Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9749337" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Except that's not what &quot;archetypes&quot; means in the 5e context.&quot;Archetype&quot;, in the 5e context, means a branch within an &quot;easily-identifyable [sic] class&quot;. So your &quot;offer&quot; here is, &quot;Okay, here me out: We delete everything you're looking for, and replace it with something that has none of what you're looking for. Cool? Cool.&quot;I get where you're coming from. I just fundamentally disagree with class minimalism. That doesn't mean I believe in maximalism. But it does mean you need to give me an argument more than &quot;but what about less?&quot;You'll never succeed at killing Swordmage-type characters. People want them. They sell well. They can be quite balanced (look at the 4e one--it's arguably one of the weakest Defenders, but it was neat and tricksy, and definitely had its fans.)Also, LOL, eliminating BOTH archetypes AND multiclassing? No, I'm sorry Lanefan, this is...not something that will ever happen in D&amp;D. Period. There literally hasn't been a numbered edition of D&amp;D that lacked multiclassing. Even OD&amp;D allowed a certain limited flavor of it. The thing you're proposing is--genuinely--in contradiction to what D&amp;D has offered for 50 years.Frankly, I'm shocked to see you suggest something that is so radically out of step with traditional D&amp;D. Like legit actually traditional here, not &quot;it was done in 3e so it's traditional&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9749337, member: 6790260"] Except that's not what "archetypes" means in the 5e context. "Archetype", in the 5e context, means a branch [I]within[/I] an "easily-identifyable [sic] class". So your "offer" here is, "Okay, here me out: We delete everything you're looking for, and replace it with something that has none of what you're looking for. Cool? Cool." I get where you're coming from. I just fundamentally disagree with class minimalism. That doesn't mean I believe in [I]maximalism[/I]. But it does mean you need to give me an argument more than "but what about [I]less?[/I]" You'll never succeed at killing Swordmage-type characters. People want them. They sell well. They can be quite balanced (look at the 4e one--it's arguably one of the [I]weakest[/I] Defenders, but it was neat and tricksy, and definitely had its fans.) Also, LOL, eliminating BOTH archetypes AND multiclassing? No, I'm sorry Lanefan, this is...not something that will ever happen in D&D. Period. There literally hasn't been a numbered edition of D&D that lacked multiclassing. Even [I]OD&D[/I] allowed a certain limited flavor of it. The thing you're proposing is--genuinely--in contradiction to what D&D has offered for 50 years. Frankly, I'm shocked to see you suggest something that is so radically out of step with [I]traditional[/I] D&D. Like legit actually traditional here, not "it was done in 3e so it's traditional". [/QUOTE]

Verification