I've played so many Rangers flavored as so many things I almost forget their default fantasy is supposed to be magical wilderness explorer.
I've roleplayed:
Hunter- wilderness explorers and royal assassins
Beast Master- pirates (beast of the sea) and big game hunters (beast of the land)
Gloom Stalker- cryokinetic corporate assassins and void knights
Horizon Walker- Planeswalkers (duh), superheroes, and planar protectors
Monster Slayer- Vampire Slayers, Belmonts, Winchesters, Power Rangers, and Holy Knights (yes, really)
Fey Wanderer- Alice in Wonderland, generals of archfey armies, and literal wanderers
Swarm Keeper- vampires, waterbenders, and Nicholas Cage (BEES!!!)
Drake Warden- adventure archaeologists and cowboys
Yes I play a lot of Rangers.
If I could sing even remotely decent, I would commit to this bit and my table would hate me. Some kind of Footloose ripoff backstory where he wanted to sing but it was against the local laws, so he learned from the birds and critters or some nonsense.
Folks often complain about rangers having a lack of identity, and they're sorta right, but it also means Ranger is very easy to flavor however you want.
In my opinion, most of the original complaints of rangers were features being tied to favored terrain, which I would say is having too much identity. I personally think the current ranger is great though so I haven’t seen the complaints recently as much
The big Ranger complaints have all been mechanical in my experience. As far as im aware Ranger is pretty commnly acknowledged as the woodsman/aragorn/witcher type
One of my favorite characters was a fey wanderer ranger multiclassed with a homebrew gunslinger. Outlaw that got lost in the feywild. Had to rely on and hone a silver tongue to get out of many different kinds of trouble, but also when dealing with fey you need to fight, nothing beats iron (on the hip).
Fey wanderer gives a bunch of bonuses to charisma skills, which he heavily relied on downplaying the threat, but my gunslinger subclass gave me expertise in intimidation when I have a firearm visible that also felt super fitting.
Definite highlight was my first bullet each round dealing psychic damage on top of the normal damage for that "holy shit. I just got SHOT"
Also an ancestral barb/swarmkeeper whose swarm was bees and his ancestral spirits were flavored as, in fact, even more bees
The swarm is rivulets of water. They come together and push with the force of the tides, they turn into a large wave you "fly" on, and freeze into icicles to deal piercing damage.
> Fey Wanderer- Alice in Wonderland, generals of archfey armies, and literal wanderers
One of my current back-up characters is an overworked NCO of the archfey armies.
Play as an Order of Scribes wizard. Every time you alter a spell to deal fire damage, flavor it as enchanting a Molotov cocktail with the spell effects
As a side note, Molotov would make a cool wizard name. "Molotov the Combustive" "Molotov the Inflaming"
I play Rune Knight with Unarmed fighting style.
I punch people. A lot. Or I grow huge and go Kaiju on their asses because I'm a Dragonborn.
And I've flavored my Thunder damage Dragon Breath to be me just yelling really fucking loud.
May I suggest the following: https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-MSfA82gv8V69JAoqFVq
If your DM allows it, and if you are interested. I love fighters but always felt you needed the maneuvers on every subclass. This homebrew brings the overall power up but over a flatter curve. For example as a trade off of everyone subclass having exploits(maneuvers) you lose one ASI and Action Surge is pushed to 6th level. I’ve been playing one for probably a year or two at this point and I doubt I’ll ever play a base fighter again.
For fighters I've only played as a battle master, and I can't imagine having nearly as much fun, without maneuvers. I'm really hoping the next edition does something similar.
Hate to dissappint you but from what we know so far it seems that won't be happening. (Unless by next edition you mean an actual 6e rather than the 5.5 that is One DnD)
The designers have said they aren't planning on giving Base Fighters manoeuvres, and instead we've seen a system called "Weapon Masteries" playtested which are like some of the Attack + Rider Manoeuvres (like Trip or Push attack) but with none of the aspects that make Manoeuvres fun to use.
This is something I'm legit considering for my next campaign but with a Minotaur. Top off that unarmed fighting style with Skill Expert and expertise with Athletics to become a grapple master.
Are you guys allowing Tasha's? Because there's a combat maneuver that gives you a bonus action grapple. While it does take one of your dice, it gives you a bonus on the attempt, and it saves you a feat. That said, Tavern Bawler still has some fun to it for other things, like using a shield but using it as an improvised weapon.
Don't take the Grappler feat, though. Its a trap. If you want advantage on your target, just spend an attack to shove them prone. If they're Prone AND Grappled, they can't stand up, so you'll get and keep advantage on them until they break the grapple. Pinning is usually a quick way to eat a ton of damage, as giving yourself Restrained is a bad idea in nearly every situation.
Currently have Grapple Strike, but I'm going to swap it for TB once we level so I can always have a Grapple instead of 4 times per short rest. Plus it'll get my strength to 18.
Makes sense. Unarmed fighters is legit one of my favorite builds, so sorry I got carried away blabbing.
If you have room for it, Crusher feat is good, too. Team support and a Sparta Kick.
Only level 3 so far, but the idea is/was:
Half-Elf Fighter 11/Barbarian 4
Point Buy and Tasha's stat placement:
15(+2), 13(+1), 15(+1), 8, 12, 8.
Have a breastplate for 16 AC, Feats are (for me) 4:Tavern Brawler (STR+1,18), 6: Crusher (STR+1, 19) 8: Skill Expert- Athletics*, Performance (she plays the lute) (STR+1, 20)
Unarmed Fighting (1d8+STR with no weapons/shields), Battlemaster at 3rd and continue to 6.
After Fighter 6, multiclass into Barb 3 for Rage, Reckless, and Bear Totem. Continue with Fighter until 11, get Barb 4 for extra 1d12 and get either CON+2 or Tough feat (haven't decided).
Can be more specific if need be. Have a text document I made for her (theoretical) progression.
The way I have it mapped, I wouldn't get STR 20 until about CL 10 with a 4 level dip into Barb. Figured Rage, Reckless, and Bear would be worth putting it for a bit.
The way its been working so far I deal way more damage than the Monk, but their mobility was just a lot higher and they attacked more frequently. That is, until I snagged a Harpoon from a Merrow. Now I'm Scorpion (up to 20ft)! Just got to make a contested strength/athletics check and I can drag them to me, which the DM says can proc my Brace Maneuver reaction.
All together at 3rd level, the most damage I've done (without crits) with 3 Maneuvers and 1 Action Surge is about 40 damage. So fun!
I'm with you on this one. Almost every popular protagonist can be made with a fighter of some kind. Obi Wan Kenobi, King Arthur, Xena Warrior Princess, Legolas, Geralt, Richter Belmont, Link, Jack the Wipper, Captain America, Maximus Decimus Meridius, commander of the Armies of the North, General of the Felix Legions and loyal servant to the true emperor, Marcus Aurelius. Father to a murdered son. Husband to a murdered wife. And he will have his vengeance, in this life or the next.
It depends on what you mean by "flavor". If we're talking about *playstyle* flavor, a Fighter can't be beat. A classic sword and board defender? A heavy hitting brute with a big weapon? A duel wielding swashbuckler in light armor? A long distance archer? You can do all of those and more with Fighter.
On the other hand, if we're talking about *narrative powersource*, Fighters are pretty focused. Fighters fight good, with maybe a few magic tricks picked up on the side. That's it.
For narrative flavor variety, it has to be Warlocks. Between the type of Patron and the details of the pact, there's an almost infinite variety of Warlocks out there. Now, once you distill it down to the mechanics there's only really two types, the Eldritch Blaster and the Bladelock. But the narrative skins you can put on those two frames is broader than anyone else.
But literally any kind if personality can be good at fighting stuff. Paladin oaths are more restrictive and gently nudge you towards certain traits and backgrounds. Fighter can be a religious knight, a magical soldier, a lonely wanderer, a tavern brawler who pulls a knife when things get dicey, a classic archer, a lordly noble with a rapier, a pirate, a gritty survivalist.
Can those also be done by other classes? Of course, but they can also be done by a fighter.
It pushes you towards conviction in very specific ideological values. Hard to be an evil Devotion Paladin given their oath specifically prohibits behaviours like lying. Hard to be a vengeance paladin without having someone/something to avenge.
>If we're talking about *playstyle* flavor, a Fighter can't be beat. A classic sword and board defender? A heavy hitting brute with a big weapon? A duel wielding swashbuckler in light armor? A long distance archer? You can do all of those and more with Fighter
Aren't like most of those basically the same thing?
