I was looking through some old D&D books for things to convert to 5E and I found a class that is completely obsoleteed by the 5E PHB. That class is the Crusader a 2E priest from Spells and Magic and Faiths and Avatars. Put simply the war domain does most of what the old Crusader did making conversion more or less moot.
2E Crusader
Can use fighter/martial waeaons
Cleric spells per day
Different spheres than a cleric (restricted spell list)
Fighter THAC0/BAB (unified proficiency bonus obsoletes this).
Can cast lighten load spell (doubles carrying capacity)
There is not enough left of it to make conversion worthwhile IMHO. It was not a bad class in 2E pointless in 5E IMHO.
In the Paladin thread there has been a discussion about Sunhawks which was a 2E specialty priest of Horus Ra. One could call a Paladin or Light Cleric a Sunhawk I suppose or even multiclass but a Paladin 20, Cleric 20 or Paladin 6/Cleric 14 doesn't really cover a Sunhawk very well so I thinkyou could build a new class around that concept. It would be a cleric with no domain and some Paladin abilites and granted abilities in 5E terms.
The Avenger (4E) was almost obsoleted by the Paladin of Vengance. The Warlord (4E) was almost obsoleted by the Battlemaster Fighter who focuses on specific maneuvers (and spends a few feats). The Seeker (4E) was almost obsoleted by the Ranger. The Hexblade (3E) was rolled into the Warlock. The Favored Soul (3E) can be done with a Sorcerer variant. The Marshal (3E) could be done by the Battlemaster Fighter, sort of. The Archivist (3E) can be sort of done by a Knowledge Cleric or even a Bard maybe.
The 12 classes of 5E, along with the subclass system, can cover a lot of fantasy archetypes. The psionic archetypes are the only things really left out at the momment, and they could consievably be done with subclasses as well (seeing how much the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster subs did to their base classes).
For my own setting, which leans heavily on an elemental theme, all I need to do is make new subclasses and then categorize spells into elements and I'm done.
The Marshal (3E) is nothing like anything 5E can provide. No class, feat, or feature in the game can be used to replicate the Marshal's extraordinary Auras he generated to his allies. It's a pretty unique feature that's specifically taylored to the Marshal and, later, Dragon Shaman.
Two others are the Shadow Assassin (4E) and Warden (4E)
Wizard is obsolete in this edition.
Obsolete?
I think you mean "has been remade as." All the subclasses we have now aren't new, but just reworked old ones from previous games. The crusader was remade under a different name in 3e, then again in 4e, and now again in 5e. Its not obsolete, its just a design that works with the new mechanics, and still has the same concept. Oath of Vengence isn't making the avenger obsolete, its literally the remake of the avenger under a different name; if you read the oath description, its actually still called the avenger.
* The keys of a class.
- An interesting concept or archetype. (Let's remember the incarnate and soulborn from "Magic of Incarnum", paladin's clones). A class isn´t only a list of power, but a mark of identity, and a possible hook to create stories...(for example a love-hate relation among the psionic ardents, the favored souls and the standard clerics).
- Of course a good balance of power.
- The previous one is necesary, but not enough, we also need interesting and fun class features. (I never liked the psychic enervation by Psionic Wilder class).
----
- The dragonfire adept is like a mixture among warlock and monk.
- I imagine the future crusader like a cousin of paladin, but more offensive and spell-breaker, and the avenger like a witch-hunter, a vampire slayer from Castlevania videogames or the inquisitor from pathfinder rpg, without heavy amour, some ranged weapon and defense againts mind-affectin power.
The most of classes from Player Handbook III 4th Ed aren´t too interesting. The warnder and the seeker, the runepriest?
The dragon shaman from PH II (3.5 ed) could be a subclass, but I deffend the idea of variant classes. The variant classes aren´t like subclasses but some of the core class features are replaced with other (we could say the first variant classes would be the AD&D knight from Dragonlance and the gladiator from Dark Sun). For example the Jester class from Dragon Magazine Compedium could be a variant class of bard.
- The concept of warlord is too popular among lots of players to be only a subclass. It isn´t a matter about storytelling or gameplay but about marketing. When a concept or archetype is too famous or popular, it has to be its own class. When a concept has been a class, it has to be it again.
I know it’s been around with years, and 5e did a lot to give the class more of its own feel, but I still have a hard time with the sorcerer not feeling like the younger sibling of the Wizard/Magic-User class.
