Search results

I mean, literally all anyone who is curious has to do is google "witch 5e" and see there about a dozen different options showing how much you could potentially do. To your point - it definitely could be. It could also be a wizard subclass. But neither of those options take the concept far...

No, I'm not - because plenty of people agree with me. I'm not going to change every single person's mind. That doesn't mean I'm wrong OR that I'm under any obligation to change my communication style. In fact, I've had several people stop arguing with me - likely because they slowly began to...

Well you need to reread and try to reinterpret if that's how you're reading my messages. Maybe my tone is a little harsh, but there's still no reason to interpret anything in the way you've described above - the shortcoming isn't on my side. In fact, I very much feel like that's what people are...

Except refluffing doesn't work as well as everyone acts like it does. A published class carries a shared understanding among players of how its designed and how it's meant to work. In many cases it makes more sense to design something new than it does to reflavor something that's existing. This...

Of course you don't need it! You don't need literally anything but the PHB to play D&D! That clearly is not the point. If you're satisfied with no new options ever, that's fine and that's your prerogative, but you have no basis whatsoever for fighting expansion of content for players who want it.

Except the monk comes bundled with a lot of fluff & crunch that don't fit a brawler very well. In fact, if anything, it should have been done the other way around, with Brawler being a class and Monk being a subclass. So your emphasis on "the monk already fits the archetype of the brawler" shows...

This doesn't make much sense, because "clown" is not a style of combat or exploration, which means it is not in any way analogous to "brawler" as a concept. Even so, if a concept fits well within your established lore for someone who would go adventuring, then there's no reason not develop it...

You can't see it because you haven't spent any time thinking about it and so therefore you aren't seeing it. That's literally it. I could send you a few different versions of a homebrew brawler class if you're actually interested. Here's the rub - any argument you could make to denounce a...

Well, yes, you could, but you could also develop it as a full class that feels at least as unique and justified as the monk does.

I think that's probably because you haven't seen what all can be done with it yet. And that's at the heart of my issue with the "no (or very few) new classes" mantra - it leaves a lot of really neat concepts totally under-explored.

I'm not even sure how true this is. It's not like I would care to have a list of 100 classes. In fact - I specifically pursued homebrew classes for concepts where I thought it was warranted - those listed in my edited post above. I doubt I'd ever care to have that many more. Although I kinda...

Sort of true, but it's not just a matter of when you select your subclass but also a matter of what features are part of the core class and what features are part of the subclass - which is kind of all over the place from class to class, with some classes getting more of their identity from...

It was not a wizard build. It was an alternate version of the wizard with very different flavor and features - not something that could be simulated by a subclass in 5e. I will repeat two things I've already stated here: "class bloat", to whatever degree it can be argued as an actual problem...

I think what was meant by this is that instead of taking the time to try to get it right they just kinda discarded it and simplified their approach by converting it into some subclasses, which I think is something worth criticizing. Now, that said, if they're using this as a way of garnering...

No, you and a handful of others keep trying to relate them because you can't separate my actual argument from your preconceived notions about what my argument is. Your conclusion here is a completely nonsensical leap from your premise.

Except, for the 100th time, my arguments in this thread have nothing to do with the pace of releases. Sure, I'd like to see more, but that is beside the point I'm arguing in this thread.

I don't disagree with that - which is why you don't see me putting up a fight about Psychic Warrior being a subclass instead of its own class. But it's ridiculously inelegant to make it a universal rule as there are all kinds of concepts that are better served as a full class than Ranger or...

My thread dovetailed into a lot of bickering, but, yeah I share pretty much all your concerns and have a very generalized concern about the tendency to create subclasses ad nauseam as a replacement for concepts that really should be developed as full classes. It doesn't matter if they come out...

I'm not insulting the game designers. I'm scrutinizing the methodology they seem to have applied for this edition.

Well they clearly are because we just got the artificer. And that's most likely because they realized that their initial draft of pigeonholing it as a wizard subclass was a disservice to the concept.