NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aldeon" data-source="post: 6173974" data-attributes="member: 6690450">I don't like the mage class having all of the different arcane magic-users under it because it would cause class bloat. The thing I like about DnD Next is how simple it is; we made our characters quickly and got into play with little problems. If the mage class was for all arcane casters and psionicists, a player wanting to play a magicky guy would be like, "I choose to play mage... oh, what casting system do I want to use? Uh... Let's go with wizardry. Wait, schools of magic? This one, I guess. Oh, more choices? When can I play?"If the classes were separated, it would make it much simpler. I want to play a studious magicky guy? Wizard. I want to play a cursed antihero magicky guy? Warlock. Et cetera. You could choose the class and have one or two options inside that class. You wouldn't have to drudge through a ridiculous amount of options and sub-options in order to make a simple wizard; it would just be as simple as choosing wizard.While I say this, I don't think that all the classes should be there. Wizard, sorcerer, yes. That's cool. Maybe even warlock. However, I consider classes such as artificer and psionicist to be too not-generic enough to be a core class. In a campaign setting book or various other splatbooks would be fine, in my opinion. But throwing artificer in as a main class would really throw off Dark Sun games and make the DM have to create restrictions on choices. It's more of a psychological problem, in my opinion-- if it's a core class and it gets canned for a DM's game due to setting, it's seen as a restriction. If it's a non-basic class allowed into a game, it's seen as an expanded list of choices.So yeah, split up the mage class. But let's keep down the numbers for now.</blockquote>

Verification