Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 9244206" data-attributes="member: 87792">The Ranger is a pretty substantial caster by the standards of pre-5e. Fifth level spells is barely less than a 3.5 bard gets - and I don't see the shaman as a cleric level caster. To be honest I'd rather expand the warlock with a primal subclass.I'm not clear what you want here.<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">You can go whistle if you want attack and defence modes from the 1e psion.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Are you demanding the literal 70 pages of hand curated spells that the 3.5 XPH had? In which case there are reasons you're not getting that.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Do you want a flexible power point caster who augments spells by upcasting them, casts with power points using no somatic or material components, and otherwise behaves the way they used to? In which case all you need to do is go into your copy of Tasha's with a bottle of tip-ex, paint out Aberrant Mind, and write in Psion.</li> </ol>That's what you consider the class identity? Make it your casting focus.So what you want is literally "exactly the way it worked".In which case I'm saying "down the line cleric, no changes required". It has ninth level spells and the right prime scores after all.  And things like Spirit Guardians are more Invoker than "classic Cleric" IMO.That's some extremely narrow bounds you're setting there. And we still have the Armourer and Battlesmith who are exactly what you claim to want. All this to match something that didn't really exist in prior editions other than through heavy workrounds.Yeah, I didn't say that they were good replacements.Depends on the base class. And in 90% of cases for prior editions 1/3 of the thematic difference is more than enough to make up for an old school "class", with only 4e then forcing the designers to put in enough material to make it worth bothering to make a class. Picking a really obvious example the 3.0/3.5 barbarian in 5e would be deservedly nothing more than a subclass in 5e - as would the 3.0/3.5 sorcerer. But the Artificer (which admittedly needs a polish) couldn't be made to fit in the wizard so it became a new class.Which is why they made every single idea into a class to sell more bloated splatbooks. I consider it a good thing that 5e isn't in the shovelware business and that they are actually using the full power of ideas rather than hastily churning out half formed ideas to fill books and break balance.</blockquote>

Verification