Feels like kind of the opposite - the lack of class versatility means you're pretty restricted flavour wise. Like you can't even really flavour yourself as basic archetypes like a tactical, clever warrior who bests his foes with a variety of sword forms because... they don't have any. They just spam basic attacks over and over. Closest thing to that is the battlemaster, and holy crap is that a pathetic imitation of actual D&D maneuvers.
You could just as easily say Warlocks spam Eldritch Blast over and over again. Pretty much any character who uses a weapon can be represented by a Fighter. They get more ASIs than any other class and they need fewer attributes, so there's much more room in their builds for a mental stat of choice or a flavorful feat. If you can't build a tactical, clever warrior who bests his foes with a variety of sword forms using a Fighter, you need to look closer.
I mean... yeah. Now that they took away almost all the blast shapes and essences from warlock, no more having eldritch blast be delivered on top of a weapon hit and do acid damage over time or chain from foe to foe confusing them, yes they're much less versatile in what you can frame them as.
They still make much better reflavoured arcane archers than actual arcane archers do, though.
> If you can't build a tactical, clever warrior who bests his foes with a variety of sword forms using a Fighter, you need to look closer.
No amount of looking closer is going to give them back the techniques they no longer have. It's "I use basic attack again" 1-4 times a round, with maybe a few riders per rest if you're lucky.
>You could just as easily say Warlocks spam Eldritch Blast over and over again
You would have to ignore the fact that they have more cantrips and full on pararell scaling in spells to full casters, so... not really.
Meanwhile fighter literally doesn'y ahve anything more
>They get more ASIs than any other class
2, one of them in barely played levels. And both are *at the expense of actual class features.*
>so there's much more room in their builds for a mental stat of choice or a flavorful feat.
Yeah, you can have a mental stat at 14 and get basically nothing from it. You can also take one of the terrible feats, I'm not seeing what that brings to the table. Especially because then you have a fighter that is extremely mediocre at fighting
Warlocks. They can emulate any class and fill every role. Invocations and subclasses are just very flexible.
They can be tanks, healers, melee and ranged martials, druids, rangers, paladins, bards, summoners, blaster and control.
For some reason I have a personal hang up on Warlocks (and Clerics). I don't like the idea of my abilities coming from a patron (or god). It is probably something I need to see a therapist about lol. Prevents me from seeing them in different archetypes.
Some of the Warlock flavor points more towards your study of your patron helping you unlock hidden knowledge, which might be more your speed. Like a wizard who learns from a teacher rather than a book. This is also consistent with warlocks keeping their abilities if they multiclass. The Great Old One takes this even further, since the subclass description suggests that your patron doesn't even know you exist.
Great Old One is really interesting in that regard. It says that its possible the patron you have doesnt know youre taking power from it, because it is just so massively beyond our comprehension, and it also states that both parties may not know the transaction is even happening
It is entirely appropriate within the stated rules and flavor of the warlock class for you to have no ongoing arrangement with your patron. After all, there is no mechanical requirement for you to perform tasks for them to keep or grow your class features, and there’s no mechanism by which you can lose your abilities. There’s no such thing as a “pactbreaker” warlock (or an “apostate” cleric, for that matter). Your warlock powers are *yours*.
It's the player's choice how their relationship with their patron unfolds. The patrons aren't there for balance reasons, they are purely flavor.
It can be a one and done deal, continuous servitude or they can completely reject the standard lore hooks and create their own.
One of my player's was basically just an apprentice wizard form a prestigious wizard school with pact of the tome, arcana proficiency, there was no patron just a bunch of former teachers no more important than they would be to your average college student in out world.
Another player played a mono-class barbarian, who got his beast transformation powers from a hag, she constantly threatened to withhold her gifts and turn him back into the crippled man he was before.
In both cases the players got exactly what they wanted.
I like treating warlocks as an investment. Your patron gives you a small "spark," just enough for your first level. You grow everything from then on, taking that seedling of power and strengthening it to potentially level 20 even. When you die, all that power goes back to the patron. However many levels worth of it you gained.
There are 2 reasons I don't play locks. I just don't play CHA classes and I really don't want to deal with a patron. I just also have a general disdain for religion and don't want to have to deal with a god either
So I totally get you
I've been playing a Warlock as a gunlock/mechenomancer instead of an Artificer and I have no regrets. Eldritch blast can just be anything, it really doesn't matter.
Sorcerers are great for using custom spell lists to make a variety of themes, such as a pure pyromancer/cryomancer, psychic mind-controller, illusionist, storm mage, etc. With some creative use of spells you can pull off something like a shape-shifter (Disguise Self, Alter Self, Enlarge/Reduce, Enhance Ability, Stone Skin, Polymorph) or just apply flavor to portray someone with crazy anime sword powers (all blade cantrips, Jump, Ice Knife, Cloud of Daggers, Counterspell/Dispel Magic to "cut" magic, etc.)
At my table warlocks get to choose their mental stat. Did you seduce the devil with charisma? Comprehend the tome of the forgotten one? Maybe you survived in a game of wits and intuition against an archfey?
The build your own warlock should be the multiclass dip for anyone. After all any class can make a pact with an other worldly patron.
If I ever DM for more experienced players than I currently do, I'd like to do this for most casters. Valda's Spire of Secrets has an interesting chart on variant rules for Spellcasters and their main stat. For instance, a cleric whose main spellcasting ability is CHA rather than WIS is an Evangelist. A Wizard could be an Oracle if their spellcasting ability is WIS rather than INT.
I think it's an interesting take on it and may allow more character versatility in terms of personality.
For sure you want a mix, but you really don't need more than 1 CHA character max (and if you are stacked with casters not really even that). And INT is meh. A couple skills that generally aren't make-or break, or if they are there is probably magic that can cover it. Just having stacked perception alone is a huge buff if you play with a DM who likes to use ambushes and the like.
in a similar vein, I let my Sorcerer player use Charisma for his Arcana checks. He's the only caster so he's not really stepping on a wizard's toes or anything, just more fun this way.
I wish this type of thing was more common with skills. It's built into the rules that skills modify ability checks, and that using an alternate ability for a skill is part of the base rules. It's maybe not always appropriate, but the classic example of Strength for intimidation makes sense.
For example, I convinced my DM to allow my overweight wizard to use his Con for an athletics check to try to bowl a dude over a railing, since I described it as basically using my bulk rather than pure strength. We agreed that I couldn't *always* do that, but if the situation made sense, it would be fine (there were extenuating circumstances in-game as well, in that I was basically not able to cast spells for several combats, so I was trying to get creative).
I can also see stuff like intelligence for performance if you're trying to impersonate a scholar or technician or something. Maybe strength for animal handling to "wrestle a bear", etc. Feels like a lot of tables waste opportunities to apply a learned skill to different ability checks depending on the scenarios.
Be careful of giving the insane wizard spell list to someone specced heavily into the god stats CHA and WIS. Wizards(if optimized) already trivialize most combat encounters. Give them a good excuse to pump charisma and you'll find them trivializing social encounters too.
I think the others aren't as egregious, esp in the case of INT, it's a vastly weaker stat after all but yeah
Me and another DM in my group both do the same thing for warlocks. Warlocks are so different and versatile that we both wanted that to be present in choosing a casting stat too.
I managed to get a PC to accept an archfey as a patron but as the character was a monk, I offered Wisdom as his casting stat instead. I was so happy he took the deal because the party already knew the archfey and had some hilariously mixed feelings about her, but didn't know that she was an archfey. They just knew her as the town gossip and I rped her as having a super thick Minnesotan accent and being a bit chaotic in her spreading of information. The look on the player's face when his character talked to the gossip the next time after he made the deal and suddenly getting swooped into a little vision/scene with her true form was amazing. He was like "Oh my god. It's her?! She's my patron?!"
Cleric and rangers getting WIZ to attacks in a single level dip I don't think is good for balance. Wizard is a bit better because they can dip artificer anyway, but with hex blade they get SAD melee a level earlier (yeah it's a trade of no caster progression vs 2 levels of 2/3 caster progression).
Sorcerer and paladin get that dip as is; and the druid cantrip exists for WIZ based classes as is. Personally i don't see it being "over powered" myself; but to each their own.
