Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hillsy7" data-source="post: 7184887" data-attributes="member: 6689191">Hmm.....Some interesting chat.....I think there's definitely something here about the choices WotC made in regards to applying mechanics to the classes that seems to have fundamentally changed the view of the archetype for a lot of people. [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] mentioned how the Wanderer/Explorer archetype fools too broad for the Bard. To me, the bard seems to fit here perfectly as a class &quot;concept&quot; (A jack of all trades wandering adventurer), however the mechanical choices WotC made it feel narrower - the Bard is specifically now a inspirational figure relying mostly on spells, even valor bards. However, I would say this turns them into an aspect of the original archetype, rather than removes them from that archetype altogether. Similarly I would say the same restrictions were applied to Druids who feel like the defenders of a place the embody....WotC decided this would specifically be a natural bent, but I reckon you could just as easily make a case for the Archetype of a druid as a straight up non-caster, similar to the 4e Warden. Sorceror's feel like the classic Superhero archetype - I have transitioned from non-powerful to powerful without intention, and now I must control it. Again however the Mechanical choice shoved it into squishy Spell-slinger, whereby a melee version could probably be hung off a similar concept.So I guess then another question would be: Where it feels like the mechanical application of the Class has closed off aspects of the archetype (The choice between martial and spellcasting being a common theme), would the aspect of the archetype that was ignored warrant a class in its own right? So the melee aspect of a sorcerer, for instance. Or would these things be better address in a sub-class, such as the arcane trickster?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hillsy7, post: 7184887, member: 6689191"] Hmm.....Some interesting chat..... I think there's definitely something here about the choices WotC made in regards to applying mechanics to the classes that seems to have fundamentally changed the view of the archetype for a lot of people. [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] mentioned how the Wanderer/Explorer archetype fools too broad for the Bard. To me, the bard seems to fit here perfectly as a class "concept" (A jack of all trades wandering adventurer), however the mechanical choices WotC made it feel narrower - the Bard is specifically now a inspirational figure relying mostly on spells, even valor bards. However, I would say this turns them into an aspect of the original archetype, rather than removes them from that archetype altogether. Similarly I would say the same restrictions were applied to Druids who feel like the defenders of a place the embody....WotC decided this would specifically be a natural bent, but I reckon you could just as easily make a case for the Archetype of a druid as a straight up non-caster, similar to the 4e Warden. Sorceror's feel like the classic Superhero archetype - I have transitioned from non-powerful to powerful without intention, and now I must control it. Again however the Mechanical choice shoved it into squishy Spell-slinger, whereby a melee version could probably be hung off a similar concept. So I guess then another question would be: Where it feels like the mechanical application of the Class has closed off aspects of the archetype (The choice between martial and spellcasting being a common theme), would the aspect of the archetype that was ignored warrant a class in its own right? So the melee aspect of a sorcerer, for instance. Or would these things be better address in a sub-class, such as the arcane trickster? [/QUOTE]

Verification