Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Xeviat" data-source="post: 7863069" data-attributes="member: 57494">I certainly have a fondness for the 12 classes that were picked for 5E (largely because those were the 12 4E classes I decided could stand alone and couldn't just be builds of the others). I think they cover a lot of archetypes, though many of them are self references at this point. I only recently started to think on the Sorcerer/Warlock issue: they're both &quot;mages&quot;, both use charisma, and their subclasses have strong thematic ties to various magical creatures or figures. Any role a sorcerer can do, I can see a warlock doing, especially when they wrote out the curse/boon mechanic being core to the warlock.Yes, many of those 12 could be subclasses of the others. Ranger could be a specialist fighter. But I can imagine more kinds of rangers (if I was in charge, I would have had the Ranger's subclasses be tied to their favored foe, and built them that way) than I can imagine kinds of psychic warriors (also why I tend to not be supportive of 'Arcane Warrior' as a class when it isn't tied to a character trope).We've been given a lot of kinds of barbarians (I love the Zealot), paladin oaths, and others on classes that I could have once been convinced were too specialized.But you are definitely right: legacy and sacred cows go a long way (I've seen very compelling arguments to merge the fighter and rogue so you don't have fighters lacking out of combat abilities, but I don't fully agree).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Xeviat, post: 7863069, member: 57494"] I certainly have a fondness for the 12 classes that were picked for 5E (largely because those were the 12 4E classes I decided could stand alone and couldn't just be builds of the others). I think they cover a lot of archetypes, though many of them are self references at this point. I only recently started to think on the Sorcerer/Warlock issue: they're both "mages", both use charisma, and their subclasses have strong thematic ties to various magical creatures or figures. Any role a sorcerer can do, I can see a warlock doing, especially when they wrote out the curse/boon mechanic being core to the warlock. Yes, many of those 12 could be subclasses of the others. Ranger could be a specialist fighter. But I can imagine more kinds of rangers (if I was in charge, I would have had the Ranger's subclasses be tied to their favored foe, and built them that way) than I can imagine kinds of psychic warriors (also why I tend to not be supportive of 'Arcane Warrior' as a class when it isn't tied to a character trope). We've been given a lot of kinds of barbarians (I love the Zealot), paladin oaths, and others on classes that I could have once been convinced were too specialized. But you are definitely right: legacy and sacred cows go a long way (I've seen very compelling arguments to merge the fighter and rogue so you don't have fighters lacking out of combat abilities, but I don't fully agree). [/QUOTE]

Verification