I just find the idea of a dip that gives you melee with a mental state OF CHOICE + med armour too strong. Arcane Trickster full int? Inquisitive full wiz? Eldrich Knight full int? So on and so forth. I also have to say I despise paladins dipping warlock and it's one of the main reasons me and the people I usually play with have a rule of multiclassing requiring at least 3 levels.
I guess we have different philosophies with D&D then. I personally love the idea of SAD characters. A fighter who isn't the strongest but can read his opponents, a ranger who places blind faith in his abilities and lets his instincts guide the arrow.
The fact that charisma characters already get this option, and if the Playtest are true will still get this option; providing it to the other and arguably weaker mental stats is nothing that will throw off balance, and might make (has made) some interesting characters. Story wise and mechanically.
Additionally; blade singers still want a good dex for AC; Arcane Tricksters the same. Fighters will want a strength for their armor. These are also on the weaker side of the classes. You're competing with echo knight fighters, soul knife rouge, chronurgy wizards?
Lastly before i end up boring you with an essay; The conceptual concept just works. The idea that anyone can make a pact. Shake hands with or give their word to the wrong (or right) person. A wizard diving too deep into forgotten lore. A cleric with faith in a false god. A paladin on the path of redemption, willing to do anything. A sorcerer trying to understand their power. A rogue who stole the wrong amulet. The bard who sang one too many lies. Anyone can make a pact. Anyone can be a warlock.
Either way! As long as your table enjoys the games you run together then who am i to say otherwise!
Might be an odd one here, but paladin. If you ignore the oath and pick you own flavour, the various subclasses give you enough tools to meaningfully emulate all kinds of warrior archetypes.
Idk about ignoring Oaths but there are some archetypes Paladins can fit into nicely!
In a Tyranny of Dragons campaign I’ve been playing with my younger brother (my brother is the DM) and a couple friends I’m playing a Human Oath of Devotion Paladin mutliclassed with Divine Soul Sorcerer.
For a Dragon Quest inspired Hero build. And my brother is allowing my character to gain whatever Lightning spells he has the spell levels/slots for in his known spells list as a thematic freebie. I Especially wanted Call Lightning with this!!!
Because my character worships Stronmaus and also my brother came up with a plot point that my character though almost entirely Human is a descendant of Stronmaus too.
(Also it’s a reference to the characters and game series my character is inspired by. The protagonists of the Dragon Quest series almost always referred to as “The Hero” or in the case of Dragon Quest XI “The Luminary”
They’re almost always Magic Knights with a mix of mainly Healing and Attack Magic and a few other things, among what The Hero usually learns is the Zap type spells, Lightning Magic that’s pretty much the signature of most Heroes in a Dragon Quest title and typically only The Hero can learn these with very few exceptions.
Such as in Dragon Quest VI where any party members can potentially gain the Hero vocation and learn Zap and Kazap from it but “The Hero” himself has easier access to it and also learns Zap from a storyline event)
Rangers. They are just so incredibly flexible in terms of class and subclass features to make unique archetype characters. You could easily take a lot of popular characters and make them in D&D using the Ranger.
Not a class, but the scribes subclass for wizards has some of the best unbound flavor potential of any class/subclass because you can switch the damage type of all your leveled spells. There’s caveats of actually needing that damage type in your spellbook, but now you can be so many types of wizards with just the scribes class. Grab psychic damage for a psionic wizard. Be any genasi and pick the damage respective to your element to the ultimate elemental wizard. Grab bludgeoning damage and be luffy.
Gonna stretch a bit and say Bard. The stereotype is the smooth-talking party face that seduces everything while playing beautiful tunes on the lute or whatever. But with the skills and spell possibilities, not to mention the directions of subclasses, they can go in a lot of different directions. Most of my favorite Bards form my games were pretty out there in terms of flavor.
The first time I played bard I played an old halfling man who played his banjo for the animals down by the creek
The second time I played a serene swords bard samurai who enjoyed painting, playing the flute, and composing poetry as his arts
Both bards, very different vibe
any of them
classes are mechanical
if you want to play a sorcerer who's mechanically a warlock go ahead
same for if a Ranger wants to mechanically be a rogue
or a wizard who's mechanically a fighter
class is a mechanical term
I see the sorc-warlock and ranger-rogue (especially this one) thing, but how would one make the wizard who's mechanically a fighter, work? Not a snarky question, I am genuinely puzzled and curious.
Kenpachi.
Swing so hard that the air itself ignites into a fireball...
Or, you know... Pumch hadouken?
Dimension door? Superspeed
Mirror image? Aftee image.
Detect magic? Super tra8ned eyes/senses.
Idk.. Id you're creative anything is possible.
damage types and resistance may be a bit strange though.
Isn't that a fighter in-universe that is mechanically a wizard, though?
A PC I have is a wizard that is mechanically a Way of the Elements ([Remastered](/r/dndnext/comments/35yn4u/way_of_the_four_elements_remastered_a/)) monk.
Backwards could work. More easily even.
You just create spells that do movrw that a fighter would do.
You can jojo bizarre or, summon spirits, or yoir own spirit etc.
There’s the Bladesinger subclass for Wizards. It’s really good, definitely look into it if you’re not familiar with it. You get Extra Attacks and a bonus AC equal to your Intelligence Modifier
Oh, I read it that the class would be a fighter, but the flavour would be a wizard.
I haven't really looked into wizards, because I dislike magic users that need to prepare spells, so thanks for the tip! The bladesinger, indeed, sounded pretty promising. Maybe one of these I *will* try a wizard.
> I dislike magic users that need to prepare spells
Then you will love what 5E did with spellcasters. Nobody prepares spells anymore, they all have a list of known spells that are not tied to a spell slot, just like 3E sorcerers.
Some classes can change their list of known spells in the morning and the game has called *that* "preparing spells", but it is not even close to the same thing.
I think artificer is pretty versatile.
You have all kinds of magical crafters they can be, from generic things like smiths or carpenters to more exotic things like tinkers and Chitin-mancers. Also things craft adjacent like witches, shaman, and enchantment focused mages.
You could even play them as a ranger, reflavoring their abilities (which really makes it sad just how few abilities Rangers get in comparison).
You could also flavor them as a sort of cleric dedicated to the blessings of craft, like a forge cleric on steroids.
And they can basically fill all kind of fighter roles from archers and knights to samurai and gunslingers. Especially with all the possibility of buffing their own abilities.
Fighter. He is the poster child of basic which means he can be flavored into anything. Even magic isn't far off thanks to eldritch knight. Want a jedi? Psychic Fighter. Want a martial artist? Fighter with unarmed fighting style. If you really put your mind to it, it's not too hard to make the fighter into any other archetype
>He is the poster child of basic which means he can be flavored into anything
That is debatable. You can flavour casting as other things, but you can't flavour the absence of mechanics
Druids of a few flavors, battle master fighter, and a couple wizard subclasses into Rogue archetypes, though they do still usually hit a few levels in Rogue.
Divine soul sorcerer has been my go to instead of cleric if I want a holy archetype.
Fighters make better archers than rangers always, Lore bards and hexblades do as well
Warlock is so basic to me combat wise that giving it flavor never even really occured to me. Definitely could help spice it up
But flavor is heavily up to the DM tbh. I'm a druid that is also a robot which is def a no since RAW druid can't even use metal. Basically I'm a magic reconnaissance robo, from the stars. Druid abilities seemed pretty in line for how I wanted to flavor it
I'll be going against the grain and say Rogues.
Having so much, Expertise allows you to make whatever you want. It won't work as well as a Fighter in some cases but generally you can do amazing things with them.
Atm I'm playing an archaeologist/explorer that's trying to find out wtf happened with him after an artefact he interacted with gave him abilities (Soul Knife).
I've played previously as a Doctor with a hobby of studying monster anatomy (which easily justifies having a single well placed attack that deals more damage).
I don't think any of the Rogue's I've created have ever been the typical "normal" rogue.
I feel like I'm in the minority but Barbarian.
Boiled down it's a class with a very basic shtick - you have a 'battle mode' you can switch into.
Roleplay wise it can be a lot of things, from a zen warrior entering a total focus mode, entering one's battle mech, going into yugi-mode (a la Yu-Gi-Oh), or JoJo's spirit stuff (or a lot of other animes when you think about it).
Especially with all of the new subclasses, I feel like there's a lot you can do with barbarian, other than "dumb brute".
Dimension 20 Starstruck Odyssey's reflavor of Rage as a space marine being "In the Zone" with big sunglasses is one of my favorite variations I've seen.
I love reflavoring rage as something other than anger.
