Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="77IM" data-source="post: 7320524" data-attributes="member: 12377">I think I'd keep it pretty similar to how it is now, actually. I'd just clean up some of the classes that had weak subclass options, like Fighter, Ranger, and Sorcerer. Actually, any class where there aren't 3-4 obvious subclasses is probably narratively weak. And certain popular concepts have been left on the cutting room floor (witch, shaman, warlord). For example, if Fighter got more from its subclass it could cover a lot more narrative ground; I find it somewhat ironic how the designers lamented the difficulty of designing the Fighter for precisely their narrative breadth, and then made the mistake of baking all the power into the superclass. They did a better job with the Druid and could use it to represent things like the shaman (which they kind of did -- Xanathar's "Circle of the Shepherd" is somewhat like the 4e Shaman). The one that really got the shaft, I think, is Sorcerers. There are a lot of popular characters these days that would be described as Sorcerers; the fact that it's hard to build Elsa using just the PHB is a fail. (Yes, you can reflavor the silver draconic sorcerer, but no little girl wants to hear that.) There should be at least as many Sorcerous Origins as there are Arcane Traditions.The only possible exception is I'd like to see an arcane half-caster, half-warrior as a full class. That's a popular enough thing in genre fiction to warrant its own core class. I don't think Eldritch Knight and Bladesinger are cutting the mustard. The biggest problem with the warrior-mage concept is that it's hard to come up with a good name for it other than awkward-sounding combinations like "warrior-mage." ("Adept" is not an awful name for this class, coming from a Shadowrun background, but it means nothing to people in general.) Subclasses might included spellblade, gish, something that does what a 4e swordmage did (but not called "swordmage" because it's too easily confused with spellblade), and something more roguish (maybe shadowdancer?). If this is starting to sound a little like a jack-of-all-trades with substantial overlap with Bard, I'm OK with that. I think the classes represent genre archetypes first and foremost, and in today's genre fiction, the warrior-mage is at least as popular as the bard. But the two are distinct enough that I wouldn't try to make one a subclass of the other.</blockquote>

Verification