Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6098682" data-attributes="member: 2067">I'm sympathetic to this, and I honestly wouldn't mind seeing "everything that was ever a class, still is," if only to pre-empt the nerdrage where possible, and to see what interesting things might be in store for a NEXT Assassin or Illusionist.But I think the reason they're not going this way is because they're committing to a list of distinct kinds of character. The warlord, the assassin, the illusionist, even the sorcerer as it was functionally played -- these filled the same character space as the fighter (who can dang well be a tactical genius), the rogue (who can dang well sneak up behind someone and kill them), the wizard (who can dang well cast an illusion), and, er, the wizard (who has the same spell list, but just casts differently), without as much to distinguish them, mechanically or in play. Playing a Warlord feels like playing a Fighter with some extra encouragement sauce. Playing a sorcerer feels like playing a wizard on a slightly different recharge metric. But playing a barbarian (a wild, untamed character, living on the dangerous edges) and playing a fighter (a disciplined warrior of a character, an elite among her peers who finds her value as an engine of destruction) feel fairly distinct.But "I give other people bonuses!" or "I have a more limited spell list, and more spells each day!" or "I cast slightly different spells!" isn't an archetype, it's a behavior, or a custom ability list at best. Honestly, though I feel like there'd be a LOT to gain by going inclusive, by giving each class a potential way to be realized. Especially if everything other than the Core Four are effectively optional anyway. Either way, though, I'm happy to see inspirational healing as something aside from the character type of a fighter-who-commands.</blockquote>

Verification