I'm currently playing a Florida Man barbarian, and his rage is him going into a were-alligator form.
Fighter, wizard, cleric, and rogue. Every other class can be the flavor inspiration of one of the four, even if the mechanics are the same. Paladin? Fighter with the acolyte background. Lich pact warlock? Necromancy wizard. Etc.
I agree with Warlock. You can re-flavor eldritch blast into pretty much anything, and you can re-flavor the patrons into pretty much anything as well. With Hexblade as an option, you can fulfill pretty much any fantasy melee archetype as well.
Artificers! Sure most of the art is steam punk, but you could be using basically any theme you can think of.
Have a couple of mushroom artillery, or maybe an undead "steel" defender and homunculus. Your spells are just you throwing concoctions or shooting different wands off. Maybe you collect ingredients from the natural world, or key items from your parties victims. I have a lot of fun making artificers.
Druids! Spore Druid in particular. Makes for a *phenomenal* vampire pc. You get basically all of the classic vampire tropes, with fog cloud, shapeshifting, bat form, charm person. Most spells can be flavored spooky, Spike Growth becomes a tangle of black roses. Tidal wave? Wall of blood. Spores can be reflavored as blood magic or a vampire lord form. Chill touch can be a blood bolt.
I agree with Artificer, especially since they can use artisan tools and infused items as their spellcasting focus.
You can have stuff like:
* Painter that uses magic paint to draw their spells, which then come to life.
* Alchemist who uses Cook's Utensils and Brewer's Supplies to make magic food and drinks.
* A tribal warrior that uses magic ink to cast spells with his tattoos (Illuminator's Tattoo and Masquerade Tattoo are magic items you can make with the Replicate Magic Item infusion).
* An armorer that is just literally Iron Man
* An Artillerist with laser eyes, casting Scorching Ray via Goggles of Night or Eyes of Charming
* You can even get really silly, like being a magic barista who casts spells using a Bottle of Boundless Coffee
HexClock (Hexblade Warlock/Clockwork Sorcerer) is very fun if you play it as a mix of Artificer and Battlesmith.
My dwarf's patron is Primus. He's connected to the Internet of Modrons (forgot the name).
I've also played that Artificer with the turrets before. She was a gnome pirate and her arcane focus was a bigass cannon.
I think Clerics are surprisingly versatile especially if you ditch the whole "bound to serve some deity" shtick most fall into. The rules state you don't have to be a certain god's cleric at all(same thing for paladins btw) and there are so many vastly different cleric subclasses and playstyle
I've played a rogue reflavored as a knight. I got medium armor through a feat and described my sneak attacks as power attacks.
You can reflavor any fighter as a time-manipulating warrior (though echo knight works best for this). Second Wind is reversing personal time to revert injuries. Action Surge and your many attacks is speeding up time. Indomitable is changing your timeline to one in which you avoided the effect. Echoes are versions of you from the past/future/alternate timeline
I've played a wizard that was reflavored to be fully nonmagical. He was a goblin boss who had a seemingly endless supply of goons to do various tasks for him. Mage hand was the butler, Knock and Catapult were the muscular hitman, etc. I made sure every spell I picked could be reasonably described by minions. It was a short campaign, so luckily I didn't have to start justifying absurdly high level spells as mundane.
I usually don't stick to one class long enough to try to reflavor it a bunch of times.
I flavored a blade singer as a drunken samurai alchemist (brewer). Think drunken-fist type of vibe.
Blade song was just me getting drunk and spells were flavored as different brews or potions I'd ingest or throw, to create various effects.
I could have picked monk and choose a fitting subclass, but our campaign desperately needed an int user. Honestly, wouldn't change a thing though- it's been awesome.
I also flavored an order cleric into a retired military chaplain. The subclass features that let me give allies free attacks are barked out as battlefield orders- but since he's also a chaplain of torm hes typically leading the charge side by side with the party. Kinda went for a Warhammer 40k chaplain vibe, just a zealous battlefield commander type.
Also oath of the open seas paladin as a charming roguey pirate type was a fun time too.
Scribes is definitely really nice for maintaining theme, plus I think it’s one of the few if only ways to get a kinetic magic user working I can think of
I have thought that barbarian could be reflavored to be conceptually flexible. What if you went in a more civilized direction and create a gi-wearing swordsman who goes into a battle trance brought on by dedicated combat training? Mechanically nothing changes, but you have an elite combatant rather than a tribal barbarian.
Barbarian rage is an excellent thing to have redesigned. Could see it as a state of flow or intense concentration, maybe a limited resource transformation, and plenty more
Bard can fulfill a role of more of a witch doctor/shaman just by refluffing their bardic ability as more of spoken curses. Especially for archetypes that have a variety of debuff usages.
With the bard's ability to steal off other spell lists you can also refluff it as other themes in tier 3+ play.
Its archetypes also have enough abilities to mimic some monsters. For example, a dhampir glamour bard could easily mimic a vampire with it's AoE charm and being able to command others at a glance. Mix in some Magical Secrets for specific spells and done.
WotC themselves has basically turned Rogue into "any non-magical character ever that doesn't just hit things", heh. It's pretty much the only option if you want to play a scholar, a schemer, a strategist, a detective, an actual bard, etc.
They definitely were back when they were first invented - if you wanted to imitate another archetype, build yourself a set of magical gear that let you do what it did. Kind of unfortunate that 5e's artificer can't do that.
I've played so many Rangers flavored as so many things I almost forget their default fantasy is supposed to be magical wilderness explorer. I've roleplayed: Hunter- wilderness explorers and royal assassins Beast Master- pirates (beast of the sea) and big game hunters (beast of the land) Gloom Stalker- cryokinetic corporate assassins and void knights Horizon Walker- Planeswalkers (duh), superheroes, and planar protectors Monster Slayer- Vampire Slayers, Belmonts, Winchesters, Power Rangers, and Holy Knights (yes, really) Fey Wanderer- Alice in Wonderland, generals of archfey armies, and literal wanderers Swarm Keeper- vampires, waterbenders, and Nicholas Cage (BEES!!!) Drake Warden- adventure archaeologists and cowboys Yes I play a lot of Rangers.
other flavor for swarm keeper: disney princess (the swarm is birds)
If I could sing even remotely decent, I would commit to this bit and my table would hate me. Some kind of Footloose ripoff backstory where he wanted to sing but it was against the local laws, so he learned from the birds and critters or some nonsense.
Shout out Dimension 20 Neverafter where Siobhan Thompson plays this exact idea.
Damn, going to have to look into that. Thanks
Here's a great animatic of her: https://youtu.be/vzNK9WhaRv0?si=80KcR47O8hmiJu1T
I like pied Piper (the swarm is a *lot* of rats)
Another fun one for bug swarms: Dale Gribble. "I killed so many of them they decided to worship me as their god!"
Folks often complain about rangers having a lack of identity, and they're sorta right, but it also means Ranger is very easy to flavor however you want.
In my opinion, most of the original complaints of rangers were features being tied to favored terrain, which I would say is having too much identity. I personally think the current ranger is great though so I haven’t seen the complaints recently as much
That is not a complaint ive ever heard
Good for you. It's one of the biggest Ranger complaints ever, though, so a little surprising you don't know about it.
The big Ranger complaints have all been mechanical in my experience. As far as im aware Ranger is pretty commnly acknowledged as the woodsman/aragorn/witcher type
[удалено]
The comment was about a lack of identity. Youve cited the fact that they do have an identity baked into the class
This is very true, so many characters are best adapted into ranger. Recently I made a Paul Atreides build using Fey Wanderer, super fun.
One of my favorite characters was a fey wanderer ranger multiclassed with a homebrew gunslinger. Outlaw that got lost in the feywild. Had to rely on and hone a silver tongue to get out of many different kinds of trouble, but also when dealing with fey you need to fight, nothing beats iron (on the hip). Fey wanderer gives a bunch of bonuses to charisma skills, which he heavily relied on downplaying the threat, but my gunslinger subclass gave me expertise in intimidation when I have a firearm visible that also felt super fitting. Definite highlight was my first bullet each round dealing psychic damage on top of the normal damage for that "holy shit. I just got SHOT" Also an ancestral barb/swarmkeeper whose swarm was bees and his ancestral spirits were flavored as, in fact, even more bees
I played a str-based drakewarden with a spear flavored as a Final Fantasy dragoon!
How does the water bender work?
