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: 4392480" data-attributes="member: 60332">The thing is, even if you consider the new classes as a suitable replacement, the first 3e phb alone still had more classes, 10 of which were legacy classes. That’s more than any previous lineup, so the sorcerer didn’t really take another class’s place, he used the existing wizard spell list and provided a long overdue alternative to the vancian casting mechanic.Thematically, the warlock isn’t that different from the wizard and there are 2 other strikers, so mechanically, he certainly doesn’t add anything to the game that justifies removing most of the summoning, charm or necromancy spells.I would also argue that the dnd druid or "nature mage" is a classic fantasy archetype, not covered by any of the 8 phb classes (not even the fey-pact and certainly not by the laser-cleric) whereas "inspiring warrior" could easily have been folded into fighter or paladin.But like I said in the other thread, I don’t buy the page count excuse. The 30 pages of magic item don’t belong in the phb. Putting them back in the dmg would make it a bit more useful and would make room for more classes. And it’s not like the 4e designers were taken by surprise and didn’t have the time to work all these things out before 4e was announced.So basically 4e is complete because you can still make things up? Or do you mean that 4e classes are really interchangeable? What makes you think 4e will be different? With such narrow classes and limited multiclassing, I think 4e will end up with even more optional classes, paths and powers.What a bizarre definition of "complete". If some choices were useless, I think the best solution would be to, you know, fix them, not sweep them under the rug.</blockquote>

Verification