My suggestion for the sorcerer is subclasses about bloodlines, and each bloodline had got a exclusive pack of "monster traits", a mixture of feats and the soulmelds from "magic of incarnum". Yes, maybe the place for 3.5 incarnum could be the sorcerer's bloodlines.
I'd suggest that the cleric in the traditional sense of a healer is now obsolete. In fact, I'm not sure there really was a point for true clerics to return in Dragonlance.
Xeviat-DM wrote:
Mirtek wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Mirtek wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Hmm... I don't see classes made obsolete, I see concepts made possible.
Semantics I guess.
Mirtek wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
durntaur wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
To be fair the Avenger was in a 4E splat. The avenger Paladin may not be a perfect fit but it comes semi close for a core class. I'm not mad at 5E because I can't do a 3.5 Scout or something but I can come close with the Ranger/Rogue).
I can find several hundred splat book classes from 2E 5E can't do that well most of them would be clerics though.
Long live 2nd Edition! OSR to me and some of the people I know, means finally indulging in writing that one big adventure or campaign we wanted to but could never find time for. As we had to work, go to school, and work, we couldn't do everything we wanted to when we were playing when we were young. I am not looking at 5th Edition products, let me tell you. I am making adventures with a lot more detail and depth than I could before, and I also want to write my own rules and publish.
SirAntoine wrote:
Farmer42 wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
masterfat78 wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
durntaur wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
durntaur wrote:
The DMG specificly suggests changing out armor for armor of faith.
You can also change armor and weapon proficiencies to reflect certain aspects of your world. For example, you could decide that the clerics of a particular deity belong to an order that forbids the accumulation of material goods, other than magic items useful for their divine mission. Such clerics carry a staff, but they are forbidden from wearing armor or using weapons other than that staff. To reflect this, you could remove the armor and weapon proficiencies for clerics of this faith, making them proficient with the quarterstaff and nothing else. You could give them a benefit to make up for the loss of proficiencies- something like the monk's Unarmored Defense class feature, but presented as a divine blessing.
Grab the mobility feat, use hunter's mark, and you have yourself an avenger.
arnwolf666 wrote:
mellored wrote:
It seems like the favored soul sorcerer with a slightly adjusted spell list (give him hunter's mark) would be a good avenger. It also captures the most important part of the avenger--there were umpteen ways of getting wings as one in 4e.
Zardnaar wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
durntaur wrote:
menakles wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
menakles wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Diffan wrote:
There is a space for the arcaner warrior or what-its-name (hexblade, duskblade, swordsage). The blade warlock isn´t the true hexblade. (My opinion is "hexblade" is the best name).
There is a space for arcane-stealth, assasin/spellthief/beguiler. If the psionic lurker was possible, why not an arcane rogue?
There is space for factotum.
The shadow assasin should be a class. Maybe using the "mysteries" from 3.5 Tome of Magic: Pact, shadow and truename.
I have imagine the return of the warblade from "Tome of magic: book of nine swords" but with other name, swashbuckler. The swordsage would be a hybrid arcane + ki maneuvers.
The shaman could be a mixture of druid and the totemist from "magic of incarnum".
* For me the 4th ed wanderer, a primal defender, is a paladin variant class. Maybe incarnum soulmelds could be added for a subclass.
* I like the idea of binder, mixing pact magic and incarnum souldmelds.
* How would be a confrotation between a warmage (3.5 complete arcane) and a seeker (4th player's handbook III)?
* Maybe the favored sould could be a hybrid divine + incarnum soulmelds, and the wilder psionic + incarnum soulmelds.
LuisCarlos17f wrote:
LuisCarlos17f wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Yeah, I should not have jumped our 3rd Ed campaign of 3 years to 4th Ed rules (big mistake...)
I'm waiting for a genuine magical melee class, ala the Swordmage (or swordsage, really), that teleports around and uses actual melee spells every turn instead of a hodgepodge of things from another class. Telekinetic or battlemind style characters aren't really support right now either.
After playing a necromancer, i've really seen how limited a lot of the caster archetypes are right now. I can make a few a zombies or skeletons but 95% of my character ends up being a generic dnd wizard, cherry picking good spells here and there instead of something useful with a strong necromancy theme.
SirAntoine wrote:
menakles wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote: