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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="schnee" data-source="post: 7106725" data-attributes="member: 16728">What class need to be completely re-worked in 5e?So does this answer:None of them. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />I can see some improvements, maybe a bit more ink and page space devoted to a few of them (ahem *Sorcerer*) but...blown up? Completely from scratch? Nah.--Money where my mouth is: IMHO, the non-Wizard classes always get a bit shorted by sharing spells with the Wizard. The Sorcerer suffers from this the most of all.I really like playing a Druid and having unique spells like Entangle and Moonbeam. And Produce Flame is interesting, because it combines the features of Light and Fire Bolt into something more thematically appropriate. I choose those whenever possible to make that class feel different. I wish the Sorcerer had MUCH more of that.I'd rather see a parallel spell list, where the Sorcerer has a unique, mechanically different set of spells that play into the fact that they have a much more limited set to play with. They don't have to have the same flexibility as a Wizard, they should just feel significantly different. I'd even love to have the metamagic-like effects 'baked in' to each spell, so their Flame spell gets to, say, shoot fire in a 15' cone, 30x5' line, or 10' diameter fireball at 90' range. Wild mage? Small chance of the areas of effect to be larger or smaller, or to do a different damage type. Stuff like that.My bet is it comes down to page length and burden; the spell list takes up 20% of the book now, it would easily be 40% or more of it, making it much more expensive to print, and the rules knowledge burden on DMs would be doubled or more.</blockquote>

Verification