Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mirrorrorrim" data-source="post: 9143348" data-attributes="member: 7040132">Agree on some accounts. <ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">An eventually updated Conjurer should be built around &quot;Summoner&quot; and teleport abilities.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">There REALLY needs to be an updated &quot;Elementalist&quot; Sorcerer. It is such an iconic power source for a soul to be connected to. I agree that it should exist in a core book before a Clockwork Sorcerer.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">&quot;Psychics&quot; are screwed. If it's not the Aberrant Sorcerer, then it is the Psion, and no one can agree on what a Psion should be. </li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">It is pretty apparent to me that Witches are a diverse concept of their own, not a single class. There just isn't an established suite of abilities that universally screams &quot;Witch&quot; that is exclusive to the witch. There are arcane mystical witches and primal hedge witches. Warlocks do a really good job covering the arcane witches and if the Fey warlock doesn't cover primal witchery, then Druids cover the concept pretty well. Heck, witches have a lot of lore overlap with Hags, and I don't want a new &quot;Witch&quot; class that entwines the two even further, essentially looking like a newbie Hag.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Bonus bullet point: Shamans are just druids that have spiritual leadership over a tribe. Not every alternative title means that a new class has to be made for it. Maybe a subclass that uses a Channel Nature differently instead of Wildshape?</li>
</ul>But as for having to fill those other martial subclass roles before caster roles? The designers needed to create more subclasses for classes that don't have many. There are WAY more spellcaster concepts to fill than barbarians and rangers, so some are left in the cold longer. They needed to invent more barbarians and rangers to get a baseline before printing even more spellcaster concepts.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mirrorrorrim, post: 9143348, member: 7040132"] Agree on some accounts. [LIST] [*]An eventually updated Conjurer should be built around "Summoner" and teleport abilities. [*]There REALLY needs to be an updated "Elementalist" Sorcerer. It is such an iconic power source for a soul to be connected to. I agree that it should exist in a core book before a Clockwork Sorcerer. [*]"Psychics" are screwed. If it's not the Aberrant Sorcerer, then it is the Psion, and no one can agree on what a Psion should be. [*]It is pretty apparent to me that Witches are a diverse concept of their own, not a single class. There just isn't an established suite of abilities that universally screams "Witch" that is exclusive to the witch. There are arcane mystical witches and primal hedge witches. Warlocks do a really good job covering the arcane witches and if the Fey warlock doesn't cover primal witchery, then Druids cover the concept pretty well. Heck, witches have a lot of lore overlap with Hags, and I don't want a new "Witch" class that entwines the two even further, essentially looking like a newbie Hag. [*]Bonus bullet point: Shamans are just druids that have spiritual leadership over a tribe. Not every alternative title means that a new class has to be made for it. Maybe a subclass that uses a Channel Nature differently instead of Wildshape? [/LIST] But as for having to fill those other martial subclass roles before caster roles? The designers needed to create more subclasses for classes that don't have many. There are WAY more spellcaster concepts to fill than barbarians and rangers, so some are left in the cold longer. They needed to invent more barbarians and rangers to get a baseline before printing even more spellcaster concepts. [/QUOTE]

Verification