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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 8368711" data-attributes="member: 87792">To me it depends a lot on how the class structure works. Other than monks; they're more a rogue subclass; they're all about mobility and dexterity, mostly replacing stealth with flurry.The AD&D anti-magic barbarian should never have existed because it was anti-cohesion while the 3.X bard was hacked out of the fighter archetypes and basically defined things you couldn't do with feats. Meanwhile the 4e barbarian was definitely a class. 5e? I think it has just about enough inspiration there to justify itself.The Paladin again. The pre-4e Paladin should never have existed and even if it did should have been a fighter subclass. But the oaths are inspiring in a way that wouldn't be for a fighter subclass. I wouldn't have made it but do think it's worth keeping.Ranger I'll agree with; some of the subclasses are cool but none of them really feel necessary. The Hunter, Monster Slayer, and Horizon Walker all feel like Ranger+; they're just a little more rangery than normal rangers. The Beastmaster and Swarmkeeper both have pets. Which leaves the gloom stalker and fey wanderer who are basically leaning in to the rogue side. But the ranger shouldn't just be a fighter subclass but a rogue one as well.Merlin was a bard - and Gandalf behaved more like one than a wizard.If you want to see raising the ante then wizards should be a subclass of bards - and clerics a subclass of warlocks.</blockquote>

Verification