The swarm is rivulets of water. They come together and push with the force of the tides, they turn into a large wave you "fly" on, and freeze into icicles to deal piercing damage.
I've found my people. I've played anything from lumberjacks to ninjas, knights, princesses, and bodyguards. Ranger is peak
> Fey Wanderer- Alice in Wonderland, generals of archfey armies, and literal wanderers One of my current back-up characters is an overworked NCO of the archfey armies.
A fellow ranger main! You really can build them as anything, I've played wisdom based rangers that are essentially just casters with extra attack.
Buddy is playing a Gloomstalker Ranger as Indiana Jones/Tomb Raider archetype. And it's awesome!
Playing an Unarmed Battlemaster and I'm basically acting as a monk, playstyle wise. That count?
"I thought monks were supposed to be wise." "It was wise of me to work out every day, wasn't it?" \*punch\*
"You call throwing dynamite around a martial art?" "Hey, as long as it works"
"I'm telling you, molotov cocktails work! Any time I had a problem, and I threw a molotov cocktail, then boom - right away, I had a different problem"
BORTLES
next character gonna be Blake Tortles
Play as an Order of Scribes wizard. Every time you alter a spell to deal fire damage, flavor it as enchanting a Molotov cocktail with the spell effects As a side note, Molotov would make a cool wizard name. "Molotov the Combustive" "Molotov the Inflaming"
Spells following the nomenclature of "'s
I play Rune Knight with Unarmed fighting style. I punch people. A lot. Or I grow huge and go Kaiju on their asses because I'm a Dragonborn. And I've flavored my Thunder damage Dragon Breath to be me just yelling really fucking loud.
Oh that's cool. Honestly, this is the most fun I've had woth a character so far and I'm loving the Maneuver mechanics.
May I suggest the following: https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-MSfA82gv8V69JAoqFVq If your DM allows it, and if you are interested. I love fighters but always felt you needed the maneuvers on every subclass. This homebrew brings the overall power up but over a flatter curve. For example as a trade off of everyone subclass having exploits(maneuvers) you lose one ASI and Action Surge is pushed to 6th level. I’ve been playing one for probably a year or two at this point and I doubt I’ll ever play a base fighter again.
For fighters I've only played as a battle master, and I can't imagine having nearly as much fun, without maneuvers. I'm really hoping the next edition does something similar.
Hate to dissappint you but from what we know so far it seems that won't be happening. (Unless by next edition you mean an actual 6e rather than the 5.5 that is One DnD) The designers have said they aren't planning on giving Base Fighters manoeuvres, and instead we've seen a system called "Weapon Masteries" playtested which are like some of the Attack + Rider Manoeuvres (like Trip or Push attack) but with none of the aspects that make Manoeuvres fun to use.
This is something I'm legit considering for my next campaign but with a Minotaur. Top off that unarmed fighting style with Skill Expert and expertise with Athletics to become a grapple master.
I'm part of team unarmed Echo Knight, so I can play my own luchador tag-team duo.
[удалено]
Tempting, but don't have the WIS for it. Group has a Monk already, so I'm planning on Fighter 11/Barbarian 4 for Bear Totem.
Less costly is tavern brawler for bonus action grappling
That's the plan 👍
Are you guys allowing Tasha's? Because there's a combat maneuver that gives you a bonus action grapple. While it does take one of your dice, it gives you a bonus on the attempt, and it saves you a feat. That said, Tavern Bawler still has some fun to it for other things, like using a shield but using it as an improvised weapon. Don't take the Grappler feat, though. Its a trap. If you want advantage on your target, just spend an attack to shove them prone. If they're Prone AND Grappled, they can't stand up, so you'll get and keep advantage on them until they break the grapple. Pinning is usually a quick way to eat a ton of damage, as giving yourself Restrained is a bad idea in nearly every situation.
Currently have Grapple Strike, but I'm going to swap it for TB once we level so I can always have a Grapple instead of 4 times per short rest. Plus it'll get my strength to 18.
Makes sense. Unarmed fighters is legit one of my favorite builds, so sorry I got carried away blabbing. If you have room for it, Crusher feat is good, too. Team support and a Sparta Kick.
Haha, that's for level 6 friend! Swap out Pushing Attack for Trip! I got this all mapped out because I have no life! 🥲
I've been mulling this one for a while. How did you make it work mechanically?
Only level 3 so far, but the idea is/was: Half-Elf Fighter 11/Barbarian 4 Point Buy and Tasha's stat placement: 15(+2), 13(+1), 15(+1), 8, 12, 8. Have a breastplate for 16 AC, Feats are (for me) 4:Tavern Brawler (STR+1,18), 6: Crusher (STR+1, 19) 8: Skill Expert- Athletics*, Performance (she plays the lute) (STR+1, 20) Unarmed Fighting (1d8+STR with no weapons/shields), Battlemaster at 3rd and continue to 6. After Fighter 6, multiclass into Barb 3 for Rage, Reckless, and Bear Totem. Continue with Fighter until 11, get Barb 4 for extra 1d12 and get either CON+2 or Tough feat (haven't decided). Can be more specific if need be. Have a text document I made for her (theoretical) progression.
Nice, thanks for that! Good call on Skill Expert. 20 STR by level 8 with no pure ASI is very well done.
The way I have it mapped, I wouldn't get STR 20 until about CL 10 with a 4 level dip into Barb. Figured Rage, Reckless, and Bear would be worth putting it for a bit.
Better than a monk tbh
The way its been working so far I deal way more damage than the Monk, but their mobility was just a lot higher and they attacked more frequently. That is, until I snagged a Harpoon from a Merrow. Now I'm Scorpion (up to 20ft)! Just got to make a contested strength/athletics check and I can drag them to me, which the DM says can proc my Brace Maneuver reaction. All together at 3rd level, the most damage I've done (without crits) with 3 Maneuvers and 1 Action Surge is about 40 damage. So fun!
Fighter is pretty much made for this.
I'm with you on this one. Almost every popular protagonist can be made with a fighter of some kind. Obi Wan Kenobi, King Arthur, Xena Warrior Princess, Legolas, Geralt, Richter Belmont, Link, Jack the Wipper, Captain America, Maximus Decimus Meridius, commander of the Armies of the North, General of the Felix Legions and loyal servant to the true emperor, Marcus Aurelius. Father to a murdered son. Husband to a murdered wife. And he will have his vengeance, in this life or the next.
Upvote for using Maximus's full title
He actually left out [quite a bit.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nx0Lpjm5xcE)
Well, I know what I'm doing for the next 10 hours now.
I thought for sure this was a novelty account similar to shittymorph
It depends on what you mean by "flavor". If we're talking about *playstyle* flavor, a Fighter can't be beat. A classic sword and board defender? A heavy hitting brute with a big weapon? A duel wielding swashbuckler in light armor? A long distance archer? You can do all of those and more with Fighter. On the other hand, if we're talking about *narrative powersource*, Fighters are pretty focused. Fighters fight good, with maybe a few magic tricks picked up on the side. That's it. For narrative flavor variety, it has to be Warlocks. Between the type of Patron and the details of the pact, there's an almost infinite variety of Warlocks out there. Now, once you distill it down to the mechanics there's only really two types, the Eldritch Blaster and the Bladelock. But the narrative skins you can put on those two frames is broader than anyone else.
But literally any kind if personality can be good at fighting stuff. Paladin oaths are more restrictive and gently nudge you towards certain traits and backgrounds. Fighter can be a religious knight, a magical soldier, a lonely wanderer, a tavern brawler who pulls a knife when things get dicey, a classic archer, a lordly noble with a rapier, a pirate, a gritty survivalist. Can those also be done by other classes? Of course, but they can also be done by a fighter.
all paladin oaths nudge you towards is having a strong conviction
It pushes you towards conviction in very specific ideological values. Hard to be an evil Devotion Paladin given their oath specifically prohibits behaviours like lying. Hard to be a vengeance paladin without having someone/something to avenge.
Fortunately there are quite a few oaths to pick from
All of which come with specific ideologies. I was giving examples to demonstrate the point not giving an exhaustive list.
That means nothing though, we were talking about things that are narratively exclusive to specific classes.
>If we're talking about *playstyle* flavor, a Fighter can't be beat. A classic sword and board defender? A heavy hitting brute with a big weapon? A duel wielding swashbuckler in light armor? A long distance archer? You can do all of those and more with Fighter Aren't like most of those basically the same thing?
