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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DanChops" data-source="post: 4331102" data-attributes="member: 48840">First off - and I promise that this is not intended to sound snarky - hard returns are your friend.  Huge blocks of text with no whitespace are difficult to read.Second - while I understand where you're coming from, I don't really agree.  There seem to be two main points to your complaint: 1- "classic" character options are missing from the PHB I and 2- the Warlock and the Wizard don't have many options.  Here's my problem with those two complaints.Regarding the lack of "classic" options: <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">What does "classic" really mean?  Who defines the term?  </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">For example, to me, there's nothing classic about the Druid or the Bard.  Neither of  these were (in my campaigns) meaningful options prior to 3.x, and neither were particularly popular even then.  </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Further, the flavor of the Warlord is "classic" to me - the intelligent, heavily armored tactician of a fighter is an archtype that has long had its place in my experience of what D&D is.</li> </ul>Regarding the lack of options for the Wizard and Warlock: <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">For the Wizard - one of the design goals was to make the Wizard and the Fighter on par with each other in terms of power at any given level.  (Personally, I think this is a wonderful thing, and I'm glad they decided to do this.  I understand that not everyone agrees with this though.  However, whether you agree with the goal or not, the fact remains that this was their design goal.) Now, given this design goal, and given that flexibility is a source of power, it seems reasonable to me to bring the Wizard's options in line with those of the other classes.  I'm thrilled that they did this by both taking options away from the wizard and by adding options to the fighter.  True, the wizard retains a significant amount of flexibility through the spellbook, and this increases its potency somewhat, but I think that, by and large, WotC succeeded in bringing all the classes to a rough parity of power at any given level; this necessitated eliminating some options from the Wizard's spelllist.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">For the Warlock - well, I suppose they could have added a fourth (or fifth or sixth) pact, but how would they have made space for it?  What else in the book would they have cut in order to make room for more Warlock-y goodness?  How many pacts would have been "enough"?</li> </ul>Regarding the overall complaint that WotC is somehow cheating us out of content by not including these things, I don't buy that either.  First off, there are more than enough options in PHB I to satisfy what I would consider a typical gaming group for several years.  Secondly, these guys have gotta eat too.  They need to sell books in order to make a living.  I agree with Mustrum - better that the coming books add options without breaking the game.  By holding class and race options in reserve, they increase the chance that they'll be able to do that.</blockquote>

Verification