Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="the Jester" data-source="post: 8008011" data-attributes="member: 1210">First, I really don't see, or want, a 5.5e. I might buy into it if it happened, but it would have to be so significantly different as to be incompatible with 5e as it stands, and I don't want that. Second, I agree that the base classes largely do the heavy lifting in 5e, but I think this is a good thing. I think rather than moving that heavy lifting into subclasses, which requires a new edition of semi-edition, a possible way to open up some design space would be to reintroduce variant level types. I'm not sure how popular they were, but in late 3e, WotC published a number of these- for instance, at certain levels, you could take an "elven fighter" or "dwarven fighter" (etc) level that replaced the standard fighter benefits of that level with benefits themed and tied to the race. Instead of getting fighter feature x, you would get "fighter feature y that makes you more elfy or dwarfy (or whatever-y)." Another approach I would be down with would be a return of prestige classes (or something like them). Maybe, to build the swordmage, you take some fighter levels and then shoot off at an angle into a prestige class-like subclass that takes over and replaces your base class. So instead of getting fighter feature x at level y, you get "prestige subclass feature x" that replaces your fighter features. Or maybe a subclass could open up special 'feat replacements' that nobody else gets access to, abilities that are tied to the subclass identity.Looking at the swordmage specifically, I see what you're saying. No 5e equivalent exists that really captures what a swordmage was an how deeply integrated its abilities were into its core identity. But the thing is, there really isn't a solid equivalent to much that was in 4e. A 4e barbarian is wildly different than a barbarian from any other edition, for instance. The druid is another good example, probably as strong of an example as the swordmage is. I think the solution (for those who want it) is to design those equivalents from the ground up as base classes. I think we need an actual goddamn warlord, for instance, because nothing in 5e gets more than 50% of the way there, even using feats, multiclassing, etc, to do the very best you can. Now, do I think your approach is bad or wrong? Not in principle. But I dislike the idea of revising the game to the extent that it would require. I'd rather find solutions that can be pinned on to the game as it is, instead of ripping out existing groundwork.</blockquote>

Verification