Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Minigiant" data-source="post: 8246190" data-attributes="member: 63508">Yeah you could do it.You can do a lot of things.But 4e told us that if you tried something that dramatic and label it D&amp;D, you willget an internet riot. I mean what you are suggesting is more out there than 4e. No rogue? Wizards starting as 1/3rd casters? WOTC would escort you out with security and ban you from the premises.The core issue is the way D&amp;D fans expect their main casters leaves little wiggle room for subclasses. That's why the 5e wizard subclasses are either uninspiring or OP. The base wizard, cleric, and druid is so crazy powerful in mechanics that if you don't nerf the class to hell, you can't do much with it without breaking the game (as 3e proved).Artificers, warlocks, sorcerers, and the warrior have a lot more mechanical design space in the base class assumption to tweak a lot with the subclasses, kits, PRCs, or whatever.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Minigiant, post: 8246190, member: 63508"] Yeah you [I]could[/I] do it. You [I]can[/I] do a lot of things. But 4e told us that if you tried something that dramatic and label it D&D, you willget an internet riot. I mean what you are suggesting is more out there than 4e. No rogue? Wizards starting as 1/3rd casters? WOTC would escort you out with security and ban you from the premises. The core issue is the way D&D fans expect their main casters leaves little wiggle room for subclasses. That's why the 5e wizard subclasses are either uninspiring or OP. The base wizard, cleric, and druid is so crazy powerful in mechanics that if you don't nerf the class to hell, you can't do much with it without breaking the game (as 3e proved). Artificers, warlocks, sorcerers, and the warrior have a lot more mechanical design space in the base class assumption to tweak a lot with the subclasses, kits, PRCs, or whatever. [/QUOTE]

Verification