Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Companion thread to 5E Survivor - Subclasses (Part XII: Rogues)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8818935" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>A miserable pile of (Magical) Secrets! But enough talk!</p><p></p><p></p><p>Usually I say no to this question--I consider Rangers and Paladins significantly improved when they <em>don't</em> cast spells, but have other forms of supernatural power--but for the Bard? Yes, absolutely. The whole point of the Bard is that they do all the things. They're the equivalent of Red Mage from Final Fantasy (or, rather, Red Mage is the equivalent of Bard, since D&D very much came first.)</p><p></p><p></p><p>And, as above, I think that that is sad. Proper spells should be one important, but not <em>hegemonic</em>, branch of supernatural power. <em>Some</em> classes should be focused on it. IMO, those are Bard, Cleric, Druid, Invoker (a 4e class), Sorcerer, Summoner (a PF class), Wizard, Warlock. Possibly also Artificer and Shaman--I can see those going either way. But Assassin, Avenger, Monk, Paladin, anything psionics-based, Ranger, Swordmage, and Warden should all do things that <em>aren't</em> neo-Vancian slots-and-levels spellcasting. That doesn't mean they shouldn't have supernatural powers; instead, it means that whatever supernatural powers they have should function differently, preferably more closely tailored to the theme of these classes. (Notably, most of those which I think should use neo-Vancian casting are pretty "big tent" classes with multiple divergent takes under one roof, while most of those I think <em>shouldn't</em> do so are more inherently tightly-themed, with subclasses being more about focus and tone than about playstyle shifts.)</p><p></p><p></p><p>For someone who wants a character that is like that, awesome. Opting <em>into</em> that is great, and I would 100% approve of a "soft multiclass" option for a Rogue with a dabble of Bard. Making it so everyone must run with that--and, moreover, cannot opt <em>out</em> of it--is kind of a problem.</p><p></p><p>Or, to put it a different way: By this standard, the Eldritch Knight is a Wizard replacement. No need to <em>waste space</em> on a full Wizard class when the Eldritch Knight is good enough!</p><p></p><p>Providing "soft multiclass" options of all kinds is great. It isn't a good substitute for true classes. That doesn't mean we should hare off and make a class for <em>every possible concept,</em> because that would be silly. But it's just as silly, IMO, to pass off "soft multiclass" options as though they fully cover an extant class.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8818935, member: 6790260"] A miserable pile of (Magical) Secrets! But enough talk! Usually I say no to this question--I consider Rangers and Paladins significantly improved when they [I]don't[/I] cast spells, but have other forms of supernatural power--but for the Bard? Yes, absolutely. The whole point of the Bard is that they do all the things. They're the equivalent of Red Mage from Final Fantasy (or, rather, Red Mage is the equivalent of Bard, since D&D very much came first.) And, as above, I think that that is sad. Proper spells should be one important, but not [I]hegemonic[/I], branch of supernatural power. [I]Some[/I] classes should be focused on it. IMO, those are Bard, Cleric, Druid, Invoker (a 4e class), Sorcerer, Summoner (a PF class), Wizard, Warlock. Possibly also Artificer and Shaman--I can see those going either way. But Assassin, Avenger, Monk, Paladin, anything psionics-based, Ranger, Swordmage, and Warden should all do things that [I]aren't[/I] neo-Vancian slots-and-levels spellcasting. That doesn't mean they shouldn't have supernatural powers; instead, it means that whatever supernatural powers they have should function differently, preferably more closely tailored to the theme of these classes. (Notably, most of those which I think should use neo-Vancian casting are pretty "big tent" classes with multiple divergent takes under one roof, while most of those I think [I]shouldn't[/I] do so are more inherently tightly-themed, with subclasses being more about focus and tone than about playstyle shifts.) For someone who wants a character that is like that, awesome. Opting [I]into[/I] that is great, and I would 100% approve of a "soft multiclass" option for a Rogue with a dabble of Bard. Making it so everyone must run with that--and, moreover, cannot opt [I]out[/I] of it--is kind of a problem. Or, to put it a different way: By this standard, the Eldritch Knight is a Wizard replacement. No need to [I]waste space[/I] on a full Wizard class when the Eldritch Knight is good enough! Providing "soft multiclass" options of all kinds is great. It isn't a good substitute for true classes. That doesn't mean we should hare off and make a class for [I]every possible concept,[/I] because that would be silly. But it's just as silly, IMO, to pass off "soft multiclass" options as though they fully cover an extant class. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Companion thread to 5E Survivor - Subclasses (Part XII: Rogues)
Top