Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Einlanzer0" data-source="post: 8535518" data-attributes="member: 6788934">Swordmage is one of my favorites, however, it is an example of one I consider to be a little too specific to be a full class for 5e. I think the artificer in this edition was designed in a broad enough way that sword mage works quite well as a subclass option for it.I actually like your enhanced person thought as a way of executing the Mystic class. Having it encompass both arcane and divine themes but be built on spell-like abilities rather than actual spellcasting is something that I think would work well for the level of modularity I would want for the class, and it would also give us something of a &quot;simple mage for beginners&quot; template - something that only exists for martial options in the standard array of classes. I also think it neatly fits most of the core ideas for archetypes like witches, shamans, and oracles - primal wielders of magic that are abstract in nature and therefore don't fit the spellcasting paradigms leveraged by &quot;advanced&quot; magic-users like wizards &amp; clerics. It's arguably what a sorcerer should have been instead of just being a minor variant of the wizard.Incidentally, this is also why I like the warlord and will never be convinced that it doesn't have a place in 5e. In practice, it offers a ton of new design space for a more complex martial class built much more intrinsically around things like maneuvers, buffs/debuffs, sophisticated training techniques, tactics. etc. Something for people to play that's martially focused but with the tactical complexity of the wizard; i.e., a fully fully baked version of the Battlemaster. In fact, I would probably stretch the Battlemaster concept into a full class for the Warlord, and then treat the Fighter's battlemaster as a MC version of it (similar to how Eldritch Knight is a version of a Fighter/Wizard MC.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Einlanzer0, post: 8535518, member: 6788934"] Swordmage is one of my favorites, however, it is an example of one I consider to be a little too specific to be a full class for 5e. I think the artificer in this edition was designed in a broad enough way that sword mage works quite well as a subclass option for it. I actually like your enhanced person thought as a way of executing the Mystic class. Having it encompass both arcane and divine themes but be built on spell-like abilities rather than actual spellcasting is something that I think would work well for the level of modularity I would want for the class, and it would also give us something of a "simple mage for beginners" template - something that only exists for martial options in the standard array of classes. I also think it neatly fits most of the core ideas for archetypes like witches, shamans, and oracles - primal wielders of magic that are abstract in nature and therefore don't fit the spellcasting paradigms leveraged by "advanced" magic-users like wizards & clerics. It's arguably what a sorcerer [I]should[/I] have been instead of just being a minor variant of the wizard. Incidentally, this is also why I like the warlord and will never be convinced that it doesn't have a place in 5e. In practice, it offers a ton of new design space for a more complex martial class built much more intrinsically around things like maneuvers, buffs/debuffs, sophisticated training techniques, tactics. etc. Something for people to play that's martially focused but with the tactical complexity of the wizard; i.e., a fully fully baked version of the Battlemaster. In fact, I would probably stretch the Battlemaster concept into a full class for the Warlord, and then treat the Fighter's battlemaster as a MC version of it (similar to how Eldritch Knight is a version of a Fighter/Wizard MC.) [/QUOTE]

Verification