Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Scars Unseen" data-source="post: 4651677" data-attributes="member: 10196">But that only holds true if there is such features are warranted.  I could see a necromancer requiring a separate class, as they never really worked quite right within the wizard framework in the past.  Evokers, on the other hand, really don't need anything that the wizard class doesn't already provide.I really think that with the way classes work on builds, we shouldn't be asking if we can make a new class but rather if we should make one.  If you make a new class every time you can find an excuse to you are going to end up with a whole lot of watered down classes that don't work well with each other.  On the other hand, if you make builds for the same class you will end up with a greater overall range of choices because you don't have to go full evoker if you don't want to.  You can take some illusion as well.  Enough of that and you will have your generalist mage.I think classes should be reserved by archtypes that are inherently different.  Warlocks don't cast spells in the same way that wizards do.  They make pacts.  Sorcerers may cast spells in a similar fashion to wizards, but they claim a much different source(internal vs external).  Necromancers don't necessarily even need to cast spells, other than to buff up creations made with rituals  The main thing they had going for them in 3E was their assortment of save or die spells that they will definitely not be getting back in 4E.</blockquote>

Verification