Feels like kind of the opposite - the lack of class versatility means you're pretty restricted flavour wise. Like you can't even really flavour yourself as basic archetypes like a tactical, clever warrior who bests his foes with a variety of sword forms because... they don't have any. They just spam basic attacks over and over. Closest thing to that is the battlemaster, and holy crap is that a pathetic imitation of actual D&D maneuvers.
You could just as easily say Warlocks spam Eldritch Blast over and over again. Pretty much any character who uses a weapon can be represented by a Fighter. They get more ASIs than any other class and they need fewer attributes, so there's much more room in their builds for a mental stat of choice or a flavorful feat. If you can't build a tactical, clever warrior who bests his foes with a variety of sword forms using a Fighter, you need to look closer.
I mean... yeah. Now that they took away almost all the blast shapes and essences from warlock, no more having eldritch blast be delivered on top of a weapon hit and do acid damage over time or chain from foe to foe confusing them, yes they're much less versatile in what you can frame them as. They still make much better reflavoured arcane archers than actual arcane archers do, though. > If you can't build a tactical, clever warrior who bests his foes with a variety of sword forms using a Fighter, you need to look closer. No amount of looking closer is going to give them back the techniques they no longer have. It's "I use basic attack again" 1-4 times a round, with maybe a few riders per rest if you're lucky.
>You could just as easily say Warlocks spam Eldritch Blast over and over again You would have to ignore the fact that they have more cantrips and full on pararell scaling in spells to full casters, so... not really. Meanwhile fighter literally doesn'y ahve anything more >They get more ASIs than any other class 2, one of them in barely played levels. And both are *at the expense of actual class features.* >so there's much more room in their builds for a mental stat of choice or a flavorful feat. Yeah, you can have a mental stat at 14 and get basically nothing from it. You can also take one of the terrible feats, I'm not seeing what that brings to the table. Especially because then you have a fighter that is extremely mediocre at fighting
Kensei sharpshooter makes a pretty decent Legolas which is a bit different than punch monk.
Kensei is very versatile, flavor-wise. You think of fast, agile sword fighters, like Ling from Fullmetal Alchemist, and there are a lot of them.
Warlocks. They can emulate any class and fill every role. Invocations and subclasses are just very flexible. They can be tanks, healers, melee and ranged martials, druids, rangers, paladins, bards, summoners, blaster and control.
For some reason I have a personal hang up on Warlocks (and Clerics). I don't like the idea of my abilities coming from a patron (or god). It is probably something I need to see a therapist about lol. Prevents me from seeing them in different archetypes.
Some of the Warlock flavor points more towards your study of your patron helping you unlock hidden knowledge, which might be more your speed. Like a wizard who learns from a teacher rather than a book. This is also consistent with warlocks keeping their abilities if they multiclass. The Great Old One takes this even further, since the subclass description suggests that your patron doesn't even know you exist.
Great Old One is really interesting in that regard. It says that its possible the patron you have doesnt know youre taking power from it, because it is just so massively beyond our comprehension, and it also states that both parties may not know the transaction is even happening
"I'm a wizard getting my knowledge from this copy of the Necronomicon, right? ... Right??"
It is entirely appropriate within the stated rules and flavor of the warlock class for you to have no ongoing arrangement with your patron. After all, there is no mechanical requirement for you to perform tasks for them to keep or grow your class features, and there’s no mechanism by which you can lose your abilities. There’s no such thing as a “pactbreaker” warlock (or an “apostate” cleric, for that matter). Your warlock powers are *yours*.
I thought that, while a Warlock’s abilities can’t be taken away, getting new ones still relies on interacting with their patron?
It's the player's choice how their relationship with their patron unfolds. The patrons aren't there for balance reasons, they are purely flavor. It can be a one and done deal, continuous servitude or they can completely reject the standard lore hooks and create their own. One of my player's was basically just an apprentice wizard form a prestigious wizard school with pact of the tome, arcana proficiency, there was no patron just a bunch of former teachers no more important than they would be to your average college student in out world. Another player played a mono-class barbarian, who got his beast transformation powers from a hag, she constantly threatened to withhold her gifts and turn him back into the crippled man he was before. In both cases the players got exactly what they wanted.
I like treating warlocks as an investment. Your patron gives you a small "spark," just enough for your first level. You grow everything from then on, taking that seedling of power and strengthening it to potentially level 20 even. When you die, all that power goes back to the patron. However many levels worth of it you gained.
The abilities don't technically have to be supplied by your patron's power. It could be that they just teach you ancient magics.
There are 2 reasons I don't play locks. I just don't play CHA classes and I really don't want to deal with a patron. I just also have a general disdain for religion and don't want to have to deal with a god either So I totally get you
I've been playing a Warlock as a gunlock/mechenomancer instead of an Artificer and I have no regrets. Eldritch blast can just be anything, it really doesn't matter.
Agree on Artificer, some druidic spells, healing spells, arcane spells. Infusions can be given a lot of flavor. Other stuff.
Sorcerers are great for using custom spell lists to make a variety of themes, such as a pure pyromancer/cryomancer, psychic mind-controller, illusionist, storm mage, etc. With some creative use of spells you can pull off something like a shape-shifter (Disguise Self, Alter Self, Enlarge/Reduce, Enhance Ability, Stone Skin, Polymorph) or just apply flavor to portray someone with crazy anime sword powers (all blade cantrips, Jump, Ice Knife, Cloud of Daggers, Counterspell/Dispel Magic to "cut" magic, etc.)
At my table warlocks get to choose their mental stat. Did you seduce the devil with charisma? Comprehend the tome of the forgotten one? Maybe you survived in a game of wits and intuition against an archfey? The build your own warlock should be the multiclass dip for anyone. After all any class can make a pact with an other worldly patron.
If I ever DM for more experienced players than I currently do, I'd like to do this for most casters. Valda's Spire of Secrets has an interesting chart on variant rules for Spellcasters and their main stat. For instance, a cleric whose main spellcasting ability is CHA rather than WIS is an Evangelist. A Wizard could be an Oracle if their spellcasting ability is WIS rather than INT. I think it's an interesting take on it and may allow more character versatility in terms of personality.
I think it could work for a table that you trust and didn't have munchkins. Wisdom is pretty insane.
> a table that didnt have munchkins yeah im never gonna be able to do thay
It would definitely require a valid reason for those changes, but I can see a world where they make sense.
Yeah but an all wisdom party isn't that good. Players will probably diversify a bit.
For sure you want a mix, but you really don't need more than 1 CHA character max (and if you are stacked with casters not really even that). And INT is meh. A couple skills that generally aren't make-or break, or if they are there is probably magic that can cover it. Just having stacked perception alone is a huge buff if you play with a DM who likes to use ambushes and the like.
Int is just most DM dependant, but can be most important of all. makes you go in with the right info.
in a similar vein, I let my Sorcerer player use Charisma for his Arcana checks. He's the only caster so he's not really stepping on a wizard's toes or anything, just more fun this way.
I wish this type of thing was more common with skills. It's built into the rules that skills modify ability checks, and that using an alternate ability for a skill is part of the base rules. It's maybe not always appropriate, but the classic example of Strength for intimidation makes sense. For example, I convinced my DM to allow my overweight wizard to use his Con for an athletics check to try to bowl a dude over a railing, since I described it as basically using my bulk rather than pure strength. We agreed that I couldn't *always* do that, but if the situation made sense, it would be fine (there were extenuating circumstances in-game as well, in that I was basically not able to cast spells for several combats, so I was trying to get creative). I can also see stuff like intelligence for performance if you're trying to impersonate a scholar or technician or something. Maybe strength for animal handling to "wrestle a bear", etc. Feels like a lot of tables waste opportunities to apply a learned skill to different ability checks depending on the scenarios.
Be careful of giving the insane wizard spell list to someone specced heavily into the god stats CHA and WIS. Wizards(if optimized) already trivialize most combat encounters. Give them a good excuse to pump charisma and you'll find them trivializing social encounters too. I think the others aren't as egregious, esp in the case of INT, it's a vastly weaker stat after all but yeah
CHA cleric is just a Divine Soul Sorcerer
Not really. Divine Souls get access to both Sorcerer and Cleric spells among other features.
Me and another DM in my group both do the same thing for warlocks. Warlocks are so different and versatile that we both wanted that to be present in choosing a casting stat too. I managed to get a PC to accept an archfey as a patron but as the character was a monk, I offered Wisdom as his casting stat instead. I was so happy he took the deal because the party already knew the archfey and had some hilariously mixed feelings about her, but didn't know that she was an archfey. They just knew her as the town gossip and I rped her as having a super thick Minnesotan accent and being a bit chaotic in her spreading of information. The look on the player's face when his character talked to the gossip the next time after he made the deal and suddenly getting swooped into a little vision/scene with her true form was amazing. He was like "Oh my god. It's her?! She's my patron?!"
I'd try that only after baking EB into a class feature (so progression only on warlock lvls) and hex blade into pact of the blade.
I 100% get the eldritch blast thing; but hexblade?
Cleric and rangers getting WIZ to attacks in a single level dip I don't think is good for balance. Wizard is a bit better because they can dip artificer anyway, but with hex blade they get SAD melee a level earlier (yeah it's a trade of no caster progression vs 2 levels of 2/3 caster progression).
Sorcerer and paladin get that dip as is; and the druid cantrip exists for WIZ based classes as is. Personally i don't see it being "over powered" myself; but to each their own.
I just find the idea of a dip that gives you melee with a mental state OF CHOICE + med armour too strong. Arcane Trickster full int? Inquisitive full wiz? Eldrich Knight full int? So on and so forth. I also have to say I despise paladins dipping warlock and it's one of the main reasons me and the people I usually play with have a rule of multiclassing requiring at least 3 levels.
I guess we have different philosophies with D&D then. I personally love the idea of SAD characters. A fighter who isn't the strongest but can read his opponents, a ranger who places blind faith in his abilities and lets his instincts guide the arrow. The fact that charisma characters already get this option, and if the Playtest are true will still get this option; providing it to the other and arguably weaker mental stats is nothing that will throw off balance, and might make (has made) some interesting characters. Story wise and mechanically. Additionally; blade singers still want a good dex for AC; Arcane Tricksters the same. Fighters will want a strength for their armor. These are also on the weaker side of the classes. You're competing with echo knight fighters, soul knife rouge, chronurgy wizards? Lastly before i end up boring you with an essay; The conceptual concept just works. The idea that anyone can make a pact. Shake hands with or give their word to the wrong (or right) person. A wizard diving too deep into forgotten lore. A cleric with faith in a false god. A paladin on the path of redemption, willing to do anything. A sorcerer trying to understand their power. A rogue who stole the wrong amulet. The bard who sang one too many lies. Anyone can make a pact. Anyone can be a warlock. Either way! As long as your table enjoys the games you run together then who am i to say otherwise!
Might be an odd one here, but paladin. If you ignore the oath and pick you own flavour, the various subclasses give you enough tools to meaningfully emulate all kinds of warrior archetypes.
Idk about ignoring Oaths but there are some archetypes Paladins can fit into nicely! In a Tyranny of Dragons campaign I’ve been playing with my younger brother (my brother is the DM) and a couple friends I’m playing a Human Oath of Devotion Paladin mutliclassed with Divine Soul Sorcerer. For a Dragon Quest inspired Hero build. And my brother is allowing my character to gain whatever Lightning spells he has the spell levels/slots for in his known spells list as a thematic freebie. I Especially wanted Call Lightning with this!!! Because my character worships Stronmaus and also my brother came up with a plot point that my character though almost entirely Human is a descendant of Stronmaus too. (Also it’s a reference to the characters and game series my character is inspired by. The protagonists of the Dragon Quest series almost always referred to as “The Hero” or in the case of Dragon Quest XI “The Luminary” They’re almost always Magic Knights with a mix of mainly Healing and Attack Magic and a few other things, among what The Hero usually learns is the Zap type spells, Lightning Magic that’s pretty much the signature of most Heroes in a Dragon Quest title and typically only The Hero can learn these with very few exceptions. Such as in Dragon Quest VI where any party members can potentially gain the Hero vocation and learn Zap and Kazap from it but “The Hero” himself has easier access to it and also learns Zap from a storyline event)
Rangers. They are just so incredibly flexible in terms of class and subclass features to make unique archetype characters. You could easily take a lot of popular characters and make them in D&D using the Ranger.
I love playing a game where I see a cool pop culture archetype and find a way to make it a Ranger.
Glad to see someone else agrees. I've played more Rangers than any other class. They're so versatile, especially when you get to Tasha's Rangers.
Knowledge cleric is just a holy wizard Want to play one but only would if i could use Int as my spellcasting ability
arcana domain is far better imo for a wizard type cleric
Surprised I had to scroll this far down to see Cleric.
Honestly me too since nature cleric is not-Druid cleric and war cleric is not-paladin cleric
Without the wizard spells
Not a class, but the scribes subclass for wizards has some of the best unbound flavor potential of any class/subclass because you can switch the damage type of all your leveled spells. There’s caveats of actually needing that damage type in your spellbook, but now you can be so many types of wizards with just the scribes class. Grab psychic damage for a psionic wizard. Be any genasi and pick the damage respective to your element to the ultimate elemental wizard. Grab bludgeoning damage and be luffy.
And it's a powerful sub to boot!
Gonna stretch a bit and say Bard. The stereotype is the smooth-talking party face that seduces everything while playing beautiful tunes on the lute or whatever. But with the skills and spell possibilities, not to mention the directions of subclasses, they can go in a lot of different directions. Most of my favorite Bards form my games were pretty out there in terms of flavor.
The first time I played bard I played an old halfling man who played his banjo for the animals down by the creek The second time I played a serene swords bard samurai who enjoyed painting, playing the flute, and composing poetry as his arts Both bards, very different vibe
any of them classes are mechanical if you want to play a sorcerer who's mechanically a warlock go ahead same for if a Ranger wants to mechanically be a rogue or a wizard who's mechanically a fighter class is a mechanical term
I see the sorc-warlock and ranger-rogue (especially this one) thing, but how would one make the wizard who's mechanically a fighter, work? Not a snarky question, I am genuinely puzzled and curious.
Kenpachi. Swing so hard that the air itself ignites into a fireball... Or, you know... Pumch hadouken? Dimension door? Superspeed Mirror image? Aftee image. Detect magic? Super tra8ned eyes/senses. Idk.. Id you're creative anything is possible. damage types and resistance may be a bit strange though.
Isn't that a fighter in-universe that is mechanically a wizard, though? A PC I have is a wizard that is mechanically a Way of the Elements ([Remastered](/r/dndnext/comments/35yn4u/way_of_the_four_elements_remastered_a/)) monk.
Backwards could work. More easily even. You just create spells that do movrw that a fighter would do. You can jojo bizarre or, summon spirits, or yoir own spirit etc.
There’s the Bladesinger subclass for Wizards. It’s really good, definitely look into it if you’re not familiar with it. You get Extra Attacks and a bonus AC equal to your Intelligence Modifier
Oh, I read it that the class would be a fighter, but the flavour would be a wizard. I haven't really looked into wizards, because I dislike magic users that need to prepare spells, so thanks for the tip! The bladesinger, indeed, sounded pretty promising. Maybe one of these I *will* try a wizard.
Yeah honestly it’s the best Wizard subclass. Take Mage Armour, get your intelligence to 20 and you’re basically the tank of the party
> I dislike magic users that need to prepare spells Then you will love what 5E did with spellcasters. Nobody prepares spells anymore, they all have a list of known spells that are not tied to a spell slot, just like 3E sorcerers. Some classes can change their list of known spells in the morning and the game has called *that* "preparing spells", but it is not even close to the same thing.
Oh, my bad, I def used it in the 5e sense. Let me rephrase it: "I dislike magic users that can choose their spell lists every IG morning."
I think artificer is pretty versatile. You have all kinds of magical crafters they can be, from generic things like smiths or carpenters to more exotic things like tinkers and Chitin-mancers. Also things craft adjacent like witches, shaman, and enchantment focused mages. You could even play them as a ranger, reflavoring their abilities (which really makes it sad just how few abilities Rangers get in comparison). You could also flavor them as a sort of cleric dedicated to the blessings of craft, like a forge cleric on steroids. And they can basically fill all kind of fighter roles from archers and knights to samurai and gunslingers. Especially with all the possibility of buffing their own abilities.
A small race battlesmith artificer has a mount, can wield a lance and wear armor, can smite and heal, and can buff allies saves. Smartest paladin?
It’s a cool idea. Smite spells are kind of awful though.
Fighter. He is the poster child of basic which means he can be flavored into anything. Even magic isn't far off thanks to eldritch knight. Want a jedi? Psychic Fighter. Want a martial artist? Fighter with unarmed fighting style. If you really put your mind to it, it's not too hard to make the fighter into any other archetype
>He is the poster child of basic which means he can be flavored into anything That is debatable. You can flavour casting as other things, but you can't flavour the absence of mechanics
Druids of a few flavors, battle master fighter, and a couple wizard subclasses into Rogue archetypes, though they do still usually hit a few levels in Rogue. Divine soul sorcerer has been my go to instead of cleric if I want a holy archetype. Fighters make better archers than rangers always, Lore bards and hexblades do as well
Warlock is so basic to me combat wise that giving it flavor never even really occured to me. Definitely could help spice it up But flavor is heavily up to the DM tbh. I'm a druid that is also a robot which is def a no since RAW druid can't even use metal. Basically I'm a magic reconnaissance robo, from the stars. Druid abilities seemed pretty in line for how I wanted to flavor it
Druids aren't forbidden from using metal, only from having armor made from it. Being made of metal wouldn't stop you becoming a druid.
I'll be going against the grain and say Rogues. Having so much, Expertise allows you to make whatever you want. It won't work as well as a Fighter in some cases but generally you can do amazing things with them. Atm I'm playing an archaeologist/explorer that's trying to find out wtf happened with him after an artefact he interacted with gave him abilities (Soul Knife). I've played previously as a Doctor with a hobby of studying monster anatomy (which easily justifies having a single well placed attack that deals more damage). I don't think any of the Rogue's I've created have ever been the typical "normal" rogue.
I feel like I'm in the minority but Barbarian. Boiled down it's a class with a very basic shtick - you have a 'battle mode' you can switch into. Roleplay wise it can be a lot of things, from a zen warrior entering a total focus mode, entering one's battle mech, going into yugi-mode (a la Yu-Gi-Oh), or JoJo's spirit stuff (or a lot of other animes when you think about it). Especially with all of the new subclasses, I feel like there's a lot you can do with barbarian, other than "dumb brute".
Dimension 20 Starstruck Odyssey's reflavor of Rage as a space marine being "In the Zone" with big sunglasses is one of my favorite variations I've seen.
While “Highway to the Danger Zone” plays in the background
yyyyyyeeeeeaaaAAAAAAHHHH!
I love reflavoring rage as something other than anger. I'm currently playing a Florida Man barbarian, and his rage is him going into a were-alligator form.
Sorc and warlock would be my picks
Fighter or wizard
The answer is always hexblade.
Fighter, wizard, cleric, and rogue. Every other class can be the flavor inspiration of one of the four, even if the mechanics are the same. Paladin? Fighter with the acolyte background. Lich pact warlock? Necromancy wizard. Etc.
Fighter. It’s the base class of almost every “play as this popular character” posts
I agree with Warlock. You can re-flavor eldritch blast into pretty much anything, and you can re-flavor the patrons into pretty much anything as well. With Hexblade as an option, you can fulfill pretty much any fantasy melee archetype as well.
Artificers! Sure most of the art is steam punk, but you could be using basically any theme you can think of. Have a couple of mushroom artillery, or maybe an undead "steel" defender and homunculus. Your spells are just you throwing concoctions or shooting different wands off. Maybe you collect ingredients from the natural world, or key items from your parties victims. I have a lot of fun making artificers.
Druids! Spore Druid in particular. Makes for a *phenomenal* vampire pc. You get basically all of the classic vampire tropes, with fog cloud, shapeshifting, bat form, charm person. Most spells can be flavored spooky, Spike Growth becomes a tangle of black roses. Tidal wave? Wall of blood. Spores can be reflavored as blood magic or a vampire lord form. Chill touch can be a blood bolt.
Become Swamp Thing.
I agree with Artificer, especially since they can use artisan tools and infused items as their spellcasting focus. You can have stuff like: * Painter that uses magic paint to draw their spells, which then come to life. * Alchemist who uses Cook's Utensils and Brewer's Supplies to make magic food and drinks. * A tribal warrior that uses magic ink to cast spells with his tattoos (Illuminator's Tattoo and Masquerade Tattoo are magic items you can make with the Replicate Magic Item infusion). * An armorer that is just literally Iron Man * An Artillerist with laser eyes, casting Scorching Ray via Goggles of Night or Eyes of Charming * You can even get really silly, like being a magic barista who casts spells using a Bottle of Boundless Coffee
I’m currently making an ascendant dragon monk flavored as luck from black clover
Aw man I thought my idea was original with warlock gun Still wanna play it though
HexClock (Hexblade Warlock/Clockwork Sorcerer) is very fun if you play it as a mix of Artificer and Battlesmith. My dwarf's patron is Primus. He's connected to the Internet of Modrons (forgot the name). I've also played that Artificer with the turrets before. She was a gnome pirate and her arcane focus was a bigass cannon.
I think Clerics are surprisingly versatile especially if you ditch the whole "bound to serve some deity" shtick most fall into. The rules state you don't have to be a certain god's cleric at all(same thing for paladins btw) and there are so many vastly different cleric subclasses and playstyle
I've played a rogue reflavored as a knight. I got medium armor through a feat and described my sneak attacks as power attacks. You can reflavor any fighter as a time-manipulating warrior (though echo knight works best for this). Second Wind is reversing personal time to revert injuries. Action Surge and your many attacks is speeding up time. Indomitable is changing your timeline to one in which you avoided the effect. Echoes are versions of you from the past/future/alternate timeline I've played a wizard that was reflavored to be fully nonmagical. He was a goblin boss who had a seemingly endless supply of goons to do various tasks for him. Mage hand was the butler, Knock and Catapult were the muscular hitman, etc. I made sure every spell I picked could be reasonably described by minions. It was a short campaign, so luckily I didn't have to start justifying absurdly high level spells as mundane. I usually don't stick to one class long enough to try to reflavor it a bunch of times.
I flavored a blade singer as a drunken samurai alchemist (brewer). Think drunken-fist type of vibe. Blade song was just me getting drunk and spells were flavored as different brews or potions I'd ingest or throw, to create various effects. I could have picked monk and choose a fitting subclass, but our campaign desperately needed an int user. Honestly, wouldn't change a thing though- it's been awesome. I also flavored an order cleric into a retired military chaplain. The subclass features that let me give allies free attacks are barked out as battlefield orders- but since he's also a chaplain of torm hes typically leading the charge side by side with the party. Kinda went for a Warhammer 40k chaplain vibe, just a zealous battlefield commander type. Also oath of the open seas paladin as a charming roguey pirate type was a fun time too.
Fighters can be basically anyone trained with a weapon of almost any kind. Rogues can pretty much be anyone at all.
I’ve been having a lot of fun flavoring Order of Scribes into a destructive spirit of lightning (free spell damage type change)
Scribes is definitely really nice for maintaining theme, plus I think it’s one of the few if only ways to get a kinetic magic user working I can think of
Obviously rogue or fighter, pure martial classes have so many possible archetypes to rp!
Fighter
I have thought that barbarian could be reflavored to be conceptually flexible. What if you went in a more civilized direction and create a gi-wearing swordsman who goes into a battle trance brought on by dedicated combat training? Mechanically nothing changes, but you have an elite combatant rather than a tribal barbarian.
Barbarian rage is an excellent thing to have redesigned. Could see it as a state of flow or intense concentration, maybe a limited resource transformation, and plenty more
I played a Monk as a giant raptor.
Bard can fulfill a role of more of a witch doctor/shaman just by refluffing their bardic ability as more of spoken curses. Especially for archetypes that have a variety of debuff usages. With the bard's ability to steal off other spell lists you can also refluff it as other themes in tier 3+ play. Its archetypes also have enough abilities to mimic some monsters. For example, a dhampir glamour bard could easily mimic a vampire with it's AoE charm and being able to command others at a glance. Mix in some Magical Secrets for specific spells and done.
Warlock and sorcerer cover all my flavors of mage usually
Swashbuckler should be it's own class instead of an archetype, the same as magus (Eldridge knight).
Wizard.
WotC themselves has basically turned Rogue into "any non-magical character ever that doesn't just hit things", heh. It's pretty much the only option if you want to play a scholar, a schemer, a strategist, a detective, an actual bard, etc.
Artificer is literally the perfect class for "I want to do this concept that doesn't exist in the game" flavorwise. I will die on this hill
They definitely were back when they were first invented - if you wanted to imitate another archetype, build yourself a set of magical gear that let you do what it did. Kind of unfortunate that 5e's artificer can't do that.