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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="lutecius" data-source="post: 4407281" data-attributes="member: 60332">No. I would if these so called primary classes were actually generic and covered more archetypes. Also, multiclassing would have to be much more viable and flexible than 3e or 4e multiclassing. Something à la True20, I guess.It depends a lot on the edition you play, too. The wizard used to be generic enough, even without healing spells (but I still preferred the 3e Sorcerer and Bard, ie non-bookish, non-vancian casters, even if they were underpowered.)The 4e Blaster-Wizard is just too narrow to be the only arcane caster. The builds and paths are nowhere near varied enough (on a side note, the 4e Warlock may be mechanically different but thematically doesn’t add much variety either) The cleric is but one specific fighter/caster combination. Pure casters (healing, anti-undead, light spells), other themes (druid/nature mage) and other viable caster/fighter combinations (swordmage) or caster/rogues (ninja) are at least as interesting archetypes as "holy warrior".As for pure Fighters, I always found them boring and preferred Paladins. The 4e Warlord’s powers would have been better used to extend the fighter’s repertoire beyond "does extra damage".Same for straight Rogues. Their really distinctive and interesting abilities have always been out-of-combat skills anyway and sneak attack alone isn't appealing enough to me. When I wanted to throw things, I would always pick Ranger.I know i am in the minority here, but I actually liked the Ranger's spellcasting too.</blockquote>

Verification