Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7149536" data-attributes="member: 996">...they shouldn't be 'spells...' &nbsp;The fighter can go melee or ranged based on a style choice, alone (not even a separate sub-class for Archer), and though there aren't a lot of 'melee spells' any caster can just choose some of them if they want 'em.&nbsp; In 5e ranged v melee is a fairly minor distinction, anyway.That said, the Bard has a sub-class that's a bit more melee-oriented, and the Druid is divided between two circles, one that's more oriented towards casting, one that's better at melee'ing in animal forms.There's no class that's basically just like another class, but melee instead of ranged.&nbsp;Two of the three 3.x psionic classes could just be sub-classes of other classes, never mind the mystic:&nbsp; Psychic Warrior, of the Fighter (to Mystic what EK is to Wizard); Soul Knife of the Rogue (ditto, AT).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7149536, member: 996"] ...they shouldn't be 'spells...' The fighter can go melee or ranged based on a style choice, alone (not even a separate sub-class for Archer), and though there aren't a lot of 'melee spells' any caster can just choose some of them if they want 'em. In 5e ranged v melee is a fairly minor distinction, anyway. That said, the Bard has a sub-class that's a bit more melee-oriented, and the Druid is divided between two circles, one that's more oriented towards casting, one that's better at melee'ing in animal forms. There's no class that's basically just like another class, but melee instead of ranged. Two of the three 3.x psionic classes could just be sub-classes of other classes, never mind the mystic: Psychic Warrior, of the Fighter (to Mystic what EK is to Wizard); Soul Knife of the Rogue (ditto, AT). [/QUOTE]

Verification