Search results

The way I see it, something should be a subclass when it is just a minor variant of the main class and still shares the basic features of that class. A specialist wizard is still a wizard, as is a wizard of high sorcery, a dark sun defiler, etc. A shaman is just a variant druid. A totem...

First off, what is so wrong with having more classes in the future? Why is subclass "bloat" okay but new classes something to be avoided like the plague? Second, you talk about the unchanging portion of classes and how in previous iterations of the game many classes shared a lot of stuff with...

Maybe you have a different idea of what "sucks at combat" means than I do. I just mentioned, as an example, a character that's only half as powerful in combat as the combat-focused character. Many people would think that "sucks at combat." I'm talking about the rules at least giving each class...

Overreact much? You're acting like I sent rules ninjas to your house to piss in your cheerios. You accuse me of wanting to "force you to play a combat-type." Please explain to me how I could force you to do anything? I can't, and even if I could, I wouldn't. All I said is that each class needs...

I'd like to know what kinds of abilities people would want to exchange for sneak attack. The way I see it, the more options people have, the better. However, there are limits to this. Each class needs to have a certain degree of competence in combat. I am strongly against the idea that it's...

There are several problems with this. First, there's no consistency in this design. They're cramming everything from the wizard to the warlock to the psion to the artificer under the mage, but make barbarians, paladins, rangers, druids, and bards their own classes? That is just.. bizarre...

I understood it, but it might confuse other people since it's normally used for spells per day and you're using it for spells known. Because that's an awful lot of information to put under one class. How can you be so sure?

That isn't just using the mage chart. You're swapping spells per day with powers known, but keeping the same numbers. That's only bound to create confusion. And there's going to be a whole lot more information needed to explain psionics than just what you posted. Just giving all of the basic...

Yes. I really, seriously care. It's not just a matter of organization. If the decision to group wizards, sorcerers, warlocks, psions, etc. under a label called mage didn't mean those classes would have to share the same structure, same spells, similar class abilities (like psions having to have...

Sorcerers, Warlocks, Psions and even Artificers are all familiar classes from previous editions. Allowing those to be their own classes doesn't mean you have to allow anything else after that. But even if they do, so what? Every class is based on a concept from the fantasy genre. When I decided...

Why are classes bad, but subclasses/kits okay? Why does the former bother you so much? In either case, it's just one more option for your character to play. [Edit] Besides, you're making a slippery slope argument. Just because warlocks and sorcerers are classes doesn't mean things like wild...

That hasn't been the case since 1st edition. Having more classes doesn't bloat the game or overcomplicate it. People can and will just ignore the classes they don't like or don't want to play. You know what does bloat or overcomplicate the game? A mage class that's like 50 pages because it has...

Wow. Really? I was "foot stamping" and "gnashing of teeth" by simply pointing out the multiclass issue? Exaggerate much? Don't ask for people's opinions if you don't want to hear them, or can't handle hearing them. For the record, I like Next. I have overall been pretty positive about it and...

I'm not just making this stuff up. Here are some quotes from Twitter to prove it. I'm pretty sure that means warlocks in the core rules will use mage spells. If, if, we ever see things like invocations, they'll be an optional module that replaces wizardry, and probably be for any type of mage...

Anyone who wants to multiclass within one of those 4 categories, i.e. fighter/ranger, rogue/bard, or warlock/wizard.

As I said in the other thread, if it was just an organizational thing I wouldn't be so upset. Having warlocks and psions use the same spell list as wizards and not be able to multiclass with each other are not merely organizational things!

You may not have a problem with warlocks and psions using the mage spell list, but I do. I want my warlock to use eldritch blasts, fly with wings of shadow, and turn into a swarm of shadowy bats, not cast the same old spells that wizards have!

Druids and Clerics share quite a few spells. Should druids just be a subclass of cleric?

If it was just a matter of organization I wouldn't be so upset. Making warlocks and psions subclasses of mage means that they're probably going to use the mage spell list and be differentiated by only a few class features. As someone who loved the 3.5 warlock, with its unique approach to...

I'm still in disbelief that they're even considering this. Psions have never been mages. What psion wants to call itself a mage? "Hey guys, I'm a psychic mage! I'm just like that other guy with the spellbook and weird components, but instead I stare at things intently." :hmm: And what does this...