Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Greg K" data-source="post: 8421476" data-attributes="member: 5038">I did not ask for the artificer. In my initial post, I asked for a base class and laid out the basic of what i want for the class, because I don't want a subclass of the artificer.No.This ignors that I laid out for wanted a base class with wizard hit die, the wizard's armor and weapon proficiency, and deals with elixirs, ointments, potions, powders, tinctures, etc in addition to poisons.I disagree. Mearls stated in multiple episodes of his Happy Hour that players should not have to ignore class features (including a class's medium/heavy armor and martial weapon proficiencies) to meet a concept and it is bad design to ask players to ignore class features without proviing something in return to compensate (e.g. alternate choices, a variant class feature/ability, a class variant). I happen to agree with him (I made comments to this in my open playtest feedback which predates his Happy Hour).In the instance of an alchemist base class built around bombs, asking a player to ignore the bombs when have the level features revolve around learning new bombs with no alternatives is bad design. The only reason I cut Mage Press any slack on building an alchemist class around bombs is that it is a third party class.For a company like WOTC, if they had made an alchemist as mad bomber class, I would have considered it just one of another example jof bad/lazy class design&nbsp; based upon what Mearls stated about WOTC not adjusting several PHB classes to meet the finalized class design guidelines before publishing the book and their continuing to release certain subclasses that break those guidelines while not offering any variants to address the introduced issues.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Greg K, post: 8421476, member: 5038"] I did not ask for the artificer. In my initial post, I asked for a base class and laid out the basic of what i want for the class, because I don't want a subclass of the artificer. No.This ignors that I laid out for wanted a base class with wizard hit die, the wizard's armor and weapon proficiency, and deals with elixirs, ointments, potions, powders, tinctures, etc in addition to poisons. I disagree. Mearls stated in multiple episodes of his Happy Hour that players should not have to ignore class features (including a class's medium/heavy armor and martial weapon proficiencies) to meet a concept and it is bad design to ask players to ignore class features without proviing something in return to compensate (e.g. alternate choices, a variant class feature/ability, a class variant). I happen to agree with him (I made comments to this in my open playtest feedback which predates his Happy Hour). In the instance of an alchemist base class built around bombs, asking a player to ignore the bombs when have the level features revolve around learning new bombs with no alternatives is bad design. The only reason I cut Mage Press any slack on building an alchemist class around bombs is that it is a third party class. For a company like WOTC, if they had made an alchemist as mad bomber class, I would have considered it just one of another example jof bad/lazy class design based upon what Mearls stated about WOTC not adjusting several PHB classes to meet the finalized class design guidelines before publishing the book and their continuing to release certain subclasses that break those guidelines while not offering any variants to address the introduced issues. [/QUOTE]

Verification