found myself hating all this books subclasses.

5e depresses me sometimes.

Question: Why are you even on the 5e boards? It's obvious you hate it, been obvious since you both started posting here. Why devote your time to posting on the boards of a game you obviously hate?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Huh?

Doesn't anyone remember 1935 movies any more?!