D&D General There can be only ONE: Bard v. Warlock

[CreamCloud0]

Don't know about that.
If we talk about FR, I would play cleric of Silvanus and druid of silvanus as the same character.
One can shapeshift other is allowed to wear metal armor

i'll rephrase that, the concept of a druid has potential to be more than just being a 'nature preist', even if the class hasn't actually been used for much else previously. (with the original question being why are the two class/concepts so often split from each other)

edit: it's the same thing as why is paladin split from cleric: because it being it's own thing allows it to explore nuanced concepts through more avenues.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Still voting to delete the wizard instead.

 

[Horwath]

Still voting to delete the wizard instead.

Only full caster, Sorcerer, rest are sub-classes/feats

 

[Stormonu]

If you're going to pull Barbarian, Ranger and Paladin out as their own classes then doing Druid, Bard, Warlock, (Sorcerer) as separate classes makes sense as well. If you're going for the "main four" they can just be subclasses, feats and/or multiclass options (or just not available at all).

Honestly, what D&D does as classes most other RPGs do as "starting packages" or sample stereotypes built at the start. D&D is one of the few remaining RPGs that keeps abilities siloed rather than "anybody can learn anything" with some progression.

 

[steeldragons]

If you're going to pull Barbarian, Ranger and Paladin out as their own classes then doing Druid, Bard, Warlock, (Sorcerer) as separate classes makes sense as well. If you're going for the "main four" they can just be subclasses, feats and/or multiclass options (or just not available at all).

(mumbles behind hand) Welllll, I am doing away with the Paladin as a class. (/mumble)

Haha. The "Templar" subclass of "Cleric" will fulfill the character archetype and contain the bulk of what are traditionally considered "Paladin abilities/features."

There would also be a "Crusader" Mystic theme (think a kind of "beefed up" 5e "background") to lend some "holy fighting man" flavor, a "Defender" Warrior theme for ally-aiding fighters or clerics (or druids or barbarians), a "Disciple" theme (that offers some limited Divine channeling) that anyone could take, and/or a "Cavalier" subclass of Fighter for those who want a more non-magical "knightly defender" type, for other avenues, if a player wishes, to get to a paladinic flavor character.

Objectively, as much as possible within this system, any type of character should be achieveable by multiple routes/combinations of class choice, layered themes, eventual access to "prestige classes," and/or multiclassing.

But the player still has to make the class choices and theme choices that are gated to various class categories (except the "General/Universal" themes). Rather than just a full free-for-all random "Anyone can take/do anything at any time/every level."

 

[DarkCrisis]

Bard.

Warlock are for people who think Tiefling is the best race.

 

[Reynard]

Bard.

Warlock are for people who think Tiefling is the best race.

Nah. The warlock should just replace the sorcerer.

 

[Stormonu]

I'm just mad WotC won't go ahead and make some sort of Fighter/MU hybrid and shoot dead the Eldritch Knight.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Bard.

Warlock are for people who think Tiefling is the best race.

Bard's actually the class us teifling fans gravitate toward. Warlock is for people who want to play spellcasters that work like pop culture spellcasters.

 

[mellored]

Warlock has far more interesting stories IMO.

Probably the easiest and best character hook of any class.