List of classes that should be cut before the warlord ever sees the chopping block

Seriously of all the proposed classes for 5e the warlord attracts all the haters despite being one of the most distinct and viable class concepts in the game's history. Frankly it's more in need of it's own class than any of the classes outside the core 4, and in all honestly probably beats out the cleric from a mythology/fiction standpoint. 

However let's just stick to the most egregiously redundant classes that seem to be getting a free pass.

1. Assassin: Seriously? in a game where sneak attack is the rogue's signature move we need an assassin class?

2. Illusionist: This class would be fine if there was also a necromancer, evoker, abjurer, enchanter, transmuter, and conjurer, and the wizard either didn't exist as a base class, or held a special role outside of the magical schools. As it is it just makes the assassin look like a legit concept.

Who else should get the axe before the warlord? 
Seriously of all the proposed classes for 5e the warlord attracts all the haters despite being one of the most distinct and viable class concepts in the game's history. Frankly it's more in need of it's own class than any of the classes outside the core 4, and in all honestly probably beats out the cleric from a mythology/fiction standpoint. 

However let's just stick to the most egregiously redundant classes that seem to be getting a free pass.

1. Assassin: Seriously? in a game where sneak attack is the rogue's signature move we need an assassin class?

2. Illusionist: This class would be fine if there was also a necromancer, evoker, abjurer, enchanter, transmuter, and conjurer, and the wizard either didn't exist as a base class, or held a special role outside of the magical schools. As it is it just makes the assassin look like a legit concept.

Who else should get the axe before the warlord? 


Is the illusionist getting a "free pass"?  I don't think I've seen anyone demand that it be a distinct class.  I'd have figured it was generally accepted to belong in the wizard class.
Actually, related to your point #2, I'd rather see the Wizard class removed, or at least drastically cut down into maybe the "Evoker" or something exactly to make room for Summoner, Beguiler, Necromancer, and so on.

Anyway,  think that the Warlord is more deserving of a spot than Paladin or Ranger. Maybe if the Cleric were more limited to the cloth-wearing white mage archetype that's an actual thing rather than the heavily armored crusader that is the D&D invention, I could see the point in having a Paladin. As for Ranger, I don't see the point in its staying unless they just go ahead and make it either the Archer class or Beastmaster class rather than have is straddle some weird, unnecessary line between martial Druid and primal Rogue... Hmm, I guess my problem with these classes, though, is more that they need to undergo heavy redefinition rather than that they need to be removed completely... Still, the point remains that the Warlord is more solid than they are.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
Currently the illusionist exists as a wizard tradition, the warlord's a happening thing, and hopefully the decision to include the assassin will have everything to do with coolness and nothing to do with need.
The most egregiously indistinct classes in the game remain the Cleric and Fighter. Neither should exist.



Replace em both and the Paladin with Knight and Let him get miracles the old fashioned way... ?
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

I'm using the list of classes proposed by the devs, i.e. the anything that was in a phb 1 list, and that includes both assassin and illusionist as separate classes, since I've seen no articles saying that they've decided to stray from this list I figured there were classes more deserving of the hate warlord is catching.
I'm using the list of classes proposed by the devs, i.e. the anything that was in a phb 1 list, and that includes both assassin and illusionist as separate classes, since I've seen no articles saying that they've decided to stray from this list I figured there were classes more deserving of the hate warlord is catching.

There's no such thing as "too many classes", regarldless of how utterly redundant most of them end up being.

The problem lies in a DM (or worse, another player at the table) insisting that Bill the Figther cannot join the Shogun's court without taking levels in Samurai, or issue orders to the hirelings without taking levels in Warlord.
I disagree, but that's not the point.

If people are gonna push for certain classes from the devs' list to get cut, I figure we should focus on the hyper-redundant ones first.
I wish the factotum would make the list... but no one really loved him as he was born into a dying world... He will always be my favorite class though...
I wish the factotum would make the list... but no one really loved him as he was born into a dying world... He will always be my favorite class though...


Some of the stuff I've heard the devs say about the bard makes me think they're looking at the factotum for inspiration there.
I wish the factotum would make the list... but no one really loved him as he was born into a dying world... He will always be my favorite class though...

I love the Factotum.  It is the true Jack of All Trades and the best support class ever made.  When played right it can fill any hole in any party on a round by round basis, changing roles every round.
Parties with a good Factotum in them are good times.

To the point in thread, I am beginning to see the logic in the "core 4" being the classes that need to go the most.  For all they are iconic, they are also too all encompassing.  They are too much to too many people.  The urge to piogeonhole other classes into the nearest "core" class is too great.  If D&D is to be a game that has classes, the most generic classes are the ones that need to go for the safety of the rest.

It'll never happen though.

I wish the factotum would make the list... but no one really loved him as he was born into a dying world... He will always be my favorite class though...


Some of the stuff I've heard the devs say about the bard makes me think they're looking at the factotum for inspiration there.

Really!? What have you heard?

Nothing ever struck me as Factotum-inspired, but I'm a fan of both classes, so win-win for me.

Danny

Rogues they stole the fighters stealth and ability to climb things properly in 1e... and later social skills too. Why does a thief get better Diplomacy than my Nobleman Knight...huh!!!!!! 

Kick em off the team....  
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

I disagree, but that's not the point.

If people are gonna push for certain classes from the devs' list to get cut, I figure we should focus on the hyper-redundant ones first.

Actually I think that's precisely the point. You can't really ever have too many classes because they're among the easiest things in the game to disregard, rename or reflavour.

I suspect that every single class people lobby to be "cut" will make an appearance at some point or other, though in what context is a point of debate. Even if you disagree on the point of whether you can have too many classes, the track record in D&D is really not on your side. D&D (and other systems that use character classes) have always created classes for virtually everything.



I've seen soooo many threads crying over/screaming for/howling against the warlord. Honestly people, it's a character class. It's gonna show up 'cause there's never any harm in making a character class. The discussion is moot 'cause it will be there, and because it's a character class it's easy to include or exclude. Seriously, get over it or something.

No, too many classes is an issue because the more you have the harder it is to give each one the support it needs.

That said if 5e keeps the class, background, specialties, and races from getting dependent on one another then maybe spamming classes won't be a problem.
Illusionist definitely needs to see the chop if it is ever attempted to be split from the Wizard.  I think Monk could probably use the chop as well, it is a non-distinct jumble of wire-fu and Fighter that it could probably be covered with a background and a Specialty.  Assassin should just be made part of the Rogue as a Scheme.

But, I would rather they didn't chop at all.
CORE MORE, NOT CORE BORE!
Aye, but if they do there are things that need to be in front of the warlord.
I'd like to point out that illusionist has never been it's own class. Even in 1e it was a variant of Wizard.
My two copper.
I'd like to point out that illusionist has never been it's own class. Even in 1e it was a variant of Wizard.



In much the same way the Druid was a variant of the Cleric, the Paladin and Ranger were variants of the Fighter, and the Assassin was a variant of the Thief.
CORE MORE, NOT CORE BORE!
I know I cant make any of the wizards from myth and legend very well with a vancian wizard lets cut it out.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

No PH1 classes should be cut before or after the Warlord but should all be in there as R&D said.

I want all PH1 classes in the next iteration of D&D!

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

That said if 5e keeps the class, background, specialties, and races from getting dependent on one another then maybe spamming classes won't be a problem.

 

Precisely. The other strategy that's looking to be used is a common set of mechanics, such as common spell lists and expertise dice/maneuvers... I have mixed feelings about this strategy, but it also means you can tack whatever class you want into it and nobody's in a position to complain.

I'd rather see the Wizard class removed, or at least drastically cut down into maybe the "Evoker" or something exactly to make room for Summoner, Beguiler, Necromancer, and so on.



This are my thoughts too...
Currently the illusionist exists as a wizard tradition, the warlord's a happening thing, and hopefully the decision to include the assassin will have everything to do with coolness and nothing to do with need.



yes
I'd like to point out that illusionist has never been it's own class. Even in 1e it was a variant of Wizard.



In much the same way the Druid was a variant of the Cleric, the Paladin and Ranger were variants of the Fighter, and the Assassin was a variant of the Thief.



The Druid is it´s own thing. Assassin kill´s people, thief steals stuff... Laughing

Those classes can be categorized under broader groups, like 2E groups or 4E roles, but IMO they are pretty strong concepts that deserve it´s own class in a class oriented game.

It´s just a matter on how you organize those concepts, but people are going to have all the archetypes, either as a class or something else. I wouldn't mind playing a fighter build called ranger or beast master (two different concepts) as long as it fulfills the archetype's concept.

I wouldn´t mind if Warlord would became a build or a theme you can add on top of any class, I don´t necessarily see the warlord tied to martial characters, for any other reason than campaign requirement.
I wouldn´t mind if Warlord would became a build or a theme you can add on top of any class, I don´t necessarily see the warlord tied to martial characters, for any other reason than campaign requirement.



I kinda think that people are selling the concept of a warlord short by insisting it be pretty much as it is in 4e. There's certainly room for it to be that way, but there's no reason why I couldn't see an arcane warlord or a divine warlord. Basically anyone who focuses on commanding a field and supporting other characters could be construed as a warlord. The exploration on what else a warlord could be might yield some really cool things that (it seems to me) a lot of folks are just dismissing as a matter of course.

 

I kinda think that people are selling the concept of a warlord short by insisting it be pretty much as it is in 4e. There's certainly room for it to be that way, but there's no reason why I couldn't see an arcane warlord or a divine warlord. Basically anyone who focuses on commanding a field and supporting other characters could be construed as a warlord. The exploration on what else a warlord could be might yield some really cool things that (it seems to me) a lot of folks are just dismissing as a matter of course.



The 4e Warlord could specialize to the point they were non-combatants or Odysseus or Odin  or , and make just about every stat there primary one... except dex.

They Hybrid better than almost every other class but even without hybriding they were quite unique.

 
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Basically they are quite reasonable on there own and as something you can mingle with other classes because yes many heros do in fact inspire and guide and support each other and manipulate the battlefield. And the intelligent fighter needs to not be a non-entity.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

I know I cant make any of the wizards from myth and legend very well with a vancian wizard lets cut it out.


Thats not true. If you never fill your spell slots and only use rituals you cover a great many of them.

Big Model: Creative Agenda
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? join the Old Guard of 4th Edition
Reality Refracted: Social Contracts

My blog of random stuff 

Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl

"It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the publick to be the most anxious for its welfare." - Edmund Burke
No PH1 classes should be cut before or after the Warlord but should all be in there as R&D said.

I want all PH1 classes in the next iteration of D&D!


They backpeddled on that, during the hangout. They said they will be "represented" and that doesn't neccesarily mean they will be a class.

Big Model: Creative Agenda
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? join the Old Guard of 4th Edition
Reality Refracted: Social Contracts

My blog of random stuff 

Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl

"It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the publick to be the most anxious for its welfare." - Edmund Burke
Arguing that classes should be "cut" goes against everything Next stands for.

You don't have the right to tell people they won't be able to play the things they enjoy just because you don't like them.  Sorry.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
The attitude of this thread alone is suitable grounds for warlords being cut!

Worst Case Scenario: Warlord is absent, then you and your DM can houserule your own. That might be better for some of you, given the commonly unconditional and indignant attiudes floating around.

My mind is a deal-breaker.

Wait, what?

To what attitude are you referring?  The one where intolerant, selfish people insist on ruining the fun for other people by removing things they don't care about, or the one where we all get to play the game we want?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Since when did I, or they, say that we can all play the game we want at once?

There will be table variation, and that's good enough.  It's not utopian, it's the reality of D&D over the last few decades.  It can be done because it has been done.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Wait, what?

To what attitude are you referring?  



Not yours Mand12!!! You are like the Forum Paladin!
Shine on, yo.

I was reffering to the attitude of:
"Let's get rid of all the classes I don't play, before we get rid of the ones I do."
But sounds like this to me...
"Me, Me, Me, Me, Me!"

My mind is a deal-breaker.

I know I cant make any of the wizards from myth and legend very well with a vancian wizard lets cut it out.


Thats not true. If you never fill your spell slots and only use rituals you cover a great many of them.


Undecided


  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

I was reffering to the attitude of:
"Let's get rid of all the classes I don't play, before we get rid of the ones I do."


The thread has snark level off the chart but you are missing the point... the response is a parody of those who want to take away the Warlord.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

No PH1 classes should be cut before or after the Warlord but should all be in there as R&D said.

I want all PH1 classes in the next iteration of D&D!


They backpeddled on that, during the hangout. They said they will be "represented" and that doesn't neccesarily mean they will be a class.



The modular components arent trusted yet... I personally see Rangers and Paladins both as building better if at their core they are a fighter..
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Since when did I, or they, say that we can all play the game we want at once?

There will be table variation, and that's good enough.  It's not utopian, it's the reality of D&D over the last few decades.  It can be done because it has been done.



Not "table variation", actual differences in the actual rules that support and render unviable different people's visions of the game. An unholy amount of effort has been spent trying to obfuscate this fact, but it remains as true as when Aristotle laid it down: "a thing cannot be and not be in the same respect at the same time".


Sure it can.  I really do mean what I say in my sig, that this is the Quantum Edition.  We're dealing with a superposition of D&Ds, a system of systems that collapses to a single form at any given table.  Aristotle is completely wrong - quantum mechanics demonstrates that.

We absolutely can have situations where the rules support conflicting styles of play, with the understanding that you pick one to use at any given table.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
That said if 5e keeps the class, background, specialties, and races from getting dependent on one another then maybe spamming classes won't be a problem.

 

Precisely. The other strategy that's looking to be used is a common set of mechanics, such as common spell lists and expertise dice/maneuvers... I have mixed feelings about this strategy, but it also means you can tack whatever class you want into it and nobody's in a position to complain.




It becomes less painful to grok when a common mechanic is found in modules and not the core.  Ex dice/maneuvers for all is something I would like to design at my table.

To the OP:  before getting rid of the Warlord I would fuse Cleric and Wizard together.  Spellcaster.  That should make room for Enabler.

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

The whole point of Next is changing that phenomenon.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition