Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="tetrasodium" data-source="post: 9309940" data-attributes="member: 93670">In some ways this is needlessly restrictive and I think talking about the reasons for omissions is more useful than reasons for inclusion sooooo....<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Artificer</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Cleric</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Druid</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Druid</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Fighter</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Wizard</li>
</ul>&nbsp; The most obvious omission is the rogue and that is no accident.&nbsp;&nbsp; Depending on archetype rogue falls into bins of &quot;kinda like a fighter but some extra training like so&quot; or &quot;some kinda spellcaster but more martial focus and slower caster progression.&nbsp;&nbsp; Both of those can be better represented by one of the six abovePaladin is missing because they can trivially slot under fighter again and any edge case archetypes can go under the base class where they fit best.Sorcerer had a distinct niche back in 3.5, but now it's bost wizard with a better attribute that serves as a black hole for subclasses because so much of wizard is baked into sorc rather than sirc leaning more on bloodline and heritage from the subclass.Warlock was omitted Because &quot;best in class caster weapon user cantrip familiar etc is a niche that only comes with dating the GM.Ranger was omitted because it fits better being able to have relevant archetypes slot in under druid/wizard/fighter as best fits allows better concept developmentmonk was omitted because it has never bothered to accclimate itself to d&amp;d and has instead spent decades trying to square peg David karrodine's kwi chang kang character to the destroyer and cultivation tropes into d&amp;d..&nbsp; if those things have a place, they can slot in under one of the six above where they bear the burden of supporting their own weight rather than making the GM do what no setting since Oriental adventures supportedAll casters can go back to 3.5prc style subclass based slot progression</blockquote>

[QUOTE="tetrasodium, post: 9309940, member: 93670"] In some ways this is needlessly restrictive and I think talking about the reasons for omissions is more useful than reasons for inclusion sooooo.... [LIST] [*]Artificer [*]Cleric [*]Druid [*]Druid [*]Fighter [*]Wizard [/LIST] The most obvious omission is the rogue and that is no accident. Depending on archetype rogue falls into bins of "kinda like a fighter but some extra training like so" or "some kinda spellcaster but more martial focus and slower caster progression. Both of those can be better represented by one of the six above Paladin is missing because they can trivially slot under fighter again and any edge case archetypes can go under the base class where they fit best. Sorcerer had a distinct niche back in 3.5, but now it's bost wizard with a better attribute that serves as a black hole for subclasses because so much of wizard is baked into sorc rather than sirc leaning more on bloodline and heritage from the subclass. Warlock was omitted Because "best in class caster weapon user cantrip familiar etc is a niche that only comes with dating the GM. Ranger was omitted because it fits better being able to have relevant archetypes slot in under druid/wizard/fighter as best fits allows better concept development monk was omitted because it has never bothered to accclimate itself to d&d and has instead spent decades trying to square peg David karrodine's kwi chang kang character to the destroyer and cultivation tropes into d&d.. if those things have a place, they can slot in under one of the six above where they bear the burden of supporting their own weight rather than making the GM do what no setting since Oriental adventures supported All casters can go back to 3.5prc style subclass based slot progression [/QUOTE]

Verification