Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Plane Sailing" data-source="post: 5928435" data-attributes="member: 114">I can see good and bad in the idea of equivalent packages for other classes.Good: It can allow for various additional archetypes to be easily handled within a particular classBad: If it excludes certain options by locking them into one scheme, I think that is a bad thing.So, looking at the examples you chosea) I think that warlord Pacts are a great example, because these MUST be mutually exclusive.b) Personally I don't like the idea of schools of wizardry, but I know they are deeply embedded into the D&amp;D tradition. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> IMO the best way of handling these would be to borrow liberally from the 4e essentials Mage class - none of the 'extra spell' band-aid used in the past, but giving them additional abilities when evoking, or enchanting etc. BUT, I can see this easily being handled within Themes, which have a built in way of adding extra themes.c) I'm afraid I really don't like the idea of pigeonholing fighting styles behind fighters. If anything I'd rather see it as an armour style, so you could have duellist, armoured and things in between, but the fighters have free choice from day to day whether they want to go sword and board, two handed weapon or two weapons.My gut feeling is that it would be good for Warlords, but not necessarily good for other classes. It will be interesting to see how they develop vis a vis Themes during the playtest period.Cheers</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Plane Sailing, post: 5928435, member: 114"] I can see good and bad in the idea of equivalent packages for other classes. Good: It can allow for various additional archetypes to be easily handled within a particular class Bad: If it excludes certain options by locking them into one scheme, I think that is a bad thing. So, looking at the examples you chose a) I think that warlord Pacts are a great example, because these MUST be mutually exclusive. b) Personally I don't like the idea of schools of wizardry, but I know they are deeply embedded into the D&D tradition. :) IMO the best way of handling these would be to borrow liberally from the 4e essentials Mage class - none of the 'extra spell' band-aid used in the past, but giving them additional abilities when evoking, or enchanting etc. BUT, I can see this easily being handled within Themes, which have a built in way of adding extra themes. c) I'm afraid I really don't like the idea of pigeonholing fighting styles behind fighters. If anything I'd rather see it as an armour style, so you could have duellist, armoured and things in between, but the fighters have free choice from day to day whether they want to go sword and board, two handed weapon or two weapons. My gut feeling is that it would be good for Warlords, but not necessarily good for other classes. It will be interesting to see how they develop vis a vis Themes during the playtest period. Cheers [/QUOTE]

Verification